UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Thursday, 29 November 2018 13:31:41 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/11/2018 21:54, tabbypurr wrote:

3. I do the job properly first time and don't waste my time and fit a
heat detector as per regs and per everything I have been taught
(inducing the AICO professional installer courses).


that's the official line & you're required to follow it. It's way less safe though. Heat detectors don't detect fires until much later.


People don't usually sleep in the kitchen (bed****s noted as exception).


I think we can agree on that

What's safer? A heat detector in the kitchen and a smoke detector in the
hall (and better the bedroom too) - OR - a smoke detector in the kitchen
that ****es people off and gets disconnected?


that isn't the choice of course, there is a 3rd as I explained.

Fires take hold & get out of hand very fast. The fumes spread & are what kill. The quicker you can get out the better. Heat detectors are false alarm proof but only detect late in the process. Ionisations can either false alarm terribly or be just the thing for the kitchen, depending exactly where they're installed. But I explained all that.


NT
  #82   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,681
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On 29/11/2018 14:17, wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 13:31:41 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/11/2018 21:54, tabbypurr wrote:

3. I do the job properly first time and don't waste my time and fit a
heat detector as per regs and per everything I have been taught
(inducing the AICO professional installer courses).

that's the official line & you're required to follow it. It's way less safe though. Heat detectors don't detect fires until much later.


People don't usually sleep in the kitchen (bed****s noted as exception).


I think we can agree on that

What's safer? A heat detector in the kitchen and a smoke detector in the
hall (and better the bedroom too) - OR - a smoke detector in the kitchen
that ****es people off and gets disconnected?


that isn't the choice of course, there is a 3rd as I explained.

Fires take hold & get out of hand very fast. The fumes spread & are what kill. The quicker you can get out the better. Heat detectors are false alarm proof but only detect late in the process. Ionisations can either false alarm terribly or be just the thing for the kitchen, depending exactly where they're installed. But I explained all that.


NT

No, you have not yet explained how to determine the place in a kitchen
to place a mains, interlinked ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid
nuisance alarms but (b) detect real fires.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  #83   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Thursday, 29 November 2018 14:55:48 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/11/2018 14:17, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 13:31:41 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/11/2018 21:54, tabbypurr wrote:

3. I do the job properly first time and don't waste my time and fit a
heat detector as per regs and per everything I have been taught
(inducing the AICO professional installer courses).

that's the official line & you're required to follow it. It's way less safe though. Heat detectors don't detect fires until much later.

People don't usually sleep in the kitchen (bed****s noted as exception).


I think we can agree on that

What's safer? A heat detector in the kitchen and a smoke detector in the
hall (and better the bedroom too) - OR - a smoke detector in the kitchen
that ****es people off and gets disconnected?


that isn't the choice of course, there is a 3rd as I explained.

Fires take hold & get out of hand very fast. The fumes spread & are what kill. The quicker you can get out the better. Heat detectors are false alarm proof but only detect late in the process. Ionisations can either false alarm terribly or be just the thing for the kitchen, depending exactly where they're installed. But I explained all that.


NT

No, you have not yet explained how to determine the place in a kitchen
to place a mains, interlinked ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid
nuisance alarms but (b) detect real fires.


Each time it false alarms just move it a bit further away from the source of the false alarms. At some point it no longer false alarms, but picks up real incipient fires reliably.


NT
  #85   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats



wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 13:31:41 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/11/2018 21:54, tabbypurr wrote:

3. I do the job properly first time and don't waste my time and fit a
heat detector as per regs and per everything I have been taught
(inducing the AICO professional installer courses).

that's the official line & you're required to follow it. It's way less
safe though. Heat detectors don't detect fires until much later.


People don't usually sleep in the kitchen (bed****s noted as exception).


I think we can agree on that

What's safer? A heat detector in the kitchen and a smoke detector in the
hall (and better the bedroom too) - OR - a smoke detector in the kitchen
that ****es people off and gets disconnected?


that isn't the choice of course, there is a 3rd as I explained.

Fires take hold & get out of hand very fast.


Depends on the fire.

The fumes spread & are what kill.


Again, depends on the fire. Not true of a fat fire in the kitchen.

The quicker you can get out the better.


Again, depends on the fire. It can make more sense
to put the fire out before it sets fire to whats around
it rather than just run out the door and let the entire
place burn to the ground. In spades with first in
bedrooms etc where getting out is harder.

Heat detectors are false alarm proof but only detect late in the
process. Ionisations can either false alarm terribly or be just the
thing for the kitchen, depending exactly where they're installed.


But it makes more sense to install them where they
detect best and have some easy way of cancelling the
alarm when the inevitable burnt toast does set if off.

But I explained all that.


Claimed actually, not explained.




  #86   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,681
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On 29/11/2018 17:07, wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 14:55:48 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/11/2018 14:17, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 13:31:41 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/11/2018 21:54, tabbypurr wrote:

3. I do the job properly first time and don't waste my time and fit a
heat detector as per regs and per everything I have been taught
(inducing the AICO professional installer courses).

that's the official line & you're required to follow it. It's way less safe though. Heat detectors don't detect fires until much later.

People don't usually sleep in the kitchen (bed****s noted as exception).

I think we can agree on that

What's safer? A heat detector in the kitchen and a smoke detector in the
hall (and better the bedroom too) - OR - a smoke detector in the kitchen
that ****es people off and gets disconnected?

that isn't the choice of course, there is a 3rd as I explained.

Fires take hold & get out of hand very fast. The fumes spread & are what kill. The quicker you can get out the better. Heat detectors are false alarm proof but only detect late in the process. Ionisations can either false alarm terribly or be just the thing for the kitchen, depending exactly where they're installed. But I explained all that.


NT

No, you have not yet explained how to determine the place in a kitchen
to place a mains, interlinked ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid
nuisance alarms but (b) detect real fires.


Each time it false alarms just move it a bit further away from the source of the false alarms. At some point it no longer false alarms, but picks up real incipient fires reliably.


1. If faced with only 2 choices remaining do I move it into (a) the hall
or (b) the garden?

2. How long on average do you spend installing a smoke alarm in kitchen
for for a customer? And how many holes in the ceiling need to be made
good afterwards?



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
  #87   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats



wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 14:55:48 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/11/2018 14:17, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 13:31:41 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/11/2018 21:54, tabbypurr wrote:

3. I do the job properly first time and don't waste my time and fit
a
heat detector as per regs and per everything I have been taught
(inducing the AICO professional installer courses).

that's the official line & you're required to follow it. It's way
less safe though. Heat detectors don't detect fires until much later.

People don't usually sleep in the kitchen (bed****s noted as
exception).

I think we can agree on that

What's safer? A heat detector in the kitchen and a smoke detector in
the
hall (and better the bedroom too) - OR - a smoke detector in the
kitchen
that ****es people off and gets disconnected?

that isn't the choice of course, there is a 3rd as I explained.

Fires take hold & get out of hand very fast. The fumes spread & are
what kill. The quicker you can get out the better. Heat detectors are
false alarm proof but only detect late in the process. Ionisations can
either false alarm terribly or be just the thing for the kitchen,
depending exactly where they're installed. But I explained all that.


NT

No, you have not yet explained how to determine the place in a kitchen
to place a mains, interlinked ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid
nuisance alarms but (b) detect real fires.


Each time it false alarms just move it a bit further away from the source
of the false alarms. At some point it no longer false alarms, but picks up
real incipient fires reliably.


Trouble is that there is no way to know that it
does in fact pick up real incipient fires reliably
with real downsides when it doesnt.

Makes a lot more sense to have an alarm that
is easy to reset when it false alarms.

  #88   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,487
Default Lonely Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 06:20:10 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

But it makes more sense to install them where they
detect best and have some easy way of cancelling the
alarm when the inevitable burnt toast does set if off.

But I explained all that.


Claimed actually, not explained.


Now ALSO an expert in fire control, mentally insane, senile Rot?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

--
dennis@home to know-it-all Rot Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID:
  #89   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Thursday, 29 November 2018 20:30:59 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/11/2018 17:07, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 14:55:48 UTC, Robin wrote:


No, you have not yet explained how to determine the place in a kitchen
to place a mains, interlinked ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid
nuisance alarms but (b) detect real fires.


Each time it false alarms just move it a bit further away from the source of the false alarms. At some point it no longer false alarms, but picks up real incipient fires reliably.


1. If faced with only 2 choices remaining do I move it into (a) the hall
or (b) the garden?


can be an issue in a small place

2. How long on average do you spend installing a smoke alarm in kitchen
for for a customer? And how many holes in the ceiling need to be made
good afterwards?


and that's why manufacturers recommend a simple quick heat alarm approach, though it's poor at detecting fire.


NT
  #90   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Thursday, 29 November 2018 20:31:29 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 14:55:48 UTC, Robin wrote:


No, you have not yet explained how to determine the place in a kitchen
to place a mains, interlinked ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid
nuisance alarms but (b) detect real fires.


Each time it false alarms just move it a bit further away from the source
of the false alarms. At some point it no longer false alarms, but picks up
real incipient fires reliably.


Trouble is that there is no way to know that it
does in fact pick up real incipient fires reliably
with real downsides when it doesnt.


obviously there is.

Makes a lot more sense to have an alarm that
is easy to reset when it false alarms.


alarms should be like that anyway, regardless of type/position.


NT


  #91   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25,191
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On 30/11/2018 03:02, wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 20:30:59 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/11/2018 17:07, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 14:55:48 UTC, Robin wrote:


No, you have not yet explained how to determine the place in a kitchen
to place a mains, interlinked ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid
nuisance alarms but (b) detect real fires.

Each time it false alarms just move it a bit further away from the source of the false alarms. At some point it no longer false alarms, but picks up real incipient fires reliably.


1. If faced with only 2 choices remaining do I move it into (a) the hall
or (b) the garden?


can be an issue in a small place

2. How long on average do you spend installing a smoke alarm in kitchen
for for a customer? And how many holes in the ceiling need to be made
good afterwards?


and that's why manufacturers recommend a simple quick heat alarm approach, though it's poor at detecting fire.


You are misrepresenting the guidance given, since this is not just "one
size fits all" easy way out for the manufacturers, it is also the advice
given (and mandated) in the building regulations, and as supported by
all the main fire brigades.

The building regs specifically proscribe fitting alarms in kitchens.
From approved document B:

"1.16 Smoke alarms should not be fixed next to or directly above heaters
or air-conditioning outlets. They should not be fixed In bathrooms,
showers, cooking areas or garages, or any other place where steam,
condensation or fumes could give false alarms."

It also says:

"1.12 Where the kitchen area is not separated from the stairway or
circulation space by a door, there should be a compatible Interlinked
heat detector or heat alarm in the kitchen, in addition to whatever
smoke alarms are needed in the circulation space(s);"


From BS5839 "Fire detection and Fire alarm systems for buildings":

"10.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are applicable.
a) Smoke detectors may be used in any room or area of a dwelling, other
than kitchens, bathrooms and shower rooms. However, other than in the
case of circulation areas (i.e. hallways, staircase landings and
corridors), their use should be avoided in any room or area in which
smoke detectors would have a high potential for false alarms (see Clause
12), unless the risk from fire warrants the provision of automatic fire
detection and the use of other forms of fire detection is precluded on
the basis of their speed of response to fires of the type that might be
anticipated.

b) Smoke detectors installed within circulation areas, such as hallways,
staircase landings and corridors, should be of the optical type, unless
the use of optical detectors would significantly increase the rate of
false alarms above that anticipated in the case of ionization chamber
smoke detectors (see also Clause 12), or unless (unusually) there is
evidence that there is a significant risk of a fast, clean burning fire
in these areas.

NOTE 1 Custom and practice has been to use ionization chamber smoke
alarms in the above circulation areas. This practice is now deprecated
in view of the greater potential for ionization chamber smoke detectors
to generate false alarms when exposed to fumes from kitchens, and in
view of their poorer response to smouldering fires and smoke that has
drifted some distance from its source."


Poorly implemented systems that give rise to a high false alarm rate,
are simply less likely to save lives, because they either get disabled
or ignored.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd -
http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/
  #92   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Friday, 30 November 2018 08:30:25 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/11/2018 03:02, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 20:30:59 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/11/2018 17:07, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 14:55:48 UTC, Robin wrote:


No, you have not yet explained how to determine the place in a kitchen
to place a mains, interlinked ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid
nuisance alarms but (b) detect real fires.

Each time it false alarms just move it a bit further away from the source of the false alarms. At some point it no longer false alarms, but picks up real incipient fires reliably.


1. If faced with only 2 choices remaining do I move it into (a) the hall
or (b) the garden?


can be an issue in a small place

2. How long on average do you spend installing a smoke alarm in kitchen
for for a customer? And how many holes in the ceiling need to be made
good afterwards?


and that's why manufacturers recommend a simple quick heat alarm approach, though it's poor at detecting fire.


You are misrepresenting the guidance given, since this is not just "one
size fits all" easy way out for the manufacturers, it is also the advice
given (and mandated) in the building regulations, and as supported by
all the main fire brigades.

The building regs specifically proscribe fitting alarms in kitchens.
From approved document B:

"1.16 Smoke alarms should not be fixed next to or directly above heaters
or air-conditioning outlets. They should not be fixed In bathrooms,
showers, cooking areas or garages, or any other place where steam,
condensation or fumes could give false alarms."

It also says:

"1.12 Where the kitchen area is not separated from the stairway or
circulation space by a door, there should be a compatible Interlinked
heat detector or heat alarm in the kitchen, in addition to whatever
smoke alarms are needed in the circulation space(s);"


From BS5839 "Fire detection and Fire alarm systems for buildings":

"10.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are applicable.
a) Smoke detectors may be used in any room or area of a dwelling, other
than kitchens, bathrooms and shower rooms. However, other than in the
case of circulation areas (i.e. hallways, staircase landings and
corridors), their use should be avoided in any room or area in which
smoke detectors would have a high potential for false alarms (see Clause
12), unless the risk from fire warrants the provision of automatic fire
detection and the use of other forms of fire detection is precluded on
the basis of their speed of response to fires of the type that might be
anticipated.

b) Smoke detectors installed within circulation areas, such as hallways,
staircase landings and corridors, should be of the optical type, unless
the use of optical detectors would significantly increase the rate of
false alarms above that anticipated in the case of ionization chamber
smoke detectors (see also Clause 12), or unless (unusually) there is
evidence that there is a significant risk of a fast, clean burning fire
in these areas.

NOTE 1 Custom and practice has been to use ionization chamber smoke
alarms in the above circulation areas. This practice is now deprecated
in view of the greater potential for ionization chamber smoke detectors
to generate false alarms when exposed to fumes from kitchens, and in
view of their poorer response to smouldering fires and smoke that has
drifted some distance from its source."


Poorly implemented systems that give rise to a high false alarm rate,
are simply less likely to save lives, because they either get disabled
or ignored.


1. With respect I have not misrepresented the guidance given. You seem to be confusing one thing with another.
2. I don't believe heat detectors are forbidden in kitchens.
3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want where has little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be effective in kitchens.


NT
  #95   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,204
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Thursday, 29 November 2018 17:07:16 UTC, wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 14:55:48 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/11/2018 14:17, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 13:31:41 UTC, Tim Watts wrote:
On 28/11/2018 21:54, tabbypurr wrote:

3. I do the job properly first time and don't waste my time and fit a
heat detector as per regs and per everything I have been taught
(inducing the AICO professional installer courses).

that's the official line & you're required to follow it. It's way less safe though. Heat detectors don't detect fires until much later.

People don't usually sleep in the kitchen (bed****s noted as exception).

I think we can agree on that

What's safer? A heat detector in the kitchen and a smoke detector in the
hall (and better the bedroom too) - OR - a smoke detector in the kitchen
that ****es people off and gets disconnected?

that isn't the choice of course, there is a 3rd as I explained.

Fires take hold & get out of hand very fast. The fumes spread & are what kill. The quicker you can get out the better. Heat detectors are false alarm proof but only detect late in the process. Ionisations can either false alarm terribly or be just the thing for the kitchen, depending exactly where they're installed. But I explained all that.


NT

No, you have not yet explained how to determine the place in a kitchen
to place a mains, interlinked ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid
nuisance alarms but (b) detect real fires.


Each time it false alarms just move it a bit further away from the source of the false alarms. At some point it no longer false alarms, but picks up real incipient fires reliably.


Why can't these things be placed where they won't false trigger, and just how far do you move them each time a cm a foot ?
and then how do you know it hasn't been moved too far, so should move it back.



NT



  #96   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Friday, 30 November 2018 13:08:12 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 30/11/2018 03:02, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 20:30:59 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/11/2018 17:07, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 14:55:48 UTC, Robin wrote:


No, you have not yet explained how to determine the place in a kitchen
to place a mains, interlinked ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid
nuisance alarms but (b) detect real fires.

Each time it false alarms just move it a bit further away from the source of the false alarms. At some point it no longer false alarms, but picks up real incipient fires reliably.


1. If faced with only 2 choices remaining do I move it into (a) the hall
or (b) the garden?


can be an issue in a small place


So are you saying your method only works in a large kitchen? If so, what
is "large" for your purpose?


I can measure later.

2. How long on average do you spend installing a smoke alarm in kitchen
for for a customer? And how many holes in the ceiling need to be made
good afterwards?


and that's why manufacturers recommend a simple quick heat alarm approach, though it's poor at detecting fire.


and that's not an answer.


It was the point I wanted to make, not the one you wanted. I don't fit them for customers. If I did I'd be obliged to do what Adam does.

Let's try another approach. In how many kitchens have you fitted
interlinked ionisation alarms? And how many are still in use?


I've put ionisation alarms in 2 kitchens. They've both stayed in service for many years (I don't remember how many, certainly over a decade). They have good discrimination between false alarms and times when attention really is necessary.

If I'd fitted 1000 I could tell you if the method ever fails to work. At this point I can only tell you that out of 2 it works very well indeed. If heat alarms had been fitted instead the risk of fire would have been significantly greater, as ionisation alarms do go off if the room begins to fill with smoke from something about to catch fire, so they effectively act as fire prevention as well as fire detection.


NT
  #97   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25,191
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On 30/11/2018 10:31, wrote:
On Friday, 30 November 2018 08:30:25 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/11/2018 03:02, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 20:30:59 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/11/2018 17:07, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 14:55:48 UTC, Robin wrote:

No, you have not yet explained how to determine the place in a kitchen
to place a mains, interlinked ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid
nuisance alarms but (b) detect real fires.

Each time it false alarms just move it a bit further away from the source of the false alarms. At some point it no longer false alarms, but picks up real incipient fires reliably.


1. If faced with only 2 choices remaining do I move it into (a) the hall
or (b) the garden?

can be an issue in a small place

2. How long on average do you spend installing a smoke alarm in kitchen
for for a customer? And how many holes in the ceiling need to be made
good afterwards?

and that's why manufacturers recommend a simple quick heat alarm approach, though it's poor at detecting fire.


You are misrepresenting the guidance given, since this is not just "one
size fits all" easy way out for the manufacturers, it is also the advice
given (and mandated) in the building regulations, and as supported by
all the main fire brigades.

The building regs specifically proscribe fitting alarms in kitchens.
From approved document B:

"1.16 Smoke alarms should not be fixed next to or directly above heaters
or air-conditioning outlets. They should not be fixed In bathrooms,
showers, cooking areas or garages, or any other place where steam,
condensation or fumes could give false alarms."

It also says:

"1.12 Where the kitchen area is not separated from the stairway or
circulation space by a door, there should be a compatible Interlinked
heat detector or heat alarm in the kitchen, in addition to whatever
smoke alarms are needed in the circulation space(s);"


From BS5839 "Fire detection and Fire alarm systems for buildings":

"10.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are applicable.
a) Smoke detectors may be used in any room or area of a dwelling, other
than kitchens, bathrooms and shower rooms. However, other than in the
case of circulation areas (i.e. hallways, staircase landings and
corridors), their use should be avoided in any room or area in which
smoke detectors would have a high potential for false alarms (see Clause
12), unless the risk from fire warrants the provision of automatic fire
detection and the use of other forms of fire detection is precluded on
the basis of their speed of response to fires of the type that might be
anticipated.

b) Smoke detectors installed within circulation areas, such as hallways,
staircase landings and corridors, should be of the optical type, unless
the use of optical detectors would significantly increase the rate of
false alarms above that anticipated in the case of ionization chamber
smoke detectors (see also Clause 12), or unless (unusually) there is
evidence that there is a significant risk of a fast, clean burning fire
in these areas.

NOTE 1 Custom and practice has been to use ionization chamber smoke
alarms in the above circulation areas. This practice is now deprecated
in view of the greater potential for ionization chamber smoke detectors
to generate false alarms when exposed to fumes from kitchens, and in
view of their poorer response to smouldering fires and smoke that has
drifted some distance from its source."


Poorly implemented systems that give rise to a high false alarm rate,
are simply less likely to save lives, because they either get disabled
or ignored.


1. With respect I have not misrepresented the guidance given. You seem to be confusing one thing with another.


You seem to have gone to lots of effort promoting the use of ionisation
alarms in kitchens. Something which is contrary to all formal guidance
on the subject.

I don't doubt that you may be able to get satisfactory performance from
an ionisation alarm in *some* kitchens, however it proves impossible in
many.

2. I don't believe heat detectors are forbidden in kitchens.


I was not aware anyone was suggesting they were.

3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want where has little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be effective in kitchens.


True, but? Professional installers are not going to do it, and DIY
installers would in general be better off not trying. Just because
something can be does, it does not mean it should be done.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd -
http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/
  #99   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,829
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

Fredxx wrote:

It's rare for a government service to provide literature on the subject


The site you linked to is not an official fire service site ...

"We are an unofficial website set up by serving and retired members of
the UK Fire and Rescue Service"
  #100   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats



"Fredxx" wrote in message
news
On 30/11/2018 10:31, wrote:

snip

2. I don't believe heat detectors are forbidden in kitchens.


Who suggested they are forbidden?

3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want where has
little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be effective in kitchens.


Many choices are from custom and practice. It's rare for a government
service to provide literature on the subject but if your property conforms
to the following, it would be difficult for anyone to place blame:
https://www.fireservice.co.uk/safety/smoke-alarms/

which says, "An alarm installed inside the kitchen must be a heat alarm
rather than a smoke alarm".


It isnt about placing blame, its about getting the best result.

Yes, moving an ionisation detector is only practical in a diy
situation, but that doesnt mean that its not better to have
both a heat detector and an ionisation detector done like
that in an appropriate kitchen than just a heat detector.



  #101   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,487
Default Lonely Psychotic Senile Ozzie Troll Alert! LOL

On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 05:45:05 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


which says, "An alarm installed inside the kitchen must be a heat alarm
rather than a smoke alarm".


It isnt about placing blame, its about getting the best result.


Nope, this is simply about your pathological auto-contradicting again,
senile auto-contradictor!

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:
  #102   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Saturday, 1 December 2018 13:23:12 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/11/2018 10:31, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 30 November 2018 08:30:25 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/11/2018 03:02, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 20:30:59 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/11/2018 17:07, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 14:55:48 UTC, Robin wrote:

No, you have not yet explained how to determine the place in a kitchen
to place a mains, interlinked ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid
nuisance alarms but (b) detect real fires.

Each time it false alarms just move it a bit further away from the source of the false alarms. At some point it no longer false alarms, but picks up real incipient fires reliably.


1. If faced with only 2 choices remaining do I move it into (a) the hall
or (b) the garden?

can be an issue in a small place

2. How long on average do you spend installing a smoke alarm in kitchen
for for a customer? And how many holes in the ceiling need to be made
good afterwards?

and that's why manufacturers recommend a simple quick heat alarm approach, though it's poor at detecting fire.

You are misrepresenting the guidance given, since this is not just "one
size fits all" easy way out for the manufacturers, it is also the advice
given (and mandated) in the building regulations, and as supported by
all the main fire brigades.

The building regs specifically proscribe fitting alarms in kitchens.
From approved document B:

"1.16 Smoke alarms should not be fixed next to or directly above heaters
or air-conditioning outlets. They should not be fixed In bathrooms,
showers, cooking areas or garages, or any other place where steam,
condensation or fumes could give false alarms."

It also says:

"1.12 Where the kitchen area is not separated from the stairway or
circulation space by a door, there should be a compatible Interlinked
heat detector or heat alarm in the kitchen, in addition to whatever
smoke alarms are needed in the circulation space(s);"


From BS5839 "Fire detection and Fire alarm systems for buildings":

"10.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are applicable.
a) Smoke detectors may be used in any room or area of a dwelling, other
than kitchens, bathrooms and shower rooms. However, other than in the
case of circulation areas (i.e. hallways, staircase landings and
corridors), their use should be avoided in any room or area in which
smoke detectors would have a high potential for false alarms (see Clause
12), unless the risk from fire warrants the provision of automatic fire
detection and the use of other forms of fire detection is precluded on
the basis of their speed of response to fires of the type that might be
anticipated.

b) Smoke detectors installed within circulation areas, such as hallways,
staircase landings and corridors, should be of the optical type, unless
the use of optical detectors would significantly increase the rate of
false alarms above that anticipated in the case of ionization chamber
smoke detectors (see also Clause 12), or unless (unusually) there is
evidence that there is a significant risk of a fast, clean burning fire
in these areas.

NOTE 1 Custom and practice has been to use ionization chamber smoke
alarms in the above circulation areas. This practice is now deprecated
in view of the greater potential for ionization chamber smoke detectors
to generate false alarms when exposed to fumes from kitchens, and in
view of their poorer response to smouldering fires and smoke that has
drifted some distance from its source."


Poorly implemented systems that give rise to a high false alarm rate,
are simply less likely to save lives, because they either get disabled
or ignored.


1. With respect I have not misrepresented the guidance given. You seem to be confusing one thing with another.


You seem to have gone to lots of effort promoting the use of ionisation
alarms in kitchens.


I've not promoted it at all. Just explained it's a way to make them work.

Something which is contrary to all formal guidance
on the subject.


we already know what manufacturer guidance is & why

I don't doubt that you may be able to get satisfactory performance from
an ionisation alarm in *some* kitchens, however it proves impossible in
many.


I'm sure some are too small.

2. I don't believe heat detectors are forbidden in kitchens.


I was not aware anyone was suggesting they were.

3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want where has little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be effective in kitchens.


True, but? Professional installers are not going to do it,


we know that already, there are legal requirements on that

and DIY
installers would in general be better off not trying.


That makes no sense. There are lots of battery ionisation detectors in use. It's trivial to make them work ok. Better off not doing so is a senseless conclusion.

Just because
something can be does, it does not mean it should be done.


Obviously. But when there's the benefit of your fire detection system working properly, that's a good reason to do it. You seem to lose the ability to do basic reasoning when shown anything outside of government/manufacturer guidance.


NT
  #103   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Saturday, 1 December 2018 14:23:53 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 30/11/2018 10:31, tabbypurr wrote:

snip

2. I don't believe heat detectors are forbidden in kitchens.


Who suggested they are forbidden?

3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want where has little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be effective in kitchens.


Many choices are from custom and practice. It's rare for a government
service to provide literature on the subject but if your property
conforms to the following, it would be difficult for anyone to place blame:
https://www.fireservice.co.uk/safety/smoke-alarms/

which says, "An alarm installed inside the kitchen must be a heat alarm
rather than a smoke alarm".


we already know what the legal position is.


NT
  #104   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Saturday, 1 December 2018 14:23:53 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 30/11/2018 10:31, tabbypurr wrote:

snip

2. I don't believe heat detectors are forbidden in kitchens.


Who suggested they are forbidden?

3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want where has little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be effective in kitchens.


Many choices are from custom and practice. It's rare for a government
service to provide literature on the subject but if your property
conforms to the following, it would be difficult for anyone to place blame:
https://www.fireservice.co.uk/safety/smoke-alarms/

which says, "An alarm installed inside the kitchen must be a heat alarm
rather than a smoke alarm".


we already know what the legal position is.


NT
  #105   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Saturday, 1 December 2018 18:45:17 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxx" wrote in message
news
On 30/11/2018 10:31, tabbypurr wrote:


3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want where has
little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be effective in kitchens.


Many choices are from custom and practice. It's rare for a government
service to provide literature on the subject but if your property conforms
to the following, it would be difficult for anyone to place blame:
https://www.fireservice.co.uk/safety/smoke-alarms/

which says, "An alarm installed inside the kitchen must be a heat alarm
rather than a smoke alarm".


It isnt about placing blame, its about getting the best result.


quite. It's too early in the process to be discussing legal defences

Yes, moving an ionisation detector is only practical in a diy
situation, but that doesnt mean that its not better to have
both a heat detector and an ionisation detector done like
that in an appropriate kitchen than just a heat detector.


My ideal fire detection system would have all types of detector in most locations, how the main panel would respond would vary. Eg if ionisation goes off in kitchen it would just give widely spaced bleeps as a mild warning, OTOH if multiple detector types go off you've got confidence in a fire situation and it's time to raise the alarm fully & autodial the fire brigade.

Each type of detector has fire types it's best & weakest at.


NT


  #106   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25,191
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On 02/12/2018 03:51, wrote:
On Saturday, 1 December 2018 13:23:12 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/11/2018 10:31, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 30 November 2018 08:30:25 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/11/2018 03:02, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 20:30:59 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 29/11/2018 17:07, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 29 November 2018 14:55:48 UTC, Robin
wrote:

No, you have not yet explained how to determine the
place in a kitchen to place a mains, interlinked
ionisation alarm so as to (a) avoid nuisance alarms but
(b) detect real fires.

Each time it false alarms just move it a bit further away
from the source of the false alarms. At some point it no
longer false alarms, but picks up real incipient fires
reliably.


1. If faced with only 2 choices remaining do I move it into
(a) the hall or (b) the garden?

can be an issue in a small place

2. How long on average do you spend installing a smoke
alarm in kitchen for for a customer? And how many holes
in the ceiling need to be made good afterwards?

and that's why manufacturers recommend a simple quick heat
alarm approach, though it's poor at detecting fire.

You are misrepresenting the guidance given, since this is not
just "one size fits all" easy way out for the manufacturers, it
is also the advice given (and mandated) in the building
regulations, and as supported by all the main fire brigades.

The building regs specifically proscribe fitting alarms in
kitchens. From approved document B:

"1.16 Smoke alarms should not be fixed next to or directly
above heaters or air-conditioning outlets. They should not be
fixed In bathrooms, showers, cooking areas or garages, or any
other place where steam, condensation or fumes could give false
alarms."

It also says:

"1.12 Where the kitchen area is not separated from the stairway
or circulation space by a door, there should be a compatible
Interlinked heat detector or heat alarm in the kitchen, in
addition to whatever smoke alarms are needed in the circulation
space(s);"


From BS5839 "Fire detection and Fire alarm systems for
buildings":

"10.2 Recommendations The following recommendations are
applicable. a) Smoke detectors may be used in any room or area
of a dwelling, other than kitchens, bathrooms and shower rooms.
However, other than in the case of circulation areas (i.e.
hallways, staircase landings and corridors), their use should
be avoided in any room or area in which smoke detectors would
have a high potential for false alarms (see Clause 12), unless
the risk from fire warrants the provision of automatic fire
detection and the use of other forms of fire detection is
precluded on the basis of their speed of response to fires of
the type that might be anticipated.

b) Smoke detectors installed within circulation areas, such as
hallways, staircase landings and corridors, should be of the
optical type, unless the use of optical detectors would
significantly increase the rate of false alarms above that
anticipated in the case of ionization chamber smoke detectors
(see also Clause 12), or unless (unusually) there is evidence
that there is a significant risk of a fast, clean burning fire
in these areas.

NOTE 1 Custom and practice has been to use ionization chamber
smoke alarms in the above circulation areas. This practice is
now deprecated in view of the greater potential for ionization
chamber smoke detectors to generate false alarms when exposed
to fumes from kitchens, and in view of their poorer response to
smouldering fires and smoke that has drifted some distance from
its source."


Poorly implemented systems that give rise to a high false alarm
rate, are simply less likely to save lives, because they either
get disabled or ignored.

1. With respect I have not misrepresented the guidance given. You
seem to be confusing one thing with another.


You seem to have gone to lots of effort promoting the use of
ionisation alarms in kitchens.


I've not promoted it at all. Just explained it's a way to make them
work.


I would call over a dozen posts in the same thread arguing the toss will
all comers some form of "promotion"!

Something which is contrary to all formal guidance on the subject.


we already know what manufacturer guidance is & why


Again, not just the manufactures, but also the building regs, the
British standards, and the advice from the fire brigades.

The "why" is bleeding obvious, its a procedure which if followed will
yield a working and effective system in the large majority of situations
- there is no conspiracy theory here.

I don't doubt that you may be able to get satisfactory performance
from an ionisation alarm in *some* kitchens, however it proves
impossible in many.


I'm sure some are too small.


or the wrong shape, or have the wrong airflow, or the implications of
false alarms are too high to risk (HMOs etc)

2. I don't believe heat detectors are forbidden in kitchens.


I was not aware anyone was suggesting they were.

3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want
where has little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be
effective in kitchens.


True, but? Professional installers are not going to do it,


we know that already, there are legal requirements on that

and DIY installers would in general be better off not trying.


That makes no sense. There are lots of battery ionisation detectors
in use. It's trivial to make them work ok. Better off not doing so is
a senseless conclusion.


Why is doing a job properly "senseless"? Why bodge something that should
it fail could literally cost someone their life?

(where "fail" would include being over sensitive and alarming everything
the toast burns, or someone fries something)

Just because something can be does, it does not mean it should be
done.


Obviously. But when there's the benefit of your fire detection system
working properly, that's a good reason to do it.


That is because the official guidance on this is going to give the best
chance of the system actually working properly, and will do so without
lots of trial and error.

You seem to lose the
ability to do basic reasoning when shown anything outside of
government/manufacturer guidance.


You seem to have lost the ability to judge guidance on its merits.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd -
http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/
  #107   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Monday, 3 December 2018 15:12:34 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/12/2018 03:51, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 1 December 2018 13:23:12 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/11/2018 10:31, tabbypurr wrote:


You seem to have gone to lots of effort promoting the use of
ionisation alarms in kitchens.


I've not promoted it at all. Just explained it's a way to make them
work.


I would call over a dozen posts in the same thread arguing the toss will
all comers some form of "promotion"!


obviously it isn't

Something which is contrary to all formal guidance on the subject.


we already know what manufacturer guidance is & why


Again, not just the manufactures, but also the building regs, the
British standards, and the advice from the fire brigades.

The "why" is bleeding obvious, its a procedure which if followed will
yield a working and effective system in the large majority of situations
- there is no conspiracy theory here.


indeed, as is obvious

I don't doubt that you may be able to get satisfactory performance
from an ionisation alarm in *some* kitchens, however it proves
impossible in many.


I'm sure some are too small.


or the wrong shape, or have the wrong airflow, or the implications of
false alarms are too high to risk (HMOs etc)


nope

2. I don't believe heat detectors are forbidden in kitchens.

I was not aware anyone was suggesting they were.

3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want
where has little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be
effective in kitchens.

True, but? Professional installers are not going to do it,


we know that already, there are legal requirements on that

and DIY installers would in general be better off not trying.


That makes no sense. There are lots of battery ionisation detectors
in use. It's trivial to make them work ok. Better off not doing so is
a senseless conclusion.


Why is doing a job properly "senseless"?


I didn't say it was

Why bodge something that should
it fail could literally cost someone their life?


a system that works properly is not a bodge. Especially considering the traditional alternatvie hardly even works.


(where "fail" would include being over sensitive and alarming everything
the toast burns, or someone fries something)


it works miles better than a heat alarm. I don't see what part of that is confusing. Its safety is much better.

Just because something can be does, it does not mean it should be
done.


Obviously. But when there's the benefit of your fire detection system
working properly, that's a good reason to do it.


That is because the official guidance on this is going to give the best
chance of the system actually working properly, and will do so without
lots of trial and error.


which part of this detects fires correctly and doesn't false alarm versus a heat detector only alarms very late in the day are you not grasping?


You seem to lose the
ability to do basic reasoning when shown anything outside of
government/manufacturer guidance.


You seem to have lost the ability to judge guidance on its merits.


Dear me. It has its merits but not once you discover another method that is vastly safer.


NT
  #108   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
ARW ARW is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,161
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On 03/12/2018 16:09, wrote:
On Monday, 3 December 2018 15:12:34 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/12/2018 03:51, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 1 December 2018 13:23:12 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/11/2018 10:31, tabbypurr wrote:


You seem to have gone to lots of effort promoting the use of
ionisation alarms in kitchens.

I've not promoted it at all. Just explained it's a way to make them
work.


I would call over a dozen posts in the same thread arguing the toss will
all comers some form of "promotion"!


obviously it isn't

Something which is contrary to all formal guidance on the subject.

we already know what manufacturer guidance is & why


Again, not just the manufactures, but also the building regs, the
British standards, and the advice from the fire brigades.

The "why" is bleeding obvious, its a procedure which if followed will
yield a working and effective system in the large majority of situations
- there is no conspiracy theory here.


indeed, as is obvious

I don't doubt that you may be able to get satisfactory performance
from an ionisation alarm in *some* kitchens, however it proves
impossible in many.

I'm sure some are too small.


or the wrong shape, or have the wrong airflow, or the implications of
false alarms are too high to risk (HMOs etc)


nope

2. I don't believe heat detectors are forbidden in kitchens.

I was not aware anyone was suggesting they were.

3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want
where has little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be
effective in kitchens.

True, but? Professional installers are not going to do it,

we know that already, there are legal requirements on that

and DIY installers would in general be better off not trying.

That makes no sense. There are lots of battery ionisation detectors
in use. It's trivial to make them work ok. Better off not doing so is
a senseless conclusion.


Why is doing a job properly "senseless"?


I didn't say it was

Why bodge something that should
it fail could literally cost someone their life?


a system that works properly is not a bodge. Especially considering the traditional alternatvie hardly even works.


(where "fail" would include being over sensitive and alarming everything
the toast burns, or someone fries something)


it works miles better than a heat alarm. I don't see what part of that is confusing. Its safety is much better.

Just because something can be does, it does not mean it should be
done.

Obviously. But when there's the benefit of your fire detection system
working properly, that's a good reason to do it.


That is because the official guidance on this is going to give the best
chance of the system actually working properly, and will do so without
lots of trial and error.


which part of this detects fires correctly and doesn't false alarm versus a heat detector only alarms very late in the day are you not grasping?


You seem to lose the
ability to do basic reasoning when shown anything outside of
government/manufacturer guidance.


You seem to have lost the ability to judge guidance on its merits.


Dear me. It has its merits but not once you discover another method that is vastly safer.


Best get a patent on that method then.



--
Adam
  #109   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25,191
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On 03/12/2018 16:09, wrote:

Dear me. It has its merits but not once you discover another method that is vastly safer.


True... however I don't believe your proposed solution comes even close
to that.

Why not write up your suggested improvements, and submit them to a fire
safety officer for review?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd -
http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/
  #112   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 02:31:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want where has little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be effective in kitchens.


The regulations set out a layered structure for alarm placement based
upon many years of testing and alarm characteristics. The order of
priority is upstairs landing first, downstairs hallway second and
kitchen third. This is designed to maximise alarm effectiveness and
minimise nuisance alarms.

These days optical sensors are preferred to ionisation because of
greenywails over the minute amount of radioactive materials they
contain and some countries already ban them.

In most domestic fires both optical and ionisation detectors are
likely to alarm at similar times. In the case of the most common
kitchen fires the landing/ hall alarms will go off first, the heat
detector a bit later. If you try to put an ionisation alarm in a
kitchen and find somewhere it doesn't nuisance alarm it is no more
likely than the hall alarms to go off first in case of a real fire as
it must be positioned in still air to avoid the nuisance alarms.

The layered approach allows for timely alarms on real fires but
minimises the nuisance alarms that cause people to disconnect alarms.
There is always a conflict between nuisance alarms and rapid real
detection and the suggested placement minimises the first and achieves
the second.

If you are going to fit only one alarm (not a good idea) it should be
on the landing ceiling at the top of the stairs. Putting an
ionisation detector in a kitchen in a carefully chosen position so it
won't alarm is a somewhat bizarre approach.
  #113   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Monday, 3 December 2018 21:21:11 UTC, ARW wrote:
On 03/12/2018 16:09, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 3 December 2018 15:12:34 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/12/2018 03:51, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 1 December 2018 13:23:12 UTC, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/11/2018 10:31, tabbypurr wrote:


You seem to have gone to lots of effort promoting the use of
ionisation alarms in kitchens.

I've not promoted it at all. Just explained it's a way to make them
work.

I would call over a dozen posts in the same thread arguing the toss will
all comers some form of "promotion"!


obviously it isn't

Something which is contrary to all formal guidance on the subject.

we already know what manufacturer guidance is & why

Again, not just the manufactures, but also the building regs, the
British standards, and the advice from the fire brigades.

The "why" is bleeding obvious, its a procedure which if followed will
yield a working and effective system in the large majority of situations
- there is no conspiracy theory here.


indeed, as is obvious

I don't doubt that you may be able to get satisfactory performance
from an ionisation alarm in *some* kitchens, however it proves
impossible in many.

I'm sure some are too small.

or the wrong shape, or have the wrong airflow, or the implications of
false alarms are too high to risk (HMOs etc)


nope

2. I don't believe heat detectors are forbidden in kitchens.

I was not aware anyone was suggesting they were.

3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want
where has little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be
effective in kitchens.

True, but? Professional installers are not going to do it,

we know that already, there are legal requirements on that

and DIY installers would in general be better off not trying.

That makes no sense. There are lots of battery ionisation detectors
in use. It's trivial to make them work ok. Better off not doing so is
a senseless conclusion.

Why is doing a job properly "senseless"?


I didn't say it was

Why bodge something that should
it fail could literally cost someone their life?


a system that works properly is not a bodge. Especially considering the traditional alternatvie hardly even works.


(where "fail" would include being over sensitive and alarming everything
the toast burns, or someone fries something)


it works miles better than a heat alarm. I don't see what part of that is confusing. Its safety is much better.

Just because something can be does, it does not mean it should be
done.

Obviously. But when there's the benefit of your fire detection system
working properly, that's a good reason to do it.

That is because the official guidance on this is going to give the best
chance of the system actually working properly, and will do so without
lots of trial and error.


which part of this detects fires correctly and doesn't false alarm versus a heat detector only alarms very late in the day are you not grasping?


You seem to lose the
ability to do basic reasoning when shown anything outside of
government/manufacturer guidance.

You seem to have lost the ability to judge guidance on its merits.


Dear me. It has its merits but not once you discover another method that is vastly safer.


Best get a patent on that method then.


I'm sure people have been using this approach since ionisation alarms came out in 1951.


NT
  #114   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Tuesday, 4 December 2018 08:35:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 03/12/2018 16:09, tabbypurr wrote:


Dear me. It has its merits but not once you discover another method that
is vastly safer.


True... however I don't believe your proposed solution comes even close to
that.

Why not write up your suggested improvements, and submit them to a fire
safety officer for review?


Dont need any fire safety officer to realise that what
he proposes is much better than the official approach.


I agree with Rod, scary as that is.


NT
  #115   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Tuesday, 4 December 2018 12:34:22 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 December 2018 08:35:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 03/12/2018 16:09, tabbypurr wrote:


Dear me. It has its merits but not once you discover another method that
is vastly safer.

True... however I don't believe your proposed solution comes even close to
that.

Why not write up your suggested improvements, and submit them to a fire
safety officer for review?


Dont need any fire safety officer to realise that what
he proposes is much better than the official approach.


Yes yuo do otherwise it won't get propergated to the offical way of doing things if it really is better to do things that way.


Ionisation alarms are already being phased out, it's too late in the day. And as has been pointed out the method is not suitable for many kitchens.


NT


  #117   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Tuesday, 4 December 2018 14:40:42 UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 02:31:38 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:


3. Besides, what regs have to say about what alarms they want where has little to do with whether ionisation alarms can be effective in kitchens.


The regulations set out a layered structure for alarm placement based
upon many years of testing and alarm characteristics. The order of
priority is upstairs landing first, downstairs hallway second and
kitchen third. This is designed to maximise alarm effectiveness and
minimise nuisance alarms.

These days optical sensors are preferred to ionisation because of
greenywails over the minute amount of radioactive materials they
contain and some countries already ban them.

In most domestic fires both optical and ionisation detectors are
likely to alarm at similar times. In the case of the most common
kitchen fires the landing/ hall alarms will go off first, the heat
detector a bit later.


mostly yes

If you try to put an ionisation alarm in a
kitchen and find somewhere it doesn't nuisance alarm it is no more
likely than the hall alarms to go off first in case of a real fire as
it must be positioned in still air to avoid the nuisance alarms.


not so. I like doing experiments, and extend that to diy things now & then. I always find it odd how people who have not done the experiments and have thus not gathered any facts tell me how it must be when they obviously don't know. And it always happens.


The layered approach allows for timely alarms on real fires but
minimises the nuisance alarms that cause people to disconnect alarms.
There is always a conflict between nuisance alarms and rapid real
detection and the suggested placement minimises the first and achieves
the second.


of course. It also misses tricks though. It's not a perfect system.

If you are going to fit only one alarm (not a good idea) it should be
on the landing ceiling at the top of the stairs. Putting an
ionisation detector in a kitchen in a carefully chosen position so it
won't alarm is a somewhat bizarre approach.


It does alarm, and does so much faster than a heat detector. It only alarms when it should, at least IME so far, and it's been north of a decade in 2 houses. Heat detectors are certainly better than nothing, but as fire detectors go they're the least effective type available. Any other detector technology that can be got to work beats them on safety by a good margin.


NT
  #118   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,364
Default EICR , smoke alarms and rented flats

On Tuesday, 4 December 2018 17:44:50 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 4 December 2018 08:35:34 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 03/12/2018 16:09, tabbypurr wrote:

Dear me. It has its merits but not once you discover another method
that
is vastly safer.

True... however I don't believe your proposed solution comes even close
to
that.

Why not write up your suggested improvements, and submit them to a fire
safety officer for review?

Dont need any fire safety officer to realise that what
he proposes is much better than the official approach.


Yes yuo do otherwise it won't get propergated to the offical
way of doing things if it really is better to do things that way.


No one is talking about getting it propagated to the official
way of doling things. His approach is only viable for diy, ****wit.


It works best with battery ionisation alarms because they're trivial to move. It's a shame the method, which I'm sure many have used over the years, never made it into battery alarm instructions. Needing to move it repeatedly is not likely to go down well with professional installers of interlinked systems.


NT
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EICR insurance and customers Dave Plowman (News) UK diy 0 November 13th 18 02:13 PM
EICR ARW UK diy 6 October 7th 18 07:29 PM
Fire doors+frames in rented flats Tom UK diy 7 May 11th 06 09:35 PM
Smoke alarms for rooms where people smoke [email protected] UK diy 26 January 10th 05 04:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"