I have some 20 y/o hard-wired smoke detectors that I want to replace
with newer hard-wired ones. How do I figure out which circuit breaker to
trip or is this an issue with smoke detectors?

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

On Oct 24, 7:53*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
* I have some 20 y/o hard-wired smoke detectors that I want to replace
with newer hard-wired ones. How do I figure out which circuit breaker to
trip or is this an issue with smoke detectors?

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
* * Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

Just curious, why replace them, they still work right.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
I have some 20 y/o hard-wired smoke detectors that I want to replace
with newer hard-wired ones. How do I figure out which circuit breaker to
trip or is this an issue with smoke detectors?


I trip the one marked "smoke detectors". If your breakers are not marked,
spend some time doing so on all of them. My detectors have a red LED that
goes off when the power goes off so it should be easy enough to find going
breaker by breaker while someone watches. If yours do not, hook up a tester
very carefully. .

In article ,
Van Chocstraw wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
I have some 20 y/o hard-wired smoke detectors that I want to replace
with newer hard-wired ones. How do I figure out which circuit breaker to
trip or is this an issue with smoke detectors?


If it's not marked in the box you'll have to trace the circuit either
electronically or manually.

Or just short the two leads. That's an efficient way to identify the
correct breaker.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
I have some 20 y/o hard-wired smoke detectors that I want to replace
with newer hard-wired ones. How do I figure out which circuit breaker to
trip or is this an issue with smoke detectors?

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"


If they have an indicator light on them, you can tell by it. Don't expect
them to be on a dedicated circuit breaker, or necessarily all on the same
circuit

On Oct 24, 11:21*am, Smitty Two wrote
..
Or just short the two leads. That's an efficient way to identify the
correct breaker.
..
WEARING SAFETY GLASSES (and maybe leather gloves!) just in case some
hot metal from the spark heads for your eyeball.
Two copper wires shorting together and sparking 20 amps at 120 volts
or so = 2400 watts of hot 'welding' metal.

In article , "RBM"
wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
I have some 20 y/o hard-wired smoke detectors that I want to replace
with newer hard-wired ones. How do I figure out which circuit breaker to
trip or is this an issue with smoke detectors?

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"


If they have an indicator light on them, you can tell by it. Don't expect
them to be on a dedicated circuit breaker, or necessarily all on the same
circuit

Thanks. To all

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

ransley wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:53 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
I have some 20 y/o hard-wired smoke detectors that I want to replace
with newer hard-wired ones. How do I figure out which circuit breaker to
trip or is this an issue with smoke detectors?

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

Just curious, why replace them, they still work right.
Hmm,
Not after 20 years!!! Would you trust that old detector?

Also known as the "Jesus method". I've seen it done. Not
tried it (intentionally) yet.

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


"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
Or just short the two leads. That's an efficient way to
identify the
correct breaker.

Check for battery backup (remove battery). Or you may be all
day flipping breakers, and not find one that darkens the
indicator.

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


"RBM" wrote in message
...


If they have an indicator light on them, you can tell by it.
Don't expect
them to be on a dedicated circuit breaker, or necessarily
all on the same
circuit

On Oct 24, 10:03*am, Tony Hwang wrote:
ransley wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:53 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
* I have some 20 y/o hard-wired smoke detectors that I want to replace
with newer hard-wired ones. How do I figure out which circuit breaker to
trip or is this an issue with smoke detectors?

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
* * Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

Just curious, why replace them, they still work right.

Hmm,
Not after 20 years!!! Would you trust that old detector?

New doesnt mean better to me, to me it means Made in China and maybe
defective. On my hardwired alarm system yes, mine are more than 20 and
get tested once in a while and they are im sure better made than new
chinese crap.

The radioactive isotope goes flat after a while. Normal
decay, you know.

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


"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...
ransley wrote:


Just curious, why replace them, they still work right.

Hmm,
Not after 20 years!!! Would you trust that old detector?

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Also known as the "Jesus method". I've seen it done. Not
tried it (intentionally) yet.

When I was a kid in high school, I stripped the end off of an old line cord
and arced the wires together to look at the sparks. My friends were always
impressed, and I thought it was pretty cool.

It di require frequent resetting of the breaker, however. Fortunately, I
ended up learning about Tesla coils and used them instead for my spark fix.

Jon

On Oct 24, 11:19*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
The radioactive isotope goes flat after a while. Normal
decay, you know.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message

...

ransley wrote:

Just curious, why replace them, they still work right.

Hmm,
Not after 20 years!!! Would you trust that old detector?

Decay of isotope, isnt that for Co detectors? Who says 20 years, the
Manufacturers of course. I have heard of no independant saying 20
years.

In article
,
RicodJour wrote:



http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PD...mokeAlarms.pdf
From page 59 of that report:

"Aging Home Smoke Alarms


snip


*Zero* mention of any scientific evidence *whatsoever* that age alone
would render a smoke alarm inoperative. Absolutely NOTHING to suggest
the rationale behind the guideline of replacing them every ten years.

ransley wrote:
On Oct 24, 10:03 am, Tony Hwang wrote:
ransley wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:53 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
I have some 20 y/o hard-wired smoke detectors that I want to replace
with newer hard-wired ones. How do I figure out which circuit breaker to
trip or is this an issue with smoke detectors?
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
Just curious, why replace them, they still work right.
Hmm,
Not after 20 years!!! Would you trust that old detector?

New doesnt mean better to me, to me it means Made in China and maybe
defective. On my hardwired alarm system yes, mine are more than 20 and
get tested once in a while and they are im sure better made than new
chinese crap.
Hi,
Test button test is not real test. Use real smoke and flame(candle) to
test it.
Or spray made for testing. Commercial guys use it.
I replace them every 10 years. Mine are hard wired with 10 year Li.
battery back up. I do same with gas detectors.

On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*RicodJour wrote:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PD...mokeAlarms.pdf
From page 59 of that report:

"Aging Home Smoke Alarms

snip

*Zero* mention of any scientific evidence *whatsoever* that age alone
would render a smoke alarm inoperative. Absolutely NOTHING to suggest
the rationale behind the guideline of replacing them every ten years.

Are you *quite* sure about THAT? Perhaps *you* could contact the NFPA
(already capitalized) and ask to SEE their data. I'm *sure* that
statistically SPEAKING one could determine the *likelihood* of HALF of
the *inoperative* smoke DETECTORS being over TEN *YEARS* OLD. It is
*very* UNLIKELY that it would be a *random* occurrence.

Your words carry no more weight with the unseemly emphasis than
usual. The NFPA - silly folk with a predilection for creating
arbitrary standards - have absolutely no data with which to back up
their recommendation. You should write an angry letter. Use a lot of
emphasis to show you really mean it.

R

In article
,
RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*RicodJour wrote:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PD...mokeAlarms.pdf
From page 59 of that report:

"Aging Home Smoke Alarms

snip

*Zero* mention of any scientific evidence *whatsoever* that age alone
would render a smoke alarm inoperative. Absolutely NOTHING to suggest
the rationale behind the guideline of replacing them every ten years.

Are you *quite* sure about THAT? Perhaps *you* could contact the NFPA
(already capitalized) and ask to SEE their data. I'm *sure* that
statistically SPEAKING one could determine the *likelihood* of HALF of
the *inoperative* smoke DETECTORS being over TEN *YEARS* OLD. It is
*very* UNLIKELY that it would be a *random* occurrence.

Your words carry no more weight with the unseemly emphasis than
usual. The NFPA - silly folk with a predilection for creating
arbitrary standards - have absolutely no data with which to back up
their recommendation. You should write an angry letter. Use a lot of
emphasis to show you really mean it.

R

You're the one holding them up as some sort of authority. I don't know
whether the NFPA has any data to back up their claim, but if they do,
they sure didn't put it on page 59 of their silly report. And since
their recommendation makes no reasonable sense, I'm pretty sure that,
yeah, it has no reasonable basis.

The only gods I worship are Science and Reason and Logic, and there's
precious little of any of those left in the world.

There are a lot of reasons why a ten year old piece of electronic gear
might not function, none of which have jack squat to do with needing to
be replaced for no good reason. Maybe clean the greasy conductive dust
out, brighten up the battery contacts, put in a fresh battery, and THEN
tell me the thing's no good.

Solid state electronic components tend to last a very, very long time,
particularly when they're in an environment as innocuous as a house and
never get used.

You read a piece of nonsense from an agency of the gummint, and you hold
it to be gospel just because you left your critical thinking skills down
at the bar.

I'll emphasize *whatever the ***** I want to emphasize. But don't worry,
I won't stoop to using those gay emoticons.

On Oct 24, 10:06*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*RicodJour wrote:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PD...mokeAlarms.pdf
From page 59 of that report:

"Aging Home Smoke Alarms

snip

*Zero* mention of any scientific evidence *whatsoever* that age alone
would render a smoke alarm inoperative. Absolutely NOTHING to suggest
the rationale behind the guideline of replacing them every ten years.

Are you *quite* sure about THAT? *Perhaps *you* could contact the NFPA
(already capitalized) and ask to SEE their data. *I'm *sure* that
statistically SPEAKING one could determine the *likelihood* of HALF of
the *inoperative* smoke DETECTORS being over TEN *YEARS* OLD. *It is
*very* UNLIKELY that it would be a *random* occurrence.

Your words carry no more weight with the unseemly emphasis than
usual. *The NFPA - silly folk with a predilection for creating
arbitrary standards - have absolutely no data with which to back up
their recommendation. *You should write an angry letter. *Use a lot of
emphasis to show you really mean it.

R

If NFPA takes replacement figures from companies like Honywell, ADT
etc, and im sure they do, then the figures are BS considering what has
happened to me at several buildings. I get a false alarm, I would call
my alarm co. They would send out a tech who would immediatly keep the
complete conversation on how its best to replace all sensors because
of age. This started about 15 years ago. After a few false alarms I
started cleaning the detectors myselfe but realised my failures were
bugs or dust, In about 25 years with the same sensors, all false
alarms were bugs or dust.

Understand the motive the tech has, he can likely make 5x more every
day, in kickback, if he can sucker you into replacment of a part
ranther than charge for just time. At the 150$ I was quoted per sensor
there is enough padded in that price, [ probably 7-9x markup] to give
the tech a nice incentive bonus to sucker you on a new unit.

My opinion is those figures, and the fear of replacement are pure
Bull****. I look at it like a new car dealer, take any new car in
after 15-20000 miles driving and if you tell them just fix everything,
you will always walk out $500-2000 poorer.

I say test your detector and blow them out every 6 months, save your
money, its possible to get defective chinese crap anyway.

RicodJour wrote:

*Zero* mention of any scientific evidence *whatsoever* that age alone
would render a smoke alarm inoperative. Absolutely NOTHING to suggest
the rationale behind the guideline of replacing them every ten years.

Are you *quite* sure about THAT? Perhaps *you* could contact the NFPA
(already capitalized) and ask to SEE their data. I'm *sure* that
statistically SPEAKING one could determine the *likelihood* of HALF of
the *inoperative* smoke DETECTORS being over TEN *YEARS* OLD. It is
*very* UNLIKELY that it would be a *random* occurrence.

Your words carry no more weight with the unseemly emphasis than
usual. The NFPA - silly folk with a predilection for creating
arbitrary standards - have absolutely no data with which to back up
their recommendation. You should write an angry letter. Use a lot of
emphasis to show you really mean it.


Correlation does not imply causation. Half the defective smoke detectors
being over ten years old may be due to other causes:

* They came from dirty homes and the dust-bunnies interfered with proper
operation. It's a fact that half the homes in America are dirtier than the
median.
* Ten years ago, there was a big influx of Chinese smoke detector circuitry
made with Melamine.
* ALL of the failed smoke detectors had their batteries removed to eliminate
the nagging chirp.

It's poor practice to make decisions based on assumptions about cause and
effect.

If one gets exercised over the "ten year = failure" business, here's an even
more shocking revelation: Virtually ALL of the failed smoke detectors were
colored white!

Beware.

Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Test button test is not real test. Use real smoke and flame(candle) to
test it.
Or spray made for testing. Commercial guys use it.
I replace them every 10 years. Mine are hard wired with 10 year Li.
battery back up. I do same with gas detectors.

So, do you replace them because:
a) It's been ten years, or
b) Because they failed the smoke-in-a-can test?

On Oct 24, 10:06*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*RicodJour wrote:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PD...mokeAlarms.pdf
From page 59 of that report:

"Aging Home Smoke Alarms

snip

*Zero* mention of any scientific evidence *whatsoever* that age alone
would render a smoke alarm inoperative. Absolutely NOTHING to suggest
the rationale behind the guideline of replacing them every ten years.

Are you *quite* sure about THAT? *Perhaps *you* could contact the NFPA
(already capitalized) and ask to SEE their data. *I'm *sure* that
statistically SPEAKING one could determine the *likelihood* of HALF of
the *inoperative* smoke DETECTORS being over TEN *YEARS* OLD. *It is
*very* UNLIKELY that it would be a *random* occurrence.

Your words carry no more weight with the unseemly emphasis than
usual. *The NFPA - silly folk with a predilection for creating
arbitrary standards - have absolutely no data with which to back up
their recommendation. *You should write an angry letter. *Use a lot of
emphasis to show you really mean it.

R

Then you must also recommend, and we of course know you practice,
replacing motion sensors every 10 years, now that must then mean my
alarm panel shoud be trashed, and keypads, after all electronics dont
last forever, as you said. You do do this dont you.

On Oct 25, 8:26*am, ransley wrote:

Then you must also recommend, and we of course know you practice,
replacing motion sensors every 10 years, now that must then mean my
alarm panel shoud be trashed, and keypads, after all electronics dont
last forever, as you said. *You do do this dont you.

A motion sensor is not a life safety item unless you live in a really
dangerous neighborhood. And I have had motion sensors go bad - sealed
units, how are you supposed to clean them?

I have absolutely no problem with you testing anything you want in
your own house, calling it good and living with it. I think it is bad
advice to tell someone to ignore the NFPA and the manufacturers'
recommendations because you don't trust them.

If you make comments like, "Decay of isotope, isnt that for Co
detectors? Who says 20 years, the Manufacturers of course. I have
heard of no independant saying 20
years." where you go zero for two in factual items, I question your
viewpoint as it is/was based on notions.

It is also extremely odd that you claim your smoke detectors cost $150
each. A 20 year old smoke detector - is that in 1989 dollars? They
still make it...? Give me a model number. A typical Honeywell
wireless (more expensive than line voltage) smoke detector is under a
$100 anywhere, and since the OP is talking about checking a circuit,
the run of the mill detector would be somewhere between $35 and $50.
The average three bedroom house can easily be outfitted for ~$300.
That's every ten years.

Perhaps you've been fortunate and never lost anyone in a fire. A
house on our street at my last house burned down and the wife died and
two of the sons were critically injured. I'm not about to tell
people, "Eh, don't worry about the detectors - I'm sure they're fine",
just so they won't have to open their wallet.
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/...om__hurts.html

R

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:




Correlation does not imply causation.

'zactly

Half the defective smoke detectors
being over ten years old may be due to other causes:

* They came from dirty homes and the dust-bunnies interfered with proper
operation. It's a fact that half the homes in America are dirtier than the
median.
* Ten years ago, there was a big influx of Chinese smoke detector circuitry
made with Melamine.
* ALL of the failed smoke detectors had their batteries removed to eliminate
the nagging chirp.

Or: Half the smoke detectors in use are over ten years old.


It's poor practice to make decisions based on assumptions about cause and
effect.

My thesaurus sez poor practice = idiotic.


If one gets exercised over the "ten year = failure" business, here's an even
more shocking revelation: Virtually ALL of the failed smoke detectors were
colored white!

Damn those defective white smoke detectors. Why isn't the gummint doing
something about it???


Beware.

On Oct 25, 3:27*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,



*RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*RicodJour wrote:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PD...mokeAlarms.pdf
From page 59 of that report:

"Aging Home Smoke Alarms

snip

*Zero* mention of any scientific evidence *whatsoever* that age alone
would render a smoke alarm inoperative. Absolutely NOTHING to suggest
the rationale behind the guideline of replacing them every ten years.

Are you *quite* sure about THAT? *Perhaps *you* could contact the NFPA
(already capitalized) and ask to SEE their data. *I'm *sure* that
statistically SPEAKING one could determine the *likelihood* of HALF of
the *inoperative* smoke DETECTORS being over TEN *YEARS* OLD. *It is
*very* UNLIKELY that it would be a *random* occurrence.

Your words carry no more weight with the unseemly emphasis than
usual. *The NFPA - silly folk with a predilection for creating
arbitrary standards - have absolutely no data with which to back up
their recommendation. *You should write an angry letter. *Use a lot of
emphasis to show you really mean it.

R

You're the one holding them up as some sort of authority.

Huh? It's early, I was up late and I'm only halfway through my first
cup of coffee, so maybe I'm missing something here... I'm holding up
the NFPA as some sort of authority? WTF does that mean? They ARE the
authority. Have you ever read your state's fire code? Why don't you
do a quick search of it and see how many times the NFPA is
referenced. It's almost on every damn page!

I don't know
whether the NFPA has any data to back up their claim, but if they do,
they sure didn't put it on page 59 of their silly report. And since
their recommendation makes no reasonable sense, I'm pretty sure that,
yeah, it has no reasonable basis.

Why would you assume that that report was the sum total of all of
their testing? I love this part - you are "pretty sure" there is no
reasonable basis for what an impartial, non-profit testing agency
recommends.

The only gods I worship are Science and Reason and Logic, and there's
precious little of any of those left in the world.

Exactly which category does "pretty sure" fall under - science, reason
or logic? Again, capitalizing a word doesn't give it more weight.

You choose to ignore something, based on no data other than your
personal observation, and assume that an international agency is
fabricating data in some Machiavellian scheme? That about sum it up?

There are a lot of reasons why a ten year old piece of electronic gear
might not function, none of which have jack squat to do with needing to
be replaced for no good reason. Maybe clean the greasy conductive dust
out, brighten up the battery contacts, put in a fresh battery, and THEN
tell me the thing's no good.

Solid state electronic components tend to last a very, very long time,
particularly when they're in an environment as innocuous as a house and
never get used.

The house may be innocuous...now, but the smoke detector is not a dawn-
to-dusk sensor on your post light. Risk v. reward and all that.

You read a piece of nonsense from an agency of the gummint, and you hold
it to be gospel just because you left your critical thinking skills down
at the bar.

As soon as I see someone write gummint/guvmint or the like, it usually
indicates that they don't trust any authority. Sometimes that's good,
sometimes it's not. Let me ask you this - Do you build to code or do
you ignore it?

BTW, before you knock something and label it, do yourself a favor and
know what you're talking about first. The NFPA is not a branch of the
government.

"The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an international
nonprofit organization that was established in 1896. The company’s
mission is to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards on
the quality of life by providing and advocating consensus codes and
standards, research, training, and education."

I'll emphasize *whatever the ***** I want to emphasize. But don't worry,
I won't stoop to using those gay emoticons.

Thanks!

R

On Oct 25, 8:08*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

Correlation does not imply causation.

Ummm, yes, it does. Correlation does not establish absolute
causation, but it certainly implies a link.

Half the defective smoke detectors
being over ten years old may be due to other causes:

* They came from dirty homes and the dust-bunnies interfered with proper
operation. It's a fact that half the homes in America are dirtier than the
median.

This is true.

* Ten years ago, there was a big influx of Chinese smoke detector circuitry
made with Melamine.

This is an attempt at a joke.

* ALL of the failed smoke detectors had their batteries removed to eliminate
the nagging chirp.

This is nonsense.

It's poor practice to make decisions based on assumptions about cause and
effect.

If one gets exercised over the "ten year = failure" business, here's an even
more shocking revelation: Virtually ALL of the failed smoke detectors were
colored white!

Beware.

If you don't have any information to add, you shouldn't.

R

In article
,
RicodJour wrote:



You're the one holding them up as some sort of authority.

Huh? It's early, I was up late and I'm only halfway through my first
cup of coffee, so maybe I'm missing something here... I'm holding up
the NFPA as some sort of authority? WTF does that mean? They ARE the
authority. Have you ever read your state's fire code? Why don't you
do a quick search of it and see how many times the NFPA is
referenced. It's almost on every damn page!

Let's see, first you hint that you're surprised or offended that I'd
claim you're holding them up as an authority, and then you, uh, hold
them up as an authority. Maybe you should have another cup.


Why would you assume that that report was the sum total of all of
their testing? I love this part - you are "pretty sure" there is no
reasonable basis for what an impartial, non-profit testing agency
recommends.

Yep. If they had a reasonable basis, they'd state it. I don't care if
jesus pops down out of the clouds and tells me to put nitrogen in my
tires, if he can't tell me a scientifically valid reason to do it, I
won't do it. And I'll tell him to his bearded prophet face that it's
irresponsible and immoral to advocate things based on junk logic.



You choose to ignore something, based on no data other than your
personal observation, and assume that an international agency is
fabricating data in some Machiavellian scheme? That about sum it up?

I don't doubt that 1/2 the detectors that failed were over 10 yrs. old.
What I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that that fact alone doesn't
mean jack ****. See HeyBub's post about cause and effect.

On Oct 25, 8:48*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:26*am, ransley wrote:



Then you must also recommend, and we of course know you practice,
replacing motion sensors every 10 years, now that must then mean my
alarm panel shoud be trashed, and keypads, after all electronics dont
last forever, as you said. *You do do this dont you.

A motion sensor is not a life safety item unless you live in a really
dangerous neighborhood. *And I have had motion sensors go bad - sealed
units, how are you supposed to clean them?

I have absolutely no problem with you testing anything you want in
your own house, calling it good and living with it. *I think it is bad
advice to tell someone to ignore the NFPA and the manufacturers'
recommendations because you don't trust them.

If you make comments like, "Decay of isotope, isnt that for Co
detectors? *Who says 20 years, the Manufacturers of course. *I have
heard of no independant saying 20
years." where you go zero for two in factual items, I question your
viewpoint as it is/was based on notions.

It is also extremely odd that you claim your smoke detectors cost $150
each. *A 20 year old smoke detector - is that in 1989 dollars? *They
still make it...? *Give me a model number. *A typical Honeywell
wireless (more expensive than line voltage) smoke detector is under a
$100 anywhere, and since the OP is talking about checking a circuit,
the run of the mill detector would be somewhere between $35 and $50.
The average three bedroom house can easily be outfitted for ~$300.
That's every ten years.

Perhaps you've been fortunate and never lost anyone in a fire. *A
house on our street at my last house burned down and the wife died and
two of the sons were critically injured. *I'm not about to tell
people, "Eh, don't worry about the detectors - I'm sure they're fine",
just so they won't have to open their wallet.http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/.../1995-08-01_na...

R

150 is what my alarm co wants to have their tech do it, I cant believe
most folks with monitored alarms will DIY. Replace them in 10 or 20 if
you want, and dont forget the alarm system that controls everything,
after all you reminded me electroncs dont last forever. But its a
waste of money

On Oct 25, 10:34*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article *RicodJour wrote:

You're the one holding them up as some sort of authority.

Huh? *It's early, I was up late and I'm only halfway through my first
cup of coffee, so maybe I'm missing something here... *I'm holding up
the NFPA as some sort of authority? *WTF does that mean? *They ARE the
authority. *Have you ever read your state's fire code? *Why don't you
do a quick search of it and see how many times the NFPA is
referenced. *It's almost on every damn page!

Let's see, first you hint that you're surprised or offended that I'd
claim you're holding them up as an authority, and then you, uh, hold
them up as an authority. Maybe you should have another cup.

You misunderstood. I was dumbfounded that you would even bring into
question their authority. It has nothing to do with me referencing
them. It would be like you saying, "What the hell does the ICC know
about codes?"

Why would you assume that that report was the sum total of all of
their testing? *I love this part - you are "pretty sure" there is no
reasonable basis for what an impartial, non-profit testing agency
recommends.

Yep. If they had a reasonable basis, they'd state it. I don't care if
jesus pops down out of the clouds and tells me to put nitrogen in my
tires, if he can't tell me a scientifically valid reason to do it, I
won't do it. And I'll tell him to his bearded prophet face that it's
irresponsible and immoral to advocate things based on junk logic.

The NFPA did state it in their recommendation. You choose to ignore
the authority because you have issues with authority.

You choose to ignore something, based on no data other than your
personal observation, and assume that an international agency is
fabricating data in some Machiavellian scheme? *That about sum it up?

I don't doubt that 1/2 the detectors that failed were over 10 yrs. old.
What I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that that fact alone doesn't
mean jack ****. See HeyBub's post about cause and effect.

The one with the joke attempts and nonsense?

R

In article
,
RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 25, 8:08*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

Correlation does not imply causation.

Ummm, yes, it does.


Bzzzt. Sorry, it absolutely doesn't, but thanks for playing. Maybe you
were sick the day they taught logic in school.

On Oct 25, 10:42*am, ransley wrote:

150 is what my alarm co wants to have their tech do it, I cant believe
most folks with monitored alarms will DIY. Replace them in 10 or 20 if
you want, and dont forget the alarm system that controls everything,
after all you reminded me electroncs dont last forever. But its a
waste of money

Oh, so you mean the installed price is $150 for a new one. Not the 20
year old units you have. You're a handy guy, did you ever see an
alarm tech do anything other than hooking up his computer to program
your panel that you couldn't do yourself? Like I said - you can buy a
quality smoke detector for forty or fifty bucks. How much do you pay
a month for your central monitoring? What does that work out to for
ten years?

Unless you are in a really sketchy neighborhood, it's rather unlikely
that the burglar alarm part of the system will pay for itself. It's
also likely that you will not be at home when the bad guys break in,
so all that happens is you lose some stuff which is probably insured
anyway. Having working smoke alarms doubles the likelihood that
people will survive a fire. That's another type of insurance isn't
it? It's also another type of risk entirely.

This newsgroup is full of DIYers, and more specifically the OP is
asking a specific question that you did not answer. Instead you gave
him your opinion which is based on your opinion and nothing more. You
find it convenient to ignore an independent testing and standards
organization, whose recommendation you were unaware of, because it
doesn't agree with your opinion.

Your alarm company has something to gain by installing a new one for
you. What does the NFPA have to gain?

R

Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 25, 8:08 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Correlation does not imply causation.
Ummm, yes, it does.


Bzzzt. Sorry, it absolutely doesn't, but thanks for playing. Maybe you
were sick the day they taught logic in school.

You're both wrong. No, correlation doesn't mean 2 things are actually
related, but it shouldn't be ignored. Some as-yet-unknown 3rd condition
could be causing both observed conditions. When trying to figure
something out, if you have no other clues, correlation is a common place
to start looking.

--
aem sends...

On Oct 25, 1:19Â*pm, aemeijers wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article Â*RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:08 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

Correlation does not imply causation.
Ummm, yes, it does. Â*

Bzzzt. Sorry, it absolutely doesn't, but thanks for playing. Maybe you
were sick the day they taught logic in school.

You're both wrong. No, correlation doesn't mean 2 things are actually
related, but it shouldn't be ignored. Some as-yet-unknown 3rd condition
could be causing both observed conditions. When trying to figure
something out, if you have no other clues, correlation is a common place
to start looking.

There are a few definitions to the word implied.
im‹…ply /ɪmˈplaɪ/
€“verb (used with object), -plied, -ply‹…ing.
1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words
implied a lack of faith.
2. (of words) to signify or mean.
3. to involve as a necessary circumstance: Speech implies a speaker.
4. Obsolete. to enfold.

As definitions in a dictionary are listed by how common the usage, and
since nearly everybody uses the word in the context of definition 1 or
2, where exactly am I wrong?

I never said that ten year old units are always dead. I was saying
that older units are more likely to malfunction and the risk of a dead
unit outweighs the reward of keeping a couple hundred bucks in your
pocket. More importantly, it's not my research even though I share
the opinion of the NFPA. Take it up with them.

R

HeyBub wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Test button test is not real test. Use real smoke and flame(candle) to
test it.
Or spray made for testing. Commercial guys use it.
I replace them every 10 years. Mine are hard wired with 10 year Li.
battery back up. I do same with gas detectors.

So, do you replace them because:
a) It's been ten years, or
b) Because they failed the smoke-in-a-can test?


Some fails some does not but to be on the safe side.
Doesn't cost a lot to replace them all.

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:08 am, "HeyBub" wrote:

Correlation does not imply causation.

Ummm, yes, it does. Correlation does not establish absolute
causation, but it certainly implies a link.

You may be on to something. I recently read a report about pickles being
dangerous! It was observed that all the people who ate pickles before 1900
were, today, either: a) Dead, or b) Had white hair and no teeth.

To test whether this correlation implied a valid correlation, experimenters
force-fed five pounds of pickles per day to laboratory rats. They discovered
that the rats developed distended stomachs and became lethargic. (The rats
were already white, so they couldn't test that part of the observation.)

Why this discovery has not made it to the main-stream media is a mystery.
Obviously there is a conspiracy involving Vlasic and NBC.

Use caution around pickles, particularly eye-protection when drinking pickle
juice from the jar before all the pickles are gone.



Half the defective smoke detectors
being over ten years old may be due to other causes:

* They came from dirty homes and the dust-bunnies interfered with
proper operation. It's a fact that half the homes in America are
dirtier than the median.

This is true.

* Ten years ago, there was a big influx of Chinese smoke detector
circuitry made with Melamine.

This is an attempt at a joke.

We won't know for sure until we can tabulate the number of children who ate
smoke detectors and developed kidney problems.


* ALL of the failed smoke detectors had their batteries removed to
eliminate the nagging chirp.

This is nonsense.

Nope.

[Wikipedia]
"The first commercial smoke detectors came to market in 1969. Today they are
installed in 93% of US homes and 85% of UK homes. However it is estimated
that any given time over 30% of these alarms don't work, as users remove the
batteries, or forget to replace them."

[Department of Homeland Security, FEMA]
" First, the 12% of homes without alarms have more than half of the fires;
second, it is estimated that a third of the smoke alarms in place are not
working, often due to failure to replace a worn out battery..."
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pyfff/smkalarm.html

[Western Journal of Medicine, National Institutes of Health]
"Some failures are due to malfunction of the alarm itself, some are due to a
dead battery, and some do not function because the battery has been
removed..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071009/

And several thousand other references.




It's poor practice to make decisions based on assumptions about
cause and effect.

If one gets exercised over the "ten year = failure" business, here's
an even more shocking revelation: Virtually ALL of the failed smoke
detectors were colored white!

Beware.

If you don't have any information to add, you shouldn't.


You added: "This is true," "This is an attempt at a joke," and "This is
nonsense."

I applaud your significant contributions to the thread and stand in awe.

Your last admonition was somewhat confusing: If I don't have any information
to add, I can't very well add any information! I suspect, however, that's
there's a hidden meaning which I will eventually puzzle-out.

Tony Hwang wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Tony Hwang wrote:
Hi,
Test button test is not real test. Use real smoke and flame(candle)
to test it.
Or spray made for testing. Commercial guys use it.
I replace them every 10 years. Mine are hard wired with 10 year Li.
battery back up. I do same with gas detectors.

So, do you replace them because:
a) It's been ten years, or
b) Because they failed the smoke-in-a-can test?


Some fails some does not but to be on the safe side.
Doesn't cost a lot to replace them all.

Makes sense. At least it keeps you from blowing smoke.

I heard that in one experiment, 10 out of 10 lab rats dipped
in hot fudge promptly died. Ban hot fudge!

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


"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
You may be on to something. I recently read a report about
pickles being
dangerous! It was observed that all the people who ate
pickles before 1900
were, today, either: a) Dead, or b) Had white hair and no
teeth.

To test whether this correlation implied a valid
correlation, experimenters
force-fed five pounds of pickles per day to laboratory rats.
They discovered
that the rats developed distended stomachs and became
lethargic. (The rats
were already white, so they couldn't test that part of the
observation.)

Why this discovery has not made it to the main-stream media
is a mystery.
Obviously there is a conspiracy involving Vlasic and NBC.

Use caution around pickles, particularly eye-protection when
drinking pickle
juice from the jar before all the pickles are gone.

You know, removing batteries is highly effective at stopping
the chirp. Well, except for me.

Several weeks ago, I was about to leave for church, and the
smoke detector in the hall chirped. So, I got it down and
went to check the battery. Battery was fine, but I put a new
one in anyway. And then it chirped, again. I remembered
there was a detector in the bedroom, so I checked that one.
Also OK. Finally, I took out both batteries from both units,
and stood it the hall. The detector chirped, again. By this
time I was really puzzled. And late for church.

I did figure it out after a while. When I got the new smoke
detector, I absent mindedly took the old one off the wall,
and threw it up on top of the shelf in the hall. Figured it
was extra protection. Have two in the hall instead of one.
What I didn't count on was the low battery confusion.

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


"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
* ALL of the failed smoke detectors had their batteries
removed to
eliminate the nagging chirp.

This is nonsense.

Nope.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
You know, removing batteries is highly effective at stopping
the chirp. Well, except for me.

Several weeks ago, I was about to leave for church, and the
smoke detector in the hall chirped. So, I got it down and
went to check the battery. Battery was fine, but I put a new
one in anyway. And then it chirped, again. I remembered
there was a detector in the bedroom, so I checked that one.
Also OK. Finally, I took out both batteries from both units,
and stood it the hall. The detector chirped, again. By this
time I was really puzzled. And late for church.

I did figure it out after a while. When I got the new smoke
detector, I absent mindedly took the old one off the wall,
and threw it up on top of the shelf in the hall. Figured it
was extra protection. Have two in the hall instead of one.
What I didn't count on was the low battery confusion.


I trust, when you eventually DID make it to church, you thanked God it
wasn't a chirping pickle.

As an aside, what do you store in your closet that might be the source of
spontaneous combustion?

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

I heard that in one experiment, 10 out of 10 lab rats dipped
in hot fudge promptly died. Ban hot fudge!


Lab rats cause cancer!

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"