Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:15:36 -0500, Bill Gill
wrote:

Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

What kind, brand of filters? They all differ based on quality and
brand, no?

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

If they are conventional filters, you can see dirt, they look
darker than a new one. Mine can easily go more than a year.
It depends how dusty your environment is, if you have pets, etc.
If you can barely tell the difference, you're probably changing
them too often. The typical 1" thick fiberglass type is almost
worthless. It will hopefully stop some stuff, but to do any
kind of reasonable trapping, you need one of the 4" thick ones
or an electrostatic.

On 9/30/2015 11:15 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what to look
for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

We buy the cheap(est) -- DIRT cheapest! -- filters and try to replace them
monthly. We tend to have a fair bit of dust/dirt from the climate in
which we live so they get "visibly dirty" pretty quickly.

Our thinking is that it's easier to remember to do something (trivial)
every month than to keep track of N month intervals.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:40:36 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

If they are conventional filters, you can see dirt, they look
darker than a new one. Mine can easily go more than a year.
It depends how dusty your environment is, if you have pets, etc.
If you can barely tell the difference, you're probably changing
them too often. The typical 1" thick fiberglass type is almost
worthless. It will hopefully stop some stuff, but to do any
kind of reasonable trapping, you need one of the 4" thick ones
or an electrostatic.

I don't know if 4" filter would fit on my furnace. At a minimum, some tin
snips would be required.

I have something very similar to this, where the filter slips into a 1" slot
in that space just above the left hand edge of the red & white label.

http://strandlund.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/62.jpg

The old furnace had a huge blower on the right hand side of the unit so
that is where the cold air returns are. When the new furnace was installed,
the cold air returns were just extended down to the floor and branched over
to the furnace, just like in that picture. It would take some duct-work work
to get a bigger filter in there someplace.

I use a 3 layered, reusable, washable filter that I blow out with a leaf blower about once a month. I blast it with the blower in the opposite
direction of the air-flow arrow and watch the dust fly. I also take it
apart and wash the foam sheets at least once a year.

I listen for the sound to change.

As the filter loads up and air resistance increases, the sound from the return area gets higher pitched. Then I change them.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:12:01 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

Our thinking is that it's easier to remember to do something (trivial)
every month than to keep track of N month intervals.


I write on my kitchen calendar to check and change filters
every 3 months. No problem keeping track of when to do
this.

Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

Do you check air filter in your car? Likewise see it against light or
sun.

Don Y wrote:
On 9/30/2015 11:15 AM, Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say
what to look
for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

We buy the cheap(est) -- DIRT cheapest! -- filters and try to replace them
monthly. We tend to have a fair bit of dust/dirt from the climate in
which we live so they get "visibly dirty" pretty quickly.

Our thinking is that it's easier to remember to do something (trivial)
every month than to keep track of N month intervals.

Our filter is 16x25x5 pleated. I stick with MERV 10 rated. replace every
6 month. I buy them 6 in a box. Costs approx. 100.00. some
times I use electronic filter turning it on.

On 9/30/2015 1:32 PM, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:12:01 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

Our thinking is that it's easier to remember to do something (trivial)
every month than to keep track of N month intervals.


I write on my kitchen calendar to check and change filters
every 3 months. No problem keeping track of when to do
this.

And when to fertilize the citrus trees, when to change the batteries
in the smoke detectors, when the roof needs to be repainted, when
the swamp cooler pads need to be serviced, etc.

We find it easier to just put things in very regular schedules:
e.g., instead of fertilizing three times/year (as recommended),
we fertilize monthly; cooler gets serviced at end of season
with pads replaced (instead of waiting for the pads to *need*
to be replaced); smoke detector batteries on New Years Eve;
roof gets 20% serviced each year -- instead of once every 5
years; etc.

"Don Y" wrote in message
...
..

We buy the cheap(est) -- DIRT cheapest! -- filters and try to replace them
monthly. We tend to have a fair bit of dust/dirt from the climate in
which we live so they get "visibly dirty" pretty quickly.

Our thinking is that it's easier to remember to do something (trivial)
every month than to keep track of N month intervals.


As there is just the wife and I here and we never open the windows we do
about the same thing. Buy the ones that come in a pack of 4 or 5 for around
$ 5. That is only about $ 10 to $ 15 every year. We change them on the odd
months and they never look dirty. Had the coils cleaned after about 8 years
and the man said the inside ones did not need it, but did it anyway as it
was part of the required job.

This is with a heat pump in the middle of NC so it
runs most of the year, heating or cooling.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:40:36 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

If they are conventional filters, you can see dirt, they look
darker than a new one. Mine can easily go more than a year.
It depends how dusty your environment is, if you have pets, etc.
If you can barely tell the difference, you're probably changing
them too often. The typical 1" thick fiberglass type is almost
worthless. It will hopefully stop some stuff, but to do any
kind of reasonable trapping, you need one of the 4" thick ones
or an electrostatic.

I don't know if 4" filter would fit on my furnace. At a minimum, some tin
snips would be required.


The 4" type go into a filter holder that's between the return
plenum and the furnace and it's designed to accept them. It's
similar idea to where an electrostatic type filter would go.
You couldn't put a 4" one into my furnace either, all it will
accept is the minimal 1" type. Not sure if it's 4" or maybe
5", but whatever it's the larger, pleated type.

On 9/30/2015 2:15 PM, Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill


It's entirely a judgement call. Hard to give any
exact figures over the internet. Trust your own
judgement.

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

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:49:16 PM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

Do you check air filter in your car? Likewise see it against light or
sun.

Filter"s" (plural)

I wonder how many people don't even know that there is a cabin air filter in their car.

I have bought 4 used cars in the past three years (3 in the past 12 months) and everyone of them had a fairly clean engine compartment filter but a cabin filter that was black and filled with leaves, bees and other debris.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:44:25 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:40:36 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

If they are conventional filters, you can see dirt, they look
darker than a new one. Mine can easily go more than a year.
It depends how dusty your environment is, if you have pets, etc.
If you can barely tell the difference, you're probably changing
them too often. The typical 1" thick fiberglass type is almost
worthless. It will hopefully stop some stuff, but to do any
kind of reasonable trapping, you need one of the 4" thick ones
or an electrostatic.

I don't know if 4" filter would fit on my furnace. At a minimum, some tin
snips would be required.


The 4" type go into a filter holder that's between the return
plenum and the furnace and it's designed to accept them. It's
similar idea to where an electrostatic type filter would go.
You couldn't put a 4" one into my furnace either, all it will
accept is the minimal 1" type. Not sure if it's 4" or maybe
5", but whatever it's the larger, pleated type.

That was my point. If I want to "upgrade" to a 4" filter, I would have to design my own filter holder. It could be done (it's just duct-work work) but I'm not going to do it.

On 9/30/2015 7:31 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:49:16 PM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

Do you check air filter in your car? Likewise see it against light or
sun.

Filter"s" (plural)

I wonder how many people don't even know that there is a cabin air filter in their car.

I have bought 4 used cars in the past three years (3 in the past 12 months) and everyone of them had a fairly clean engine compartment filter but a cabin filter that was black and filled with leaves, bees and other debris.

Partly because they don't know it is there and partly because it
is very hard to replace. Mine is coming up for replacement and
it is a hassle. In my car I have to pull the glove box out of
the dash to get the filter out of its holder. Whenever I get the
oil changed they always show me a really bad cabin filter and
ask if I want to replace mine. I know the one they show me is
not the one out of my car, because they wouldn't pull it out
and I don't figure it is as bad as the one they show me. At
least it wasn't the last time I replaced it. They don't say that
it is my filter, they just suggest replacing it.

Bill

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:15:36 -0500, Bill Gill
wrote:

Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

What kind of fuel are you burning?

trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:40:36 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

If they are conventional filters, you can see dirt, they look
darker than a new one. Mine can easily go more than a year.
It depends how dusty your environment is, if you have pets, etc.
If you can barely tell the difference, you're probably changing
them too often. The typical 1" thick fiberglass type is almost
worthless. It will hopefully stop some stuff, but to do any
kind of reasonable trapping, you need one of the 4" thick ones
or an electrostatic.

I don't know if 4" filter would fit on my furnace. At a minimum, some tin
snips would be required.


The 4" type go into a filter holder that's between the return
plenum and the furnace and it's designed to accept them. It's
similar idea to where an electrostatic type filter would go.
You couldn't put a 4" one into my furnace either, all it will
accept is the minimal 1" type. Not sure if it's 4" or maybe
5", but whatever it's the larger, pleated type.

In my house.
actually original filter was Honeywell electronic. 16x25x5 pleated
fit perfect in it's place. I alternate between pleated, or electronic
one.(cleaned in DW)

DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:49:16 PM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

Do you check air filter in your car? Likewise see it against light or
sun.

Filter"s" (plural)

I wonder how many people don't even know that there is a cabin air filter in their car.

I have bought 4 used cars in the past three years (3 in the past 12 months) and everyone of them had a fairly clean engine compartment filter but a cabin filter that was black and filled with leaves, bees and other debris.

For some cars replacing cabin filter is a PITA. Lucky all our cars,
it is very easy. Just drop the glove box and there it is. For engine
air filter, I use reusable K&N filter which is washed and oiled every
12 months.

On 9/30/2015 2:21 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Don Y" wrote in message
...
..

We buy the cheap(est) -- DIRT cheapest! -- filters and try to replace them
monthly. We tend to have a fair bit of dust/dirt from the climate in
which we live so they get "visibly dirty" pretty quickly.

Our thinking is that it's easier to remember to do something (trivial)
every month than to keep track of N month intervals.


As there is just the wife and I here and we never open the windows we do
about the same thing. Buy the ones that come in a pack of 4 or 5 for around
$ 5. That is only about $ 10 to $ 15 every year. We change them on the odd
months and they never look dirty. Had the coils cleaned after about 8 years
and the man said the inside ones did not need it, but did it anyway as it
was part of the required job.

Or intake plenum feeds the bottom of the furnace -- so, the ~1" slot
determines the maximum thickness for the filter. We tried pleated
HEPA filters, etc. and didn't notice any difference -- other than
the money we paid for them!

This is with a heat pump in the middle of NC so it
runs most of the year, heating or cooling.

Here, the heating season is relatively short. ACbrrr runs for at least 7
mos "full time" (April - Oct) if we exploit night air for the early and
late portions of the cooling season (e.g., our nighttime lows are still
high 70's with 100 during daytime -- though that should start to
drop to low 90's in a week or two)

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 9:36:36 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
On 9/30/2015 7:31 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:49:16 PM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that..
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

Do you check air filter in your car? Likewise see it against light or
sun.

Filter"s" (plural)

I wonder how many people don't even know that there is a cabin air filter in their car.

I have bought 4 used cars in the past three years (3 in the past 12 months) and everyone of them had a fairly clean engine compartment filter but a cabin filter that was black and filled with leaves, bees and other debris..

Partly because they don't know it is there and partly because it
is very hard to replace. Mine is coming up for replacement and
it is a hassle. In my car I have to pull the glove box out of
the dash to get the filter out of its holder. Whenever I get the
oil changed they always show me a really bad cabin filter and
ask if I want to replace mine. I know the one they show me is
not the one out of my car, because they wouldn't pull it out
and I don't figure it is as bad as the one they show me. At
least it wasn't the last time I replaced it. They don't say that
it is my filter, they just suggest replacing it.

Bill

On an 04 Honda Odyssey, you not only have to remove the glove box, which requires removing a kick panel under the dash, but you actually have to *cut* out a plastic brace that runs across the front of dash behind the glove box.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 3:53:26 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

On 9/30/2015 1:32 PM, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:12:01 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

Our thinking is that it's easier to remember to do something (trivial)
every month than to keep track of N month intervals.


I write on my kitchen calendar to check and change filters
every 3 months. No problem keeping track of when to do
this.

And when to fertilize the citrus trees, when to change the batteries
in the smoke detectors, when the roof needs to be repainted, when
the swamp cooler pads need to be serviced, etc.

I don't have any fruit trees.
The smoke alarms 'tweets' when the batteries needs to be changed.
You paint your roof???
No swamp cooler here, just central heat & air.

We find it easier to just put things in very regular schedules:
e.g., instead of fertilizing three times/year (as recommended),
we fertilize monthly; cooler gets serviced at end of season
with pads replaced (instead of waiting for the pads to *need*
to be replaced); smoke detector batteries on New Years Eve;
roof gets 20% serviced each year -- instead of once every 5
years; etc.

The cat does get his flea drop medication the first day of
_every_ month. And the rechargeable tooth brush is run down
completely and recharged the first day of every month.

On 9/30/2015 10:12 PM, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 3:53:26 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

On 9/30/2015 1:32 PM, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:12:01 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

Our thinking is that it's easier to remember to do something (trivial)
every month than to keep track of N month intervals.


I write on my kitchen calendar to check and change filters
every 3 months. No problem keeping track of when to do
this.

And when to fertilize the citrus trees, when to change the batteries
in the smoke detectors, when the roof needs to be repainted, when
the swamp cooler pads need to be serviced, etc.

I don't have any fruit trees.

We have 6 citrus. Ensuring regular watering and fertilizing
ensures large, tastey fruit (we just finished LAST year's OJ...
now we have to wait until January for the next crop -- though
the lemons will come due before then)

The smoke alarms 'tweets' when the batteries needs to be changed.

We don't wait until it starts it's INCESSANT chirping. Do you
want to listen to it for an hour, day, week before you get around
to replacing the battery? Easier to be proactive and replace it
before it complains.

You paint your roof???

Yes. Common practice is ~every 7 years. If you *wait* 7 years,
chances are you will end up with problems -- things that have
"gone south" at year #3 and become problems long before #7.

So, *planning* on doing a portion of it every year reduces the
effort required for "year #7 (or, year #5, in our case) AND
ensures the roof gets looked at often enough that any problems
get caught before they become "trouble". E.g., our roof is
over 20 years old (25+) and still "intact". All neighbors
have had theirs replaced in that time.

No swamp cooler here, just central heat & air.

Heat, air and cooler. As cooler is on roof, it requires maintenance
(make sure water line doesn't freeze in winter, make sure it is
cleaned out -- mold, etc. -- at end of season, etc.) each season.

We find it easier to just put things in very regular schedules:
e.g., instead of fertilizing three times/year (as recommended),
we fertilize monthly; cooler gets serviced at end of season
with pads replaced (instead of waiting for the pads to *need*
to be replaced); smoke detector batteries on New Years Eve;
roof gets 20% serviced each year -- instead of once every 5
years; etc.

The cat does get his flea drop medication the first day of
_every_ month. And the rechargeable tooth brush is run down
completely and recharged the first day of every month.

We try to do everything on a predefined schedule instead of
having to be "reactive" -- or, remember more "complex" schedules.
The effort is more expensive than the cost.

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 12:40:13 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

On 9/30/2015 10:12 PM, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 3:53:26 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

On 9/30/2015 1:32 PM, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:12:01 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

Our thinking is that it's easier to remember to do something (trivial)
every month than to keep track of N month intervals.


I write on my kitchen calendar to check and change filters
every 3 months. No problem keeping track of when to do
this.

And when to fertilize the citrus trees, when to change the batteries
in the smoke detectors, when the roof needs to be repainted, when
the swamp cooler pads need to be serviced, etc.

I don't have any fruit trees.

We have 6 citrus. Ensuring regular watering and fertilizing
ensures large, tastey fruit (we just finished LAST year's OJ...
now we have to wait until January for the next crop -- though
the lemons will come due before then)

Yippee Skippee

The smoke alarms 'tweets' when the batteries needs to be changed.

We don't wait until it starts it's INCESSANT chirping. Do you
want to listen to it for an hour, day, week before you get around
to replacing the battery? Easier to be proactive and replace it
before it complains.

I change it immediately upon hearing it tweet.

You paint your roof???

Yes. Common practice is ~every 7 years. If you *wait* 7 years,
chances are you will end up with problems -- things that have
"gone south" at year #3 and become problems long before #7.

You live in a trailer? That's the only people I know who
'paint" their roofs.

So, *planning* on doing a portion of it every year reduces the
effort required for "year #7 (or, year #5, in our case) AND
ensures the roof gets looked at often enough that any problems
get caught before they become "trouble". E.g., our roof is
over 20 years old (25+) and still "intact". All neighbors
have had theirs replaced in that time.

Ummm, ok.

No swamp cooler here, just central heat & air.

Heat, air and cooler. As cooler is on roof, it requires maintenance
(make sure water line doesn't freeze in winter, make sure it is
cleaned out -- mold, etc. -- at end of season, etc.) each season.

My central heat and air unit sits on a concrete pad
in the yard next to my house.

We find it easier to just put things in very regular schedules:
e.g., instead of fertilizing three times/year (as recommended),
we fertilize monthly; cooler gets serviced at end of season
with pads replaced (instead of waiting for the pads to *need*
to be replaced); smoke detector batteries on New Years Eve;
roof gets 20% serviced each year -- instead of once every 5
years; etc.

The cat does get his flea drop medication the first day of
_every_ month. And the rechargeable tooth brush is run down
completely and recharged the first day of every month.

We try to do everything on a predefined schedule instead of
having to be "reactive" -- or, remember more "complex" schedules.
The effort is more expensive than the cost.

Whatever works for YOU, my uncomplicated schedule works for ME.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 8:35:59 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:44:25 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:40:36 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

If they are conventional filters, you can see dirt, they look
darker than a new one. Mine can easily go more than a year.
It depends how dusty your environment is, if you have pets, etc.
If you can barely tell the difference, you're probably changing
them too often. The typical 1" thick fiberglass type is almost
worthless. It will hopefully stop some stuff, but to do any
kind of reasonable trapping, you need one of the 4" thick ones
or an electrostatic.

I don't know if 4" filter would fit on my furnace. At a minimum, some tin
snips would be required.


The 4" type go into a filter holder that's between the return
plenum and the furnace and it's designed to accept them. It's
similar idea to where an electrostatic type filter would go.
You couldn't put a 4" one into my furnace either, all it will
accept is the minimal 1" type. Not sure if it's 4" or maybe
5", but whatever it's the larger, pleated type.

That was my point. If I want to "upgrade" to a 4" filter, I would have to design my own filter holder. It could be done (it's just duct-work work) but I'm not going to do it.

You don't need to design the filter holder, they are available in
standard sizes that mate with furnaces:

https://www.nationalairwarehouse.com...e-cabinet.html

I put one in when I replaced my furnace 4 years ago. But it would require
some duct work.

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 10:18:44 PM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:49:16 PM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

Do you check air filter in your car? Likewise see it against light or
sun.

Filter"s" (plural)

I wonder how many people don't even know that there is a cabin air filter in their car.

I have bought 4 used cars in the past three years (3 in the past 12 months) and everyone of them had a fairly clean engine compartment filter but a cabin filter that was black and filled with leaves, bees and other debris.

For some cars replacing cabin filter is a PITA. Lucky all our cars,
it is very easy. Just drop the glove box and there it is. For engine
air filter, I use reusable K&N filter which is washed and oiled every
12 months.

It's also easy on BMW X5, goes in from an access cover between the windshield
wipers.

On 9/30/2015 8:53 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:15:36 -0500, Bill Gill
wrote:

Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

What kind of fuel are you burning?

It's gas, but what difference does that make? The exhaust
goes up the flue, not into the house. What the filter takes
out is dust in the air inside the house.

Bill

On 9/30/2015 11:40 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

If they are conventional filters, you can see dirt, they look
darker than a new one. Mine can easily go more than a year.
It depends how dusty your environment is, if you have pets, etc.
If you can barely tell the difference, you're probably changing
them too often. The typical 1" thick fiberglass type is almost
worthless. It will hopefully stop some stuff, but to do any
kind of reasonable trapping, you need one of the 4" thick ones
or an electrostatic.

Bull****

On 10/1/2015 2:54 AM, ItsJoanNotJoann wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 12:40:13 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

Our thinking is that it's easier to remember to do something (trivial)
every month than to keep track of N month intervals.

I write on my kitchen calendar to check and change filters
every 3 months. No problem keeping track of when to do
this.

And when to fertilize the citrus trees, when to change the batteries
in the smoke detectors, when the roof needs to be repainted, when
the swamp cooler pads need to be serviced, etc.

I don't have any fruit trees.

We have 6 citrus. Ensuring regular watering and fertilizing
ensures large, tastey fruit (we just finished LAST year's OJ...
now we have to wait until January for the next crop -- though
the lemons will come due before then)

Yippee Skippee

We watch neighbors with fruit trees that fail to produce "useful"
fruit -- simply because they don't invest the effort beyond "token
waterings". Or, let the fruit rot on the tree because they
aren't inclined to pick it.

We deliver ~400 (large) limes to the laundry at one of the local
hospitals for the (primarily Mexican) help there to enjoy
(else, we would discard them -- our yearly lime needs are met with
just a few dozen limes!). This year, we'll probably give the
excess Navels to the food bank. The lemons will end up in my
tea...

The smoke alarms 'tweets' when the batteries needs to be changed.

We don't wait until it starts it's INCESSANT chirping. Do you
want to listen to it for an hour, day, week before you get around
to replacing the battery? Easier to be proactive and replace it
before it complains.

I change it immediately upon hearing it tweet.

We don't keep "spare batteries" (for anything) on hand. I suspect
this is true of many folks as it seems common for people to UNPLUG
their smoke detectors when they start chirping. Then, forget
to buy the battery and end up operating with no smoke detectors
in place (at least, we hear of homes lost to fire wherein the
smoke detectors had no batteries in them -- this seems like a
logical explanation of what transpired).

You paint your roof???

Yes. Common practice is ~every 7 years. If you *wait* 7 years,
chances are you will end up with problems -- things that have
"gone south" at year #3 and become problems long before #7.

You live in a trailer? That's the only people I know who
'paint" their roofs.

I suspect 60-70% of the homes, here, are "frontier style" -- flat
roofs. A small percentage are shallow peaked with asphalt shingles
(which don't fare well in the heat/sun. Another group are ceramic
tile (which are expensive to maintain).

Those with flat roofs regularly paint their roofs -- *not* to
"seal" the roof (which is what most folks think) but, rather, to
keep the sun's rays from degrading the underlying felt. There is
also some benefit as it helps reflect heat off the roof instead
of letting it soak through the roof to the living space
immediately below.

So, *planning* on doing a portion of it every year reduces the
effort required for "year #7 (or, year #5, in our case) AND
ensures the roof gets looked at often enough that any problems
get caught before they become "trouble". E.g., our roof is
over 20 years old (25+) and still "intact". All neighbors
have had theirs replaced in that time.

Ummm, ok.

At $5-8K, it's an expense you'd rather avoid!

No swamp cooler here, just central heat & air.

Heat, air and cooler. As cooler is on roof, it requires maintenance
(make sure water line doesn't freeze in winter, make sure it is
cleaned out -- mold, etc. -- at end of season, etc.) each season.

My central heat and air unit sits on a concrete pad
in the yard next to my house.

Our furnace is indoors. The ACcompressor on a concrete pad outside.
Swamp cooler is on the roof. Folks with heat pumps tend to have
the entire unit located on the roof. Some folks will install
AC compressor on roof as well (esp for a retrofit where it is
not practical to route refrigerant lines to a pad adjacent to
the house *from* the furnace which is typically centrally
located.

Some folks have two or three AC units (very large homes).

We find it easier to just put things in very regular schedules:
e.g., instead of fertilizing three times/year (as recommended),
we fertilize monthly; cooler gets serviced at end of season
with pads replaced (instead of waiting for the pads to *need*
to be replaced); smoke detector batteries on New Years Eve;
roof gets 20% serviced each year -- instead of once every 5
years; etc.

The cat does get his flea drop medication the first day of
_every_ month. And the rechargeable tooth brush is run down
completely and recharged the first day of every month.

We try to do everything on a predefined schedule instead of
having to be "reactive" -- or, remember more "complex" schedules.
The effort is more expensive than the cost.

Whatever works for YOU, my uncomplicated schedule works for ME.

Experience has taught us that *this* is what works best for us.
We don't "discover" the filter needs to be replaced and then
"discover" we don't have a replacement on hand. Instead, we
treat it like any other "scheduled maintenance" item and
replace it on *our* schedule (instead of *its* schedule) so
we always know when we will *need* replacements.

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 8:02:37 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 8:35:59 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 5:44:25 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:40:36 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:15:43 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
Everybody says to inspect your furnace filters, but they don't say what
to look for. On the TV news they always say it, then show a filter that
is completely clogged. Obviously they should be replaced before that.
So what should I look for to decide if I need to replace them. I have
been replacing them every 3 months, but when I do I can barely tell
the difference between the old ones and the new ones.

Bill

If they are conventional filters, you can see dirt, they look
darker than a new one. Mine can easily go more than a year.
It depends how dusty your environment is, if you have pets, etc.
If you can barely tell the difference, you're probably changing
them too often. The typical 1" thick fiberglass type is almost
worthless. It will hopefully stop some stuff, but to do any
kind of reasonable trapping, you need one of the 4" thick ones
or an electrostatic.

I don't know if 4" filter would fit on my furnace. At a minimum, some tin
snips would be required.


The 4" type go into a filter holder that's between the return
plenum and the furnace and it's designed to accept them. It's
similar idea to where an electrostatic type filter would go.
You couldn't put a 4" one into my furnace either, all it will
accept is the minimal 1" type. Not sure if it's 4" or maybe
5", but whatever it's the larger, pleated type.

That was my point. If I want to "upgrade" to a 4" filter, I would have to design my own filter holder. It could be done (it's just duct-work work) but I'm not going to do it.

You don't need to design the filter holder, they are available in
standard sizes that mate with furnaces:

https://www.nationalairwarehouse.com...e-cabinet.html

Oh, sorry...I'll re-phrase...

"If I want to "upgrade" to a 4" filter, I would have to design my own filter
holder *holder*."

I put one in when I replaced my furnace 4 years ago. But it would require
some duct work.

Why does that sound so familiar?

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 12:40:49 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:


The smoke alarms 'tweets' when the batteries needs to be changed.

We don't wait until it starts it's INCESSANT chirping. Do you
want to listen to it for an hour, day, week before you get around
to replacing the battery? Easier to be proactive and replace it
before it complains.

I change it immediately upon hearing it tweet.

We don't keep "spare batteries" (for anything) on hand.

Not even for flashlights? That seems risky. Do you change them on a
regular schedule whether they need them or not? Do you not have any battery
operated flashlights? That seems risky too.

I suspect
this is true of many folks as it seems common for people to UNPLUG
their smoke detectors when they start chirping. Then, forget
to buy the battery and end up operating with no smoke detectors
in place (at least, we hear of homes lost to fire wherein the
smoke detectors had no batteries in them -- this seems like a
logical explanation of what transpired).

How "common" do you think this is?

Yes, you hear about the homes/lives that were lost to those fires, but you
don't hear as much about the people whose homes and/or lives were saved
because their detectors worked. The good news doesn't often make the
headlines because it doesn't sell.

"Family doesn't die in house fire. House saved. More at 11."

My guess is that "common" is not the right word to apply to the sad
situations.


Just FYI...

Many new-ish battery operated smoke and/or CO detectors are designed such
that they cannot be (easily) mounted if they don't have batteries installed.
A spring loaded tab extends in such a way as to prevent either mounting or
(with some older models) from closing the battery door.

Obviously, making the mounting impossible/very difficult is the best method
to help prevent the "use' of a detector without batteries. The user would
have to physically put the detector someplace else (hopefully not in a
drawer) while they run out and buy batteries.

On 10/1/2015 10:04 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 12:40:49 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

The smoke alarms 'tweets' when the batteries needs to be changed.

We don't wait until it starts it's INCESSANT chirping. Do you
want to listen to it for an hour, day, week before you get around
to replacing the battery? Easier to be proactive and replace it
before it complains.

I change it immediately upon hearing it tweet.

We don't keep "spare batteries" (for anything) on hand.

Not even for flashlights? That seems risky. Do you change them on a
regular schedule whether they need them or not? Do you not have any battery
operated flashlights? That seems risky too.

We have two or three of the larger "maglites", a couple of small
"pen-light" style with rechargeable batteries, and numerous of
the "disposable" HF offerings (again, with rechargeable cells).

We also have several "crank" flashlights and shake-lights.

In an outage, we use CFL's powered by any of the ~13 UPS's
scattered around the house.

Most "batteries" here are AA or AAA (or, the larger gelled electrolyte/AGM
batteries in the UPS's) -- all these small flashlights, remote controls,
electronic magnifiers, etc. So, we keep 4 spares in a charger and
swap them out with whatever needs them when the time comes.

Aside from the CO/smoke detectors, *nothing* uses 9V batteries so
no reason to keep them on hand.

I suspect
this is true of many folks as it seems common for people to UNPLUG
their smoke detectors when they start chirping. Then, forget
to buy the battery and end up operating with no smoke detectors
in place (at least, we hear of homes lost to fire wherein the
smoke detectors had no batteries in them -- this seems like a
logical explanation of what transpired).

How "common" do you think this is?

It do4esn't matter how common it is to the folks who failed to
replace their batteries! : It's not common for folks to get
struck by lightning -- yet I don't run outside and stand under
a tree when we have an electrical storm! :

Yes, you hear about the homes/lives that were lost to those fires, but you
don't hear as much about the people whose homes and/or lives were saved
because their detectors worked. The good news doesn't often make the
headlines because it doesn't sell.

Of course! But, they were saved because they *did* replace their
batteries. As *we* do! The difference is, we don't wait for the
detectors to chirp to prompt us to do so.

When detector 1 chirps, do you JUST replace it's battery? What about
the other detectors? Should you anticipate that they will be needing
replacement soon? Or, wait for them to start chirping as well?
(How is being proactive in that case different from my approach of
anticipating detector 1's failure?!)

"Family doesn't die in house fire. House saved. More at 11."

My guess is that "common" is not the right word to apply to the sad
situations.

Note that modern smoke/CO detectors *acknowledge* this practice
by requiring 110VAC operation (with battery for "backup") *or*
having 10 year batteries, etc.

So, obviously "enough" people died because they (effectively)
disabled their detectors to merit changes in the way those
detectors are designed/made. That suggests *someone* thought
it enough of a problem to address it!

Just FYI...

Many new-ish battery operated smoke and/or CO detectors are designed such
that they cannot be (easily) mounted if they don't have batteries installed.
A spring loaded tab extends in such a way as to prevent either mounting or
(with some older models) from closing the battery door.

Obviously, making the mounting impossible/very difficult is the best method
to help prevent the "use' of a detector without batteries. The user would
have to physically put the detector someplace else (hopefully not in a
drawer) while they run out and buy batteries.

Most detectors are *easily* removed. Ours require a twist to unlock the
detector from the base, then unplug the three conductor cable assembly.
Thereafter, where you put the detector is up to you -- the *house*
won't complain that the detector is "missing"!

What *will* get complaints is a detector that chirps every few minutes
until you "feed it". Given how easily it can be disconnected, it's
obvious why so many *do* get disconnected -- "while I remember to run out
and buy batteries" (which I suspect is rarely done "right now")

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 1:22:05 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/1/2015 10:04 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 12:40:49 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

The smoke alarms 'tweets' when the batteries needs to be changed.

We don't wait until it starts it's INCESSANT chirping. Do you
want to listen to it for an hour, day, week before you get around
to replacing the battery? Easier to be proactive and replace it
before it complains.

I change it immediately upon hearing it tweet.

We don't keep "spare batteries" (for anything) on hand.

Not even for flashlights? That seems risky. Do you change them on a
regular schedule whether they need them or not? Do you not have any battery
operated flashlights? That seems risky too.

We have two or three of the larger "maglites", a couple of small
"pen-light" style with rechargeable batteries, and numerous of
the "disposable" HF offerings (again, with rechargeable cells).

We also have several "crank" flashlights and shake-lights.

In an outage, we use CFL's powered by any of the ~13 UPS's
scattered around the house.

Most "batteries" here are AA or AAA (or, the larger gelled electrolyte/AGM
batteries in the UPS's) -- all these small flashlights, remote controls,
electronic magnifiers, etc. So, we keep 4 spares in a charger and
swap them out with whatever needs them when the time comes.

Aside from the CO/smoke detectors, *nothing* uses 9V batteries so
no reason to keep them on hand.

I suspect
this is true of many folks as it seems common for people to UNPLUG
their smoke detectors when they start chirping. Then, forget
to buy the battery and end up operating with no smoke detectors
in place (at least, we hear of homes lost to fire wherein the
smoke detectors had no batteries in them -- this seems like a
logical explanation of what transpired).

How "common" do you think this is?

It do4esn't matter how common it is to the folks who failed to
replace their batteries! : It's not common for folks to get
struck by lightning -- yet I don't run outside and stand under
a tree when we have an electrical storm! :

You're changing the subject instead of answering my question. I didn't ask
how about terrible it is for those that have been impacted by their mistake,
I asked you how "common" you think it is.

You said it was "common" for people to remove the batteries and leave them
out. I say it isn't. A tragedy, yes, but common? I think not.


Yes, you hear about the homes/lives that were lost to those fires, but you
don't hear as much about the people whose homes and/or lives were saved
because their detectors worked. The good news doesn't often make the
headlines because it doesn't sell.

Of course! But, they were saved because they *did* replace their
batteries. As *we* do! The difference is, we don't wait for the
detectors to chirp to prompt us to do so.

When detector 1 chirps, do you JUST replace it's battery? What about
the other detectors? Should you anticipate that they will be needing
replacement soon? Or, wait for them to start chirping as well?
(How is being proactive in that case different from my approach of
anticipating detector 1's failure?!)

"Family doesn't die in house fire. House saved. More at 11."

My guess is that "common" is not the right word to apply to the sad
situations.

Note that modern smoke/CO detectors *acknowledge* this practice
by requiring 110VAC operation (with battery for "backup") *or*
having 10 year batteries, etc.

10 year batteries are not required nor do all "modern" battery operated
detectors have 10 year batteries. "Modern" detectors that use standard
batteries are readily available on the consumer market.

Scroll down past the 10 year battery section he

http://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/.../smoke-alarms/



So, obviously "enough" people died because they (effectively)
disabled their detectors to merit changes in the way those
detectors are designed/made. That suggests *someone* thought
it enough of a problem to address it!

Addressed it by offering options, but not by *requiring* it.

A problem doesn't have to be "common" for it to be addressed. It is not
"common" for people to be killed by the Takata air bag inflator ripping
through their necks, yet over 23 million inflators have been recalled.

My only objection is to your use of the word "common". In terms of the
number of detectors installed, the practice of taking the batteries out,
and leaving them out, is not "common". An issue worth addressing?
Absolutely. Common? Until I see the numbers, I'll vote No.


Just FYI...

Many new-ish battery operated smoke and/or CO detectors are designed such
that they cannot be (easily) mounted if they don't have batteries installed.
A spring loaded tab extends in such a way as to prevent either mounting or
(with some older models) from closing the battery door.

Obviously, making the mounting impossible/very difficult is the best method
to help prevent the "use' of a detector without batteries. The user would
have to physically put the detector someplace else (hopefully not in a
drawer) while they run out and buy batteries.

Most detectors are *easily* removed. Ours require a twist to unlock the
detector from the base, then unplug the three conductor cable assembly.
Thereafter, where you put the detector is up to you -- the *house*
won't complain that the detector is "missing"!

I didn't say anything about detectors be hard to *remove*, I said that
the newer ones are difficult to *install* without batteries - as a safety
feature. Let me explain:

In the old days, you could twist the detector off the base, remove the
batteries from the back, and simply twist the detector back on, saying to
yourself "I'll pick up some batteries tomorrow". On some models, you could
open the front panel, take the batteries out and close the door. Tomorrow
comes and goes, as does the next day and the next, until that detector is
forgotten about and people die.

These days, most detectors will not allow the user to twist the detector
back onto the base without batteries installed. This adds a layer of safety
because the detector will (hopefully) be left out in the open as a reminder
that it has no batteries.


What *will* get complaints is a detector that chirps every few minutes
until you "feed it". Given how easily it can be disconnected, it's
obvious why so many *do* get disconnected -- "while I remember to run out
and buy batteries" (which I suspect is rarely done "right now")

See my paragraph above. A detector that can't be remounted without batteries
being installed first is much safer than the old style. Yes, you can still
disconnect it, but hopefully people will now say "I'll pick up some
batteries tomorrow. Since I can't reinstall this detector until I do, I'll
put it right "here" as a reminder."

When my basement CO detector came to the end of it's 7 year lifespan, I
took the batteries out to stop the chirping. I could not reinstall the
unit. I brought it upstairs, put it on the kitchen table and then
put my cars keys on top of it. I doubt that *I* would have reinstalled it
without the batteries anyway, but I'm sure that some folks would have. I'm
sure many lives have been saved because of that feature.

On 10/1/2015 12:23 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 1:22:05 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

I suspect
this is true of many folks as it seems common for people to UNPLUG
their smoke detectors when they start chirping. Then, forget
to buy the battery and end up operating with no smoke detectors
in place (at least, we hear of homes lost to fire wherein the
smoke detectors had no batteries in them -- this seems like a
logical explanation of what transpired).

How "common" do you think this is?

It do4esn't matter how common it is to the folks who failed to
replace their batteries! : It's not common for folks to get
struck by lightning -- yet I don't run outside and stand under
a tree when we have an electrical storm! :

You're changing the subject instead of answering my question. I didn't ask
how about terrible it is for those that have been impacted by their mistake,
I asked you how "common" you think it is.

You said it was "common" for people to remove the batteries and leave them
out. I say it isn't. A tragedy, yes, but common? I think not.

How long is "leave them out" to satisfy you? If they are "out" for an hour,
a day, a week? The time when they are not installed represents the time
when the detector is inoperative. The period of time when the occupants are
not protected.

Do people leave them out *forever*? Doubtful. Do they leave them out for
weeks at a time? Probably. How many things do you "drop everything" to
address the instant they draw attention to themselves (chirp, chirp)?
Or, do you put it on the shopping list for "next week"? Or, hope to
remember it??

From a 9/2015 NFPA report:

Smoke Alarm Power Sources
Hardwired smoke alarms were present in 48% of reported home fires with smoke
alarms. Alarms powered by battery only were present in in 46% of reported home
fires.

In reported home fires in which the fire was large enough to activate the
alarm,
- Hardwired smoke alarms operated 94% of the time.
- Battery-powered smoke alarms operated in four out of five (80%) fires.

Reasons that Smoke Alarms Did Not Operate when Present in Large Enough Fires
--------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In fires in which the smoke alarms were present but did not operate,
- Almost half (46%) of the smoke alarms had missing or disconnected
batteries. Nuisance alarms were the leading reason for disconnected
smoke alarms.
- Dead batteries caused one-quarter (24%) of the smoke alarm failures.
- Only 7% of the failures were due to hardwired power source problems,
including disconnected smoke alarms, power outages, and power shut-offs.

So, in response to your comment, below:
"Common? Until I see the numbers, I'll vote No."
I vote *yes* (70% of the fires!) -- unless you'd care to offer some OTHER
numbers?

Yes, you hear about the homes/lives that were lost to those fires, but you
don't hear as much about the people whose homes and/or lives were saved
because their detectors worked. The good news doesn't often make the
headlines because it doesn't sell.

Of course! But, they were saved because they *did* replace their
batteries. As *we* do! The difference is, we don't wait for the
detectors to chirp to prompt us to do so.

When detector 1 chirps, do you JUST replace it's battery? What about
the other detectors? Should you anticipate that they will be needing
replacement soon? Or, wait for them to start chirping as well?
(How is being proactive in that case different from my approach of
anticipating detector 1's failure?!)

"Family doesn't die in house fire. House saved. More at 11."

My guess is that "common" is not the right word to apply to the sad
situations.

Note that modern smoke/CO detectors *acknowledge* this practice
by requiring 110VAC operation (with battery for "backup") *or*
having 10 year batteries, etc.

10 year batteries are not required nor do all "modern" battery operated
detectors have 10 year batteries. "Modern" detectors that use standard
batteries are readily available on the consumer market.

And for new homes, they must have an AC primary power source!
This implicitly acknowledges the fact that batteries DON'T get
replaced and that this leads to loss of life (see above)

Scroll down past the 10 year battery section he

http://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/.../smoke-alarms/

So, obviously "enough" people died because they (effectively)
disabled their detectors to merit changes in the way those
detectors are designed/made. That suggests *someone* thought
it enough of a problem to address it!

Addressed it by offering options, but not by *requiring* it.

A problem doesn't have to be "common" for it to be addressed. It is not
"common" for people to be killed by the Takata air bag inflator ripping
through their necks, yet over 23 million inflators have been recalled.

My only objection is to your use of the word "common". In terms of the
number of detectors installed, the practice of taking the batteries out,
and leaving them out, is not "common". An issue worth addressing?
Absolutely. Common? Until I see the numbers, I'll vote No.

See above. Or, do your own research if you distrust mine.

Just FYI...

Many new-ish battery operated smoke and/or CO detectors are designed such
that they cannot be (easily) mounted if they don't have batteries installed.
A spring loaded tab extends in such a way as to prevent either mounting or
(with some older models) from closing the battery door.

Obviously, making the mounting impossible/very difficult is the best method
to help prevent the "use' of a detector without batteries. The user would
have to physically put the detector someplace else (hopefully not in a
drawer) while they run out and buy batteries.

Most detectors are *easily* removed. Ours require a twist to unlock the
detector from the base, then unplug the three conductor cable assembly.
Thereafter, where you put the detector is up to you -- the *house*
won't complain that the detector is "missing"!

I didn't say anything about detectors be hard to *remove*, I said that
the newer ones are difficult to *install* without batteries - as a safety
feature. Let me explain:

In the old days, you could twist the detector off the base, remove the
batteries from the back, and simply twist the detector back on, saying to
yourself "I'll pick up some batteries tomorrow". On some models, you could
open the front panel, take the batteries out and close the door. Tomorrow
comes and goes, as does the next day and the next, until that detector is
forgotten about and people die.

These days, most detectors will not allow the user to twist the detector
back onto the base without batteries installed. This adds a layer of safety
because the detector will (hopefully) be left out in the open as a reminder
that it has no batteries.

Having a bit of clutter around the house is not an effective deterrent.
If the device was the size of a dishwasher, it might be ("Bob, will you
PLEASE get some batteries so we can get this damn dishwasher-sized device
out of the middle of the living room??"). I have the old smoke detector
for the bedroom hallway sitting on a box of CAT5 wire, here -- has probably
been here for months (as long as the box of wire!) since the time when
I replaced it's *partner* (and opted to replace both to ensure they
were electrically compatible with each other instead of risking an
incompatibility)

I could just as easily have put it in a drawer, cabinet, garage shelf,
etc.

What *will* get complaints is a detector that chirps every few minutes
until you "feed it". Given how easily it can be disconnected, it's
obvious why so many *do* get disconnected -- "while I remember to run out
and buy batteries" (which I suspect is rarely done "right now")

See my paragraph above. A detector that can't be remounted without batteries
being installed first is much safer than the old style. Yes, you can still
disconnect it, but hopefully people will now say "I'll pick up some
batteries tomorrow. Since I can't reinstall this detector until I do, I'll
put it right "here" as a reminder."

Like the old detector that's been sitting here, by me?

When my basement CO detector came to the end of it's 7 year lifespan, I
took the batteries out to stop the chirping. I could not reinstall the
unit. I brought it upstairs, put it on the kitchen table and then
put my cars keys on top of it. I doubt that *I* would have reinstalled it
without the batteries anyway, but I'm sure that some folks would have. I'm
sure many lives have been saved because of that feature.

You can't legislate or design-in common sense. I can put a dead battery
in a detector and reinstall it "so I know where I've stored it". I can
put a detector in a drawer, garage, etc.

I designed a "marine" autopilot many years ago. I wanted to install
an annunciator to alert the "skipper" that we were approaching the
programmed destination (otherwise, he would likely go aft or below deck
to work on something *else* now that the autopilot had freed him
from the tedium of steering the boat.

Boss laughed and said, "The first thing they'll do is cut the wires
to your alarm. *THEN* what will you do?? (to protect them from
themselves)"

IIRC, our current AC/DC detectors will let you silence the "chirp"
for some period of time (hours??). But, it won't go away indefinitely.
Despite the fact that AC power is ensuring the detector continues
to provide its protective function.

So, when it becomes annoying, we *will* unplug it and set it aside
(counting on the next unit to protect us). As we *rarely* buy batteries,
its not likely that this detector will be put back into service in
short order. Hence our practice of simply replacing batteries yearly.
The expense isn't going to bankrupt us. And, doing so annually on New
Year's (instead of August 19th or May 27th) makes it a memorable task.

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 3:47:16 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/1/2015 12:23 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 1:22:05 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

I suspect
this is true of many folks as it seems common for people to UNPLUG
their smoke detectors when they start chirping. Then, forget
to buy the battery and end up operating with no smoke detectors
in place (at least, we hear of homes lost to fire wherein the
smoke detectors had no batteries in them -- this seems like a
logical explanation of what transpired).

How "common" do you think this is?

It do4esn't matter how common it is to the folks who failed to
replace their batteries! : It's not common for folks to get
struck by lightning -- yet I don't run outside and stand under
a tree when we have an electrical storm! :

You're changing the subject instead of answering my question. I didn't ask
how about terrible it is for those that have been impacted by their mistake,
I asked you how "common" you think it is.

You said it was "common" for people to remove the batteries and leave them
out. I say it isn't. A tragedy, yes, but common? I think not.

How long is "leave them out" to satisfy you? If they are "out" for an hour,
a day, a week? The time when they are not installed represents the time
when the detector is inoperative. The period of time when the occupants are
not protected.

Do people leave them out *forever*? Doubtful. Do they leave them out for
weeks at a time? Probably. How many things do you "drop everything" to
address the instant they draw attention to themselves (chirp, chirp)?
Or, do you put it on the shopping list for "next week"? Or, hope to
remember it??

There you go changing the subject again. What does "length of time" have to
with my comment related to use of word "common". Perhaps you haven't grasped
the point I am discussing or perhaps you are trying to confuse the issue.

You said it's a common practice for people to leave the batteries out. I say
it's not "common" in relation to how many detectors there are installed across
the globe.

Whether the batteries are left out for a night, a day or a year before the
fatal fires starts has nothing to do with the commonality of the practice.
How often they are left out as compared how often they are not is all that
counts when determining how "common" the practice is.



From a 9/2015 NFPA report:

Smoke Alarm Power Sources
Hardwired smoke alarms were present in 48% of reported home fires with smoke
alarms. Alarms powered by battery only were present in in 46% of reported home
fires.

In reported home fires in which the fire was large enough to activate the
alarm,
- Hardwired smoke alarms operated 94% of the time.
- Battery-powered smoke alarms operated in four out of five (80%) fires.

Reasons that Smoke Alarms Did Not Operate when Present in Large Enough Fires
--------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In fires in which the smoke alarms were present but did not operate,
- Almost half (46%) of the smoke alarms had missing or disconnected
batteries. Nuisance alarms were the leading reason for disconnected
smoke alarms.
- Dead batteries caused one-quarter (24%) of the smoke alarm failures.
- Only 7% of the failures were due to hardwired power source problems,
including disconnected smoke alarms, power outages, and power shut-offs.

So, in response to your comment, below:
"Common? Until I see the numbers, I'll vote No."
I vote *yes* (70% of the fires!) -- unless you'd care to offer some OTHER
numbers?


Right, in 70% of homes *in which the smoke alarms were present but did not
operate* dead or missing batteries was the cause. No one denies that dead
or missing batteries will cause a smoke detector not to operate. The problem
is (once again) that that is not what we are discussing.

I'll try again: You said that the practice of leaving batteries out after
they are removed due to chirping is "common". I, once again, say that when
compared to all the cases where the batteries are *not* left out, the
practice is *not* common. The *practice of leaving the batteries out* is not
common. Does it happen? Yes. Do bad things happen when someone does that? Yes.
Is it common? Not in the grand scheme of all detectors everywhere.

Can you stick to that statement and tell me how you know that the practice is
common? Tell me how many times batteries are left out vs. how many times
they are replaced. Citing statistics related to how many smoke
detectors didn't operate due to missing batteries (46%) does nothing to
support your claim that the practice of leaving batteries out is "common". All
that does is tell us that missing batteries is a common cause for smoke
detectors not to operate. Well, yeah. I think that's pretty obvious.

Now, citing statistics that show 55% of the millions upon millions of smoke
detectors that needed batteries did not have them replaced would indeed
indicate that the practice of leaving the batteries out is common.

Yes, you hear about the homes/lives that were lost to those fires, but you
don't hear as much about the people whose homes and/or lives were saved
because their detectors worked. The good news doesn't often make the
headlines because it doesn't sell.

Of course! But, they were saved because they *did* replace their
batteries. As *we* do! The difference is, we don't wait for the
detectors to chirp to prompt us to do so.

When detector 1 chirps, do you JUST replace it's battery? What about
the other detectors? Should you anticipate that they will be needing
replacement soon? Or, wait for them to start chirping as well?
(How is being proactive in that case different from my approach of
anticipating detector 1's failure?!)

"Family doesn't die in house fire. House saved. More at 11."

My guess is that "common" is not the right word to apply to the sad
situations.

Note that modern smoke/CO detectors *acknowledge* this practice
by requiring 110VAC operation (with battery for "backup") *or*
having 10 year batteries, etc.

10 year batteries are not required nor do all "modern" battery operated
detectors have 10 year batteries. "Modern" detectors that use standard
batteries are readily available on the consumer market.

And for new homes, they must have an AC primary power source!
This implicitly acknowledges the fact that batteries DON'T get
replaced and that this leads to loss of life (see above)

Scroll down past the 10 year battery section he

http://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/.../smoke-alarms/

So, obviously "enough" people died because they (effectively)
disabled their detectors to merit changes in the way those
detectors are designed/made. That suggests *someone* thought
it enough of a problem to address it!

Addressed it by offering options, but not by *requiring* it.

A problem doesn't have to be "common" for it to be addressed. It is not
"common" for people to be killed by the Takata air bag inflator ripping
through their necks, yet over 23 million inflators have been recalled.

My only objection is to your use of the word "common". In terms of the
number of detectors installed, the practice of taking the batteries out,
and leaving them out, is not "common". An issue worth addressing?
Absolutely. Common? Until I see the numbers, I'll vote No.

See above. Or, do your own research if you distrust mine.

See above. Please cite relevant statistics.


Just FYI...

Many new-ish battery operated smoke and/or CO detectors are designed such
that they cannot be (easily) mounted if they don't have batteries installed.
A spring loaded tab extends in such a way as to prevent either mounting or
(with some older models) from closing the battery door.

Obviously, making the mounting impossible/very difficult is the best method
to help prevent the "use' of a detector without batteries. The user would
have to physically put the detector someplace else (hopefully not in a
drawer) while they run out and buy batteries.

Most detectors are *easily* removed. Ours require a twist to unlock the
detector from the base, then unplug the three conductor cable assembly.
Thereafter, where you put the detector is up to you -- the *house*
won't complain that the detector is "missing"!

I didn't say anything about detectors be hard to *remove*, I said that
the newer ones are difficult to *install* without batteries - as a safety
feature. Let me explain:

In the old days, you could twist the detector off the base, remove the
batteries from the back, and simply twist the detector back on, saying to
yourself "I'll pick up some batteries tomorrow". On some models, you could
open the front panel, take the batteries out and close the door. Tomorrow
comes and goes, as does the next day and the next, until that detector is
forgotten about and people die.

These days, most detectors will not allow the user to twist the detector
back onto the base without batteries installed. This adds a layer of safety
because the detector will (hopefully) be left out in the open as a reminder
that it has no batteries.

Having a bit of clutter around the house is not an effective deterrent.
If the device was the size of a dishwasher, it might be ("Bob, will you
PLEASE get some batteries so we can get this damn dishwasher-sized device
out of the middle of the living room??"). I have the old smoke detector
for the bedroom hallway sitting on a box of CAT5 wire, here -- has probably
been here for months (as long as the box of wire!) since the time when
I replaced it's *partner* (and opted to replace both to ensure they
were electrically compatible with each other instead of risking an
incompatibility)

I could just as easily have put it in a drawer, cabinet, garage shelf,
etc.

So, if I understand you correctly, the one sitting on the box of CAT5 wire is
no longer needed? If that is correct, then once again, your example isn't
relevant.

When you walk by that *un-needed* detector, you may say to yourself "I really
should dispose of that (properly)". When someone removes a smoke detector
that can't be reinstalled until the batteries are replaced and places on a
table, they are likely to say "I really should get batteries for that
before I die in a fire."

Which statement holds more emotional weight and will probably get acted upon
more quickly?


What *will* get complaints is a detector that chirps every few minutes
until you "feed it". Given how easily it can be disconnected, it's
obvious why so many *do* get disconnected -- "while I remember to run out
and buy batteries" (which I suspect is rarely done "right now")

See my paragraph above. A detector that can't be remounted without batteries
being installed first is much safer than the old style. Yes, you can still
disconnect it, but hopefully people will now say "I'll pick up some
batteries tomorrow. Since I can't reinstall this detector until I do, I'll
put it right "here" as a reminder."

Like the old detector that's been sitting here, by me?

You mean that *un-needed* one? Please try to stay relevant.


When my basement CO detector came to the end of it's 7 year lifespan, I
took the batteries out to stop the chirping. I could not reinstall the
unit. I brought it upstairs, put it on the kitchen table and then
put my cars keys on top of it. I doubt that *I* would have reinstalled it
without the batteries anyway, but I'm sure that some folks would have. I'm
sure many lives have been saved because of that feature.

You can't legislate or design-in common sense. I can put a dead battery
in a detector and reinstall it "so I know where I've stored it". I can
put a detector in a drawer, garage, etc.

Nice stretch! Yep, I'll bet *that* is a common practice. "Let me locate a
completely dead battery so I can reinstall this detector that was chirping
from weak batteries. Good thing I have that stash of non-chirp causing,
completely dead batteries lying around."



I designed a "marine" autopilot many years ago. I wanted to install
an annunciator to alert the "skipper" that we were approaching the
programmed destination (otherwise, he would likely go aft or below deck
to work on something *else* now that the autopilot had freed him
from the tedium of steering the boat.

Boss laughed and said, "The first thing they'll do is cut the wires
to your alarm. *THEN* what will you do?? (to protect them from
themselves)"

IIRC, our current AC/DC detectors will let you silence the "chirp"
for some period of time (hours??). But, it won't go away indefinitely.
Despite the fact that AC power is ensuring the detector continues
to provide its protective function.

So, when it becomes annoying, we *will* unplug it and set it aside
(counting on the next unit to protect us). As we *rarely* buy batteries,
its not likely that this detector will be put back into service in
short order. Hence our practice of simply replacing batteries yearly.
The expense isn't going to bankrupt us. And, doing so annually on New
Year's (instead of August 19th or May 27th) makes it a memorable task.

On 10/1/2015 5:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 3:47:16 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
You said it's a common practice for people to leave the batteries out. I say
it's not "common" in relation to how many detectors there are installed across
the globe.

Whether the batteries are left out for a night, a day or a year before the
fatal fires starts has nothing to do with the commonality of the practice.
How often they are left out as compared how often they are not is all that
counts when determining how "common" the practice is.

From a 9/2015 NFPA report:

Smoke Alarm Power Sources
Hardwired smoke alarms were present in 48% of reported home fires with smoke
alarms. Alarms powered by battery only were present in in 46% of reported home
fires.

In reported home fires in which the fire was large enough to activate the
alarm,
- Hardwired smoke alarms operated 94% of the time.
- Battery-powered smoke alarms operated in four out of five (80%) fires.

Reasons that Smoke Alarms Did Not Operate when Present in Large Enough Fires
--------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In fires in which the smoke alarms were present but did not operate,
- Almost half (46%) of the smoke alarms had missing or disconnected
batteries. Nuisance alarms were the leading reason for disconnected
smoke alarms.
- Dead batteries caused one-quarter (24%) of the smoke alarm failures.
- Only 7% of the failures were due to hardwired power source problems,
including disconnected smoke alarms, power outages, and power shut-offs.

So, in response to your comment, below:
"Common? Until I see the numbers, I'll vote No."
I vote *yes* (70% of the fires!) -- unless you'd care to offer some OTHER
numbers?

Right, in 70% of homes *in which the smoke alarms were present but did not
operate* dead or missing batteries was the cause. No one denies that dead
or missing batteries will cause a smoke detector not to operate. The problem
is (once again) that that is not what we are discussing.

I'll try again: You said that the practice of leaving batteries out after
they are removed due to chirping is "common". I, once again, say that when
compared to all the cases where the batteries are *not* left out, the
practice is *not* common. The *practice of leaving the batteries out* is not
common. Does it happen? Yes. Do bad things happen when someone does that? Yes.
Is it common? Not in the grand scheme of all detectors everywhere.

Can you stick to that statement and tell me how you know that the practice is
common? Tell me how many times batteries are left out vs. how many times
they are replaced. Citing statistics related to how many smoke
detectors didn't operate due to missing batteries (46%) does nothing to
support your claim that the practice of leaving batteries out is "common". All
that does is tell us that missing batteries is a common cause for smoke
detectors not to operate. Well, yeah. I think that's pretty obvious.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the above statistic cites that 46% of those
FIRES had smoke detectors with batteries "missing or disconnected". Do you
think the "smoke detector police" are going to arbitrarily survey homes
where NO FIRES HAVE BEEN REPORTED to see if their smoke detectors have
batteries in place? If a battery is left out for a year (assume a battery
normally *lasts* a year, does that count as *one* event? Or, more than one?)

Will the smoke detector police ensure that you *have* smoke detectors in
a residence if the residence is not offered for sale?

What criteria would you use to claim this practice was *RARE*? (!common)

Now, citing statistics that show 55% of the millions upon millions of smoke
detectors that needed batteries did not have them replaced would indeed
indicate that the practice of leaving the batteries out is common.

"Common" doesn't mean "in a majority of cases". Common means "of frequent
occurrence". "Daniel" is a "common" name. By no means are 50.0001% of
the people in the world/country named "Daniel". In fact, it is the
*10th* most common name in the US -- yet LESS THAN 1% of the population
having it! There are no names that rise to the "55% level" that you
seem to suggest would constitute 'common-ness'

Why don't *you* come up with a criteria to indicate what *NUMBER* you
consider to be representative of the term "common". Then, *justify*
that number (in an OBJECTIVE sense).

You can start by obtaining NUMBERS for the actual number of
residences/occupancies that have/require smoke detectors, then
the number of smoke detectors currently deployed in those areas,
then, the NUMBER you would consider to be representative of
the adjective "COMMON".

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 3:23:16 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 1:22:05 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/1/2015 10:04 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 12:40:49 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

The smoke alarms 'tweets' when the batteries needs to be changed.

We don't wait until it starts it's INCESSANT chirping. Do you
want to listen to it for an hour, day, week before you get around
to replacing the battery? Easier to be proactive and replace it
before it complains.

I change it immediately upon hearing it tweet.

We don't keep "spare batteries" (for anything) on hand.

Not even for flashlights? That seems risky. Do you change them on a
regular schedule whether they need them or not? Do you not have any battery
operated flashlights? That seems risky too.

We have two or three of the larger "maglites", a couple of small
"pen-light" style with rechargeable batteries, and numerous of
the "disposable" HF offerings (again, with rechargeable cells).

We also have several "crank" flashlights and shake-lights.

In an outage, we use CFL's powered by any of the ~13 UPS's
scattered around the house.

Most "batteries" here are AA or AAA (or, the larger gelled electrolyte/AGM
batteries in the UPS's) -- all these small flashlights, remote controls,
electronic magnifiers, etc. So, we keep 4 spares in a charger and
swap them out with whatever needs them when the time comes.

Aside from the CO/smoke detectors, *nothing* uses 9V batteries so
no reason to keep them on hand.

I suspect
this is true of many folks as it seems common for people to UNPLUG
their smoke detectors when they start chirping. Then, forget
to buy the battery and end up operating with no smoke detectors
in place (at least, we hear of homes lost to fire wherein the
smoke detectors had no batteries in them -- this seems like a
logical explanation of what transpired).

How "common" do you think this is?

It do4esn't matter how common it is to the folks who failed to
replace their batteries! : It's not common for folks to get
struck by lightning -- yet I don't run outside and stand under
a tree when we have an electrical storm! :

You're changing the subject instead of answering my question. I didn't ask
how about terrible it is for those that have been impacted by their mistake,
I asked you how "common" you think it is.

You said it was "common" for people to remove the batteries and leave them
out. I say it isn't. A tragedy, yes, but common? I think not.


Yes, you hear about the homes/lives that were lost to those fires, but you
don't hear as much about the people whose homes and/or lives were saved
because their detectors worked. The good news doesn't often make the
headlines because it doesn't sell.

Of course! But, they were saved because they *did* replace their
batteries. As *we* do! The difference is, we don't wait for the
detectors to chirp to prompt us to do so.

When detector 1 chirps, do you JUST replace it's battery? What about
the other detectors? Should you anticipate that they will be needing
replacement soon? Or, wait for them to start chirping as well?
(How is being proactive in that case different from my approach of
anticipating detector 1's failure?!)

"Family doesn't die in house fire. House saved. More at 11."

My guess is that "common" is not the right word to apply to the sad
situations.

Note that modern smoke/CO detectors *acknowledge* this practice
by requiring 110VAC operation (with battery for "backup") *or*
having 10 year batteries, etc.

10 year batteries are not required nor do all "modern" battery operated
detectors have 10 year batteries. "Modern" detectors that use standard
batteries are readily available on the consumer market.

Scroll down past the 10 year battery section he

http://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/.../smoke-alarms/


Nor or they required to have AC and battery backup. Battery only
ones are widely available. AC plus battery is probably required by code
for new construction in many places though.

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 10:26:59 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/1/2015 5:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 3:47:16 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
You said it's a common practice for people to leave the batteries out. I say
it's not "common" in relation to how many detectors there are installed across
the globe.

Whether the batteries are left out for a night, a day or a year before the
fatal fires starts has nothing to do with the commonality of the practice.
How often they are left out as compared how often they are not is all that
counts when determining how "common" the practice is.

From a 9/2015 NFPA report:

Smoke Alarm Power Sources
Hardwired smoke alarms were present in 48% of reported home fires with smoke
alarms. Alarms powered by battery only were present in in 46% of reported home
fires.

In reported home fires in which the fire was large enough to activate the
alarm,
- Hardwired smoke alarms operated 94% of the time.
- Battery-powered smoke alarms operated in four out of five (80%) fires.

Reasons that Smoke Alarms Did Not Operate when Present in Large Enough Fires
--------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In fires in which the smoke alarms were present but did not operate,
- Almost half (46%) of the smoke alarms had missing or disconnected
batteries. Nuisance alarms were the leading reason for disconnected
smoke alarms.
- Dead batteries caused one-quarter (24%) of the smoke alarm failures.
- Only 7% of the failures were due to hardwired power source problems,
including disconnected smoke alarms, power outages, and power shut-offs.

So, in response to your comment, below:
"Common? Until I see the numbers, I'll vote No."
I vote *yes* (70% of the fires!) -- unless you'd care to offer some OTHER
numbers?

Right, in 70% of homes *in which the smoke alarms were present but did not
operate* dead or missing batteries was the cause. No one denies that dead
or missing batteries will cause a smoke detector not to operate. The problem
is (once again) that that is not what we are discussing.

I'll try again: You said that the practice of leaving batteries out after
they are removed due to chirping is "common". I, once again, say that when
compared to all the cases where the batteries are *not* left out, the
practice is *not* common. The *practice of leaving the batteries out* is not
common. Does it happen? Yes. Do bad things happen when someone does that? Yes.
Is it common? Not in the grand scheme of all detectors everywhere.

Can you stick to that statement and tell me how you know that the practice is
common? Tell me how many times batteries are left out vs. how many times
they are replaced. Citing statistics related to how many smoke
detectors didn't operate due to missing batteries (46%) does nothing to
support your claim that the practice of leaving batteries out is "common". All
that does is tell us that missing batteries is a common cause for smoke
detectors not to operate. Well, yeah. I think that's pretty obvious.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the above statistic cites that 46% of those
FIRES had smoke detectors with batteries "missing or disconnected". Do you
think the "smoke detector police" are going to arbitrarily survey homes
where NO FIRES HAVE BEEN REPORTED to see if their smoke detectors have
batteries in place? If a battery is left out for a year (assume a battery
normally *lasts* a year, does that count as *one* event? Or, more than one?)

Thank you! You have finally made my point that the statistic you cited,
while true, does nothing to support your claim that leaving batteries
out is "common". That statistic is not relevant to this discussion. It
took us a while, but we're finally there.



Will the smoke detector police ensure that you *have* smoke detectors in
a residence if the residence is not offered for sale?

What criteria would you use to claim this practice was *RARE*? (!common)

Now, citing statistics that show 55% of the millions upon millions of smoke
detectors that needed batteries did not have them replaced would indeed
indicate that the practice of leaving the batteries out is common.

"Common" doesn't mean "in a majority of cases". Common means "of frequent
occurrence". "Daniel" is a "common" name. By no means are 50.0001% of
the people in the world/country named "Daniel". In fact, it is the
*10th* most common name in the US -- yet LESS THAN 1% of the population
having it! There are no names that rise to the "55% level" that you
seem to suggest would constitute 'common-ness'

That number was just an example to get you to understand that your 46%
statistic was not relevant. It was not the actual value (my fictitious 55%)
that matters. What matters is the comparison of detectors that didn't
operate because the batteries were left out to detectors that operated
properly plus those that didn't operate for other reasons.

You can't use a percentage of a subset to come to a conclusion about the
entire set unless you adjust the percentage to match the size of the subset
in relation to the entire set. (I'll do that below)



Why don't *you* come up with a criteria to indicate what *NUMBER* you
consider to be representative of the term "common". Then, *justify*
that number (in an OBJECTIVE sense).

You can start by obtaining NUMBERS for the actual number of
residences/occupancies that have/require smoke detectors, then
the number of smoke detectors currently deployed in those areas,
then, the NUMBER you would consider to be representative of
the adjective "COMMON".

It looks like you have finally gotten my point. Alleluia!

The following comment is paraphrased from:

http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/re...arms.pdf?la=en

"In fires considered large enough to trigger an alarm, battery-powered smoke detectors operated 80% of the time."

That leaves us with 20% of the installed battery-powered base that didn't
operate.

Paraphrasing your statistic from earlier:

"In fires in which the smoke alarms were present but did not operate, 46% of the smoke alarms had missing or disconnected batteries"

Doing the math and taking 46% of the 20% that didn't operate we end up with
9.2% of detectors involved with a fire that were disabled because the user
left the battery out. Even though we are still using a subset of all
installed detectors, I'm comfortable saying I wouldn't consider 9.2% to be
"common", even if that number applied to the entire installed base. But,
wait, there's more...

Those percentages only account for the detectors that were involved in a
fire. It's a safe assumption that the number of detectors *not* involved
in a fire is ridiculously huge compared to the number that were involved.
While I'm comfortable in saying that 9.2% is not "common", I'm just as
comfortable is saying that the percentage will get even smaller as the
sample size grows. I may be going way, way out on a limb here, and it's
nothing more than wild speculation on my part, but here's my theory on why
those numbers won't scale linearly:

I postulate that a fire is more apt to happen in a home where the residents
leave the batteries out than in a home where they are replaced promptly.
If I look at it from a "behavioral" perspective, I can imagine that, for the
most part, people that would leave the battery out have other dangerous
habits, maintenance issues, etc. In other words, there will be more fire
causing factors in those homes. Frayed extension cords, combustible
materials near the furnace, etc.

If that assumption is true, then the 9.2% is going to get even smaller
as we include more and more detectors from non-fire impacted residences.
In other words, we will move even farther away from the practice of leaving the batteries out as being "common".

On 10/2/2015 11:54 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 10:26:59 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/1/2015 5:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 3:47:16 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
You said it's a common practice for people to leave the batteries out. I say
it's not "common" in relation to how many detectors there are installed across
the globe.

Whether the batteries are left out for a night, a day or a year before the
fatal fires starts has nothing to do with the commonality of the practice.
How often they are left out as compared how often they are not is all that
counts when determining how "common" the practice is.

From a 9/2015 NFPA report:

Smoke Alarm Power Sources
Hardwired smoke alarms were present in 48% of reported home fires with smoke
alarms. Alarms powered by battery only were present in in 46% of reported home
fires.

In reported home fires in which the fire was large enough to activate the
alarm,
- Hardwired smoke alarms operated 94% of the time.
- Battery-powered smoke alarms operated in four out of five (80%) fires.

Reasons that Smoke Alarms Did Not Operate when Present in Large Enough Fires
--------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In fires in which the smoke alarms were present but did not operate,
- Almost half (46%) of the smoke alarms had missing or disconnected
batteries. Nuisance alarms were the leading reason for disconnected
smoke alarms.
- Dead batteries caused one-quarter (24%) of the smoke alarm failures.
- Only 7% of the failures were due to hardwired power source problems,
including disconnected smoke alarms, power outages, and power shut-offs.

So, in response to your comment, below:
"Common? Until I see the numbers, I'll vote No."
I vote *yes* (70% of the fires!) -- unless you'd care to offer some OTHER
numbers?

Right, in 70% of homes *in which the smoke alarms were present but did not
operate* dead or missing batteries was the cause. No one denies that dead
or missing batteries will cause a smoke detector not to operate. The problem
is (once again) that that is not what we are discussing.

I'll try again: You said that the practice of leaving batteries out after
they are removed due to chirping is "common". I, once again, say that when
compared to all the cases where the batteries are *not* left out, the
practice is *not* common. The *practice of leaving the batteries out* is not
common. Does it happen? Yes. Do bad things happen when someone does that? Yes.
Is it common? Not in the grand scheme of all detectors everywhere.

Can you stick to that statement and tell me how you know that the practice is
common? Tell me how many times batteries are left out vs. how many times
they are replaced. Citing statistics related to how many smoke
detectors didn't operate due to missing batteries (46%) does nothing to
support your claim that the practice of leaving batteries out is "common". All
that does is tell us that missing batteries is a common cause for smoke
detectors not to operate. Well, yeah. I think that's pretty obvious.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the above statistic cites that 46% of those
FIRES had smoke detectors with batteries "missing or disconnected". Do you
think the "smoke detector police" are going to arbitrarily survey homes
where NO FIRES HAVE BEEN REPORTED to see if their smoke detectors have
batteries in place? If a battery is left out for a year (assume a battery
normally *lasts* a year, does that count as *one* event? Or, more than one?)

Thank you! You have finally made my point that the statistic you cited,
while true, does nothing to support your claim that leaving batteries
out is "common". That statistic is not relevant to this discussion. It
took us a while, but we're finally there.

No, you haven't defined "common"!

It is COMMON for people to run red lights!
(sit at any intersection in ANY city and you WILL see someone run a light!)
It is COMMON for people to be murdered with firearms (in practically any city)!
(listen to the news in any city and, chances are, today or yesterday
*someone* was murdered)
It is COMMON for gunmen to go on rampages at schools, malls, etc.
(how many times does it have to NOT happen to be considered a "rare" event)

If you look at the *probability* of any of these events happening, they
can be surprisingly LOW. But, that doesn't make them LESS COMMON!

It is RARE for us to find evidence of life on other planets!
It is RARE for us to find $100 bills on the sidewalk in front of us!
It is RARE for long lost relatives to show up on doorsteps!

You seem to think "common" means "a majority of the time". That's
not what "common" means:

- of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar:
- occurring or appearing frequently : familiar a common sight
- Occurring frequently or habitually; usual: It is common for movies
to last 90 minutes or more
- happening frequently, or existing in large amounts or numbers

etc.

You want "common" to mean:
- the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total
(opposed to minority)

If that were the case, there would be no "common" names, "common"
foods, "common" practices, etc. as very few things occur in a MAJORITY!

Put a NUMBER on your criteria. Or STFU.

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 3:04:44 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/2/2015 11:54 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 10:26:59 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/1/2015 5:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 3:47:16 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
You said it's a common practice for people to leave the batteries out. I say
it's not "common" in relation to how many detectors there are installed across
the globe.

Whether the batteries are left out for a night, a day or a year before the
fatal fires starts has nothing to do with the commonality of the practice.
How often they are left out as compared how often they are not is all that
counts when determining how "common" the practice is.

From a 9/2015 NFPA report:

Smoke Alarm Power Sources
Hardwired smoke alarms were present in 48% of reported home fires with smoke
alarms. Alarms powered by battery only were present in in 46% of reported home
fires.

In reported home fires in which the fire was large enough to activate the
alarm,
- Hardwired smoke alarms operated 94% of the time.
- Battery-powered smoke alarms operated in four out of five (80%) fires.

Reasons that Smoke Alarms Did Not Operate when Present in Large Enough Fires
--------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In fires in which the smoke alarms were present but did not operate,
- Almost half (46%) of the smoke alarms had missing or disconnected
batteries. Nuisance alarms were the leading reason for disconnected
smoke alarms.
- Dead batteries caused one-quarter (24%) of the smoke alarm failures.
- Only 7% of the failures were due to hardwired power source problems,
including disconnected smoke alarms, power outages, and power shut-offs.

So, in response to your comment, below:
"Common? Until I see the numbers, I'll vote No."
I vote *yes* (70% of the fires!) -- unless you'd care to offer some OTHER
numbers?

Right, in 70% of homes *in which the smoke alarms were present but did not
operate* dead or missing batteries was the cause. No one denies that dead
or missing batteries will cause a smoke detector not to operate. The problem
is (once again) that that is not what we are discussing.

I'll try again: You said that the practice of leaving batteries out after
they are removed due to chirping is "common". I, once again, say that when
compared to all the cases where the batteries are *not* left out, the
practice is *not* common. The *practice of leaving the batteries out* is not
common. Does it happen? Yes. Do bad things happen when someone does that? Yes.
Is it common? Not in the grand scheme of all detectors everywhere.

Can you stick to that statement and tell me how you know that the practice is
common? Tell me how many times batteries are left out vs. how many times
they are replaced. Citing statistics related to how many smoke
detectors didn't operate due to missing batteries (46%) does nothing to
support your claim that the practice of leaving batteries out is "common". All
that does is tell us that missing batteries is a common cause for smoke
detectors not to operate. Well, yeah. I think that's pretty obvious.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the above statistic cites that 46% of those
FIRES had smoke detectors with batteries "missing or disconnected". Do you
think the "smoke detector police" are going to arbitrarily survey homes
where NO FIRES HAVE BEEN REPORTED to see if their smoke detectors have
batteries in place? If a battery is left out for a year (assume a battery
normally *lasts* a year, does that count as *one* event? Or, more than one?)

Thank you! You have finally made my point that the statistic you cited,
while true, does nothing to support your claim that leaving batteries
out is "common". That statistic is not relevant to this discussion. It
took us a while, but we're finally there.

No, you haven't defined "common"!

It is COMMON for people to run red lights!
(sit at any intersection in ANY city and you WILL see someone run a light!)
It is COMMON for people to be murdered with firearms (in practically any city)!
(listen to the news in any city and, chances are, today or yesterday
*someone* was murdered)
It is COMMON for gunmen to go on rampages at schools, malls, etc.
(how many times does it have to NOT happen to be considered a "rare" event)

If you look at the *probability* of any of these events happening, they
can be surprisingly LOW. But, that doesn't make them LESS COMMON!

It is RARE for us to find evidence of life on other planets!
It is RARE for us to find $100 bills on the sidewalk in front of us!
It is RARE for long lost relatives to show up on doorsteps!

You seem to think "common" means "a majority of the time". That's
not what "common" means:

- of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar:
- occurring or appearing frequently : familiar a common sight
- Occurring frequently or habitually; usual: It is common for movies
to last 90 minutes or more
- happening frequently, or existing in large amounts or numbers

etc.

You want "common" to mean:
- the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total
(opposed to minority)

If that were the case, there would be no "common" names, "common"
foods, "common" practices, etc. as very few things occur in a MAJORITY!

Put a NUMBER on your criteria. Or STFU.

Gee...you seem upset. Perhaps if you'd calm down, you could read what I
posted and grasp it.

Let me ask you a simple, straightforward question just to get us on the
same page:

If something happens 9.2% of the time, would you consider that to be
a common occurrence?

All I require is a simple "Yes" or "No". Can you do that?