If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by David Combs on November 1, 2009, 9:45 pm
Somewhere towards the beginning of this thread I saw (but
cannot find it now) a post with the suggestion to:
Dig into the thing, disconnect the alarm, and wire
on instead something really LOUD, LOW PITCHED, etc.
To me, that's a pretty good way to go.
Measure the voltage when it's beeping (er, trying to
beep), then go buy a relay that works at that voltage,
hook up some HIGHER voltage or power source to the
other end of the relay that goes to eg some electric
version of a truck horn, or fire-engine siren (hell,
maybe an ordinary siren (a la Odysseus on his way back
from Troy, having himself tied to the ship's mast --
which if that doesn't get him "up", I don't know what will!),
something like that.
Or maybe hooked to an install-it-yourself burglar-alarm,
with horns distributed througout the house.
------
What *I*'d like to do is somehow get into my APC UPS --
you know, that big HEAVY battery-plus-electonics box
you plug into the wall, and then your computer into it.
There's NO WAY that I'm going to hear the beep-beep-beep-beeping
sound if I'm up or downstairs from it, and the circuit blows,
OR if I'm listening to music or whatever via earphones,
OR if I'm asleep or napping (with the bedroom door closed).
Thinking along as I write this thing, maybe that burglar-alarm
idea isn't so bad.
ESPECIALLY if it has TWO kinds of beeps, eg one for burglar,
and another for one of those around-the-neck "HELP -- I'm
in trouble (fell down the stairs, ...)", and use that 2nd
one for the UPS.
(I sure don't want to go rushing around the house finding
out which computer UPS it is when there's actually
an armed burglar loose in the house!)
Anyone have any ideas on HOW to do this, to get into the
UPS to wire something (eg a relay) in parallel to its beeper?
Thanks!
David
|
|
Posted by G. Morgan on November 2, 2009, 11:52 am
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 02:45:43 +0000 (UTC), dkcombs@panix.com (David Combs)
wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> Dig into the thing, disconnect the alarm, and wire
> on instead something really LOUD, LOW PITCHED, etc.
>To me, that's a pretty good way to go.
It's also against code.
One should NEVER tamper with the insides of a life-safety device. Find the
right device for the right purpose.
|
|
Posted by dpb on November 2, 2009, 12:31 pm
G. Morgan wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 02:45:43 +0000 (UTC), dkcombs@panix.com (David Combs)
> wrote:
>
>> Dig into the thing, disconnect the alarm, and wire
>> on instead something really LOUD, LOW PITCHED, etc.
>> To me, that's a pretty good way to go.
>
>
> It's also against code.
>
> One should NEVER tamper with the insides of a life-safety device. Find the
> right device for the right purpose.
Unless, of course, there doesn't appear to be a "right purpose" device
and the alteration improves the function for the specific purpose.
Which specific Code section are we violating here? Manufacturers'
warranties, etc., sure, but I'm not sure Code covers modifications for
purpose.
|
|
Posted by gfretwell on November 2, 2009, 2:04 pm
show/hide quoted text
>G. Morgan wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 02:45:43 +0000 (UTC), dkcombs@panix.com (David Combs)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dig into the thing, disconnect the alarm, and wire
>>> on instead something really LOUD, LOW PITCHED, etc.
>>> To me, that's a pretty good way to go.
>>
>>
>> It's also against code.
>>
>> One should NEVER tamper with the insides of a life-safety device. Find the
>> right device for the right purpose.
>Unless, of course, there doesn't appear to be a "right purpose" device
>and the alteration improves the function for the specific purpose.
>Which specific Code section are we violating here? Manufacturers'
>warranties, etc., sure, but I'm not sure Code covers modifications for
>purpose.
I am
110.3(B)
|
|
Posted by dpb on November 2, 2009, 2:08 pm
gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
...
show/hide quoted text
>> Which specific Code section are we violating here? Manufacturers'
>> warranties, etc., sure, but I'm not sure Code covers modifications for
>> purpose.
>
> I am
> 110.3(B)
If a function can't be achieved w/ off-the-shelf components then that's
saying complying w/ Code overrules accomplishing the task. That's an
over-application of the Code w/ the letter overruling the intent.
|
Page 20 of 23 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Smoke Detectors | February 10, 2005, 3:10 pm |
| Smoke detectors | October 24, 2009, 8:53 am |
| 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 |
| 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
> on instead something really LOUD, LOW PITCHED, etc.
>To me, that's a pretty good way to go.