|
Posted by Apu Nahasapeemapetilon on April 14, 2007, 4:33 pm
mm wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:18:27 -0500, Milhouse Van Houten
>
>>mm wrote:
>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello:
>>>>
>>>>This relates to a question i posted a while back, but was hoping someone
>>>>might have any new thoughts on this, or perhaps someone new might.
>>>>
>>>>I had installed a model 0910 Kidde smoke alarm.
>>>>
>>>>This is supposedly the latest and greatest ionization model, and also has
>>>>the
>>>>sealed, 10 year Li-Ion battery.
>>>>
>>>>The unit is on the ceiling in an upstairs hallway, and from everything I can
>>>>tell, this is a dry, and most
>>>>normal location. No undue dust, temp., odors, etc.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, the unit would give 3 to 4 chirps every day or two, at totally
>>>>random times.
>>>>No correlation with time of day, meal cooking, etc.
>>>>Truly random.
>>>>
>>>>Just 3-4 chirps, then nothing until next time, 24 to 48 hrs later.
>>>>
>>>>Called Kidde, and they were nice enought to send me a new unit.
>>>>They had absolutely no idea what the 3-4 chirps might mean, or why.
>>>>
>>>>The new unit is doing the same behavior.
>>>>
>>>>I guess I will just find a different brand to put up, but am wondering why,
>>>>with two units, what might be happening.
>>>
>>>I would leave two of them up, one of the Kiddees and maybe the other
>>>brand you will buy. One should really always have two different
>>>models, maybe ionization and photowhatever. But in your case, maybe 3
>>>of them, i, p, and one of the kiddes.
>>>
>>
>>That is unnecessary.
>
>Which part of my paragraph is unnecessary, I can't tell? Having both
>an ionization alarm and a photosensitive one seems like a good idea to
>me. I've read that one is better for fast burning fires, and the other
>better for smouldering ones.
Smoldering fires are the most common in a residential situation. A
photoelectric detector is ideal for detection in this situation. Ion
smokes will false all the time whenever the wife burns something on
the stove. Ion smokes are used for fast starting fires, like a
electrical motor shorting out.
>> Robert was given the correct answer over on ASA.
>>He has a monitored alarm that he did DIY style. His saga spans well
>>over a year, why he continues to post nonsense when he has all the
>>information, I don't know.
>>
>>>I have no idea about model, but I'll tell you a story my neighbor's
>>>neighbor told me, after the first guy had a fire in his kitchen.
>>>
>>>I was told that their smoke alarm kept beeping, I have no idea how
>>>often or how big or little the beeps were, except that it was
>>>tolerable for a while. Then they removed it have it repaired (which
>>>sounds unblievable since I don't know anyone who repairs these things,
>>>unless they mean they sent it back to the manufacturer) and while they
>>>had none, a fire broke out in the analog clock of the stove.
>>
>>Batt. smokes cost only $10 to replace. They would pay more in
>>shipping to fix, plus residential units need to be replaced every 10
>>years.
>
>Although I think they were 20 or more at the time, you may well still
>be right. But there are people who would do it anyway. Partly
>because some people are compulsive and partly because they don't want
>to hunt for an alarm that will clip into the box in the ceiling. I
>don't think at the time there was much pushing of the notion that they
>should be replaced every ten years.
>
http://www.nfpa.org/faq.asp?categoryID=925&cookie%5Ftest=1#23015
"Do dwelling smoke alarms need to be replaced every 10 years? Does
this apply to commercial system powered detectors?"
Section 8-3.5 of NFPA 72 now requires all single-station and
multiple-station smoke alarms to be replaced every ten years. This is
because buildup of grease and dust, insect infestations, and normal
failure rates dictate replacement. This requirement does not apply to
system powered smoke detectors that are commonly found in
commercial/industrial establishments because they are sensitivity
tested to the requirements of Chapter 7 of NFPA 72.
>OTOH, it's also possible they took it out when it started to beep and
>weren't trying to replace it at all, becuase they concluded there was
>no fire. Then they didnt' want to admit how negligent they were to
>not replace it.
>
>>>The conclusion was, and I concur, that the motor had been burning a
>>>teeny bit for weeks or months, however long the smoke alarm was
>>>beeping, and the clock finally burst into flames.
>
>I should have said that the whole kitchen was burnt out, plus some
>smoke or water damage to other parts of the house. Even though it is
>bad for the spices, I keep a spice rack above the rear part of my
>stove including the clock, but most of my neighbors have nothing until
>the cabints a foot above. The clock still set things afire.
>>>....
>>>
>>>Maybe you could test the alarm if you could generate just the smallest
>>>bit of smoke. I'm not sure you can do that. When I use a kitchen map
>>>to test my smoke alarm, and I hold it about 6 inches from the alarm,
>>>it doesn't go off right away, but when it does after maybe 5 seconds,
>>>it is full blast. If it went off quicker, I would hold the match
>>>further away, but I'm impatient. Maybe you can hold it two feet away
>>>and wait for 20 seconds. That should give only a tiny bit of smoke,
>>>unless the wind is straight towards the alarm.
>>
>>There is "smoke in a can" for that purpose. I buy it from my
>>wholesaler. Here is the link to retail:
>>
>>http://testproducts.com/fire_smoke/
>
>Thanks I may buy that some day. The smaller items on the buy-now page
>are darn cheap, although they won't say how much shipping is unless I
>sign in, and I won't do that.
>
>Looking at the page, it seems that this is more for general testing of
>alarms than it is for testing with a minimum amount of smoke, such as
>a barely smouldering clock.
>
>It might be tedious for a pro to keep using matches, but why would it
>be a problem for a home owner with only 1 or 2 detectors to test?
>
>Wouldn't using a wooden kitchen match (the two inch ones) be an
>adequate test? They sell 3 boxes for a couple dollars and they have
>many other uses too.
>
>
No. If the directions are followed it meets requirements of NFPA 72.
Match testing and holding cigarettes are not acceptable testing
methods.
Please do not offer advice about fire protection if you are just
"guessing". This is serious stuff. Someone may take your advice and
die.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap