I own a tenant-occupied, 2-story, 5 Bedroom, Colonial Style single family
detached home with an attached 2-car garage and an unfinished basement. The
home currently has individual battery powered smoke detectors and CO
detectors, but none of the detectors are interconnected. That meets the
current code for an existing single family home like this. So, under the
current code, I don't need to do anything.

However, I am considering installing a 110-volt interconnected alarm system
with battery backups so that if one detector alarm sounds, they all sound at
the same time.

I have two sets of questions.

The first is about how to wire a 110-volt interconnected alarm system.

And, the second is about whether there is such a thing as a battery powered
completely wireless interconnected alarm system that I could install so I
would not have to physically run wires to interconnect the detectors in the
new alarm system, but still have it function like an interconnected alarm
system where if one alarm goes off, they all go off.

1) Questions about wiring a 110-volt interconnected alarm system that is NOT
WIRELESS:

I know that one way to do the wiring is to run 14/2.from the electrical
panel to the first alarm, then 14/3 to the next alarm, then 14/3 to the next
alarm, and so on -- meaning that the wiring loop goes from the first alarm,
then to the next one, then the next one, until I get to the last one, in one
continuous loop.

But, to do that, I think it would be difficult to fish the wires in a way so
that one loop goes to all of them one after the other.

My question is, can I junction off of the first one, for example, and split
that into two circuits -- one going to the alarms on the right side of the
house and one going to the alarms on the left side of the house? I have
been doing Google searches to see if I could find an example of this type of
wiring diagram but I can't find one.

2) Questions about WIRELESS interconnected alarms:

While researching this, I am seeing wireless smoke alarms that appear to be
able to communicate with each other so that if one goes off they all go off.
But, I can't quite tell if that means that it is possible to create a whole
new interconnected wireless alarm system for the whole house without having
to run any interconnecting wires through the walls and ceilings etc. That
sounds too good to be true, but is that really an option? -- an all wireless
interconnected alarm system?

Thanks for any help or suggestions.

On 03/13/2016 02:45 PM, TomR wrote:
I own a tenant-occupied, 2-story, 5 Bedroom, Colonial Style single family
detached home with an attached 2-car garage and an unfinished basement. The
home currently has individual battery powered smoke detectors and CO
detectors, but none of the detectors are interconnected. That meets the
current code for an existing single family home like this. So, under the
current code, I don't need to do anything.



snip


Here is my question.

Alarms are generally quite loud. If one goes off, a tenant should be
able to hear it anywhere within the house.

Maybe you could test and verify because interconnected alarms may not be
necessary.

A localized alarm has the advantage of letting the occupant know exactly
where the problem is.


BTW: Hopefully you do have fire extinguishers on all floors.

On 3/13/2016 12:45 PM, TomR wrote:
I own a tenant-occupied, 2-story, 5 Bedroom, Colonial Style single family
detached home with an attached 2-car garage and an unfinished basement. The
home currently has individual battery powered smoke detectors and CO
detectors, but none of the detectors are interconnected. That meets the
current code for an existing single family home like this. So, under the
current code, I don't need to do anything.

I think new construction requires 110V (w/battery backup). Too many
folks removing batteries to silence nuisance "battery replacement
reminders" have led to increased fatalities (that the detectors were
supposed to prevent)

However, I am considering installing a 110-volt interconnected alarm system
with battery backups so that if one detector alarm sounds, they all sound at
the same time.

I have two sets of questions.

The first is about how to wire a 110-volt interconnected alarm system.

Run power to the alarms (they draw very little power so not an issue).
I *think* they might need to be on the same branch circuit (at least
that's how ours are wired).

Additionally, you add a "signal cable" -- a discrete wire -- that they
use to talk to each other.

And, the second is about whether there is such a thing as a battery powered
completely wireless interconnected alarm system that I could install so I
would not have to physically run wires to interconnect the detectors in the
new alarm system, but still have it function like an interconnected alarm
system where if one alarm goes off, they all go off.

1) Questions about wiring a 110-volt interconnected alarm system that is NOT
WIRELESS:

I know that one way to do the wiring is to run 14/2.from the electrical
panel to the first alarm, then 14/3 to the next alarm, then 14/3 to the next
alarm, and so on -- meaning that the wiring loop goes from the first alarm,
then to the next one, then the next one, until I get to the last one, in one
continuous loop.

frown IIRC, the "signal lead" is just another "shared" conductor.
I.e., there is no "loop" or "daisy-chaining" involved. Any alarm that
signals puts a signal on that conductor; all alarms monitor the conductor
and alarm in sympathy with it if they sense that signal!

(there is a method you use to determine which alarm is actually originating
the signal -- if you suspect it to be false).

Note that you probably can't mix and match detectors from different
vendors!

But, to do that, I think it would be difficult to fish the wires in a way so
that one loop goes to all of them one after the other.

My question is, can I junction off of the first one, for example, and split
that into two circuits -- one going to the alarms on the right side of the
house and one going to the alarms on the left side of the house? I have
been doing Google searches to see if I could find an example of this type of
wiring diagram but I can't find one.

It's just "a third conductor" SHARED among all.

I am not sure you can run 14/3 and rely on the third conductor in
that "cable" for this; it's technically a *signalling* conductor,
not a power conductor.

2) Questions about WIRELESS interconnected alarms:

While researching this, I am seeing wireless smoke alarms that appear to be
able to communicate with each other so that if one goes off they all go off.
But, I can't quite tell if that means that it is possible to create a whole
new interconnected wireless alarm system for the whole house without having
to run any interconnecting wires through the walls and ceilings etc. That
sounds too good to be true, but is that really an option? -- an all wireless
interconnected alarm system?

I'd be leary about relying on wireless for anything safety critical.
Our neighbor's home alarm is wireless; I am sorely tempted to hack it
just to see to which sorts of exploits it would be vulnerable! :

Thanks for any help or suggestions.

On 03/13/2016 02:53 PM, Don Y wrote:



snip
I think new construction requires 110V (w/battery backup). Too many
folks removing batteries to silence nuisance "battery replacement
reminders" have led to increased fatalities (that the detectors were
supposed to prevent)




Excellent point and something I did not think about: human nature.

I still recall hearing the low battery warning on an alarm at a friend's
house. When I mentioned it, she just said, "That's the landlord's
responsibility and not mine."

People can certainly be idiots.

On 3/13/2016 3:53 PM, Don Y wrote:
While researching this, I am seeing wireless smoke alarms that appear
to be
able to communicate with each other so that if one goes off they all
go off.
But, I can't quite tell if that means that it is possible to create a
whole
new interconnected wireless alarm system for the whole house without
having
to run any interconnecting wires through the walls and ceilings etc.
That
sounds too good to be true, but is that really an option? -- an all
wireless
interconnected alarm system?

I'd be leary about relying on wireless for anything safety critical.
Our neighbor's home alarm is wireless; I am sorely tempted to hack it
just to see to which sorts of exploits it would be vulnerable! :


You sound like all kinds of fun, as a neighbor.


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

On 3/13/2016 3:51 PM, philo wrote:

A localized alarm has the advantage of letting the occupant know exactly
where the problem is.


BTW: Hopefully you do have fire extinguishers on all floors.


At my church, they put in two monoxide detectors.

As the physical facilities rep, I'd think I would
know about changes like that. But, no. I found out
only by asking very direct and pointed questions
of the paid guys when I saw them on the wall. I can
imagine some day the alarm goes off. No one in the
building has any idea what the device is, or what
to do when it sounds. So, they ignore it.

If you put in alarm and or extinguishers, it's a
good idea to have drills, so the tenants know what
to do, and how to do it.

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

On 3/13/2016 4:06 PM, philo wrote:

Excellent point and something I did not think about: human nature.

I still recall hearing the low battery warning on an alarm at a friend's
house. When I mentioned it, she just said, "That's the landlord's
responsibility and not mine."

People can certainly be idiots.


Oh, that thing making noise? We'll just ignore it,
or put a blanket over it till it quits. Like we did
the last few times. Honey, where's the Tylenol, my
headache is killing me. And you look kind of red and
rosy, dear.

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

On 3/13/2016 1:06 PM, philo wrote:
On 03/13/2016 02:53 PM, Don Y wrote:

I think new construction requires 110V (w/battery backup). Too many
folks removing batteries to silence nuisance "battery replacement
reminders" have led to increased fatalities (that the detectors were
supposed to prevent)

Excellent point and something I did not think about: human nature.

It is apparently a BIG factor in recommendations regarding
smoke detectors! E.g., you'd *think* that the kitchen would be
a great place for one (source of heat/combustion). But,
apparently enough false alarms ("Dinner will be served at the
sound of the smoke alarm...") that this location is NOT
recommended.

Another annoying aspect is getting a straight answer from folks
regarding local code, etc. I ended up calling the fire
department and *they* were dumbfounded about what locations
SHOULD be protected and which not (garage? furnace room?)

I still recall hearing the low battery warning on an alarm at a friend's house.
When I mentioned it, she just said, "That's the landlord's responsibility and
not mine."

People can certainly be idiots.

We make a point of replacing the batteries as part of our "New Year's routine".
Batteries are cheap. If you wait until it starts chirping (every minute??)
to tell you of a battery failure, you will end up removing the detector
(to silence it) -- and be WITHOUT protection until you happen to
remember to buy batteries AND install them!

"TomR" wrote in message
...
I own a tenant-occupied, 2-story, 5 Bedroom, Colonial Style single family
detached home with an attached 2-car garage and an unfinished basement.
The home currently has individual battery powered smoke detectors and CO
detectors, but none of the detectors are interconnected. That meets the
current code for an existing single family home like this. So, under the
current code, I don't need to do anything.

However, I am considering installing a 110-volt interconnected alarm
system with battery backups so that if one detector alarm sounds, they all
sound at the same time.

I have two sets of questions.

The first is about how to wire a 110-volt interconnected alarm system.

And, the second is about whether there is such a thing as a battery
powered completely wireless interconnected alarm system that I could
install so I would not have to physically run wires to interconnect the
detectors in the new alarm system, but still have it function like an
interconnected alarm system where if one alarm goes off, they all go off.

1) Questions about wiring a 110-volt interconnected alarm system that is
NOT WIRELESS:

I know that one way to do the wiring is to run 14/2.from the electrical
panel to the first alarm, then 14/3 to the next alarm, then 14/3 to the
next alarm, and so on -- meaning that the wiring loop goes from the first
alarm, then to the next one, then the next one, until I get to the last
one, in one continuous loop.

But, to do that, I think it would be difficult to fish the wires in a way
so that one loop goes to all of them one after the other.

My question is, can I junction off of the first one, for example, and
split that into two circuits -- one going to the alarms on the right side
of the house and one going to the alarms on the left side of the house? I
have been doing Google searches to see if I could find an example of this
type of wiring diagram but I can't find one.

2) Questions about WIRELESS interconnected alarms:

While researching this, I am seeing wireless smoke alarms that appear to
be able to communicate with each other so that if one goes off they all go
off. But, I can't quite tell if that means that it is possible to create a
whole new interconnected wireless alarm system for the whole house without
having to run any interconnecting wires through the walls and ceilings
etc. That sounds too good to be true, but is that really an option? -- an
all wireless interconnected alarm system?

Thanks for any help or suggestions.

Thanks for the replies so far. Regardless of how I do the system, the plan
will be to use detectors that have built-in 10-year Lithium batteries. The
detectors themselves are supposed to be replaced every 10 years anyway, and
the Lithium batteries are theoretically supposed to last 10 years. And,
with built-in lithium batteries, the occupants don't take them out to power
their electronics which does happen with 9V batteries and AA or AAA
batteries. Some localities now require the 10-year batteries in battery
operated smoke detectors for that reason. Plus, the detectors will have
"Hush" buttons on them that the occupants can use to silence unwanted
alarms. That avoids them taking the batteries out to silence the alarm. I
won't be putting a detector in the kitchen so cooking fumes don't set off
the alarm. In kitchens, it is possible to put in a heat detector instead
of a smoke detector, but I probably won't do that. Also, the purpose of the
14/3 is to provide a black (hot) wire, a white (neutral) wire, and a third
(red) wire for the signal between the units. I am writing all of this just
as side information as an FYI, but it does not resolve the original
questions that I still have about the wiring diagram and about the
possibility of using wireless interconnected detectors.

On 03/13/2016 03:48 PM, Don Y wrote:

[snip]

Batteries are cheap. If you wait until it starts chirping (every minute??)
to tell you of a battery failure, you will end up removing the detector
(to silence it) -- and be WITHOUT protection until you happen to
remember to buy batteries AND install them!

If I removed the battery from a detector, I know which one was beeping.
That's MOST of the work done already.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not
understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand."
-- Mark Twain

On 3/13/2016 4:19 PM, TomR wrote:
won't do that. Also, the purpose of the 14/3 is to provide a black (hot) wire,
a white (neutral) wire, and a third (red) wire for the signal between the
units.

And I'm saying that using the third wire in a 14/3 cable for "signalling"
may not comply with code! Any more than my using it as an audio output
from an amplifier (neutral referenced) would...

On 3/13/2016 4:57 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 03/13/2016 03:48 PM, Don Y wrote:

[snip]

Batteries are cheap. If you wait until it starts chirping (every minute??)
to tell you of a battery failure, you will end up removing the detector
(to silence it) -- and be WITHOUT protection until you happen to
remember to buy batteries AND install them!

If I removed the battery from a detector, I know which one was beeping. That's
MOST of the work done already.

In our case, remembering to buy the batteries is the bigger chore
(unless it is a 'scheduled event' -- like New Year's). I think the
only things we have that use 9V batteries *are* the smoke/CO detectors!

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 18:54:16 -0700, Don Y wrote:

In our case, remembering to buy the batteries is the bigger chore
(unless it is a 'scheduled event' -- like New Year's).

I do it a week or so before Halloween. The 'old' batteries are still at
80%, but we are not supposed to let them go until the detector beeps
because their warning capacity is also reduced to almost nothing.

Then I solder them to a resistor in series with an LED and use them to
illiminate hollowed-out pumpkins for a week or so.

In ,
Don Y typed:
On 3/13/2016 4:19 PM, TomR wrote:
won't do that. Also, the purpose of the 14/3 is to provide a black
(hot) wire, a white (neutral) wire, and a third (red) wire for the
signal between the units.

And I'm saying that using the third wire in a 14/3 cable for
"signalling" may not comply with code! Any more than my using it as
an audio output from an amplifier (neutral referenced) would...

I already know that the way that 110 volt interconnected smoke detectors are
wired is with 14/3 (or it could be 12/3 as an alternative), and the third
(red) wire is the "signal" wire that allows them all to go off when one goes
off. That is the code compliant way of wiring them.

What I don't know for sure are my original questions about the wiring
diagram, the wireless possible alternative, etc.

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 8:04:42 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 3/13/2016 4:19 PM, TomR wrote:
won't do that. Also, the purpose of the 14/3 is to provide a black (hot) wire,
a white (neutral) wire, and a third (red) wire for the signal between the
units.

And I'm saying that using the third wire in a 14/3 cable for "signalling"
may not comply with code! Any more than my using it as an audio output
from an amplifier (neutral referenced) would...

Using 14/3 is how every linked smoke detector I've seen installed
around here is done. And the certainly sell replacement ones that
are compatible with that. It sure seems like it would be easy to just
pull up the install instructions for some typical alarms available
at HD, etc and read them.

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 11:49:24 AM UTC-4, TomR wrote:
In ,
Don Y typed:
On 3/13/2016 4:19 PM, TomR wrote:
won't do that. Also, the purpose of the 14/3 is to provide a black
(hot) wire, a white (neutral) wire, and a third (red) wire for the
signal between the units.

And I'm saying that using the third wire in a 14/3 cable for
"signalling" may not comply with code! Any more than my using it as
an audio output from an amplifier (neutral referenced) would...

I already know that the way that 110 volt interconnected smoke detectors are
wired is with 14/3 (or it could be 12/3 as an alternative), and the third
(red) wire is the "signal" wire that allows them all to go off when one goes
off. That is the code compliant way of wiring them.


+1


What I don't know for sure are my original questions about the wiring
diagram, the wireless possible alternative, etc.

Here's one diagram that shows the interconnect wire shared in common,
not daisy chained, which is how I would expect it to be, because:

http://www.buildmyowncabin.com/elect...tallation.html

1 - There is no reason for it to be daisy chained into one alarm and
then out to the next

2 - It makes for a more reliable system.

3 - It's easier to install.

Wireless, IDK anything about, other than obviously there are easier to
install because you don't have to interconnect them. The big downside
of course is that they are wireless and we all know that wireless is less
than perfect. And that what works today may not work two years from now,
then some other wireless device comes into the home, a neighbor's home, etc.
It definitely would not be my first choice, but it's better than no interconnect
that's for sure. Might want to check local code on what's allowed, etc.

In ,
trader_4 typed:
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 11:49:24 AM UTC-4, TomR wrote:
In ,
Don Y typed:
On 3/13/2016 4:19 PM, TomR wrote:

I already know that the way that 110 volt interconnected smoke
detectors are wired is with 14/3 (or it could be 12/3 as an
alternative), and the third (red) wire is the "signal" wire that
allows them all to go off when one goes off. That is the code
compliant way of wiring them.

+1

What I don't know for sure are my original questions about the wiring
diagram, the wireless possible alternative, etc.

Here's one diagram that shows the interconnect wire shared in common,
not daisy chained, which is how I would expect it to be, because:

http://www.buildmyowncabin.com/elect...tallation.html

1 - There is no reason for it to be daisy chained into one alarm and
then out to the next

2 - It makes for a more reliable system.

3 - It's easier to install.

Thanks. That helps a lot.

That's an excellent website. I think that I may have seen that website in
the past when I was trying to learn about 3-way wiring diagrams, but I had
lost track of where that website was. For example, it has 3-way wiring
diagrams (
http://www.buildmyowncabin.com/elect...-switches.html ) that I
think I remember seeing in the past. That showed various ways of wiring
3-way switches depending on where the power enters the system, whether the
lights are before or after or in between the 3-way switches, etc.

I had not found the fire alarm installation diagram before. I am pretty
sure that the way that the diagram is drawn, it means that it is okay to
have the individual detectors come off of the 14/3 wiring in any manner as
long as all of the black hot wires are connected to black, all the white
neutrals to white neutrals, and all of the red wires tied to red wires for
the interconnection signal.

I am not sure what the "Lifessaver Relay Module Model 120X -- Optional
Accessory" is or means in the diagram so I will trying looking that up to
see what it is.

Wireless, IDK anything about, other than obviously there are easier to
install because you don't have to interconnect them. The big downside
of course is that they are wireless and we all know that wireless is
less
than perfect. And that what works today may not work two years from
now,
then some other wireless device comes into the home, a neighbor's
home, etc.
It definitely would not be my first choice, but it's better than no
interconnect that's for sure. Might want to check local code on
what's allowed, etc.

I too do not know anything about the Wireless interconnected alarm systems,
but I have some of the same reservations about them that you mentioned.
But, one thing that I am wondering from what I have seen online so far is if
wireless detectors can be used to extend an existing 100 volt interconnected
system to another part of the structure without having to run the hardwiring
to the other area. I would guess that a hardwired "wireless" detector could
be included in the original 110 volt hardwired system and then another
battery operated wireless detector could be put in the additional
hard-to-reach location in the structure. So, maybe there could be a
combination of a hardwired interconnected alarm system with one or two
remotely placed wireless battery-operated detectors.

So much to learn, so little time.

In ,
TomR typed:
In ,
trader_4 typed:

Here's one diagram that shows the interconnect wire shared in common,
not daisy chained, which is how I would expect it to be, because:

http://www.buildmyowncabin.com/elect...tallation.html

I too do not know anything about the Wireless interconnected alarm
systems, but I have some of the same reservations about them that you
mentioned. But, one thing that I am wondering from what I have seen
online so far is if wireless detectors can be used to extend an
existing 100 volt interconnected system to another part of the
structure without having to run the hardwiring to the other area. I
would guess that a hardwired "wireless" detector could be included in
the original 110 volt hardwired system and then another battery
operated wireless detector could be put in the additional
hard-to-reach location in the structure. So, maybe there could be a
combination of a hardwired interconnected alarm system with one or
two remotely placed wireless battery-operated detectors.

I found this website link that explains the wireless devices and how they
can be used to extend an existing hardwired system to additional devices
wirelessly to avoid having to run additional hardwiring:

http://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/...ms/rf-sm-acdc/

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-4, TomR wrote:
In ,
TomR typed:
In ,
trader_4 typed:

Here's one diagram that shows the interconnect wire shared in common,
not daisy chained, which is how I would expect it to be, because:

http://www.buildmyowncabin.com/elect...tallation.html

I too do not know anything about the Wireless interconnected alarm
systems, but I have some of the same reservations about them that you
mentioned. But, one thing that I am wondering from what I have seen
online so far is if wireless detectors can be used to extend an
existing 100 volt interconnected system to another part of the
structure without having to run the hardwiring to the other area. I
would guess that a hardwired "wireless" detector could be included in
the original 110 volt hardwired system and then another battery
operated wireless detector could be put in the additional
hard-to-reach location in the structure. So, maybe there could be a
combination of a hardwired interconnected alarm system with one or
two remotely placed wireless battery-operated detectors.

I found this website link that explains the wireless devices and how they
can be used to extend an existing hardwired system to additional devices
wirelessly to avoid having to run additional hardwiring:

http://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/...ms/rf-sm-acdc/

So they can be used as essentially a bridge to connect two segments.
I'd be more comfortable using it that way, than relying on wireless
to connect them all. As long as the two are near enough, with no
reason to expect blockage between them, then the link should be
more reliable.

I guess if you relied on strictly wireless, the wireless signal just
has to go from the tripped one to any one of the others. If it then
trips any other one, that one will be trying to trip all the remaining
ones, etc. A chain reaction effect. That would increase the reliability
of the wireless connection part. So, maybe wireless is more reliable
than I thought it would be.

In ,
philo typed:
On 03/13/2016 02:45 PM, TomR wrote:
I own a tenant-occupied, 2-story, 5 Bedroom, Colonial Style single
family detached home with an attached 2-car garage and an unfinished
basement. The home currently has individual battery powered smoke
detectors and CO detectors, but none of the detectors are
interconnected. That meets the current code for an existing single
family home like this. So, under the current code, I don't need to
do anything.

Here is my question.

Alarms are generally quite loud. If one goes off, a tenant should be
able to hear it anywhere within the house.

Maybe you could test and verify because interconnected alarms may not
be necessary.

I meant to reply earlier but then forgot to do so.

This is a unique situation which I didn't bother to try to explain in my
original post. It is a detached single family home, but the family that
lives there has some government funding which means that the home itself is
inspected by a representative from that funding source/agency. They
"recommended", but are not "requiring" an interconnected alarm system with a
control panel etc. I do not plan on doing what they "recommend" because it
is overkill, unnecessary, and not a code requirement etc. But, I have
thought about just putting in a 110-volt interconnected alarm system (no
alarm panel, no outside monitoring, etc) just as a way to please them and
show that we did more than what the code requires for existing single family
residential homes.

As far as what is there now -- the battery operated smoke and CO detectors
all operate independently and they are all loud when they go off. They are
all loud enough for anyone anywhere it the home to easily hear the alarm no
matter which one goes off.

Meanwhile, I just read in another post where someone said that "philo" is an
electrician. If that is correct, and if you do happen to know the answer to
my original question about how to wire a 110-volt interconnected alarm
system, that would be great. I think that I may already have that question
figured out, but if you know the answer, that would be helpful information.

Meanwhile, I just read in another post where someone said that "philo" is an
electrician. If that is correct, and if you do happen to know the answer to
my original question about how to wire a 110-volt interconnected alarm
system, that would be great. I think that I may already have that question
figured out, but if you know the answer, that would be helpful information.

to interconnect the alarms, you need a third wire run between the alarms.
The third wire is usually in the 14/3 i,e usually the "red" wire. It does not matter how the wire is routed, it does not have to be directly between the alarms, as long as it gets connected.

The hard part is that you probably have 14/2 running to the alarms and that would have to be replaced with 14/3. The third wires from each alarm could then be connected together wherever they meet. i.e in the breaker panel.

M

In ,
typed:
Meanwhile, I just read in another post where someone said that
"philo" is an electrician. If that is correct, and if you do happen
to know the answer to my original question about how to wire a
110-volt interconnected alarm system, that would be great. I think
that I may already have that question figured out, but if you know
the answer, that would be helpful information.

to interconnect the alarms, you need a third wire run between the
alarms.
The third wire is usually in the 14/3 i,e usually the "red" wire. It
does not matter how the wire is routed, it does not have to be
directly between the alarms, as long as it gets connected.

The hard part is that you probably have 14/2 running to the alarms
and that would have to be replaced with 14/3. The third wires from
each alarm could then be connected together wherever they meet. i.e
in the breaker panel.

If I understand what you mean, it is not correct. The alarms now are
individual battery operated alarms that are not connected to each other. So
there is no 14/2 running to them or between them. 14/2 would go from the
panel to the first detector, so there would be no third red wire in the
panel to connect to anything. From the first detector to all of the other
detectors, there would be 14/3 wire. And those red wires would all be
connected to re, the black wires connected to black, and the white wires
connected to white.

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 2:42:29 PM UTC-4, TomR wrote:
In ,
typed:
Meanwhile, I just read in another post where someone said that
"philo" is an electrician. If that is correct, and if you do happen
to know the answer to my original question about how to wire a
110-volt interconnected alarm system, that would be great. I think
that I may already have that question figured out, but if you know
the answer, that would be helpful information.

to interconnect the alarms, you need a third wire run between the
alarms.
The third wire is usually in the 14/3 i,e usually the "red" wire. It
does not matter how the wire is routed, it does not have to be
directly between the alarms, as long as it gets connected.

The hard part is that you probably have 14/2 running to the alarms
and that would have to be replaced with 14/3. The third wires from
each alarm could then be connected together wherever they meet. i.e
in the breaker panel.

If I understand what you mean, it is not correct. The alarms now are
individual battery operated alarms that are not connected to each other. So
there is no 14/2 running to them or between them. 14/2 would go from the
panel to the first detector, so there would be no third red wire in the
panel to connect to anything. From the first detector to all of the other
detectors, there would be 14/3 wire. And those red wires would all be
connected to re, the black wires connected to black, and the white wires
connected to white.

Sounds like you have it right. IDK how you can figure out which
detectors are good ones. I have a house with ones that are about
8 years old, that are both AC powered and battery powered. They
are a real pain in the ass. You would think that with AC, the
battery would only be used if AC drops out. But the damn things
start beeping for a battery change in less than a year and with
a whole bunch of them, it gets annoying real fast. If it
were up to me, I'd get ones that are AC only, but that probably isn't
sufficient in many places today.

when installing connected smoke and presumably co2 detectors. put all of them on the same breaker!!!

HOWEVER not all by themselves, so someone cant turn off one breaker to silence them. then forget about it being off.

put a often used light on that breaker, like a kitchen light, so its not forgotten if its off.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 11:04:56 PM UTC-4, TomR wrote:

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


I would be cautious about this strategy.

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

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

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

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

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


I would be cautious about this strategy.

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

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

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

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

I own a tenant-occupied, 2-story, 5 Bedroom, Colonial Style single family
detached home with an attached 2-car garage and an unfinished basement. The
home currently has individual battery powered smoke detectors and CO
detectors, but none of the detectors are interconnected. That meets the
current code for an existing single family home like this. So, under the
current code, I don't need to do anything.

However, I am considering installing a 110-volt interconnected alarm system
with battery backups so that if one detector alarm sounds, they all sound at
the same time.

I have two sets of questions.

The first is about how to wire a 110-volt interconnected alarm system.

And, the second is about whether there is such a thing as a battery powered
completely wireless interconnected alarm system that I could install so I
would not have to physically run wires to interconnect the detectors in the
new alarm system, but still have it function like an interconnected alarm
system where if one alarm goes off, they all go off.

1) Questions about wiring a 110-volt interconnected alarm system that is NOT
WIRELESS:

I know that one way to do the wiring is to run 14/2.from the electrical
panel to the first alarm, then 14/3 to the next alarm, then 14/3 to the next
alarm, and so on -- meaning that the wiring loop goes from the first alarm,
then to the next one, then the next one, until I get to the last one, in one
continuous loop.

But, to do that, I think it would be difficult to fish the wires in a way so
that one loop goes to all of them one after the other.

My question is, can I junction off of the first one, for example, and split
that into two circuits -- one going to the alarms on the right side of the
house and one going to the alarms on the left side of the house?

- Yes


I have
been doing Google searches to see if I could find an example of this type of
wiring diagram but I can't find one.

2) Questions about WIRELESS interconnected alarms:

While researching this, I am seeing wireless smoke alarms that appear to be
able to communicate with each other so that if one goes off they all go off.
But, I can't quite tell if that means that it is possible to create a whole
new interconnected wireless alarm system for the whole house without having
to run any interconnecting wires through the walls and ceilings etc.

Wireless means wireless. I noticed that my local electrical supply company is now carrying wireless smoke alarms. I had a customer who wanted to add smoke alarms to an existing wired system. The fire inspector told him it was acceptable to switch to a wireless system.


John Grabowski
http://www.MrElectrician.TV

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 8:29:11 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:


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

With a couple of exceptions, though.

For one thing this wire isn't one branch circuit in a room or couple of rooms. It extends across the entire house, everywhere there's an alarm.

Secondly, we're not talking a porch light that doesn't come on - we're talking a life safety device, and in a rental where it's required to work.

Third, you probably won't know it broke until the house burns down - is there any kind of supervisory circuit on these?

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:08:11 AM UTC-4, TimR wrote:
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 8:29:11 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:


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

With a couple of exceptions, though.

For one thing this wire isn't one branch circuit in a room or couple of rooms. It extends across the entire house, everywhere there's an alarm.


So, because it's longer, now it can't be debugged using the same
methods you would on any other circuit? There aren't lights,
receptacles at the far end of your house, where the circuit runs
the length of the house?


Secondly, we're not talking a porch light that doesn't come on - we're talking a life safety device, and in a rental where it's required to work.


If the interconnect wire is broken, the alarms still work individually.
If the AC power connection is broken, you have the exact same vulnerability that
you do with any smoke detector that's powered by AC only. The ones here
in my house are like that, on one breaker. And if you want increased
reliability, there are dual AC and battery operated alarms, which are
required by code now in some places.



Third, you probably won't know it broke until the house burns down - is there any kind of supervisory circuit on these?

You're trying to impose requirements way beyond those that likely exist.
Is there any supervisory circuit in the many millions of smoke detectors
sold at HD, installed in millions of houses, including rentals?
There is no code requirement here in NJ for supervisory circuits in
a single family rental home. I doubt there is where he lives either.
I agree he should see what local code is and meet it, I'v said that
from the beginning. But to throw a lot of FUD into it about some alleged
inherent reliability problem with interconnected alarms in widespread use
doesn't make sense to me. In the overwhelming number of deaths from fire,
the smoke detectors didn't work not because of some interconnect problem,
loss of AC power, etc. They didn't work because they had dead batteries,
no batteries, or there was no smoke detector at all.

And it sounds like his issue with the govt, is probably section 8. They
require that a rental property meet very basic requirements, if you can get
a CO, then it almost certainly is Section 8 acceptable. They will look
for the existence of required smoke detectors, but they aren't going
to do an electrical inspection of how they are wired and they probably
don't care whether they are interconnected or not either.

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:32:08 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
If the interconnect wire is broken, the alarms still work individually.


No. This is where you are 100% wrong.

Well, you are right from the common sense view.

But not from the regulatory view. You build a safety system that was better than required, but then you were required to have it completely functional. You are better off to not have it at all than to have it and not have it work exactly as designed. That may not make sense but that's the way code works.

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 1:45:37 PM UTC-4, TimR wrote:
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:32:08 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
If the interconnect wire is broken, the alarms still work individually.


No. This is where you are 100% wrong.

Well, you are right from the common sense view.


I'm 100% right. I said if the interconnect wire is broken, the alarms
still work individually. THAT is 100% true.


But not from the regulatory view.

What regulatory view changes that they still operate? None.

You build a safety system that was better than required, but then you were required to have it completely functional. You are better off to not have it at all than to have it and not have it work exactly as designed. That may not make sense but that's the way code works.

If he puts in a system with an interconnect wire, ie the common type
that is already installed, used, sold at HD, etc, it may or not be
better than what code requires. Code may not require it to be interconnected.
But if he puts it in, it works. It meets code. If a unit fails at
some point in the future, he replaces it. If the interconnect wire
fails, which is extremely unlikely, he fixes that. I don't see what
the big issue is. I have had interconnected smoke detectors in 3 homes
now. They work. They are widely used, so why all the FUD?


FUD:

"You would think doing more would be better, but when you do that you have to meet complete code requirements for the extra, even if the extra isn't required. That exposes you to all sorts of liabilities and may fail an inspection. "

All he's talking about doing is putting in an interconnected smoke
detector system in a single family house. These are widely used,
are code compliant, all across most of America. What are these "liabilities"?


" Since this is government work, they will understand meeting the minimum requirement, and they will be anal about meeting EVERY spec if you do more than the minimum. "

It's not govt work. He said:

" It is a detached single family home, but the family that
lives there has some government funding which means that the home itself is
inspected by a representative from that funding source/agency. They
"recommended", but are not "requiring" an interconnected alarm system with a
control panel etc. "

So, this sounds like Section 8. And they have told him that they don't
have any special requirements that he has to meet. Good grief.

"I looked at that recommended wiring diagram. That absolutely would not meet code in any of my projects. (but we only do commercial where I work"

Well duh. He doesn't have to meet commercial requirements or rewuirements
for a rocket fuel factory either. He only has
to meet whatever the local code requirements are for single family rental
properties. And he can fill us in, but I bet if he looks up the local
fire code, basic interconnected smoke detectors like you see across
America are compliant. They are here in NJ. End of story.

In ,
trader_4 typed:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 2:42:29 PM UTC-4, TomR wrote:
In ,
typed:
Meanwhile, I just read in another post where someone said that
"philo" is an electrician. If that is correct, and if you do
happen to know the answer to my original question about how to
wire a 110-volt interconnected alarm system, that would be great.
I think that I may already have that question figured out, but if
you know the answer, that would be helpful information.

to interconnect the alarms, you need a third wire run between the
alarms.
The third wire is usually in the 14/3 i,e usually the "red" wire.
It does not matter how the wire is routed, it does not have to be
directly between the alarms, as long as it gets connected.

The hard part is that you probably have 14/2 running to the alarms
and that would have to be replaced with 14/3. The third wires from
each alarm could then be connected together wherever they meet. i.e
in the breaker panel.

If I understand what you mean, it is not correct. The alarms now are
individual battery operated alarms that are not connected to each
other. So there is no 14/2 running to them or between them. 14/2
would go from the panel to the first detector, so there would be no
third red wire in the panel to connect to anything. From the first
detector to all of the other detectors, there would be 14/3 wire.
And those red wires would all be connected to re, the black wires
connected to black, and the white wires connected to white.

Sounds like you have it right. IDK how you can figure out which
detectors are good ones. I have a house with ones that are about
8 years old, that are both AC powered and battery powered. They
are a real pain in the ass. You would think that with AC, the
battery would only be used if AC drops out. But the damn things
start beeping for a battery change in less than a year and with
a whole bunch of them, it gets annoying real fast. If it
were up to me, I'd get ones that are AC only, but that probably isn't
sufficient in many places today.

Thanks. I think my plan is going to be to get the ones that are AC powered
with a battery back-up, but ones where the battery is a built-in 10-year
(allegedly) lithium battery. Also, I want them all to have a "Hush Button"
feature to silence the alarm triggered by a known cause such as cooking or
shower mist/"steam". I am not sure, but I think the battery back-up feature
in AC powered detectors is either the code (in locations where
interconnected alarms are required), or are at least recommended. I guess
the theory is that if a fire is started by an electrical malfunction and/or
arcing etc., which also causes the AC power to go out (what are the odds?),
then the alarm system will still work with the battery back-up.

And, I think the detectors are supposed to be changed every 10 years anyway
(especially CO detectors, I think), then changing the detectors when the
lithium battery dies would make sense anyway. Yes, that costs more money,
but that's okay with me. Also, in the promotional literature for the more
expensive lithium battery back-up models, they claim that the increased cost
is offset by not having to pay the cost of replacing regular 9-volt
batteries every year for 10 years.

In ,
John G typed:
I own a tenant-occupied, 2-story, 5 Bedroom, Colonial Style single
family detached home with an attached 2-car garage and an unfinished
basement. The home currently has individual battery powered smoke
detectors and CO detectors, but none of the detectors are
interconnected. That meets the current code for an existing single
family home like this. So, under the current code, I don't need to
do anything.

However, I am considering installing a 110-volt interconnected alarm
system with battery backups so that if one detector alarm sounds,
they all sound at the same time.

I have two sets of questions.

The first is about how to wire a 110-volt interconnected alarm
system.

And, the second is about whether there is such a thing as a battery
powered completely wireless interconnected alarm system that I
could install so I would not have to physically run wires to
interconnect the detectors in the new alarm system, but still have
it function like an interconnected alarm system where if one alarm
goes off, they all go off.

1) Questions about wiring a 110-volt interconnected alarm system
that is NOT WIRELESS:

I know that one way to do the wiring is to run 14/2.from the
electrical panel to the first alarm, then 14/3 to the next alarm,
then 14/3 to the next alarm, and so on -- meaning that the wiring
loop goes from the first alarm, then to the next one, then the next
one, until I get to the last one, in one continuous loop.

But, to do that, I think it would be difficult to fish the wires in
a way so that one loop goes to all of them one after the other.

My question is, can I junction off of the first one, for example,
and split that into two circuits -- one going to the alarms on the
right side of the house and one going to the alarms on the left side
of the house?

- Yes

Thanks. Good to know.

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 2:57:57 PM UTC-4, TomR wrote:
In ,
trader_4 typed:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 2:42:29 PM UTC-4, TomR wrote:
In ,
typed:
Meanwhile, I just read in another post where someone said that
"philo" is an electrician. If that is correct, and if you do
happen to know the answer to my original question about how to
wire a 110-volt interconnected alarm system, that would be great.
I think that I may already have that question figured out, but if
you know the answer, that would be helpful information.

to interconnect the alarms, you need a third wire run between the
alarms.
The third wire is usually in the 14/3 i,e usually the "red" wire.
It does not matter how the wire is routed, it does not have to be
directly between the alarms, as long as it gets connected.

The hard part is that you probably have 14/2 running to the alarms
and that would have to be replaced with 14/3. The third wires from
each alarm could then be connected together wherever they meet. i.e
in the breaker panel.

If I understand what you mean, it is not correct. The alarms now are
individual battery operated alarms that are not connected to each
other. So there is no 14/2 running to them or between them. 14/2
would go from the panel to the first detector, so there would be no
third red wire in the panel to connect to anything. From the first
detector to all of the other detectors, there would be 14/3 wire.
And those red wires would all be connected to re, the black wires
connected to black, and the white wires connected to white.

Sounds like you have it right. IDK how you can figure out which
detectors are good ones. I have a house with ones that are about
8 years old, that are both AC powered and battery powered. They
are a real pain in the ass. You would think that with AC, the
battery would only be used if AC drops out. But the damn things
start beeping for a battery change in less than a year and with
a whole bunch of them, it gets annoying real fast. If it
were up to me, I'd get ones that are AC only, but that probably isn't
sufficient in many places today.

Thanks. I think my plan is going to be to get the ones that are AC powered
with a battery back-up, but ones where the battery is a built-in 10-year
(allegedly) lithium battery. Also, I want them all to have a "Hush Button"
feature to silence the alarm triggered by a known cause such as cooking or
shower mist/"steam". I am not sure, but I think the battery back-up feature
in AC powered detectors is either the code (in locations where
interconnected alarms are required), or are at least recommended. I guess
the theory is that if a fire is started by an electrical malfunction and/or
arcing etc., which also causes the AC power to go out (what are the odds?),
then the alarm system will still work with the battery back-up.


I think a bigger factor would be that when the power goes out, a lot
of people start using candles, fireplaces, wood stoves, etc with a
higher potential of starting a fire.




And, I think the detectors are supposed to be changed every 10 years anyway
(especially CO detectors, I think), then changing the detectors when the
lithium battery dies would make sense anyway. Yes, that costs more money,
but that's okay with me. Also, in the promotional literature for the more
expensive lithium battery back-up models, they claim that the increased cost
is offset by not having to pay the cost of replacing regular 9-volt
batteries every year for 10 years.

I agree, that 10 year Lion sounds like a good idea, especially for a
rental property so you don't have residents fooling around, changing
batteries, etc.

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

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

I would be cautious about this strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, here it goes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In ,
trader_4 typed:
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 2:57:57 PM UTC-4, TomR wrote:
In ,
trader_4 typed:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 2:42:29 PM UTC-4, TomR wrote:
In ,
typed:
Meanwhile, I just read in another post where someone said that
"philo" is an electrician. If that is correct, and if you do
happen to know the answer to my original question about how to
wire a 110-volt interconnected alarm system, that would be great.
I think that I may already have that question figured out, but if
you know the answer, that would be helpful information.

to interconnect the alarms, you need a third wire run between the
alarms.
The third wire is usually in the 14/3 i,e usually the "red" wire.
It does not matter how the wire is routed, it does not have to be
directly between the alarms, as long as it gets connected.

The hard part is that you probably have 14/2 running to the alarms
and that would have to be replaced with 14/3. The third wires
from each alarm could then be connected together wherever they
meet. i.e in the breaker panel.

If I understand what you mean, it is not correct. The alarms now
are individual battery operated alarms that are not connected to
each other. So there is no 14/2 running to them or between them.
14/2 would go from the panel to the first detector, so there would
be no third red wire in the panel to connect to anything. From
the first detector to all of the other detectors, there would be
14/3 wire. And those red wires would all be connected to re, the
black wires connected to black, and the white wires connected to
white.

Sounds like you have it right. IDK how you can figure out which
detectors are good ones. I have a house with ones that are about
8 years old, that are both AC powered and battery powered. They
are a real pain in the ass. You would think that with AC, the
battery would only be used if AC drops out. But the damn things
start beeping for a battery change in less than a year and with
a whole bunch of them, it gets annoying real fast. If it
were up to me, I'd get ones that are AC only, but that probably
isn't sufficient in many places today.

Thanks. I think my plan is going to be to get the ones that are AC
powered with a battery back-up, but ones where the battery is a
built-in 10-year (allegedly) lithium battery. Also, I want them all
to have a "Hush Button" feature to silence the alarm triggered by a
known cause such as cooking or shower mist/"steam". I am not sure,
but I think the battery back-up feature in AC powered detectors is
either the code (in locations where interconnected alarms are
required), or are at least recommended. I guess the theory is that
if a fire is started by an electrical malfunction and/or arcing
etc., which also causes the AC power to go out (what are the odds?),
then the alarm system will still work with the battery back-up.


I think a bigger factor would be that when the power goes out, a lot
of people start using candles, fireplaces, wood stoves, etc with a
higher potential of starting a fire.

Good point. Makes sense to me.

And, I think the detectors are supposed to be changed every 10 years
anyway (especially CO detectors, I think), then changing the
detectors when the lithium battery dies would make sense anyway.
Yes, that costs more money, but that's okay with me. Also, in the
promotional literature for the more expensive lithium battery
back-up models, they claim that the increased cost is offset by not
having to pay the cost of replacing regular 9-volt batteries every
year for 10 years.

I agree, that 10 year Lion sounds like a good idea, especially for a
rental property so you don't have residents fooling around, changing
batteries, etc.

Yes, that's another reason why I would go with the built-in Lithium Ion
battery versions.

TomR,
Yes, I think you understand the complexities of this.

My area manages 415 buildings, all of them multiple occupancy, all of them alarmed, many of them sprinkled. I know the pain of some well intentioned person deciding to go beyond the minimum and step into a quagmire of regulation and oversight.

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 4:15:27 PM UTC-4, TomR wrote:
In ,
trader_4 typed:
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 8:23:43 AM UTC-4, TimR wrote:
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 11:04:56 PM UTC-4, TomR wrote:

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

I would be cautious about this strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, here it goes:

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

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

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

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

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


It would be interesting to see some case law on that. First the fact
that govt subsidies are helping pay for the rent of some tenants that
you may chose to rent to or not, is irrelevant. Whether anyone could
prevail with a case against you for a situation where the work was
legally done, inspected, up to required code, but arguably not as good
as what was there before, I think is doubtful. If I have a rental
property that had bars on the windows, I decide during a renovation
that I don't want to replace them, code doesn't require them, if a
subsequent renter sues me when the house is broken into, can they
prevail? It meets code, they knew what was there or not there when
they rented, etc. How about if there was a heated sidewalk, I decide to take
that out, now a tenanat later falls and claims that as a reason?
I replace one fire rated door with another, that while fully meeting
code, isn't as fire resistant as the original? This would lead to
all kinds of crazy suits. Code is there for a reason, it sets the
minimum safety standards.



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

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


Again, what does the local code say? That is what is most relevant.
Did you ask that govt rent subsidy inspector what happens if you
upgrade it to an interconnected system, but not a monitored system?
Did you ask them about wireless? THAT would seem to be more relevant
than opinions here.



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

That's what I would think too, but I'm not talking to the fire marshal
and the govt subsidy folks. I just objected to the huge dump of FUD,
ie that you now would have an interconnect wire running the length
of the house that for some reason can't be debugged if there is
a problem, no redundancy for the system, etc. What you're proposing
is in existence, code compliant in millions of single family rentals
across the country. And it's an improvement over what's there. I don't
think you should fear making an improvement that is code compliant,
in widespread use, a good idea, increases the safety of your renters,
etc over FUD.

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 9:11:43 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

Again, what does the local code say? That is what is most relevant.
Did you ask that govt rent subsidy inspector what happens if you
upgrade it to an interconnected system, but not a monitored system?

I said nothing about monitoring. The word I used was supervised. Supervised is not monitored, they are two different things.

All the systems I put in are supervised. In the context of an alarm system, supervised means there is something that will detect a fault condition. A break in the line, an increase or decrease in resistance, etc., will trigger a warning.

In ,
TimR typed:
TomR,
Yes, I think you understand the complexities of this.

My area manages 415 buildings, all of them multiple occupancy, all of
them alarmed, many of them sprinkled. I know the pain of some well
intentioned person deciding to go beyond the minimum and step into a
quagmire of regulation and oversight.

TimR,

Interesting. Thanks.

Since you mentioned sprinkler systems, my first thought is, "don't get me
started on that one."

For exactly the same issue of not wanting to get myself caught up in a whole
new quagmire of excessive regulation etc., I decided to forego an
opportunity that I had to add a sprinkler system to one apartment while I
was re-doing all of the plumbing. What happened was that in the 3-family
residential rental that I mentioned earlier I was completely re-doing the
bottom level apartment -- all new everything, completely gutted down to the
bare walls and open ceiling and then back up, with all new electric,
plumbing, etc. And, I actually took that opportunity to separate out the
water supply for each of the 3 apartments. I changed it in a way that I can
later just have 3 separate water meters easily installed if I want to,
although I left it with just the one existing water meter for all 3
apartments. While doing that, I considered adding a sprinkler system to
just that one apartment. Definitely not required, but I thought that it
would be a nice safety feature to add since I could easily do that while
doing the other work. But then I researched what types of regulations and
testing requirements etc. come along with having a sprinkler system and
decided that there was no way I was going to sign myself up for that. So,
what could have been a nice safety feature just ended up not getting done.
It just would not have been worth all of the future aggravation to go ahead
with that idea.