Mains fire detectors. Building Regs vs manufacturer's recommendations
 

From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, "Charles M Atkinson"
wrote on Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:45:14
+0100:

Which advice to follow? I guess BRK are more likely to be overspecifying to
avoid liability (that's posh for covering their arses) whereas the Building
Regs are more down to earth.

The (Approved Documents to the) Building Regulations are (one way of
achieving) the absolute minimum standard acceptable for health, safety
and welfare. If a manufacturer recommends a higher standard, and
whether you choose to follow that advice, that's down to them (and
very commendable it is, too), and to you.
--
Hugo Nebula
"You know, I'd rather see this on TV,
Tones it down" - Laurie Anderson

Mains fire detectors. Building Regs vs manufacturer's recommendations
 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 19:45:14 +0100, "Charles M Atkinson"
wrote:



Which advice to follow?

If the fire has got to the stage where the interlink wiring is
affected you have long since lost interest in the subject.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Mains fire detectors. Building Regs vs manufacturer's recommendations
 

From the 2 statements as quoted I suspect the Regs mean you can use 3 core
+
earth (looks like twin and earth) rather than FP200 or Pyro. They don't
appear to mention a size. BRK suggest 1.5mm probably because the
interconnection will be low voltage (especially if the mains fail and
you're
relying on battery back-up) so you don't get a large volts drop over the
length of the run.
Richard.

Thanks, Richard. I wouldn't have expected the voltage drops to be
significant -- the currents will be in the signalling rather than power
range????