2 wire vs 4 wire Smoke allarms

Yet this "contraption" is being used to monitor the fire alarm on a church in CT...

Hey... someone has to wear the brainy end... :-)

I rely on the code to define a fire alarm system as well. There are many systems out there that *aren't* fire alarm systems yet happen to use some listed components. Care to explain how after you "bodged" the UL Listed communicator in the local church you were monitoring, the fire alarm *system* that it somehow remained "code compliant"? Care to explain how tampering with a UL Listed central station receiver is somehow "OK" as long as the monitoring centre isn't UL Listed? How'd you manage to sneak that one by the AHJ??

Once again, you're talking "compatibility" and not "connectivity". Four wire smoke alarms don't require "compatibility" listings like two wire ones do (that derive their power from the panel's initiating circuit). As for connecting a 120VAC smoke alarm to a control panel or auto dialer, there's nothing in any code or standard that says I (or anyone)

*can't* do this as long as you use the manufacturer's listed relay.

That's because they're not there. This isn't an issue of "compatibility".

The code also has this to say about connecting single and multi-station smoke alarms to an alarm panel or auto dialer:

NFPA 72-2002 11.7.6.7 Installations that include the connection of single- or multiple-station alarms with other input or output devices, such as but not limited to relay modules, remote signaling devices, phone dialers, security panels, heat detectors, and manual pull stations, shall be permitted, providing that an open or short circuit of the wiring leading to these input or output devices does not prevent normal operation of the single- or multiple-station alarm.

Not applicable in this instance. The UL Listing for residential fire allows properly qualified installers to certify an installation to meet the UL requirements for a residential fire alarm system. It's *not* a "listed" fire alarm *system* until the installation itself is certified and only in that instance must all the devices comply with NFPA 72.

"Pending" or not, you've actively advocated the purchase of potentially non-compliant panels to your customers (most of whom you've stated also purchase smoke and heat detectors from you). Selling a non-compliant fire alarm system (according to your definition) isn't a very responsible thing to do. Advising a licensed, professional installer to short the primary telephone line on a UL Listed fire alarm communicator to get it to test on the second line is *also* not a very responsible thing to do.

Sure.

UL 2034 - Standard for Single and Multiple Station Carbon Monoxide Alarms

UL 539 - Standard for Single and Multi-Station Heat Alarms

UL 317 - Standard for Single and Multi-Station Smoke Alarms

And you're right... There is no mention of connection to a "Listed Fire Alarm Control System", but then BRK isn't talking about connecting their RM4 to one either... They're talking about hooking it up to an "alarm panel", which is what I have been saying you can do all along.

Robert. I was responding to a legitimate question from the OP. If you

*read* my response you'll see that I'm not *advocating* he do this. I simply stated that there's nothing in the code that would prohibit him from connecting his 110VAC smoke alarms to his Onmi II burg panel and a very relevant section of the code which states quite simply that he *can*.

Check. So post the relevant section. Where does it state that if I hook up a heat detector to my home alarm panel that it automatically "becomes" a "listed fire alarm system"?? I think you're confused by the wording on a panel that's "UL listed as a residential fire alarm control" and an *installation* that's been *certified* as a residential fire alarm *system*.

The relay we're talking about here *is* listed for the purpose of providing an "output" from the specific 110VAC smokes. The code clearly states I can connect my 110VAC smoke alarms to my home alarm system "providing that an open or short circuit of the wiring leading to these input or output devices does not prevent normal operation of the single- or multiple-station alarm".

That's a pretty generalized definition and has nothing to do with the issue at hand (which I've repeated here ad nauseum). It's also not what I asked you for. Quote the section of the code that states a home security system "becomes" a fire alarm system when you connect a heat detector or smoke alarm to it and that it therefore must comply in all respects with a "listed" fire alarm system.

BZZZT. Sorry, Robert. I don't see where tying in a smoke alarm to an auto dialer or even a "listed" panel automatically makes the whole kit and kaboodle a "fire alarm system". Once again, it's simply a "definition". More-over, are you saying BRK is now selling non-compliant devices for hook-up to an alarm control?? Using your logic, that's against code!!! I'll report them immediately!

Funny. I've given you plenty of opportunity to prove you're right and so far all you've managed to do is demonstrate your complete lack of understanding regarding code issues.

I suppose I could say the same thing! :-)

Really? Most AHJ's have a copy of the current code book I would hope, and won't be taking the nonsense posted by a third rate installer "wannabe" in Florida to heart.

Horse twaddle!

I haven't posted *one* "silly lie" in all the time I've been participating in Usenet. You yourself have admitted to being convicted of assault with a gun in 1979. You yourself have stated that you didn't receive the proper licensing to actually *install* an alarm system until

1983. You yourself admitted to getting caught installing an alarm system *without a permit* in 1989 subsequent to which you applied for (and received) the proper licensing to pull one. What does this mean? That from 1979 to 1989 you installed alarm systems in people's houses, and commercial establishments *illegally* (without the proper permit)? Up here we call those kinds of installers "trunk slammers".

You yourself admitted to "running a modestly successful central station alarm company" from 1979 to 1999. Does that mean that your central station was set up in your home in CT in 1979? I'm a bit confused on that. First off, you were in Florida in 1979 and then there's the issue of "setting up a monitoring centre" with a customer base that was what?? "zero"?? When did you buy the "former doctors house" in which you set up your CS operation?

You yourself have admitted that you moved to Florida in 1999. This is

2006. It seems to me that (even if you counted the time you were serving probation in Florida) 1979 to 2006 is 27 years "in the industry". How do you get "29"? When you look at the period 1979 to 1999 how do you get "24 years" *installing alarms*?

Your math and your knowledge of code issues is equally abysmal.

This is getting OT. Olson has (as usual) misquoted me in an effort to stir the pot. I once mentioned a C152 which was a tail dragger. Olson tried to argue that TD conversions are somehow impossible or some such drivel. Mr. Olson claimed to have snap-rolled a 737. He also claimed that he borrowed this 737 from Boeing so that he could test out his pet theory about a Canadian air disaster. Mr. Olson claimed that his initial plan was to take off and then (without weight on the mains) appply reverse thrusters. :^)

And we all know who is Bobo from some aviation group......

But I agree with you this getting OT,as everything you talk about...

btw I found some good herbs to put on hamburger...want my recipe?LOL

hehehe ;-)

Jeez,

I take a month's vacation only to find we're playing the same old games. Lots of smoke and heat but very little light. Ironic in a thread about smoke detectors! :-)

If anyone's *really* interested in resolving this question, it would be nice if they would provide citations of some sort. There's lots of info out there. Anyone with an interest in this topic would be well-served to read the PDF articles here:

In fact, anyone who depends on wired, wireless or lithium powered smoke alarms owes it to their loved ones to carefully read ALL the information at that site. This one alone:

about transients causing cascade failures in interconnected smokes is a

*must read* IMHO for anyone using interconnected smokes.

One of the things the materials on the CPSC site reminds readers is that different jurisdictions have very different requirements and it's unlikely there's a "one size fits all" answer to the question. I *am* sure lots of folks will benefit by reading the material about smokes at the CPSC site (even though it's a little out of date) since there are so many house fires each year:

"In 1999, there were an estimated 337,300 residential fires resulting in

2,390 civilian deaths. Smoke alarms have successfully prevented thousands of residential fire deaths. Reducing the number of non-working alarms and providing unprotected homes with smoke alarms may produce a further reduction in fire deaths. CPSC staff believes that more effective alarms in residential dwellings could have an even greater impact in reducing deaths."

(Below I've copied over just some of the articles to be found at the smoke alarm home page:

***************************************************Proposals for 2008 Edition of the National Electrical Code - Comments due by November 2, 2005. Correspondence to Underwriters Laboratories October 31, 2003. Response for comments on the Proposed Requirements for the Fifth Edition of the Standard for Single and Multiple Station Smoke Alarms, UL 217, Bulletin Dated October 1, 2003. Correspondence to Underwriters Laboratories February 25, 2003. Recommendations to address potential reliability and performance issues associated with interconnected smoke alarms, UL 217 CPSC Staff Report: Considerations for Installation of Smoke Alarms on Residential Branch Circuits - (October, 2005) CPSC Staff Report: Possible Technologies for Improving the Audibility of Residential Smoke Alarms for Older Adults - (September, 2005) Contractor Report on The Audibility of Smoke Alarms in Residential Homes - (September, 2005) A Review of the Sound Effectiveness of Residential Smoke Alarms - (December,

2004) Contractor Report on The Implementation and Demonstration of Wireless Communications Capabilities in Off-the-Shelf, Battery-Powered Smoke Alarms Phase II Report - (March 23, 2004) Contractor Report on Smoke Alarms, Low-Cost Batteries, and Wireless Technology Technical Report: Phase I - Preparatory Study and Literature Search - (August 29, 2003) Final Report on Lithium Batteries (UltraLife, ANSI 1604) Used in Residential Smoke Alarms - December 2, 2002 NIST Report on Home Smoke Alarm Tests Consumer Product Safety Review: Winter 2004 *************************************************** Happy reading! (Only 419 unread messages left in CHA. Jeez, I hope they're not all about how make interconnected smoke alarms can dance on the head of a pin!) :-)

No, wait, I see plenty of other threads. Phew! Sorry if I left anyone hanging with unanswered messages. I will try to get to them shortly. My wife insists I no longer announce my vacation plans over the internet ever since someone tried kicking in the alarm door when we were away. It's really a buzz kill to have that message waiting at the hotel's front desk.

-- Bobby G.