Hello,

Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding
how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.

Looked, but couldn't really find anything specific.

Thanks,
Bob

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 9/29/2014 4:03 PM, Bob wrote:
Hello,

Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding
how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.

Looked, but couldn't really find anything specific.

Thanks,
Bob


In regards to what? Small pieces and choking
hazard? Toxic vapors from the plastic?
Batteries and shiny objects not to swollow?
Radiation from the detector?


..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Bob" wrote in message
...

Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding
how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.

If not satisfied with what the Underwriters' Laboratory publishes,
ask your local Fire Service.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On 9/29/2014 6:17 PM, Don Phillipson wrote:

If not satisfied with what the
Underwriters' Laboratory publishes,
ask your local Fire Service.


They should know about how many kids choke
on small parts, ingest batteries, and lick
the plastic covers. With toddlers, all those
are serious concerns.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/29/2014 6:17 PM, Don Phillipson wrote:

If not satisfied with what the
Underwriters' Laboratory publishes,
ask your local Fire Service.


They should know about how many kids choke
on small parts, ingest batteries, and lick
the plastic covers. With toddlers, all those
are serious concerns.

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Hi,
You mean detector is lying around on the floor?

On 9/29/2014 8:37 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
They should know about how many kids choke
on small parts, ingest batteries, and lick
the plastic covers. With toddlers, all those
are serious concerns.

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Hi,
You mean detector is lying around on the floor?

Right! That's how the toddlers get
radiation from the ionizer, and die
by the age of five.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

Bob:

I believe that if there were any risk of radiation damage from the smoke detector, there would be warning signs on new detectors saying not to install them in the bedrooms of small children and pregnant women.

However, the smoke detector shouldn't be in the bedroom, it should be outside the bedroom door, but within 4 feet of the bedroom door when looking down from space.

That's because, unless the person is a smoker and is in the habit of smoking in bed, the chances of a fire starting in the bedroom are slim. So, putting a smoke detector in the bedroom, and then sleeping with the bedroom door closed is going to prevent that detector from detecting smoke. By the time it does, your bedroom door is burning and you're trapped in the bedroom with no escape except the bedroom window, if there is one.

Better to put the smoke detector outside the bedroom but within 4 feet of the door. That way if a fire starts in the house at night, the smoke detector will detect the smoke much earlier, and will still be close enough to the bedroom to wake up anyone inside.

And, never put a smoke detector closer than 4 inches to the corners where walls meet ceilings. In a fire, the air in those areas is relatively stagnant, and the smoke detector in those corner areas will be slow to detect smoke.

So, I'd move the smoke detector, but not for the reason you were thinking.

On 9/29/2014 10:18 PM, nestork wrote:
'Bob[_44_ Wrote:

Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding
how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.

Thanks,
Bob

Bob:


That's because, unless the person is a smoker and is in the habit of
smoking in bed, the chances of a fire starting in the bedroom are slim.

So, I'd move the smoke detector, but not for the reason you were
thinking.

I guess we don't have enough information.
Does the OP toddler smoke in bed?

Does the OP toddler have a television in
bedroom? Those some times catch fire. Does
the toddler cook on a hot plate, and use
cooking oil?

So much we need to know, to give a wise
and considered answer.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 9/29/2014 9:18 PM, nestork wrote:
'Bob[_44_ Wrote:
;3290187']Hello,

Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding
how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.

Looked, but couldn't really find anything specific.

Thanks,
Bob

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
'AVAST 2014 | Antivirus Gratuit - Télécharger la meilleure protection
anti-malware' (http://www.avast.com)

Bob:

I believe that if there were any risk of radiation damage from the smoke
detector, there would be warning signs on new detectors saying not to
install them in the bedrooms of small children and pregnant women.

However, the smoke detector shouldn't be in the bedroom, it should be
outside the bedroom door, but within 4 feet of the bedroom door when
looking down from space.

That's because, unless the person is a smoker and is in the habit of
smoking in bed, the chances of a fire starting in the bedroom are slim.
So, putting a smoke detector in the bedroom, and then sleeping with the
bedroom door closed is going to prevent that detector from detecting
smoke. By the time it does, your bedroom door is burning and you're
trapped in the bedroom with no escape except the bedroom window, if
there is one.

Better to put the smoke detector outside the bedroom but within 4 feet
of the door. That way if a fire starts in the house at night, the smoke
detector will detect the smoke much earlier, and will still be close
enough to the bedroom to wake up anyone inside.

And, never put a smoke detector closer than 4 inches to the corners
where walls meet ceilings. In a fire, the air in those areas is
relatively stagnant, and the smoke detector in those corner areas will
be slow to detect smoke.

So, I'd move the smoke detector, but not for the reason you were
thinking.




Actually the better way is to put a smoke detector in each
room. That way you have a much better chance of realizing there
is a fire. I don't actually have a detector in each room, I have
one for each ceiling area. The living room, kitchen, and dining
room have a continuous ceiling, so I have just one for all 3 of
them. The kitchen of course is the most likely place for a fire
if there aren't any smokers around.

And don't forget a Carbon Monoxide detector.

Bill

'Bob[_44_ Wrote:

Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding
how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.

I would not put one in the kids room. How about the hallway right
outside the kids room?
--
I kill-file all messages posted through Google Groups.

On 9/29/2014 8:37 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/29/2014 6:17 PM, Don Phillipson wrote:

If not satisfied with what the
Underwriters' Laboratory publishes,
ask your local Fire Service.


They should know about how many kids choke
on small parts, ingest batteries, and lick
the plastic covers. With toddlers, all those
are serious concerns.

.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Hi,
You mean detector is lying around on the floor?

Just what I was thinking.
If you have a toddler that can leap 8 ft to the ceiling, you have a
future Olympic champion.

"VinnyB" wrote in message
...

'Bob[_44_ Wrote:

Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding
how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.

I would not put one in the kids room. How about the hallway right
outside the kids room?
--
I kill-file all messages posted through Google Groups.

A guy I know lives alone, and when he had minor work done that required a
building permit, he was required to install FOUR smoke detectors within
about 10 feet of each other - one in each bedroom, by its door, and one in
the hallway.

The chirping when the batteries all went low at the same time drove him
nuts, so now he has one smoke detector in the hall and three spares.

On Monday, September 29, 2014 10:18:42 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
'Bob[_44_ Wrote:

;3290187']Hello,



Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding

how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.



Looked, but couldn't really find anything specific.



Thanks,

Bob



---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus

protection is active.

'AVAST 2014 | Antivirus Gratuit - Télécharger la meilleure protection

anti-malware' (http://www.avast.com)



Bob:



I believe that if there were any risk of radiation damage from the smoke

detector, there would be warning signs on new detectors saying not to

install them in the bedrooms of small children and pregnant women.



However, the smoke detector shouldn't be in the bedroom, it should be

outside the bedroom door, but within 4 feet of the bedroom door when

looking down from space.



That's because, unless the person is a smoker and is in the habit of

smoking in bed, the chances of a fire starting in the bedroom are slim.

So, putting a smoke detector in the bedroom, and then sleeping with the

bedroom door closed is going to prevent that detector from detecting

smoke. By the time it does, your bedroom door is burning and you're

trapped in the bedroom with no escape except the bedroom window, if

there is one.



Better to put the smoke detector outside the bedroom but within 4 feet

of the door. That way if a fire starts in the house at night, the smoke

detector will detect the smoke much earlier, and will still be close

enough to the bedroom to wake up anyone inside.



And, never put a smoke detector closer than 4 inches to the corners

where walls meet ceilings. In a fire, the air in those areas is

relatively stagnant, and the smoke detector in those corner areas will

be slow to detect smoke.



So, I'd move the smoke detector, but not for the reason you were

thinking.









--

nestork

Current code requires smoke detectors to be installed both inside and outside all sleeping rooms, plus at least one detector to be installed on each floor. In new construction they would also be required to be 120VAC powered with battery backup in each detector and they are required to be connected in tandem.

nate

On 9/30/2014 9:06 AM, Bill Gill wrote:

And don't forget a Carbon Monoxide detector.

Bill

Instead of confusing us with double negatives,
can you state that in a positive manner?

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 9/30/2014 9:36 AM, N8N wrote:

Current code requires smoke detectors to be
installed both inside and outside all sleeping
rooms, plus at least one detector to be installed
on each floor. In new construction they would
also be required to be 120VAC powered with
battery backup in each detector and they are
required to be connected in tandem.

nate


For a two bedroom raised ranch, that adds up to
36 smoke detectors, 5 monoxide detectors, and
3 different power supplies?

Why not just go live in the car, it's cheaper.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:36:01 AM UTC-4, N8N wrote:
On Monday, September 29, 2014 10:18:42 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:

'Bob[_44_ Wrote:



;3290187']Hello,







Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding



how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.







Looked, but couldn't really find anything specific.







Thanks,



Bob







---



This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus



protection is active.



'AVAST 2014 | Antivirus Gratuit - Télécharger la meilleure protection



anti-malware' (http://www.avast.com)







Bob:







I believe that if there were any risk of radiation damage from the smoke



detector, there would be warning signs on new detectors saying not to



install them in the bedrooms of small children and pregnant women.







However, the smoke detector shouldn't be in the bedroom, it should be



outside the bedroom door, but within 4 feet of the bedroom door when



looking down from space.







That's because, unless the person is a smoker and is in the habit of



smoking in bed, the chances of a fire starting in the bedroom are slim.



So, putting a smoke detector in the bedroom, and then sleeping with the



bedroom door closed is going to prevent that detector from detecting



smoke. By the time it does, your bedroom door is burning and you're



trapped in the bedroom with no escape except the bedroom window, if



there is one.







Better to put the smoke detector outside the bedroom but within 4 feet



of the door. That way if a fire starts in the house at night, the smoke



detector will detect the smoke much earlier, and will still be close



enough to the bedroom to wake up anyone inside.







And, never put a smoke detector closer than 4 inches to the corners



where walls meet ceilings. In a fire, the air in those areas is



relatively stagnant, and the smoke detector in those corner areas will



be slow to detect smoke.







So, I'd move the smoke detector, but not for the reason you were



thinking.



















--



nestork



Current code requires smoke detectors to be installed both inside and outside all sleeping rooms, plus at least one detector to be installed on each floor. In new construction they would also be required to be 120VAC powered with battery backup in each detector and they are required to be connected in tandem.



nate

What I'd like to know is why ones that are both AC and battery powered start beeping to change the battery in only a year or so? It's a royal pain in the ass. You would think the main power would be from the AC and the battery would last many years, ie more like the shelf life of the battery. Instead I have them needing battery changes just like ones powered only by battery. What's up with that? And these are about 7 years old, not 25 year old ones.

PS: If it were up to me in my own house, I'd just have AC powered ones. The small additional protection just isn't worth it to me.

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:51:25 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/30/2014 9:36 AM, N8N wrote:



Current code requires smoke detectors to be

installed both inside and outside all sleeping

rooms, plus at least one detector to be installed

on each floor. In new construction they would

also be required to be 120VAC powered with

battery backup in each detector and they are

required to be connected in tandem.



nate





For a two bedroom raised ranch, that adds up to

36 smoke detectors, 5 monoxide detectors, and

3 different power supplies?


Nope... in the situation you describe there would be three detectors for the bedrooms and hallway between them (four if they are separated by a long distance) plus one on the other floor if present. I don't believe CO detectors are required but having at least one isn't a bad idea.

Personally I don't think it's that onerous a requirement, I actually was going to upfit my last house but real life (and the lack of a willing partner to help me pull wire) intervened.

nate

On 09/29/2014 3:03 PM, Bob wrote:
Hello,

Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding
how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.

Looked, but couldn't really find anything specific.
....

You'd have difficulty in discerning its presence at any distance from
natural background radiation without very good measurement technique.

The 241Am isotope used is primarily an alpha emitter and the range of
alpha particles is only a few inches in free air plus they can't even
penetrate a single sheet of paper owing to their size and charge
(they're a He atom w/o the two electrons so have +2 proton charge).

There's a plethora of gammas, but the dominant is only about 60 keV
which is pretty weak and the overall source intensity of a typical
detector source is only about one microcurie, and the exposure as long
as you don't remove the source from the device would be less than about
1/100 of a millirem per year.

To put that in context, average background in the US is about 300 mrem/yr.

In order to even know the device was in the room from any practical
standpoint of concern you'd have to remove the source from the device
itself and bring it near you and keep it there indefinitely. Even then
your exposure would be under any occupational or general public limits.

Annual Radiation Dose Limits Agency

Radiation Worker – 5 rem (NRC, "occupationally" exposed)
General Public – 100 mrem (NRC, member of the public)

General Public – 10 mrem (EPA, air pathway)

At roughly 0.01 mrem from the device, you can see the fractional
relationship to established exposure limits is in the noise level.

Upshot--don't worry about it; radon even with a mitigation system is
likely _far_ higher than the amount given off by the smoke detector.
Or, as another comparison -- would you not take a transcontinental air
trip over concern for the extra radiation dose you'd give the infant?
That would add from 0.1-0.5 mrem/hr depending on the route (higher on
polar, higher elevation long-haul routes), roughly 10-50X the exposure
rate from the smoke detector.

--

On Monday, September 29, 2014 4:03:20 PM UTC-4, Bob wrote:
Hello,

Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding
how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.

Looked, but couldn't really find anything specific.

Thanks,

Bob

http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2...ave-your-life/ says that it's a fraction of a percent of what you're getting anyway from earth and space.

If that still doesn't let you sleep nights, put in a photo-electric instead..

Assuming nobody's smoking in the room (which might deliver more radiation than a smoke detector: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/tobacco.html) the most common source of fires in bedrooms is, I believe, electrical arcs from mis-wired outlets and plugs and cords getting crushed behind and under furniture. These can produce slow, smoky fires that overcome the room occupants as they sleep, before the smoke ever reaches the hallway, which is why smoke detectors are recommended for *inside* the bedrooms.

But the risk of such fires can be greatly reduced with the use of arc-fault breakers, which have been mandated on bedroom circuits in the US & Canada for several years. Check to see if your place has them.

Probably more common than any of the above are injuries from shoddy drop-sided cribs, suffocation under ill-fitting mattresses, and strangulation from nearby power or phone cables or drapery draw cords.

Chip C
Toronto

On 9/30/2014 8:21 AM, Pico Rico wrote:
"VinnyB" wrote in message
...

'Bob[_44_ Wrote:

Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding
how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.

I would not put one in the kids room. How about the hallway right
outside the kids room?
--
I kill-file all messages posted through Google Groups.

A guy I know lives alone, and when he had minor work done that required a
building permit, he was required to install FOUR smoke detectors within
about 10 feet of each other - one in each bedroom, by its door, and one in
the hallway.

The chirping when the batteries all went low at the same time drove him
nuts, so now he has one smoke detector in the hall and three spares.


Thereby bypassing the safety codes that are imposed to
protect us and our children.

Bill

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:45:04 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
On 9/30/2014 8:21 AM, Pico Rico wrote:

"VinnyB" wrote in message

...



'Bob[_44_ Wrote:



Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding

how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.



I would not put one in the kids room. How about the hallway right

outside the kids room?

--

I kill-file all messages posted through Google Groups.



A guy I know lives alone, and when he had minor work done that required a

building permit, he was required to install FOUR smoke detectors within

about 10 feet of each other - one in each bedroom, by its door, and one in

the hallway.



The chirping when the batteries all went low at the same time drove him

nuts, so now he has one smoke detector in the hall and three spares.





Thereby bypassing the safety codes that are imposed to

protect us and our children.



Bill


The children! Won't someone please think of the children?!!!
I'd say when you have codes that go nuts and require crazy numbers
of smoke detectors, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that
it's going to lead to non-compliance. If the guy lives alone, who's
children exactly is he supposed to protect?

On 9/30/2014 12:07 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:45:04 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
On 9/30/2014 8:21 AM, Pico Rico wrote:

"VinnyB" wrote in message

...



'Bob[_44_ Wrote:



Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding

how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.



I would not put one in the kids room. How about the hallway right

outside the kids room?

--

I kill-file all messages posted through Google Groups.



A guy I know lives alone, and when he had minor work done that required a

building permit, he was required to install FOUR smoke detectors within

about 10 feet of each other - one in each bedroom, by its door, and one in

the hallway.



The chirping when the batteries all went low at the same time drove him

nuts, so now he has one smoke detector in the hall and three spares.





Thereby bypassing the safety codes that are imposed to

protect us and our children.



Bill


The children! Won't someone please think of the children?!!!
I'd say when you have codes that go nuts and require crazy numbers
of smoke detectors, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that
it's going to lead to non-compliance. If the guy lives alone, who's
children exactly is he supposed to protect?

And it is such a huge job keeping batteries in the smoke detectors.
How can you expect any body to do that just to be safe.

Of course you could simplify the battery problem in couple of ways.
Replace the batteries Spring and Fall or replace all the batteries when
one detector starts beeping. That is so difficult.

Bill

I'm glad that at least in the USA, there doesn't seem to be the tendency to use public safety to support the economy.

Here in Manitoba, we have an NDP government, which is what Americans would probably call pro-socialist, or borderline communist.

Whenever Manitoba falls on hard economic times, the government swings into action finding ways of making the rich provide jobs. And, the easiest way to do that is to pass laws requiring even higher safety standards than we already have. For example, you simply pass a city by-law requiring all apartment blocks to be retrofitted with sprinkler systems. That keeps all the plumbers busy fitting old buildings with water sprinklers. And, you pass a city by-law requiring smoke barrier doorways to be installed on every floor before the stairwells so that smoke can't get into the stair wells in the event of a fire. That keeps all the carpenter's busy. And, of course, you pass a city by-law requiring all smoke detectors to be hard wired rather than battery operated, and that keeps all the electricians busy.

I'm all for safety, but from what I've seen, safety has been abused where I live, and it's purpose has been to create jobs rather than protect people, and it's a sickening situation where the government is looking for ways to make the rich waste their money on unnecessary improvements. Already Winnipeg has the highest fire safety standards for apartment blocks in North America, and come the next economic downturn, we will undoubtely have the highest earthquake safety standards for apartment blocks in all of North America too. The fact that Winnipeg is thousands of miles away from the nearest fault line and has never had an earthquake is no arguement against ensuring that people are safe if we do get one, and anyone who disagrees is just too greedy to realize that safety should come before profits.

dpb wrote:
On 09/29/2014 3:03 PM, Bob wrote:
Hello,

Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding
how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.

Looked, but couldn't really find anything specific.
...

You'd have difficulty in discerning its presence at any distance from
natural background radiation without very good measurement technique.

The 241Am isotope used is primarily an alpha emitter and the range of
alpha particles is only a few inches in free air plus they can't even
penetrate a single sheet of paper owing to their size and charge (they're
a He atom w/o the two electrons so have +2 proton charge).

There's a plethora of gammas, but the dominant is only about 60 keV which
is pretty weak and the overall source intensity of a typical detector
source is only about one microcurie, and the exposure as long as you
don't remove the source from the device would be less than about 1/100 of
a millirem per year.

To put that in context, average background in the US is about 300 mrem/yr.

In order to even know the device was in the room from any practical
standpoint of concern you'd have to remove the source from the device
itself and bring it near you and keep it there indefinitely. Even then
your exposure would be under any occupational or general public limits.

Annual Radiation Dose Limits Agency

Radiation Worker €“ 5 rem (NRC, "occupationally" exposed)
General Public €“ 100 mrem (NRC, member of the public)

General Public €“ 10 mrem (EPA, air pathway)

At roughly 0.01 mrem from the device, you can see the fractional
relationship to established exposure limits is in the noise level.

Upshot--don't worry about it; radon even with a mitigation system is
likely _far_ higher than the amount given off by the smoke detector. Or,
as another comparison -- would you not take a transcontinental air trip
over concern for the extra radiation dose you'd give the infant? That
would add from 0.1-0.5 mrem/hr depending on the route (higher on polar,
higher elevation long-haul routes), roughly 10-50X the exposure rate from
the smoke detector.

--

I have an old baby Ben clock I now use for a radiation calibrator. Used to
sleep next to it. Second most powerful radiator in my house. An old pentax
lens has the highest count with uranium oxide coating.

Greg

On 9/30/2014 9:13 AM, Frank wrote:
On 9/29/2014 8:37 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
You mean detector is lying around on the floor?

Just what I was thinking.
If you have a toddler that can leap 8 ft to the ceiling, you have a
future Olympic champion.

Need to change brands of sugar breakfast
cereal. Cut back on the frosted sugar cubes.
Try Cheerios or Life, and see if that helps.
Hydrate the cereal with skim milk instead of
Red Bull and Monster. Carry water bottles in
the car instead of using five hour energy in
the toddler's bottle.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:46:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
On 9/30/2014 12:07 PM, trader_4 wrote:

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:45:04 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:

On 9/30/2014 8:21 AM, Pico Rico wrote:



"VinnyB" wrote in message



...







'Bob[_44_ Wrote:







Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding



how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.







I would not put one in the kids room. How about the hallway right



outside the kids room?



--



I kill-file all messages posted through Google Groups.







A guy I know lives alone, and when he had minor work done that required a



building permit, he was required to install FOUR smoke detectors within



about 10 feet of each other - one in each bedroom, by its door, and one in



the hallway.







The chirping when the batteries all went low at the same time drove him



nuts, so now he has one smoke detector in the hall and three spares.











Thereby bypassing the safety codes that are imposed to



protect us and our children.







Bill





The children! Won't someone please think of the children?!!!

I'd say when you have codes that go nuts and require crazy numbers

of smoke detectors, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that

it's going to lead to non-compliance. If the guy lives alone, who's

children exactly is he supposed to protect?



And it is such a huge job keeping batteries in the smoke detectors.

How can you expect any body to do that just to be safe.


It's not what I expect anybody else to do. It's what I would prefer
to do.





Of course you could simplify the battery problem in couple of ways.

Replace the batteries Spring and Fall or replace all the batteries when

one detector starts beeping. That is so difficult.



Bill

It is when you have 8 of them and some of them are in high ceilings
that you can't reach with a small step ladder. I can see you're one
of the guys that believes in big govt and more regulation, rather than
personal choice.

And obviously you have no explanation for the question I posed, which
is that since these are both AC and battery powered, why does the battery
go out in a year, just as fast or faster than battery only powered ones?
How about thinking about that instead of what I should do?

On 10/1/2014 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:
It is when you have 8 of them and some of them are in high ceilings
that you can't reach with a small step ladder. I can see you're one
of the guys that believes in big govt and more regulation, rather than
personal choice.
Actually I believe in safety. That seems to me to be a much
more important point than whether there is some mild inconvenience.
How many television reports have you see where somebody died
in a fire and "there were not working smoke detectors"?

Bill

On 10/01/2014 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:
....

... since these are both AC and battery powered, why does the battery
go out in a year, just as fast or faster than battery only powered ones?
....

'Cuz they're a poorly designed (read "cheap to build") and don't
actually cut the battery (completely) out when A/C is on nor use
rechargeable batteries would be the likely cause...

I've not looked, but I'd think such a unit would be readily available
altho undoubtedly at a somewhat higher price point. There are just the
minimal one each floor of the old battery-powered type here as nothing's
been modified since all the recent Code changes. So, that's just three
and the once't a year deal isn't so bad as there are no cathedral
ceilings, etc., ...

--

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 9:31:39 AM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
On 10/1/2014 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:

It is when you have 8 of them and some of them are in high ceilings

that you can't reach with a small step ladder. I can see you're one

of the guys that believes in big govt and more regulation, rather than

personal choice.

Actually I believe in safety. That seems to me to be a much

more important point than whether there is some mild inconvenience.

How many television reports have you see where somebody died

in a fire and "there were not working smoke detectors"?



Bill

I believe in personal freedom. It's a much more important concept
than inconvenience and guys like you insisting that we all have to
live by your rules in our own house.

And the strawman nonsense is so typical. It's not an issue of not having
smoke detectors. It's just that I said I'd prefer to just have AC powered
ones that don't have battery backup. Is that so radical and unsafe? For
the record, since you brought it up, despite all the laws and all the
ruminating, there are still plenty of fires where people
die where there aren't working smoke detectors. Evey one of them that I've
seen, it was a case where there were either no smoke detectors, or battery
smoke detectors with dead batteries. Not a single one where it was an
AC only detector and the cause of the fatality was that it didn't have a
battery backup. Since you have such strong opinions in favor of requiring
battery backup you should be able to provide us with those numbers and
examples where a battery backup would have made a difference.

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 9:33:57 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 10/01/2014 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:

...



... since these are both AC and battery powered, why does the battery

go out in a year, just as fast or faster than battery only powered ones?

...



'Cuz they're a poorly designed (read "cheap to build") and don't

actually cut the battery (completely) out when A/C is on nor use

rechargeable batteries would be the likely cause...



I've not looked, but I'd think such a unit would be readily available

altho undoubtedly at a somewhat higher price point. There are just the

minimal one each floor of the old battery-powered type here as nothing's

been modified since all the recent Code changes. So, that's just three

and the once't a year deal isn't so bad as there are no cathedral

ceilings, etc., ...



--

A diode that costs maybe 10 cents has a big impact on price?

On 10/01/2014 8:51 AM, trader_4 wrote:
....

A diode that costs maybe 10 cents has a big impact on price?

_Every_ component has an impact on price for consumer-priced goods when
amplified by the numbers.

I don't _know_ it's the case precisely with the particular units but I'd
venture it's a reasonable conjecture.

Do you have the actual vendor/model number handy?

--

"Bill Gill" wrote in message
...
On 10/1/2014 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:
It is when you have 8 of them and some of them are in high ceilings
that you can't reach with a small step ladder. I can see you're one
of the guys that believes in big govt and more regulation, rather than
personal choice.
Actually I believe in safety. That seems to me to be a much
more important point than whether there is some mild inconvenience.
How many television reports have you see where somebody died
in a fire and "there were not working smoke detectors"?



Then why stop at 8? Why not 15? Why not a personal one you carry on your
belt?

Four smoke detectors within 10 feet for a guy who lives alone, and has two
bedrooms which are not capable of housing anyone (one is an office, the
other is a storage room)? That has nothing to do with safety. It has to do
with "one size fits all".

I bet you report your neighbors who tear off their mattress tags.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 9:33:57 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 10/01/2014 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:

...



... since these are both AC and battery powered, why does the battery

go out in a year, just as fast or faster than battery only powered
ones?

...



'Cuz they're a poorly designed (read "cheap to build") and don't

actually cut the battery (completely) out when A/C is on nor use

rechargeable batteries would be the likely cause...



I've not looked, but I'd think such a unit would be readily available

altho undoubtedly at a somewhat higher price point. There are just the

minimal one each floor of the old battery-powered type here as nothing's

been modified since all the recent Code changes. So, that's just three

and the once't a year deal isn't so bad as there are no cathedral

ceilings, etc., ...



--

A diode that costs maybe 10 cents has a big impact on price?

think of the voltage drop, too.

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 11:12:28 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message

...

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 9:33:57 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:

On 10/01/2014 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:



...







... since these are both AC and battery powered, why does the battery



go out in a year, just as fast or faster than battery only powered

ones?



...







'Cuz they're a poorly designed (read "cheap to build") and don't



actually cut the battery (completely) out when A/C is on nor use



rechargeable batteries would be the likely cause...







I've not looked, but I'd think such a unit would be readily available



altho undoubtedly at a somewhat higher price point. There are just the



minimal one each floor of the old battery-powered type here as nothing's



been modified since all the recent Code changes. So, that's just three



and the once't a year deal isn't so bad as there are no cathedral



ceilings, etc., ...







--



A diode that costs maybe 10 cents has a big impact on price?



think of the voltage drop, too.

I don't see .6V diode drop from a 9V battery being a design challenge.
The electronics is going to work on 5V or 3V anyway.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 11:12:28 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message

...

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 9:33:57 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:

On 10/01/2014 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:



...







... since these are both AC and battery powered, why does the
battery



go out in a year, just as fast or faster than battery only powered

ones?



...







'Cuz they're a poorly designed (read "cheap to build") and don't



actually cut the battery (completely) out when A/C is on nor use



rechargeable batteries would be the likely cause...







I've not looked, but I'd think such a unit would be readily available



altho undoubtedly at a somewhat higher price point. There are just
the



minimal one each floor of the old battery-powered type here as
nothing's



been modified since all the recent Code changes. So, that's just
three



and the once't a year deal isn't so bad as there are no cathedral



ceilings, etc., ...







--



A diode that costs maybe 10 cents has a big impact on price?



think of the voltage drop, too.

I don't see .6V diode drop from a 9V battery being a design challenge.
The electronics is going to work on 5V or 3V anyway.

but the battery will "die" sooner.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 08:11:32 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


I bet you report your neighbors who tear off their mattress tags.


Which, of course, has *never* been illegal. "Except by the consumer"
and all. I remember being 7 or 8, hearing someone "joke" about that
on TV, and being very confused because it was clear to me that the
tags meant that the manufacturer and retailer couldn't remove them,
but we as the final purchaser could.

This was in the late 70s/early 80s; perhaps sometime before then those
words weren't on there? Or it just makes a better joke to pretend
they aren't?

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 11:58:24 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message

...

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 11:12:28 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:

"trader_4" wrote in message



...



On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 9:33:57 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:



On 10/01/2014 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:







...















... since these are both AC and battery powered, why does the

battery







go out in a year, just as fast or faster than battery only powered



ones?







...















'Cuz they're a poorly designed (read "cheap to build") and don't







actually cut the battery (completely) out when A/C is on nor use







rechargeable batteries would be the likely cause...















I've not looked, but I'd think such a unit would be readily available







altho undoubtedly at a somewhat higher price point. There are just

the







minimal one each floor of the old battery-powered type here as

nothing's







been modified since all the recent Code changes. So, that's just

three







and the once't a year deal isn't so bad as there are no cathedral







ceilings, etc., ...















--







A diode that costs maybe 10 cents has a big impact on price?







think of the voltage drop, too.



I don't see .6V diode drop from a 9V battery being a design challenge.

The electronics is going to work on 5V or 3V anyway.



but the battery will "die" sooner.

How so? The battery is rated at X amphours. Whether it delivers it through
a diode or not is mostly insignificant. Only a very small amount of power is
lost in the diode.

On 10/01/2014 11:52 AM, trader_4 wrote:
....

How so? The battery is rated at X amphours. Whether it delivers it through
a diode or not is mostly insignificant. Only a very small amount of power is
lost in the diode.

But what's significant is what _fraction_ of the power consumption any
portion might be...if the overall is also pretty small as one would
expect/it must be to have a long battery life to begin with, that "very
small amount" may still be a decent fraction of the total and then the
decrease in lifetime is proportional to that fraction.

Again, this is all _purely_ hypothetical w/o any other data...but if the
symptom exists that the battery life doesn't appear to be any longer w/
AC powered unit than non-, it's pretty clear there must not be any real
power-saving circuitry inherent in the device design (or, the overall
device power consumption is quite high and therefore drains the battery
at about the same rate even though there is some extension over what it
would have been w/o the AC).

--

On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 1:09:40 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 10/01/2014 11:52 AM, trader_4 wrote:

...



How so? The battery is rated at X amphours. Whether it delivers it through

a diode or not is mostly insignificant. Only a very small amount of power is

lost in the diode.



But what's significant is what _fraction_ of the power consumption any

portion might be...if the overall is also pretty small as one would

expect/it must be to have a long battery life to begin with, that "very

small amount" may still be a decent fraction of the total and then the

decrease in lifetime is proportional to that fraction.



Let's do the math. 9V battery. .6V drop across the diode.
8.4V goes to the load. That's 7% of the voltage across the diode
and hence 7% of the power dissipated, because the same current
is flowing through the load and the diode. And that 7% power
dissipation would only come into play when the AC is out. The
rest of the time, it would be zero. You'd have a design where if
the AC is lost, the battery would diminish about 7% faster. But
in return, you'd have a design where the battery lasts the shelf
life, not just a year. I could come up with other designs that
would perform better, but a diode is simple and cheap as an example.





Again, this is all _purely_ hypothetical w/o any other data...but if the

symptom exists that the battery life doesn't appear to be any longer w/

AC powered unit than non-, it's pretty clear there must not be any real

power-saving circuitry inherent in the device design

What's apparent is that somehow they are using the battery power as well
as the AC. I can't think of other battery/AC powered devices that do
that. Sump pump backup? Emergency lighting? Battery banks at the phone
company?



(or, the overall

device power consumption is quite high and therefore drains the battery

at about the same rate even though there is some extension over what it

would have been w/o the AC).



The point is there is no good reason to be drawing down the battery at
all. And why not put in rechargeables? Duh! That's what they do in
those other examples.

On 09/30/2014 9:37 AM, dpb wrote:
....

You'd have difficulty in discerning its presence at any distance from
natural background radiation without very good measurement technique.

The 241Am isotope used is primarily an alpha emitter and the range of
alpha particles is only a few inches in free air plus they can't even
penetrate a single sheet of paper owing to their size and charge
(they're a He atom w/o the two electrons so have +2 proton charge).

There's a plethora of gammas, but the dominant is only about 60 keV
which is pretty weak and the overall source intensity of a typical
detector source is only about one microcurie, and the exposure as long
as you don't remove the source from the device would be less than about
1/100 of a millirem per year.

To put that in context, average background in the US is about 300 mrem/yr.
....

BTW, to get the above I took the easy way out and used the calculator at
http://www.radprocalculator.com/Gamma.aspx

Selecting Am-241 Gamma (the alpha as noted above can be discounted
entirely as a contributor as long as the source is in the device), and
an estimate of 10-ft average distance from a 1-uCi source, the dose rate
is ~1.5E-6 mrem/hr. Multiplying by 24*364 and assuming an occupancy of
1/2 time in a given room, the annual dose works out at ~0.0066 mrem
which I rounded to 0.01 mrem. This is still an upper estimate as
there's no shielding at all from the source containment material nor the
materials in the detector between the source itself and the exterior;
only the 1/r-squared geometric factor is included.

--