Ben Schofield wrote:
wrote:

My attempts at getting a response from either manufacturers or the
Suffolk fire service have failed completely so far. Maybe I could try
London fire service as the flat is in London.

The trick is to spell ionisation as ionization when googling :-). Then
you get advice such as this, from
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/fmarshal/...etectors.html:

IONIZATION VERSUS PHOTOELECTRIC DETECTORS

In cases where smoke detectors are subject to frequent false alarming
due to cooking, smoking or similar causes, the State Fire Marshal
encourages the installation of photoelectric smoke detectors as they
are not as susceptible to these types of false activation.

OK, thanks, while everywhere describes the difference between
ionisation and photoelectric detectors this is the first I've seen
that specifically says photoelectric is less susceptible to false
alarms from cigarette smoke.

--
Chris Green