In ,
trader_4 typed:
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 8:23:43 AM UTC-4, TimR wrote:
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 11:04:56 PM UTC-4, TomR wrote:

control panel etc. I do not plan on doing what they "recommend"
because it is overkill, unnecessary, and not a code requirement
etc. But, I have thought about just putting in a 110-volt
interconnected alarm system (no alarm panel, no outside monitoring,
etc) just as a way to please them and show that we did more than
what the code requires for existing single family residential homes.

I would be cautious about this strategy.

You would think doing more would be better, but when you do that you
have to meet complete code requirements for the extra, even if the
extra isn't required. That exposes you to all sorts of liabilities
and may fail an inspection. Since this is government work, they
will understand meeting the minimum requirement, and they will be
anal about meeting EVERY spec if you do more than the minimum.

I looked at that recommended wiring diagram. That absolutely would
not meet code in any of my projects. (but we only do commercial
where I work) A break at one alarm disables everything downstream.
We are required to do redundant loops so one failure is just that, a
single failure.

Now, with your single wire, when it breaks, how are you going to
find and fix it?

I guess the same way that people find and fix a broken interconnect
wire in
the many millions of homes that have been wired that way now for
decades.
Or the same way you find and fix any open connection in any circuit,
for
that matter.

I am not sure on what the best or easiest place for me to chime in on this
aspect of the discussion is, but I'll start here.

1) TimR, I understand the points that you are making and I will explain why
I know what you mean below.

2) trader_4, I also understand and agree with your point of view on this,
with the only slight exception being that I have an and understanding of,
and some experience with, the somewhat subtle point that I think that TimR
is trying to make.

So, here it goes:

TimR, yes, what you are saying is probably correct in a commercial
location/application. But, this is not a commercial location/application.
And, no, the interconnected alarm system (if I do one, and whether
hard-wired or wireless), would not be a "supervised" alarm system -- meaning
no third party monitoring of the system, no power failure warning, etc.

Nevertheless, I do know what you mean about "mission creep", meaning that if
I do decide to do a change, upgrade, or improvement of the current
individual battery powered detectors alarm system, will that trigger some
governmental oversight entity to then want to enforce an even more complex
(even though not required) standard or "code" requirement? There are
reasons why I know this, which I will explain shortly.

However, in the interim, I would like to throw in some additional
information regarding my experience in this area. Completely unrelated to
this present situation, I happen to personally own a 3-family residential
rental property that I purchased maybe 8 years ago. It happens to be in New
Jersey, which I am mentioning since trader_4 mentioned New Jersey code
requirements. When I bought the 3-family residential rental property, it
already had an interconnected 110-volt with battery back-up alarm system.
That alarm system is on its own circuit with nothing else connected to it.
And, it does not have an "alarm panel" and it is not a supervised or third
party monitored system. It meets all of the current codes. One of the
local codes for that system is that I have to have the system tested and an
alarm certification done annually. So, I do know how such a system works
and what the code requirements are for such a system. And, again, that is a
residential, not a commercial, application. And, yes, if there were a break
in any of the connections, including a break in the interconnected signaling
wire, I would have to resolve that issue.

Now, back to the question of, if I decide to upgrade a system anywhere, will
"they" try to tell me that my upgrade may have to go even further to a much
more complex, supervised, system etc? I don't think so, but they may
"recommend" that. In fact, that is what happened to me in this case.

I don't want to go into too many specific details here on a public forum,
but I can say that I actually have 2 other single family homes that are
"similarly situated" with the home that I am writing about now being one of
the 3. All 3 have the same sort of "governmental funding" aspect to them
with regard to the occupants of each home -- although the actual source and
type is not Section 8. In the past, funding was made available to upgrade
or make capital improvements to the first two of the homes (before the third
home was purchased) about 10 years ago (or more). At that time, one of the
upgrades that I decided to do was to have a supervised interconnected fire
detection and alarm system installed in each of those two homes. It "seemed
like a good idea at the time". But, now I regret having done that. It was
overkill, unnecessary, and not a requirement for a single family home --
even a newly built single family home. It is a pain. It requires constant
monitoring for a fee, it results in unnecessary false alarms or accidental
alarms where the fire company has to respond, etc. And, of course, it
requires monthly monitoring fees, alarm system maintenance, etc. And, since
governmental funding helped pay for that system, (and even if it didn't), it
would be a liability (in my opinion) if I now decided to remove or downgrade
those two systems to just what the code requires if there were to be a fire
at any time in the future in one of those homes.

Now, what has happened is that the same governmental funding entity that
visits those first two homes (with the complete alarm systems in place),
also visits the third property which was later purchased and which does not
have the type of complex complete alarm system that the first two homes
have. That's what apparently eventually led to the "recommendation" that
this third home should have the complete complex alarm system installed --
even though it is not a code requirement.

So, for that reason, I have an understanding of the "no good deed goes
unpunished" aspect of this situation, and the possibility that agreeing to
do ANYTHING could prompt or trigger an expectation or request that
EVERYTHING be done -- meaning the whole new complex complete (not required)
type of alarm system.

Nevertheless, I am completely confident that if I do decide to just do the
interconnected hardwired 110-volt alarm system with a battery back-up as a
"compromise", I will not be subjected to any additional liability or risk
for not having done a whole new complete complex alarm system. But, that is
why I understand what you, TimR, are suggesting as a possible aspect of what
could happen by my deciding to do something (anything) rather than nothing.