Results 1 to 35 of 35
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Anacortes, Washington
    Posts
    395

    Default Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    As a home inspector I don't think about standards as often as I should. Henry Ford should get some of the credit for standards. Prior to standardized manufacturing everything had to be custom made by hand. If your steam boiler broke you had to go to the blacksmith to get a new part made. Today we take the part to the corner hardware store and pick out a new one knowing the sizes are standard.

    * Have you ever stopped to wonder why you can use your bank card almost anywhere in the world?
    * Buy an electric appliance and know that it will work when you plug it into a outlet.
    * Buy a DVD and it will play at home?
    * Or the packaged food you eat is fresh and safe?

    As home inspectors we are surrounded by an standards from organizations such as the IBC, NEC, CABO, UPC and NFPA (to name a few). These organizations provide a valuable service setting the standard for home infrastructure should be installed in the home. This make our job easier as it give us criteria that we can use to determine good installations versus bad installation. Take the slope of a drain line. Too little slope and the homeowner has lots of headaches. What if there was no standard and we had to argue the point with plumbers who were saying "it looked OK to me." Our job would be a lot harder because now it?s our opinion against theirs.

    Recently it come to my attention that ASHI is being ask to set a new standard regarding smoke alarms. There is a proposal before the board to recommend photoelectric smoke alarms only. Why ASHI is being ask to go against the Consumer Products Safety Commission, National Fire Protection Association, Underwriter Labs and the NEC (to just name a few) is absurd. Although I believe that we should looking out for our client's safety I think its going to be hard to explain to a client who is buying a brand new home that all the "builder installed" smoke alarms should be replaced when they have been UL approved, been installed to NEC and NFPA standards and then inspected and approved by the local building department.

    Once we start down this path, what's next? Will we become the light bulb police and identify incandescent light bulbs because they don't conform to the Light Bulb Law*? Personally I like being able to point to standards as I identify issues and use the standard to encourage the repair of the defect. Let not deviate from our mission:
    To set and promote standards for property inspections and to provide the educational programs needed to achieve excellence in the profession.

    *http://energy.gov/energysaver/...gin-2012

    Similar Threads:
    Inspection Referral
    Rick Bunzel
    WWW.PacCrestInspections.com
    360-588-6956

  2. #2
    Garry Blankenship's Avatar
    Garry Blankenship Guest

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    The only sure thing is change. I'm not against standards, but they are dynamic / constantly changing. You're a homie and probably aware that our State has mandated carbon monoxide detectors, as of January 1, 2013. GFCIs are old news and AFCIs are starting to, ( reliably ), do what they are supposed to. My wondering, is how so many people survived from the dark ages when all this protection was not available. ASHI can throw down where ever they like, but if there is no money in their position for some entity, it will fall on deaf ears.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    I agree Gary, sometimes it seems today the cost of safety becomes overwhelming. We now need helmets, knee pads to ride a bike, seat and shoulder belts in our cars, sensors in our bumpers to detect something behind us, proper car restaints for our pets in a car, ect. ect. Our home today are required to have smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors wired in series, instructions on everything you purchase for safety, like plastic bags with printing on them to keep away from children so they don't put over their head, cups of coffee with warning lables saying coffee is hot and may burn you. I agree we need safety standards but I ask myself about the cost of safety today.
    As a home inspector yes I am concerned about the safety of my client in purchasing a home and make safety recommendations such as handrailing on stairways, smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, spindle spacing on decks, rusty heat exchangers, GFI outlets and any safety hazard I may see while I am performing the inspection. And as a home inspector we are required to point out all these issues for the safety of our client and our libility.
    We live in a very complex world today.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,847

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    ASHI is just endorsing one type of detector over the other.

    Take a look at this video, it shows a simple test of both types of detectors. After viewing this video, I think it might help to educate you on why ASHI is taking this stance.

    ASHI Vice-President interviewed on smoke detector safety | News | ASHI, American Society of Home Inspectors

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  5. #5
    Garry Blankenship's Avatar
    Garry Blankenship Guest

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Patterson View Post
    ASHI is just endorsing one type of detector over the other.

    Take a look at this video, it shows a simple test of both types of detectors. After viewing this video, I think it might help to educate you on why ASHI is taking this stance.

    ASHI Vice-President interviewed on smoke detector safety | News | ASHI, American Society of Home Inspectors
    Thanks Scott - - - very informative. It creates an interesting dilemma; at least locally. WA SOPs exclude testing smoke detectors. To inform a client which type of smoke detector is present it appears you would have to remove & reinstall. Individual choices, but testing and some canned verbiage as to the types and their performance historys seems about right.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    358

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Good video and explanation of the significant differences between the two Scott.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Posts
    4,170

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    From the NFPA
    For best protection, use both types of smoke alarm technologies
    For best protection, it is recommended both (ionization and photoelectric) technologies be in homes. In addition to individual ionization and photoelectric alarms, combination alarms that include both technologies in a single device are available.
    NFPA :: Safety Information :: For consumers :: Fire & safety equipment :: Smoke alarms :: Ionization vs. photoelectric

    I have added the little blurb above to my report. This is right below the recommendation to replace all smoke detectors. I do not test except in new construction but assume all to be defective per the NFPA recommendations to replace smoke detectors when the property changes ownership.

    I recommend action based on independent experts without a political or monetary ax to grind when ever possible.

    Jim Luttrall
    www.MrInspector.net
    Plano, Texas

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Near Philly, Pa.
    Posts
    1,643

    Cool Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    While ASHI is promoting the photoelectric sensor technology over ionization types, note that UL is endorsing dual sensor technology.

    Regardless, all smoke alarms should be replaced every 10 yrs. They should be vacuumed tested monthly. Note the test button only confirms the electrical circuit continuity--it does not test the sensor.

    In the video, the P.O.S. UL listed CO alarm failed to warn in time to save a life. Try that test again with an unlisted CO monitor and it can serve as a very reliable adjunct to a photo or dual sensor smoke alarm.

    The test did not have an iteration with an open flame, which is where the ionization sensor should excel over the photo sensor.

    The piece did not cover proper location, how many needed and placement, service, hardwired systems, etc.

    I think you should look to Eli Whitney for really proving the viability of interchangeable parts. He was the first to built muskets for our military with interchangeable parts. This set the stage for gauge and pattern, specs. and tolerances. He made pattern lathes that could machine gunstocks. He used an assembly line of sorts. It just doesn't take that much of a line to assemble muskets- lock, stock and barrel.

    Keep the fire in the fireplace.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    261

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Harper View Post
    While ASHI is promoting the photoelectric sensor technology over ionization types, note that UL is endorsing dual sensor technology.

    Regardless, all smoke alarms should be replaced every 10 yrs. They should be vacuumed tested monthly. Note the test button only confirms the electrical circuit continuity--it does not test the sensor.

    .
    At least one model of BRK recommends replacement after 60 months so you need to read the warranty of what you have.

    Pressing the test button is how the manufacturer recommends you test the smoke detector.

    From BRK First Alert:
    The built-in test switch accurately tests the unitís operation as required by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL).


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Harper View Post
    Note the test button only confirms the electrical circuit continuity--it does not test the sensor.
    .
    I hate to disagree with you Bob, but pressing the test button DOES test the smoke alarms ability to detect smoke.
    Maybe there is an exception, but I don't know of one.

    Last edited by Rick Cantrell; 01-11-2013 at 02:33 PM.
    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Near Philly, Pa.
    Posts
    1,643

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Here is but one source:

    The Goal of Testing

    An effective detector test is one which most closely simulates a real smoke event, but which can also be reproduced multiple times in a quick way. To accomplish this, it is generally assumed that the physical properties and location of the detector would allow smoke to reach it in a fire. From there, a test can be performed by simply breaking the circuit. In an optical detector, this is done by shutting off power to the LED when the test button is pressed. In an ionization detector, the electrodes are either powered off or overridden to cause the circuit to break. In either case, this broken circuit will trigger the alarm.


    Read more: How Does a Test Button on a Smoke Detector Work? | eHow.com How Does a Test Button on a Smoke Detector Work? | eHow.com

    Note these tests are ASSumed to replicate a fire condition. They are not an actual test and having been in the fire service and EMS I can assure you anything that can go wrong, will. That's why I made that statement.

    Keep the fire in the fireplace.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Both of those are in fact testing that the sensor functions, and causes an alarm.
    It's not just pressing a button to make it beep.

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Caledon, Ontario
    Posts
    5,005

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Differences between photo and ionization smoke alarms.

    Smoke Alarm Guidelines - Ontario Fire Marshal


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond Wand View Post
    Differences between photo and ionization smoke alarms.

    Smoke Alarm Guidelines - Ontario Fire Marshal
    Good link Raymond

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Caledon, Ontario
    Posts
    5,005

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Thanks.
    Another interesting aspect of battery powered smoke alarms is the proper use of the right battery. Alkaline verse non alkaline and re-chargeables can render the alarm useless.


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Columbus GA
    Posts
    3,746

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    How Does a Test Button on a Smoke Detector Work? | eHow.com
    Optical Detectors
    Optical smoke detectors consist of an LED and an optical sensor. The LED generates a beam of light that is received by the sensor. In the presence of smoke, this beam from the LED is disrupted, and the sensor detects either a degraded beam or no beam at all, thus triggering the alarm. Detectors can be configured for different levels of sensitivity using this approach, tolerating slight drops in the intensity of the LED beam without triggering an alarm. These detectors work best on flaming fires, which may not generate a great deal of smoke compared with other types.

    Ionization Detectors
    Ionization detectors use a very small amount of radioactive material passed between two electrodes to complete a circuit. Smoke will cause these particles to dissipate, ultimately breaking the circuit and triggering the alarm. This method of detection works best on smoldering fires, which generate a lot of smoke.


    What is highlighted is incorrect

    ' correct a wise man and you gain a friend... correct a fool and he'll bloody your nose'.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Patterson View Post
    ASHI is just endorsing one type of detector over the other.

    Take a look at this video, it shows a simple test of both types of detectors. After viewing this video, I think it might help to educate you on why ASHI is taking this stance.

    ASHI Vice-President interviewed on smoke detector safety | News | ASHI, American Society of Home Inspectors
    Interesting video. Years ago when I got in this business, I used to test alarms with a can of smoke. Every single one went off, even 40 year old 'antique' alarms. It never took more than a few seconds of smoke. After exhausting two cans of smoke, I quit doing it. So, I am pretty surprised to see it take even 3 minutes to set off an alarm. My cooking has set off the alarms in my home.

    These days, I just press the test buttons now. I have run into quite a few over the years that don't respond to the test button. I rarely test all the alarms in a home, and explain that I am only sampling one of the alarms.

    I've had phantom alarms at my own home many times. I have been considering converting to photoelectric to see if the phantom alarms stop. (they seem to always happen in the middle of the night so they are very annoying).

    If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,847

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    I could see having both types of smoke alarms, or a dual alarm but......

    We all know that in most cases folks are doing good to just have one working detector in their home!

    I guess a good question would be; How many deaths are from smoke inhalation and how many are from flames? I'm going to bet that a smoldering or smoking fire is more dangerous to a sleeping family.

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    North Central Texas
    Posts
    472

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    It may be prudent for ASHI to recommend a particular product over others, but this is not likely.

    It is certainly not prudent, nor is it advisable, for ASHI to attempt to insinuate itself into the business of standards authoring. It is neither qualified nor is it the appropriate type of organization.

    If the ASHI muckety-mucks would simply focus on the job at hand they might actually become the leading inspector organization they pretend to resemble.

    By the way, the job at hand is to support inspectors (dues payers). Product endorsement does not accomplish that.

    F-O-C-U-S!

    Texas Inspector
    http://www.texasinspector.com
    What the plainspoken man lacks in subtlety, he makes up in clarity.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,847

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Miller View Post
    It may be prudent for ASHI to recommend a particular product over others, but this is not likely.

    It is certainly not prudent, nor is it advisable, for ASHI to attempt to insinuate itself into the business of standards authoring. It is neither qualified nor is it the appropriate type of organization.

    If the ASHI muckety-mucks would simply focus on the job at hand they might actually become the leading inspector organization they pretend to resemble.

    By the way, the job at hand is to support inspectors (dues payers). Product endorsement does not accomplish that.

    F-O-C-U-S!
    ASHI is not attempting to write a standard for smoke detectors, nor is any endorsement of a particular brand being offered. It is the method of detection and how the smoke detector work that is being discussed.

    They are simply providing more information to the public. The paper has not even been published, why not wait to see what it has in it before condemning it.

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    North Central Texas
    Posts
    472

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Patterson View Post
    ASHI is not attempting to write a standard for smoke detectors, nor is any endorsement of a particular brand being offered. It is the method of detection and how the smoke detector work that is being discussed.

    They are simply providing more information to the public. The paper has not even been published, why not wait to see what it has in it before condemning it.
    Scott:

    While I am certain that your extremely close affiliation with ASHI leadereship has absolutely no bearing on your opinion , I have a different view of what a home inspector organization should be. I have kept my ASHI membership all of these years in (dashed) hopes that they would someday come around to embrace the notion that they exist solely for the promotion of the home inspection profession.

    Their failure to come to terms with reality has now caused them to lose sight of the goal and the results support that theory. There are exceptions, such as the NHIE, but too few to mention. The reason is quite simple, actually. The elitist attitude adopted many years ago blinded the leadership to the fact that other organizations were usurping their territory.

    Until such time that the members take action to correct the errant leadership the organization will continue its current slip into anonymity. ASHI leadership must come to terms with the fact that the group is being out-gunned by the likes of NACHI, where the emphasis is on marketing, affordable education, and not sitting in a circle playing according to Robert's Rules.

    Last edited by Aaron Miller; 01-12-2013 at 12:31 PM. Reason: Focusing
    Texas Inspector
    http://www.texasinspector.com
    What the plainspoken man lacks in subtlety, he makes up in clarity.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,847

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Miller View Post
    Scott:

    While I am certain that your extremely close affiliation with ASHI leadereship has absolutely no bearing on your opinion , I have a different view of what a home inspector organization should be. I have kept my ASHI membership all of these years in (dashed) hopes that they would someday come around to embrace the notion that they exist solely for the promotion of the home inspection profession.

    Their failure to come to terms with reality has now caused them to lose sight of the goal and the results support that theory. There are exceptions, such as the NHIE, but too few to mention. The reason is quite simple, actually. The elitist attitude adopted many years ago blinded the leadership to the fact that other organizations were usurping their territory.

    Until such time that the members take action to correct the errant leadership the organization will continue its current slip into anonymity. ASHI leadership must come to terms with the fact that the group is being out-gunned by the likes of NACHI, where the emphasis is on marketing, affordable education, and not sitting in a circle playing according to Robert's Rules.
    Aaron, you should get involved in ASHI and offer your expertise to help in the areas you feel are in need of improvement. Volunteers are always needed to serve on the various national committees and in leadership positions.

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    552

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Garry Blankenship View Post
    The only sure thing is change. I'm not against standards, but they are dynamic / constantly changing. You're a homie and probably aware that our State has mandated carbon monoxide detectors, as of January 1, 2013. GFCIs are old news and AFCIs are starting to, ( reliably ), do what they are supposed to. My wondering, is how so many people survived from the dark ages when all this protection was not available. ASHI can throw down where ever they like, but if there is no money in their position for some entity, it will fall on deaf ears.
    I agree. In my past, telecommunications, I worked for a large organization that had engineers that felt they knew everything about everything. We sent a preliminary set of requirements to them to be included in all new construction documents. They hacked them, don't know why to this date, but they issued the hacked docs. The first time I send up a change, due to new standards in the industry---they went off the roof asking "How dare I change them--we only issued them 3 months ago!"
    .
    The point that I am making is, standards and requirements do change and you have to be flexible with this concept. They change for good reasons. Perhaps there is a good reason that ASHI is being asked for a new standard regarding smoke alarms. I do know that Photo-cell types will detect certain types of fire before a product-of-combustion (ionization) type would. Time counts.
    .
    I personally would, and have put product-of-combustion w/monoxide detection in bedrooms, and photo-cell type in the hall adjacent to the bedrooms. My choice.


  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    North Central Texas
    Posts
    472

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Patterson View Post
    Aaron, you should get involved in ASHI and offer your expertise to help in the areas you feel are in need of improvement. Volunteers are always needed to serve on the various national committees and in leadership positions.
    Scott:

    I have been an ASHI member for so many years I no longer remember how long, and was a founding member of the ASHI Texas group.

    Many years back I was the COR representative to ASHI from the state of Texas. After a long plane flight and about thirty minutes into the first meeting the president asked everyone except for a few select members to leave the room for a few minutes so that they could discuss something among themselves privately. Two hours later we were allowed to return after standing in the hallway for that same period of time.

    While in the different meetings 90% of the time was completely wasted (since that is what meetings are designed to do) and absolutely nothing was accomplished other than massive volumes of smoke having been blown up every derriere in attendance.

    But, Robert's Rules were sanctimoniously observed and a prayer was said at the end, ostensibly to protect us from the next such assault on our senses.

    Thanks Scott, but no thanks.

    Last edited by Aaron Miller; 01-13-2013 at 08:07 AM.
    Texas Inspector
    http://www.texasinspector.com
    What the plainspoken man lacks in subtlety, he makes up in clarity.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Near Philly, Pa.
    Posts
    1,643

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Patterson View Post
    ASHI is not attempting to write a standard for smoke detectors, nor is any endorsement of a particular brand being offered. It is the method of detection and how the smoke detector work that is being discussed.

    They are simply providing more information to the public. The paper has not even been published, why not wait to see what it has in it before condemning it.
    If ASHI wants to save lives and reduce illness caused by living in a building then they should consider a boiler plate recommendation to install unlisted CO monitors in every occupied building that could be subject to CO exposure. The current UL 2034 std. was not intended to protect against CO poisoning but CO death. It does not alert until you already have CO poisoning or 10%COHb. It is intended to alert just in time to get you to evacuate the building just before you pass out never to wake up. They are of NO use in detecting fire since their response time/ exposure is deliberately set to delay so as to prevent "false alarms".

    An unlisted monitor responds within 60 seconds of exposure and can alert in time to alert of fire where there is even trace CO production but also alerts of chronic low level CO that might make you ill but not kill you.

    I would recommend a balanced approach with dual sensor fire alarms (photo & ionization) and unlisted CO monitors on every floor and within 15LF of each sleeping room.

    Keep the fire in the fireplace.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    552

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    [quote=Lon Henderson;217574...
    I've had phantom alarms at my own home many times. I have been considering converting to photoelectric to see if the phantom alarms stop. (they seem to always happen in the middle of the night so they are very annoying).[/quote]

    Just curious... How old are the units? I remember a story a few years back that false alarms were occurring, I think the Chicago area, and they traced it back to the detector being too sensitive and was responding to the air pollution. They had to de-sensitize the units. Maybe you are having the same issue......


  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    When we moved into this home eight years ago, the units were six years old. I suspected one bad boy so I started systematically replacing units. I have two original ones left. Of course, we all know that they should be replaced every ten years, but because of my past work actually smoke testing them, I know that they remain darn sensitive for far longer than ten years. I hadn't had a phantom alarm in about a year and a half, when a few weeks ago at 3:00am, the damn things went off again. I suspect one of the remaining original ones has gone bad.

    Now, I'll start replacing units with dual purpose CO/smoke alarms, beginning with the oldest.

    If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hercules, CA
    Posts
    158

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    I know this string is about smoke detectors, but I thought I would comment on what Rick said about light bulbs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Bunzel View Post
    ......Once we start down this path, what's next? Will we become the light bulb police and identify incandescent light bulbs because they don't conform to the Light Bulb Law*? ......
    We already have the light bulb police here in California, it is called the California Energy Commission. Local building departments are mandated by State law to enforce CEC standards, which require lighting to be "high efficacy luminaires" or be controlled by "manual-on occupancy sensors" (in general). Right now it only applies when you are altering the lighting, but in the future who knows?

    Last edited by Thom Huggett; 01-14-2013 at 09:48 AM. Reason: Clarification
    Thom Huggett, PE, SE, CBO

  29. #29
    Jim Katen's Avatar
    Jim Katen Guest

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Perhaps I can offer some insight into the technical aspect, if not the political aspect, of this discussion.
    I am the chairman of the ASHI Technical Committee, which wrote the proposal that’s being discussed here. The ASHI Board instructed us to investigate the issue and provide them with technical information about the relative merits of photoelectric and ionization smoke alarms. Over a period of months, we spent, literally, hundreds of man hours reading, dissecting, and comparing all of the studies, tests, and research that we could find, including information provided by the original poster in this thread.

    When we approached this research, most of us on the committee believed – as many posters in this thread do – that the two types of alarms are each better at sensing the byproducts of different types of fires and that the most sensible thing to do would be to have both kinds, or to have alarms that include both sensors within one alarm unit in each house.

    That’s the view the some of the alarm manufacturer’s promote and it’s the view that some industry associations adhere to as well. What’s interesting is that the facts of the matter don’t support that view. Ionization alarms are quite decidedly inferior to photoelectric alarms in nearly every situation. In those few situations where they offer an advantage, the advantage is slight and their strong tendency to sound nuisance alarms outweighs any advantage that they might otherwise have.

    Surprisingly, the worst alarms of the bunch are those that use both photoelectric and ionization sensors in the same unit. They provide no improvement over single-sensor models and, in some cases, perform much more poorly than single-sensor models.

    As for the political aspect of the discussion, I can’t offer much insight beyond the fact that ASHI is not contemplating a change to their Standards of Practice in this regard. Their members are still not required to test smoke alarms or to determine what type of smoke alarm is present. Beyond that, I don’t know how they plan to use the information that we provided to them.

    Last edited by Jim Katen; 01-15-2013 at 12:43 PM.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Bennett (Denver metro), Colorado
    Posts
    1,394

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Katen View Post
    Surprisingly, the worst alarms of the bunch are those that use both photoelectric and ionization sensors in the same unit. They provide no improvement over single-sensor models and, in some cases, perform much more poorly than single-sensor models.
    Is this from your research? Is this published somewhere? If so, could you state the source, because that is very interesting.

    If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Caledon, Ontario
    Posts
    5,005

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Caledon, Ontario
    Posts
    5,005

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards


  33. #33
    Jim Katen's Avatar
    Jim Katen Guest

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Quote Originally Posted by Lon Henderson View Post
    Is this from your research? Is this published somewhere? If so, could you state the source, because that is very interesting.
    Yes. That comes frome the The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s Pilot Study of Nuisance Alarms Associated with Cooking. It found that, in general, dual-sensor alarms produced more false alarms than alarms that had only one sensor. In some cases, the false alarm rate for the combination units was twice as high as that of single-sensor units.

    This is not really surprising. There are two different kinds of dual-sensor alarms. One type uses, "AND," logic. These require both sensors to trigger before they sound their alarm. If the photoelectric sensor detects a smoldering fire, it won't sound the alarm until the ionization portion also detects it. Since, for certain kinds of synthetic materials, the ionization alarm might *never* pick up the fire, this is a bad thing. They help to limit nuisance alarms, but offer no other real benefit.

    The other kind of dual-sensor alarm uses, "EITHER/OR," logic. In these, the alarm will sound if either the photoelectric or the ionization sensor reaches its threshold. This is a problem because the ionization sensors have a very serious tendency to produce nuisance alarms, which cause occupants to disable them. Some manufacturers have dealt with this issue by desensitizing the ionization sensor in these alarms, negating any small advantage that they would receive from the ionization sensor's ability to react quickly to fast-flaming fires.


  34. #34
    Jim Katen's Avatar
    Jim Katen Guest

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    Even BRK/First Alert is on board with the idea. . .

    Attached Files Attached Files

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wenatchee Wa
    Posts
    301

    Default Re: Smoke Detectors and the value of using Standards

    I did not read through all the comments. I heard that ASHI may adopt this position.

    The number one killer in a structural fire is smoke. I feel that having the best sensor for smoke should be paramount.

    I did an inspection for a gentleman buying a home that had a fire. After seeing the home I went to a friend who is a local fireman. We discussed what happened in that fire.

    The home occupant woke in the middle of the night to an electrical fire (Zinsco panel by the way) when tried to escape from his bedroom he only got several feet before smoke inhalation killed him.

    I have amended my comment on smoke detectors to recommend photoelectric ones.

    Don Hester
    NCW Home Inspections, LLC
    Wa. St. Licensed H I #647, WSDA #80050, http://www.ncwhomeinspections.com

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •