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

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

FIRETEK wrote:
> <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).
>
>


Robert won't reply to this.  Not because he's wrong (and won't admit
it), but because you've called him stupid.