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:1157328175.044920.107070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


> You're missing the point.

You've not only "missed the point", you've missed the whole damn spaceship.

> Co9de does not care whether you think you
> can reluy on the AC smokes or not.  Code says that when you connect
> them to an alarm contropl panel you now have a fire alarm system and
> you must do so in a manner that complies with the requirements of a
> fire alarm system.

Really?  "The code" really says that, does it??  Care to tell us what
section and paragraph?

>  If you want to do something in your own home that
> is non-compliant that is your business.  You seem to understand the
> limitations of what you're doing and I have always advocated consumesrs
> taking responsibility for their own systems.  No problem.

Hmmmm...  I seem to recall Frank saying very much the same thing.  Changed
your tune, have you?


>
> The point is that it is not code compliant and I expained why.

It _is_ fully "code compliant" to connect a single or multi-station smoke
alarm to a security panel or auto dialer.  I quite honestly don't know what
to make of your continued insistance that it's not.  Are you really that
stupid?  What planet did you say you were from??

> For the
> sake of other readers who may not have the same level of knowledge it
> is important to point out that the connection is not compliant and that
> the resultant integrated system can not be relied upon *as a system*
> due to its inherant weaknesses.  You can certinly connect the AC smokes
> to your system, as long as you understand what you're doing.  That does
> not, however, mean that it is code compliant.

You really are that stupid!!  Let's review the relevant code:

NFPA 72-2002 11.7.6.7  "Installations that include the connection of
single- or multiple-station alarms with other input or output devices,
such as but not limited to relay modules, remote signaling devices,
phone dialers, security panels, heat detectors, and manual pull
stations, shall be permitted, providing that an open or short circuit of
the wiring leading to these input or output devices does not prevent
normal operation of the single- or multiple-station alarm."


> Others should be forwarned that doing things in the manner Olson
> suggests can lead to an inspector refusing to grant the certificate of
> occupancy (C.O.), significant expense in rewiring and replacing
> components if the permit was granted based in part upon the plan for a
> fire alarm system, possiuble failure to report a fire if the power goes
> out, etc.  If you understand the risks and are willing to accept them,
> no problem.  It's your home and your decision.

Do you honestly believe what you're saying here?  What are you smoking, Mr.
Bass?  Whatever it is, it's put your "IQ" way into the negative numbers.


> Personal note: The above is not meant to condescend in any way so
> please don't take it that way.  I'm only trying to say that I believe
> it is your right and your responsibility to make your own choices about
> your security system.

Well, Duh-uhhh!


>
> > Now, if an installer claimed that by using a relay the system will
always
> > properly respond to a fire, I see your point...
>
> Coreect.  However, this is not a private chat but an open newsgroup
> where numerous people come seeking advice and support for DIY projects.
>  As such, I think we would do them a disservice if we did not point out
> weaknesses along with advantages of anything we discuss, particularly
> where it concerns fire alarms.  Can we agree on that much.

Yeppers.


>
> I realise that these relays make for a convenient, inexpensive means of
> integrating existing 110VAC smokes to an alarm or automation panel.
> Frankly, I could sell more systems if I advocated using them.  I choose
> not to recommend them because I believe in offering what I consider
> more reliable coverage.

In the mean time you're doing those customers who know the short-comings of
such a system a huge disservice in not providing them (or informing them of)
the option.


>
> > But, as in my personal case, I am fully aware that my
> > security panel is not a primary fire alarm system.  Period.
>
> I don't disagree with your personal decision.  It is, in the final
> analysis, your decision and yours alone.  I only debate the use of
> these devices because others who read this thread need to understand
> (as you do) that there are risks in using them and (I'm not sure you
> realise it but I can assure you it is true) that using them in the
> manner described is not code compliant.

But it's _not_ true, Mr. Bass.  Such a connection _is_ fully code compliant.



> As to Olson, he knows I'm right, too, but he'd argue with me over
> whether the sun shines in the Sahara.  That has nothing to do with
> facts.  It's a long-standing personal vendetta.  'Nuff said?  :^)

I have no such excuse and I will go on record as saying that Bass has got to
be the biggest idiot in this arm of the "Milky Way".


>
> > Ok Robert -- you keep on harping that anything connected
> > to an AC smoke alarm automatically makes it part of a fire
> > alarm system...
>
> That i snot what I said at all.  I will repeat it.  When you connect
> smoke detectors or, for that matter, any kind of fire detection devices
> to an alarm system panel, that system becomes a fire alarm system.

What a load of crap!

> For
> example, you can legally connect an auxiliary relay to a smoke detector
> to release magnetic door holders.  I've done this plenty of times.
> Another use of an auxi;iary ort add-on relay is to shut down an air
> handler to prevent the spread of smoke.  This is most commonly done
> using duct smoke detectors.  Neither of these examples, by itself,
> would turn integrated smoke detectors into a fire alarm system.
>
> > Your argument ONLY holds water if that is true.  Care to
> > quote the relevent code that states that?
>
> I already have, but the code applies to what I said above, not what you
> thought I was saying.

No, actually.  You haven't.


>
> > Frank has quoted (multiple times) the code that says
> > it is within code to make such a connection (and it
> > doesn't automatically make it a "fire alarm system").
>
> Wrong.  Olson has quoted out of context a snippet of code but has
> deliberately ignored the part of code which applies here.

Please explain what you mean by "out of context".  "Out of context" of
what??  The subject of the original thread that started all this was
whether-or-not it was acceptable to connect 110VAC single or multi-station
smoke alarms to a security panel.  NFPA clearly allows such a connection
with but _one_ proviso:  "that an open or short circuit of the wiring
leading to these input or output devices does not prevent normal operation
of the single- or multiple-station alarm."

> Don't let
> him mislead you into believing that your system is code compliant.

Did you not read that he talked it over with the local electrical
inspector??

>
> > So the ball's back in your court, Robert.  It's totally up to
> > you to see if you can return it...
>
> For me this isn't a game, Kurt.  I believe I have answered your
> questions.  I'm not interested in engaging in some sort of contest.

This is by no means a "contest", Mr. Bass.  You really are dense, aren't you
(one might say "Jovian" in your stupidity).