If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by on November 2, 2009, 2:23 pm
>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>...
>>> 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.
They sell 90db (the point at which hearing is damaged) smoke alarms
with a strobe light so you can't say there are no solutions available.
If you can't hear a 90db horn in your bedroom 100db probably won't
help much.
|
|
Posted by dpb on November 2, 2009, 2:41 pm
gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>> gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> ...
>>>> 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.
>
> They sell 90db (the point at which hearing is damaged) smoke alarms
> with a strobe light so you can't say there are no solutions available.
> If you can't hear a 90db horn in your bedroom 100db probably won't
> help much.
I argued against the "NEVER" under any circumstances not the specific.
Saying there are always solutions available is like the guy arguing that
the patent office should have been closed because everything had already
been invented.
--
|
|
Posted by on November 2, 2009, 3:58 pm
>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> They sell 90db (the point at which hearing is damaged) smoke alarms
>> with a strobe light so you can't say there are no solutions available.
>> If you can't hear a 90db horn in your bedroom 100db probably won't
>> help much.
>I argued against the "NEVER" under any circumstances not the specific.
>Saying there are always solutions available is like the guy arguing that
>the patent office should have been closed because everything had already
>been invented.
That is why we have 90-4, to deal with those cases where there is no
other solution ... but this isn't one of them.
|
|
Posted by G. Morgan on November 2, 2009, 2:15 pm
>Which specific Code section are we violating here? Manufacturers'
>warranties, etc., sure, but I'm not sure Code covers modifications for
>purpose.
NFPA 72. I don't have the reference in front of me, but it states that no
modifications are to be done to life-safety devices.
Smoke detectors and all other parts of a fire alarm go through a rigorous
testing by UL to get listed. Once you tamper with one, it's no longer the
same device - hence not to code.
I'm not saying a DIY'er with a good handle on electronics can not make it
work. But for practical purposes, it's just not a good idea. You may end up
with a device that does not do it's job, and when lives are at stake.... Well,
you get the picture.
|
|
Posted by dpb on November 2, 2009, 2:45 pm
G. Morgan wrote:
...
> I'm not saying a DIY'er with a good handle on electronics can not
> make it work. But for practical purposes, it's just not a good idea.
> You may end up with a device that does not do it's job, and when
> lives are at stake.... Well, you get the picture.
Yeah, and in specific circumstances one may end up w/ a device that
serves the purpose better than the original would have...well, you get
the picture... :)
Again, I'm not saying it's a wily-nily sorta' thing and I'd certainly
not recommend futzin' around w/ grandpa's auxiliary breathing
apparatus... :)
--
|
Page 21 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
>...