To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an alarm when smoke is blown directly into it!

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke into the alarm.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Someday we'll look back on all this and plough into a parked car.

A lot of the problems like this are due to dust etc getting into the guts

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.v8ajuam0ytk5n5@i7-940...
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an alarm when
smoke is blown directly into it!

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Someday we'll look back on all this and plough into a parked car.

On 18/01/2012 17:50, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an alarm
when smoke is blown directly into it!

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.

That is entirely consistent with Home Office tests. Smoke from burnt
then extinguished paper, candle, taper, string, rope and matches were
all found to be ineffective in up to 97% of tests. You need proper smoke
matches to produce enough smoke to simulate fire conditions and to
trigger the alarm, although there are also aerosol test sprays that will
trigger the alarm and that don't smell.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:
On 18/01/2012 17:50, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an alarm
when smoke is blown directly into it!

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.

That is entirely consistent with Home Office tests. Smoke from burnt
then extinguished paper, candle, taper, string, rope and matches were
all found to be ineffective in up to 97% of tests. You need proper smoke
matches to produce enough smoke to simulate fire conditions and to
trigger the alarm, although there are also aerosol test sprays that will
trigger the alarm and that don't smell.


OTOH a shower with the bathroom door sets ours off, or chip frying, as
indeed did a log that rolled off the fire into the hearth..thank
heavens. Not that it would have set fire to anything but it filled the
room with smoke (no one was in it at the time).


Colin Bignell

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an
alarm when smoke is blown directly into it!
Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the
smoke into the alarm.

What type of detector and how old also makes a difference.


--
Adam

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:05:30 -0000, Brian Gaff wrote:

A lot of the problems like this are due to dust etc getting into the guts

This is a brand new smoke alarm. I even tried adjusting the sensitivity with a POT I found inside. It's now in the recycle bin.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The first Harley Davidson motorcycle built in 1903 used a tomato can for a carburetor.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:13:39 -0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 18/01/2012 17:50, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an alarm
when smoke is blown directly into it!

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.

That is entirely consistent with Home Office tests. Smoke from burnt
then extinguished paper, candle, taper, string, rope and matches were
all found to be ineffective in up to 97% of tests. You need proper smoke
matches to produce enough smoke to simulate fire conditions and to
trigger the alarm, although there are also aerosol test sprays that will
trigger the alarm and that don't smell.

Not good enough. If paper catches fire, I want to know about it. I filled this detector with smoke and it ignored me completely. The other two I bought work fine.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

What did the elephant say to the naked man?
How do you pick up anything with that?

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:50:24 -0000, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.

Toast is better. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:39:40 -0000, ARWadsworth wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an
alarm when smoke is blown directly into it!
Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the
smoke into the alarm.

What type of detector and how old also makes a difference.

It's a (the name escapes me - the one that isn't ionisation). And so is another which works fine. And so is an ionisation one too.

All three are brand new.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Women like silent men, they think they're listening.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:38:47 -0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:50:24 -0000, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.

Toast is better. B-)

I have a toasted sandwich maker and it always gets left on for 3 hours afterwards. Gives the teflon a good clean though!

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

You have got to remember that women make babies - not a great bit of design work. Messy, noisy and cannot do anything useful.

On 18/01/2012 21:38, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:39:40 -0000, ARWadsworth
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an
alarm when smoke is blown directly into it!
Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the
smoke into the alarm.

What type of detector and how old also makes a difference.

It's a (the name escapes me - the one that isn't ionisation). And so is

Optical...

another which works fine. And so is an ionisation one too.

All three are brand new.

Return it for a replacement then!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:13:30 -0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 18/01/2012 21:38, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:39:40 -0000, ARWadsworth
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an
alarm when smoke is blown directly into it!
Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the
smoke into the alarm.

What type of detector and how old also makes a difference.

It's a (the name escapes me - the one that isn't ionisation). And so is

Optical...

another which works fine. And so is an ionisation one too.

All three are brand new.

Return it for a replacement then!

It was free. It was lost in the post so I was refunded long ago. It finally arrived and was crap.

Anyway my point is that you can't trust the test button - I bet you it just sounds the piezo!

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Women claim that they never pursue a man. Well, by the same token, a mousetrap never pursues a mouse, but the end result is
the same.

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.v8ajuam0ytk5n5@i7-940...
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an alarm when
smoke is blown directly into it!

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.


Just give my missus a call.....She can set of *Next doors* alarm when cookin
:-)

On 18/01/2012 21:37, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:13:39 -0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/01/2012 17:50, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an alarm
when smoke is blown directly into it!

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.

That is entirely consistent with Home Office tests. Smoke from burnt
then extinguished paper, candle, taper, string, rope and matches were
all found to be ineffective in up to 97% of tests. You need proper smoke
matches to produce enough smoke to simulate fire conditions and to
trigger the alarm, although there are also aerosol test sprays that will
trigger the alarm and that don't smell.

Not good enough. If paper catches fire, I want to know about it.

Then buy a fire detector, not a smoke detector. Generally, paper
produces relatively little smoke when it burns.

I
filled this detector with smoke and it ignored me completely. The other
two I bought work fine.

You got a better rate of success with burning paper than the Home Office
tests.

Colin Bignell

On Jan 19, 10:13*am, Nightjar
wrote:

Then buy a fire detector, not a smoke detector. Generally, paper
produces relatively little smoke when it burns.

Opening the oven tends to (a) not produce very much smoke unless
you've burnt something and (b) set smoke alarms off.

Neil

On 19/01/2012 12:11, Neil Williams wrote:
On Jan 19, 10:13 am,
wrote:

Then buy a fire detector, not a smoke detector. Generally, paper
produces relatively little smoke when it burns.

Opening the oven tends to (a) not produce very much smoke unless
you've burnt something

It does, however, release particulates that will be picked up by some
types of detector and have the same effect as smoke.

and (b) set smoke alarms off.

Which is what the silence button is for on some kitchen specific alarms.

Colin Bignell

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.v8ajuam0ytk5n5@i7-940...
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an alarm when
smoke is blown directly into it!

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.

--

Happy now Peter?
Have you asked yourself just what you get for less than a fiver in B&Q?

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:13:49 -0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 18/01/2012 21:37, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:13:39 -0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/01/2012 17:50, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an alarm
when smoke is blown directly into it!

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.

That is entirely consistent with Home Office tests. Smoke from burnt
then extinguished paper, candle, taper, string, rope and matches were
all found to be ineffective in up to 97% of tests. You need proper smoke
matches to produce enough smoke to simulate fire conditions and to
trigger the alarm, although there are also aerosol test sprays that will
trigger the alarm and that don't smell.

Not good enough. If paper catches fire, I want to know about it.

Then buy a fire detector, not a smoke detector. Generally, paper
produces relatively little smoke when it burns.

I set light to a rolled up piece of A4, then blew it out, there was a LOT of smoke. And the other two detected it just fine.

I filled this detector with smoke and it ignored me completely. The other
two I bought work fine.

You got a better rate of success with burning paper than the Home Office
tests.

Just burning they wouldn't work, but when you blow it out there is smoke. Much more than a match.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

(( _______
_______ /\O O\
/O /\ / \ \
/ O /O \ / O \O____O\ ))
((/_____O/ \\ /O /
\O O\ / \ / O /
\O O\ O/ \/_____O/
\O____O\/ )) ))
((

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:12:36 -0000, Mr Pounder wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.v8ajuam0ytk5n5@i7-940...
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an alarm when
smoke is blown directly into it!

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.

--

Happy now Peter?
Have you asked yourself just what you get for less than a fiver in B&Q?

It was actually 99p each. And two of three worked.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Where Article 51 applies, the number of Directors subject to retirement by
rotation under Article 49 shall be reduced (subject to Article 64(g)) by
the same number as that by which the number of Directors has fallen below
that fixed under Article 44.
(Proposed change to the constitution of Mensa)

On 19/01/2012 18:08, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:13:49 -0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/01/2012 21:37, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
....
Not good enough. If paper catches fire, I want to know about it.

Then buy a fire detector, not a smoke detector. Generally, paper
produces relatively little smoke when it burns.

I set light to a rolled up piece of A4, then blew it out, there was a
LOT of smoke.

Try lighting a smoke match. Then you will see what a LOT of smoke really
looks like. They produce enough to show clearly which chimney serves a
particular fireplace when you need to know.

Colin Bignell

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:13:30 -0000, John Rumm
wrote:
On 18/01/2012 21:38, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:39:40 -0000, ARWadsworth
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button -
don't. I've got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to
sound an alarm when smoke is blown directly into it!
Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the
smoke into the alarm.

What type of detector and how old also makes a difference.

It's a (the name escapes me - the one that isn't ionisation). And
so is

Optical...

another which works fine. And so is an ionisation one too.

All three are brand new.

Return it for a replacement then!

It was free. It was lost in the post so I was refunded long ago. It
finally arrived and was crap.
Anyway my point is that you can't trust the test button - I bet you
it just sounds the piezo!

And the manufacturer of the alarms?


--
Adam

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:25:09 -0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 19/01/2012 18:08, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:13:49 -0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/01/2012 21:37, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
...
Not good enough. If paper catches fire, I want to know about it.

Then buy a fire detector, not a smoke detector. Generally, paper
produces relatively little smoke when it burns.

I set light to a rolled up piece of A4, then blew it out, there was a
LOT of smoke.

Try lighting a smoke match. Then you will see what a LOT of smoke really
looks like. They produce enough to show clearly which chimney serves a
particular fireplace when you need to know.

I wanted to know if the alarm operated when there was a small fire just starting, not when my house has burnt down!

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A little girl asked her mother, "Can I go outside and play with the boys?"
Her mother replied, "No, you can't play with the boys, they're too rough."
The little girl thought about it for a few moments and asked, "If I can find a smooth one, can I play with him?"

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:30:49 -0000, ARWadsworth wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:13:30 -0000, John Rumm
wrote:
On 18/01/2012 21:38, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:39:40 -0000, ARWadsworth
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:


What type of detector and how old also makes a difference.

It's a (the name escapes me - the one that isn't ionisation). And
so is

Optical...

another which works fine. And so is an ionisation one too.

All three are brand new.

Return it for a replacement then!

It was free. It was lost in the post so I was refunded long ago. It
finally arrived and was crap.
Anyway my point is that you can't trust the test button - I bet you
it just sounds the piezo!

And the manufacturer of the alarms?

3.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Alfred Hitchcock didn't have a belly button.

On 19/01/2012 18:08, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:12:36 -0000, Mr Pounder
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.v8ajuam0ytk5n5@i7-940...
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an alarm
when
smoke is blown directly into it!

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.

--

Happy now Peter?
Have you asked yourself just what you get for less than a fiver in B&Q?

It was actually 99p each. And two of three worked.

So what you are saying is that you kept the two most likely to give you
a false alarm, and threw away the one that worked correctly...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 19/01/2012 18:54, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:25:09 -0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 19/01/2012 18:08, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:13:49 -0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/01/2012 21:37, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
...
Not good enough. If paper catches fire, I want to know about it.

Then buy a fire detector, not a smoke detector. Generally, paper
produces relatively little smoke when it burns.

I set light to a rolled up piece of A4, then blew it out, there was a
LOT of smoke.

Try lighting a smoke match. Then you will see what a LOT of smoke really
looks like. They produce enough to show clearly which chimney serves a
particular fireplace when you need to know.

I wanted to know if the alarm operated when there was a small fire just
starting, not when my house has burnt down!

For which, as I said before, you need a fire detector, not a smoke detector.

Colin Bignell

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:05:07 -0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 19/01/2012 18:08, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:12:36 -0000, Mr Pounder
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.v8ajuam0ytk5n5@i7-940...
To whoever tests their smoke alarms by pressing the button - don't. I've
got one that bleeps when you press test, but fails to sound an alarm
when
smoke is blown directly into it!

Roll up a piece of A4, light the end, then blow it out. Waft the smoke
into the alarm.

--

Happy now Peter?
Have you asked yourself just what you get for less than a fiver in B&Q?

It was actually 99p each. And two of three worked.

So what you are saying is that you kept the two most likely to give you
a false alarm, and threw away the one that worked correctly...

No, I kept the two that detect smoke properly like every alarm I've ever had. I'm talking about a hell of a lot of smoke to set the dodgy one off - enough smoke to almost obscure the smoke alarm from sight.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic is a Fokker, one o'clock, three miles, Eastbound."
United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've got the little Fokker in sight."

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:52:13 -0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 19/01/2012 18:54, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:25:09 -0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 19/01/2012 18:08, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:13:49 -0000, Nightjar
wrote:

On 18/01/2012 21:37, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
...


Then buy a fire detector, not a smoke detector. Generally, paper
produces relatively little smoke when it burns.

I set light to a rolled up piece of A4, then blew it out, there was a
LOT of smoke.

Try lighting a smoke match. Then you will see what a LOT of smoke really
looks like. They produce enough to show clearly which chimney serves a
particular fireplace when you need to know.

I wanted to know if the alarm operated when there was a small fire just
starting, not when my house has burnt down!

For which, as I said before, you need a fire detector, not a smoke detector.

As in detecting a sudden increase in heat?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Sex drive: a physical craving that begins in adolescence and ends at marriage.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:33:37 -0000, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

For which, as I said before, you need a fire detector, not a smoke

detector.

As in detecting a sudden increase in heat?

I'm half wondering what this "fire detector" is as well. Rate of
change of heat, absolute heat? Something else but not detecting
combustion particulates (aka smoke)?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 19/01/2012 21:20, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:33:37 -0000, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

For which, as I said before, you need a fire detector, not a smoke

detector.

As in detecting a sudden increase in heat?

I'm half wondering what this "fire detector" is as well. Rate of
change of heat, absolute heat? Something else but not detecting
combustion particulates (aka smoke)?

He is a serial troll, so I feel quite justified in pointing out what he
is asking for, whether it actually exists or not. However, a rate of
heat rise detector is a fire detector that does not require the presence
of smoke. I have also been told by someone I knew, who used to install
hospital fire systems, that there are much more sophisticated systems
than the rather primitive devices sold for household use that pick up
combustion products from the very early stages of a fire, long before
any smoke detector will be triggered.

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 19/01/2012 21:20, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:33:37 -0000, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

For which, as I said before, you need a fire detector, not a smoke

detector.

As in detecting a sudden increase in heat?

I'm half wondering what this "fire detector" is as well. Rate of
change of heat, absolute heat? Something else but not detecting
combustion particulates (aka smoke)?

He is a serial troll, so I feel quite justified in pointing out what he is
asking for, whether it actually exists or not. However, a rate of heat
rise detector is a fire detector that does not require the presence of
smoke. I have also been told by someone I knew, who used to install
hospital fire systems, that there are much more sophisticated systems than
the rather primitive devices sold for household use that pick up
combustion products from the very early stages of a fire, long before any
smoke detector will be triggered.

My smoke detectors will trigger with no visible smoke.

dennis@home wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 19/01/2012 21:20, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:33:37 -0000, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

For which, as I said before, you need a fire detector, not a smoke

detector.

As in detecting a sudden increase in heat?

I'm half wondering what this "fire detector" is as well. Rate of
change of heat, absolute heat? Something else but not detecting
combustion particulates (aka smoke)?

He is a serial troll, so I feel quite justified in pointing out what
he is asking for, whether it actually exists or not. However, a rate
of heat rise detector is a fire detector that does not require the
presence of smoke. I have also been told by someone I knew, who used
to install hospital fire systems, that there are much more
sophisticated systems than the rather primitive devices sold for
household use that pick up combustion products from the very early
stages of a fire, long before any smoke detector will be triggered.

My smoke detectors will trigger with no visible smoke.


Have you been using the induction hob again?

--
Adam

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:21:42 -0000, Nightjar wrote:

On 19/01/2012 21:20, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:33:37 -0000, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

For which, as I said before, you need a fire detector, not a smoke

detector.

As in detecting a sudden increase in heat?

I'm half wondering what this "fire detector" is as well. Rate of
change of heat, absolute heat? Something else but not detecting
combustion particulates (aka smoke)?

He is a serial troll, so I feel quite justified in pointing out what he
is asking for, whether it actually exists or not.

I asked a quite sensible question, stop being so childish.

However, a rate of
heat rise detector is a fire detector that does not require the presence
of smoke. I have also been told by someone I knew, who used to install
hospital fire systems, that there are much more sophisticated systems
than the rather primitive devices sold for household use that pick up
combustion products from the very early stages of a fire, long before
any smoke detector will be triggered.

Colin Bignell


--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

__.------.
.-' .---. \
.' .' O )/"\/
.' ) :' L
.'"/ ( _J: |
/ '' \ / `\ F
J ' L_( _ J
| ( ( `--' |/
J / : :. : J
| | :. :. :. : .:L
| \ . . .:'|F
| | `:. .: ||
F || ' |||
| : . JJ
|) | /F
V A /J
|| \_.-. .-.FF
---'--. /--\\ L----.
|||L \|| |
JJ)) `|| |
)|___.---\----'
.--'""'|/ |F
|J`-' FF
| L : JJ
| J :||
J | | ||
J |_/\_F
J | |J
L L ||
| | |F
| | |F

Lieutenant Scott :
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:21:42 -0000, Nightjar
e.me.uk wrote:

On 19/01/2012 21:20, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:33:37 -0000, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

For which, as I said before, you need a fire detector, not a smoke

detector.

As in detecting a sudden increase in heat?

I'm half wondering what this "fire detector" is as well. Rate of
change of heat, absolute heat? Something else but not detecting
combustion particulates (aka smoke)?

He is a serial troll, so I feel quite justified in pointing out what he
is asking for, whether it actually exists or not.

I asked a quite sensible question, stop being so childish.

Sorry to be a nuisance Lieutenant, but would it be possible for you to
make your replies a few words longer?

Those over-length lines of yours are great for prompting me to hit "Next
Message" before reading anything.

--
Mike Barnes

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:38:46 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

My smoke detectors will trigger with no visible smoke.

Everybody has a nose.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:03:57 +0000, wrote:

My smoke detectors will trigger with no visible smoke.

Everybody has a nose.

Not everybody and even if they do (or don't) they might not have any
sense of smell.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:07:30 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:03:57 +0000, wrote:

My smoke detectors will trigger with no visible smoke.

Everybody has a nose.

Not everybody and even if they do (or don't) they might not have any
sense of smell.

I bet you're fun at parties.

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:03:57 +0000, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:38:46 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

My smoke detectors will trigger with no visible smoke.

Everybody has a nose.

My dog hasn't.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On 20/01/2012 16:32, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:03:57 +0000, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:38:46 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

My smoke detectors will trigger with no visible smoke.

Everybody has a nose.

My dog hasn't.

Go on, I'll let you have the punch line with this oldie:

How does he smell?


--
Howard Neil

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:32:24 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:03:57 +0000, wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:38:46 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

My smoke detectors will trigger with no visible smoke.

Everybody has a nose.

My dog hasn't.

Neither has Voldemort.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:18:24 -0000, Mike Barnes wrote:

Lieutenant Scott :
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:21:42 -0000, Nightjar
e.me.uk wrote:

On 19/01/2012 21:20, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:33:37 -0000, Lieutenant Scott wrote:





As in detecting a sudden increase in heat?

I'm half wondering what this "fire detector" is as well. Rate of
change of heat, absolute heat? Something else but not detecting
combustion particulates (aka smoke)?

He is a serial troll, so I feel quite justified in pointing out what he
is asking for, whether it actually exists or not.

I asked a quite sensible question, stop being so childish.

Sorry to be a nuisance Lieutenant, but would it be possible for you to
make your replies a few words longer?

Those over-length lines of yours are great for prompting me to hit "Next
Message" before reading anything.

Try hitting the wrap button "O" on Agent, not sure about Turnpike (which by the way is a rather simplistic pile of rubbish).

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Windows 95: n. 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.