Smoke alarm replacement
Posted by: Christopher_M on 15 October 2017
All, Started getting a few random beeps from my smoke alarm last night. No problem, fitted another battery. Random beeps and screeches continued.
Closer examination of the back revealed a manufacturer's sticker which reads: "Date for replacement: 18 September 2010".
I'm going to B&Q to get another before work.
Please check yours.
Chris
Hi Christopher,
Thanks for the heads up.I new that the carbon monoxide detector's need replacing at the date printed on the back.I wouldn't of even thought to check the smoke alarms.
I have just checked my 2 smoke alarms and as you point out they do both have a replace by date.The date on both is 2017 so in theory need replacing now.Apart from the normal beeps when the battery needs replacing I have never heard any other beeps.
For what they cost I will change them both this weekend.
Scott
Christopher_M posted:All, Started getting a few random beeps from my smoke alarm last night. No problem, fitted another battery. Random beeps and screeches continued.
Closer examination of the back revealed a manufacturer's sticker which reads: "Date for replacement: 18 September 2010".
I'm going to B&Q to get another before work.
Please check yours.
Chris
So the rule is: replace battery on your birthday and replace the detector on your birthday when you reach a new multiple of 10.
Kevin Richardson posted:Christopher_M posted:All, Started getting a few random beeps from my smoke alarm last night. No problem, fitted another battery. Random beeps and screeches continued.
Closer examination of the back revealed a manufacturer's sticker which reads: "Date for replacement: 18 September 2010".
I'm going to B&Q to get another before work.
Please check yours.
Chris
So the rule is: replace battery on your birthday and replace the detector on your birthday when you reach a new multiple of 10.
Neat, I like that.
A day later than I would have liked but job done at £16.79.
Test weekly, lasts ten years, no battery to replace. Instruction booklet now located in 'man drawer'. Peace of mind.
The lithium PP3 batteries that state they'll last 10 years in the smoke alarm never last 10 years, no matter what make is bought.
Yes the smoke alarm needs to be changed by the date stated on the unit.
Only buy photoelectric smoke alarms, as they detect the slow burning fires far faster and more effectively. It's the slow burning fires that slowly release toxins that put you into a sleep. I tend to buy the combined photoelectric smoke/carbon monoxide detectors now and have upgraded to the Nest alarms now, that alert my mob. These Nest ones are in a different league.
Hmmm. Thanks for the Nest idea, Count. I especially like the ability to tell the difference between smoke and steam.
No problem Tony. The Nest products are very nicely made and expensive, but even if there's only one of them in the house, it would be worth it.
count.d posted:The lithium PP3 batteries that state they'll last 10 years in the smoke alarm never last 10 years, no matter what make is bought.
Yes the smoke alarm needs to be changed by the date stated on the unit.
Only buy photoelectric smoke alarms, as they detect the slow burning fires far faster and more effectively. It's the slow burning fires that slowly release toxins that put you into a sleep. I tend to buy the combined photoelectric smoke/carbon monoxide detectors now and have upgraded to the Nest alarms now, that alert my mob. These Nest ones are in a different league.
Ideally you should only buy dual sensor alarms.
Our smoke alarms are supplied by the local Fire Brigade for free! Unfortunately the batteries are not replaceable/rechargable, so we have to contact them for replacements. Battery seems to last about 2 years, not 10 as cited here.
Kevin Richardson posted:count.d posted:The lithium PP3 batteries that state they'll last 10 years in the smoke alarm never last 10 years, no matter what make is bought.
Yes the smoke alarm needs to be changed by the date stated on the unit.
Only buy photoelectric smoke alarms, as they detect the slow burning fires far faster and more effectively. It's the slow burning fires that slowly release toxins that put you into a sleep. I tend to buy the combined photoelectric smoke/carbon monoxide detectors now and have upgraded to the Nest alarms now, that alert my mob. These Nest ones are in a different league.
Ideally you should only buy dual sensor alarms.
In tests, ionization alarms will typically respond about 30 to 90 seconds faster to “fast-flame” fires than photoelectric smoke alarms. However, in smoldering fires ionization alarms respond an average of 15 to 50 minutes slower than photoelectric alarms. Several studies indicate that they will outright fail to activate up to 20-25% of the time. The vast majority of residential fire fatalities are due to smoke inhalation, not from the actual flames and almost two-thirds of fire fatalities occur at night while we sleep.
In 1995, researchers at Texas A&M University published the results is a 2 1/2 year study on residential fire detection devices. The research showed that ionization alarms failed to provide adequate egress time in smoldering fire scenarios over 55% of the time versus a 4% failure rate with photoelectric alarms. In fast-flame fire scenarios, the study found that ionization alarms failed to provide adequate egress time about 20% of the time versus 4% with photoelectric alarms. The research demonstrates that when all factors are taken into account, i.e.; how often each alarm gets disabled due to nuisance tripping, how they respond across the full spectrum of fires, etc., photoelectric alarms have a clear advantage.
In 2007, UL published the “Smoke Characterization Study”. This study tested both types of smoke alarms using current UL testing standards and materials; they also tested the alarms using UL test criteria integrating a variety of synthetic materials and current tests such as smoldering toast. The results are frightening. Ionization alarms failed the UL 217 test 20% of the time using the current standard test materials. This is the test that the alarms must pass 100% of the time to be offered for sale and installed in US homes. When tested using synthetic materials, ionization alarms DID NOT TRIGGER (DNT) in 7 out of 8 synthetic test scenarios. In the one test where the ionization alarm did trigger, it activated at a level exceeding maximum allowed under the UL standard and nearly 43 minutes after the photoelectric alarm in the same test.
In the same tests, photoelectric alarms activated 100% of the time using the UL 217 test and materials. When tested using the standard test integrated synthetic materials, photoelectric alarms responded properly in 100% of the tests.
Ionization alarms are also notorious for nuisance tripping, i.e.; going off when you cook, burn toast, shower, etc. When alarms nuisance trip, people become frustrated and intentionally disable the alarms. This leaves the family completely unprotected. According to several studies, ionization alarms are 8 times more likely to be intentionally disabled. Ionization alarms account for the vast majority of disabled alarms. Several CPSC and NFPA studies indicate that ionization alarms account for 97% of all nuisance alarm activations. An Alaskan Public Housing Study shows that about 20% of ionization alarms will be disabled within the first year of installation; other studies indicate that this percentage may be higher.
There are combination photoelectric/ionization smoke alarms available. In fact, many fire officials mistakenly recommend them. There is no industry or UL standard for dual/multi sensor alarms. As long as they respond to the UL 217 and 268 tests, the manufacturers are free to alter the way the sensors respond and interact with each other. These units have the same issues as ionization only detectors. In some cases – they may be worse. A CPSC study shows that they may be even more prone to nuisance tripping than ionization alarms when in close proximity to cooking sources.
In the simplest terms, if you take a device that works and pair it with a device that has serious shortcomings – how can that possibly improve performance? Both the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and CREIA specifically recommend against installing combination alarms.
Combination alarms use technology termed “Gated Logic”. In one type, either sensor tripping will sound the alarm. In these units, the photo portion will pick up the smoldering fires so the ionization sensor does not become a factor. However, the ion portion is still susceptible to nuisance tripping. The manufacturers do not want the customer to disable the alarm. So to combat nuisance tripping, they often reduce (desensitize) the smoke sensitivity/response of ionization portion of these units. In effect, this type of combination alarm performs similarly to a photoelectric only alarm.
With the other type of unit, BOTH sensors must trigger to sound the alarm. In these units, the photoelectric portion will pick up the smoldering fires first, but will not sound until the ionization sensor triggers. Since a smoldering fire usually pose the greatest danger, this is a problem. The family is often fast asleep while the alarm waits for the ionization sensor that may never respond or responds too slow. This type alarm needs both sensors to detect the danger or it won’t alert. Conversely, while this unit will be less susceptible to nuisance tripping because the photoelectric sensor must also respond to nuisance sources such as burnt toast; you risk losing your life if the ionization doesn’t respond in a dangerous smoldering fire situation.
I have photoelectric/carbon monoxide detectors in rooms and where I don't have these, I have a Nest smoke/carbon monoxide/phone alarm and another photoelectric smoke alarm connected to my house alarm, which also phones me.