Re: Smoke alarms (was Re: For Graham, Rober, and Coppernob)

["FIRETEK" <firetech(change-the-ch-to-k)@telus.net>]

<robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157071138.322347.13260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Someone using an alias intended to imply he's a fire alarm technician
> wrote:

Is that anything like you pretending to be an ex-alarm installer with an
indepth knowledge of NFPA and NEC?


>
> > First of all, I don't see "Mr. Olson" "advocating" for anything
> > but "doing it right"...
>
> If you consider installing unsupervised smoke detectors into an alarm
> system (which is contrary to code) "doing it right", I can understand
> why you would say that.  If you don't mind that the system won't
> respond to a fire if the AC power goes out, go right ahead and advocate
> such "rightness".

Where is "installing unsupervised smoke _alarms_ into an alarm system"
contrary to code?  NFPA 72-2002 11.7.6.7 is pretty clear on that.  That
couldn't be "the code" you're talking about could it?

>
> > He's simply pointing out that NFPA does allow interconnection
> > of smoke alarms to a home security system...
>
> No, that is not "simply" what he is pointing out.  He is "simply"
> advocating using an unacceptable means of wiring smoke detectors to an
> alarm control panel -- a means that will not pass inspection and may
> cause an unsuspecting DIYer to suffer unnecessary expense should they
> follow his "simple" ideas.

Frank's right.  You don't read well.


>
> > I've read his original response...
>
> How nice.
>
> > and followed this thread with interest.  Your whole argument
> > hinges on an interpretation of code that no AHJ (in his right
> > mind) would support...
>
> Actually, I pointed out that code requires that the devices used in a
> fire alarm system must be listed for the purpose.  I also pointed out
> that the device he advocates using does not comply with NFPA72
> requirements for connecting smoke detectors to an alarm control panel.
> Perhaps you know of a sane AHJ who agrees with you and Mr. Olson that
> an alarm system with connected smoke detectors isn't a fire alarm and
> that it isn't required to comply with code.

I know (and work with) several AHJ's and none would view a home security
panel as a "fire alarm system".


>
> > There is nothing in any North American code...
>
> There is no North American Code.  There is NFPA72 and NFPA70 (aka NEC).

There's also CAN/ULC-S524 (Installation Standard for Fire Alarm Systems),
CAN/ULC-S527 (Standard for Control Units for Fire Alarm Systems) - to
mention two "North American" standards - and none of them mention connection
of burglarly type devices to a listed fire alarm system.  Your argument
seems to involve some nonsense about connecting a smoke or heat detector to
any security system which then makes it a "fire alarm system".  If this were
the case every homeowner with a security alarm system would be required to
install a seperate "fire alarm system".  This is simply not the case.  A
home or commercial fire/burg control cannot be used as a "listed fire alarm
system".  For one thing, the siren/bell circuit on every fire/burg panel I
know of isn't properly supervised.  This would entail using _listed_ fire
bells (four terminal type) and furthermore I don't recall a "siren" being an
approved fire alarm signalling appliance (in either Canada or the US).


>
> > or standard that would prohibit someone from interconnecting
> > their smoke alarms to an auto dialler or home security system.
>
> I didn't discuss auto-dialers.  The code does not refer to "home
> security systems".  It does, however, require that smoke detectors and
> all of the wiring to them, when connected to an alarm system, be
> supervised.  Care to explain how one can supervise the 110VAC wiring
> and the 110VAC smokes connected with this relay?

That only applies to listed fire alarm _systems_.  Connecting a smoke alarm
to your security system does _not_ make it a listed fire alarm system.
There's nothing in any code that states it's acceptable to have burglarly
devices attached to a fire alarm system.  You continue to argue a definition
as "code".  It's only a general definition used in the code.  The code
clearly states it's acceptable to connect single or multi-station smoke
alarms to a security panel or auto dialer.  The code does not state that
such connection will make the entire system a "fire alarm".


>
> > All I see is that _you're_ the one "ignoring" plain facts...
>
> Kindly explain away the plain fact that the deivce with which Mr. Olson
> and you seem so enamored can be supervised.  Please state the plain
> fact about how it will function during a power interruption.

Quite simply, Mr. Bass.  An AC smoke alarm cannot be properly supervised for
operation.  I'm certain that Mr. Olson is fully aware of this.  In your
efforts to discount Mr. Olson's experience and knowledge (and mine) you've
decided to focus on this one fact.   Kindly explain that while it's
perfectly acceptable _under code_ to connect a single or multi-station smoke
alarm to a security panel, you continue to state that it's unacceptable and
that such an installation would merit "rejection" by an electrical
inspector.  You still have not provided relevant paragraphs in the code to
support your argument.


>
> > "Mr. Olson" recommended against using AC smoke alarms
> > in one of his very first responses...
>
> He also _wrongly_ claimed that it's perfectly ok to use them with an
> alarm panel.

NFPA 72-2002 11.7.6.7  I won't quote the contents of ths paragraph.  That's
been done several times already.

> He also _wrongly_ claimed that DIY fire alarms are not
> legally fire alarms.

They aren't in many jurisdictions.  Fire alarm systems usually require
sealed and stamped drawings, utilize specifically listed components, and
require installation practices and methods normally beyond the scope of the
average DIYer.

> He also _wrongly_ claimed that he has some idea
> what he's talking about.

I don't think he ever actually claimed that, however it would appear to me
that the individual that has "some idea what he's talking about" is
definitely _not_ you.


>
> > "Mr. Olson" provided the relevent text from the very "code"...
>
> He provided a snippet of code while ignoring the tenor of code which
> clearly states that he's wrong.

I really don't think quoting the relevant paragraph from NFPA which refutes
your entire argument and clearly demonstrates your complete lack of
knowledge of the code is either a "snippet", or "clearly states that he's
wrong".


>
> > you keep waving in front of everyone that supports his argument...
>
> Um, this is USENET -- not TV.  It's a text medium.

And Frank's a licensed, bonded installer and you, sir, are not.


>
> > yet you continue to cling to rhetoric that's unsubstantiated and
> > appears to spring from your own "personal animus"...
>
> I cited code which controverts Mr. Olson's and your position.  Your
> turn.  :)

You've "cited" nothing but your own stupidity.