If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by ransley on October 24, 2009, 7:09 pm
> > On Oct 24, 11:19=A0am, "Stormin Mormon"
> > > The radioactive isotope goes flat after a while. Normal
> > > decay, you know.
> > > --
> > > Christopher A. Young
> > > Learn more about Jesus
> > > =A0www.lds.org
> > > .
> > > ransley wrote:
> > > > Just curious, why replace them, they still work right.
> > > Hmm,
> > > Not after 20 years!!! Would you trust that old detector?
> > Decay of isotope, isnt that for Co detectors? =A0Who says 20 years, the
> > Manufacturers of course. =A0I have heard of no independant saying 20
> > years.
> Is the NFPA independent enough for you?http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp=
?categoryID=3D1647&itemID=3D39905
> It's unwise to base advice on things that you haven't heard of - very
> possibly because you just haven't looked.
> The isotope decay is not the reason that the detectors need to be
> replaced.
> This Wiki article gives an overview:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_de=
tector
> As far as locating circuits, I find a circuit breaker tracer
> invaluable.http://cgi.ebay.com/BRAND-NEW-SPERRY-CIRCUIT-BREAKER-FINDER-CS=
-500A_W...
> A useful addition is a six inch piece of Romex =A0with alligator clips
> on both ends of the black and white wires. =A0It makes it easy to use
> the tester on wires instead of receptacles. Clip one end on to the
> wires you want to test, and the other onto the receptacle plug-in
> tester.
> R- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe I missed it, but false alarms seems to be the reason replacement
was recomended, not failure to alarm.
|
|
Posted by RicodJour on October 24, 2009, 7:26 pm
> > > On Oct 24, 11:19=A0am, "Stormin Mormon"
> > > > The radioactive isotope goes flat after a while. Normal
> > > > decay, you know.
> > > > --
> > > > Christopher A. Young
> > > > Learn more about Jesus
> > > > =A0www.lds.org
> > > > .
> > > > ransley wrote:
> > > > > Just curious, why replace them, they still work right.
> > > > Hmm,
> > > > Not after 20 years!!! Would you trust that old detector?
> > > Decay of isotope, isnt that for Co detectors? =A0Who says 20 years, t=
he
> > > Manufacturers of course. =A0I have heard of no independant saying 20
> > > years.
> > Is the NFPA independent enough for you?http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.a=
sp?categoryID=3D1647&itemID=3D39905
> > It's unwise to base advice on things that you haven't heard of - very
> > possibly because you just haven't looked.
> > The isotope decay is not the reason that the detectors need to be
> > replaced.
> > This Wiki article gives an overview:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_=
detector
> > As far as locating circuits, I find a circuit breaker tracer
> > invaluable.http://cgi.ebay.com/BRAND-NEW-SPERRY-CIRCUIT-BREAKER-FINDER-=
CS-500A_W...
> > A useful addition is a six inch piece of Romex =A0with alligator clips
> > on both ends of the black and white wires. =A0It makes it easy to use
> > the tester on wires instead of receptacles. Clip one end on to the
> > wires you want to test, and the other onto the receptacle plug-in
> > tester.
> Maybe I missed it, but false alarms seems to be the reason replacement
> was recomended, not failure to alarm.
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/OS.SmokeAlarms.pdf
From page 59 of that report:
"Aging Home Smoke Alarms
Smoke alarms are appliances, just like toasters, stereos and
furnaces. Unlike other appliances, these devices function quietly in
the background. Its alarm, in response to a real smoke situation or
to testing, is the only evidence that it works. A stereo that does
not play will not lead to tragedy, but a worn-out smoke alarm, failing
to sound in a fire, could.
Roughly half of the smoke alarms collected as inoperable and studied
in the National Smoke Detector Project were more than 10 years old,
hence older than the currently recommended replacement age. Alarms
designed solely to detect smoke should be replaced every 10 years."
I find it kind of amazing that you thought there is any electrical
(particularly safety) equipment that would last indefinitely. Nothing
lasts forever.
R
|
|
Posted by ransley on October 24, 2009, 11:01 pm
> > > > On Oct 24, 11:19=A0am, "Stormin Mormon"
> > > > > The radioactive isotope goes flat after a while. Normal
> > > > > decay, you know.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Christopher A. Young
> > > > > Learn more about Jesus
> > > > > =A0www.lds.org
> > > > > .
> > > > > ransley wrote:
> > > > > > Just curious, why replace them, they still work right.
> > > > > Hmm,
> > > > > Not after 20 years!!! Would you trust that old detector?
> > > > Decay of isotope, isnt that for Co detectors? =A0Who says 20 years,=
the
> > > > Manufacturers of course. =A0I have heard of no independant saying 2=
0
> > > > years.
> > > Is the NFPA independent enough for you?http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail=
.asp?categoryID=3D1647&itemID=3D39905
> > > It's unwise to base advice on things that you haven't heard of - very
> > > possibly because you just haven't looked.
> > > The isotope decay is not the reason that the detectors need to be
> > > replaced.
> > > This Wiki article gives an overview:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smok=
e_detector
> > > As far as locating circuits, I find a circuit breaker tracer
> > > invaluable.http://cgi.ebay.com/BRAND-NEW-SPERRY-CIRCUIT-BREAKER-FINDE=
R-CS-500A_W...
> > > A useful addition is a six inch piece of Romex =A0with alligator clip=
s
> > > on both ends of the black and white wires. =A0It makes it easy to use
> > > the tester on wires instead of receptacles. Clip one end on to the
> > > wires you want to test, and the other onto the receptacle plug-in
> > > tester.
> > Maybe I missed it, but false alarms seems to be the reason replacement
> > was recomended, not failure to alarm.
> http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/OS.SmokeAlarms.pdf
> From page 59 of that report:
> "Aging Home Smoke Alarms
> Smoke alarms are appliances, just like toasters, stereos and
> furnaces. =A0Unlike other appliances, these devices function quietly in
> the background. =A0Its alarm, in response to a real smoke situation or
> to testing, is the only evidence that it works. =A0A stereo that does
> not play will not lead to tragedy, but a worn-out smoke alarm, failing
> to sound in a fire, could.
> Roughly half of the smoke alarms collected as inoperable and studied
> in the National Smoke Detector Project were more than 10 years old,
> hence older than the currently recommended replacement age. =A0Alarms
> designed solely to detect smoke should be replaced every 10 years."
> I find it kind of amazing that you thought there is any electrical
> (particularly safety) equipment that would last indefinitely. =A0Nothing
> lasts forever.
> R- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I know nothing lasts indefinatly , I never said that. Mine are about
150$ each, they are Honywells and I test them every year or so. They
have false alarmed several times but cleaning them with compressed air
fixed them. Now how many "unoperable" units do you think might have
been just dirty, im willing to bet dirt or bugs would be a major issue
nobody discusses, or its the only real issue. My alarm panel is over
20, should I replace that also, yea right, if you pay for it. When
Honywell comes out they always try to give me that crap about how I
should replace everything, but of course the teck needs his commision
and the alarm co needs to make some money and its all workin and doin
fine.
|
|
Posted by RicodJour on October 24, 2009, 11:06 pm
> In article
> >http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/OS.SmokeAlarms.pdf
> > From page 59 of that report:
> > "Aging Home Smoke Alarms
> *Zero* mention of any scientific evidence *whatsoever* that age alone
> would render a smoke alarm inoperative. Absolutely NOTHING to suggest
> the rationale behind the guideline of replacing them every ten years.
Are you *quite* sure about THAT? Perhaps *you* could contact the NFPA
(already capitalized) and ask to SEE their data. I'm *sure* that
statistically SPEAKING one could determine the *likelihood* of HALF of
the *inoperative* smoke DETECTORS being over TEN *YEARS* OLD. It is
*very* UNLIKELY that it would be a *random* occurrence.
Your words carry no more weight with the unseemly emphasis than
usual. The NFPA - silly folk with a predilection for creating
arbitrary standards - have absolutely no data with which to back up
their recommendation. You should write an angry letter. Use a lot of
emphasis to show you really mean it.
R
|
|
Posted by ransley on October 25, 2009, 7:52 am
> > In article
> > >http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/OS.SmokeAlarms.pdf
> > > From page 59 of that report:
> > > "Aging Home Smoke Alarms
> > *Zero* mention of any scientific evidence *whatsoever* that age alone
> > would render a smoke alarm inoperative. Absolutely NOTHING to suggest
> > the rationale behind the guideline of replacing them every ten years.
> Are you *quite* sure about THAT? =A0Perhaps *you* could contact the NFPA
> (already capitalized) and ask to SEE their data. =A0I'm *sure* that
> statistically SPEAKING one could determine the *likelihood* of HALF of
> the *inoperative* smoke DETECTORS being over TEN *YEARS* OLD. =A0It is
> *very* UNLIKELY that it would be a *random* occurrence.
> Your words carry no more weight with the unseemly emphasis than
> usual. =A0The NFPA - silly folk with a predilection for creating
> arbitrary standards - have absolutely no data with which to back up
> their recommendation. =A0You should write an angry letter. =A0Use a lot o=
f
> emphasis to show you really mean it.
> R
If NFPA takes replacement figures from companies like Honywell, ADT
etc, and im sure they do, then the figures are BS considering what has
happened to me at several buildings. I get a false alarm, I would call
my alarm co. They would send out a tech who would immediatly keep the
complete conversation on how its best to replace all sensors because
of age. This started about 15 years ago. After a few false alarms I
started cleaning the detectors myselfe but realised my failures were
bugs or dust, In about 25 years with the same sensors, all false
alarms were bugs or dust.
Understand the motive the tech has, he can likely make 5x more every
day, in kickback, if he can sucker you into replacment of a part
ranther than charge for just time. At the 150$ I was quoted per sensor
there is enough padded in that price, [ probably 7-9x markup] to give
the tech a nice incentive bonus to sucker you on a new unit.
My opinion is those figures, and the fear of replacement are pure
BullShit. I look at it like a new car dealer, take any new car in
after 15-20000 miles driving and if you tell them just fix everything,
you will always walk out $500-2000 poorer.
I say test your detector and blow them out every 6 months, save your
money, its possible to get defective chinese crap anyway.
|
Page 3 of 8 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Smoke Detectors | February 10, 2005, 3:10 pm |
| Cleaning smoke detectors? | March 3, 2006, 3:53 pm |
| replacing smoke detectors | June 19, 2006, 8:51 pm |
| Disposal of smoke and co2 detectors | May 6, 2007, 5:23 am |
| Smoke detectors - How to test | April 28, 2008, 5:59 pm |
| Smoke detectors for the elderly | October 3, 2009, 11:27 am |
| Wireless Smoke Detectors ? | November 13, 2009, 1:40 pm |
| wireless interconnected AC smoke detectors | June 30, 2007, 11:51 pm |
| question about interconnected smoke detectors | December 14, 2005, 2:15 pm |
| Hardwired smoke detectors wiring | July 13, 2009, 2:24 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap