I don't have any fruit trees. The smoke alarms 'tweets' when the batteries needs to be changed. You paint your roof??? No swamp cooler here, just central heat & air.
The cat does get his flea drop medication the first day of _every_ month. And the rechargeable tooth brush is run down completely and recharged the first day of every month.
We have 6 citrus. Ensuring regular watering and fertilizing ensures large, tastey fruit (we just finished LAST year's OJ... now we have to wait until January for the next crop -- though the lemons will come due before then)
We don't wait until it starts it's INCESSANT chirping. Do you want to listen to it for an hour, day, week before you get around to replacing the battery? Easier to be proactive and replace it before it complains.
Yes. Common practice is ~every 7 years. If you *wait* 7 years, chances are you will end up with problems -- things that have "gone south" at year #3 and become problems long before #7.
So, *planning* on doing a portion of it every year reduces the effort required for "year #7 (or, year #5, in our case) AND ensures the roof gets looked at often enough that any problems get caught before they become "trouble". E.g., our roof is over 20 years old (25+) and still "intact". All neighbors have had theirs replaced in that time.
Heat, air and cooler. As cooler is on roof, it requires maintenance (make sure water line doesn't freeze in winter, make sure it is cleaned out -- mold, etc. -- at end of season, etc.) each season.
We try to do everything on a predefined schedule instead of having to be "reactive" -- or, remember more "complex" schedules. The effort is more expensive than the cost.
Yippee Skippee
I change it immediately upon hearing it tweet.
You live in a trailer? That's the only people I know who 'paint" their roofs.
Ummm, ok.
My central heat and air unit sits on a concrete pad in the yard next to my house.
Whatever works for YOU, my uncomplicated schedule works for ME.
You don't need to design the filter holder, they are available in standard sizes that mate with furnaces:
I put one in when I replaced my furnace 4 years ago. But it would require some duct work.
It's also easy on BMW X5, goes in from an access cover between the windshield wipers.
It's gas, but what difference does that make? The exhaust goes up the flue, not into the house. What the filter takes out is dust in the air inside the house.
Bill
We watch neighbors with fruit trees that fail to produce "useful" fruit -- simply because they don't invest the effort beyond "token waterings". Or, let the fruit rot on the tree because they aren't inclined to pick it.
We deliver ~400 (large) limes to the laundry at one of the local hospitals for the (primarily Mexican) help there to enjoy (else, we would discard them -- our yearly lime needs are met with just a few dozen limes!). This year, we'll probably give the excess Navels to the food bank. The lemons will end up in my tea...
We don't keep "spare batteries" (for anything) on hand. I suspect this is true of many folks as it seems common for people to UNPLUG their smoke detectors when they start chirping. Then, forget to buy the battery and end up operating with no smoke detectors in place (at least, we hear of homes lost to fire wherein the smoke detectors had no batteries in them -- this seems like a logical explanation of what transpired).
I suspect 60-70% of the homes, here, are "frontier style" -- flat roofs. A small percentage are shallow peaked with asphalt shingles (which don't fare well in the heat/sun. Another group are ceramic tile (which are expensive to maintain).
Those with flat roofs regularly paint their roofs -- *not* to "seal" the roof (which is what most folks think) but, rather, to keep the sun's rays from degrading the underlying felt. There is also some benefit as it helps reflect heat off the roof instead of letting it soak through the roof to the living space immediately below.
At $5-8K, it's an expense you'd rather avoid!
Our furnace is indoors. The ACcompressor on a concrete pad outside. Swamp cooler is on the roof. Folks with heat pumps tend to have the entire unit located on the roof. Some folks will install AC compressor on roof as well (esp for a retrofit where it is not practical to route refrigerant lines to a pad adjacent to the house *from* the furnace which is typically centrally located.
Some folks have two or three AC units (very large homes).
Experience has taught us that *this* is what works best for us. We don't "discover" the filter needs to be replaced and then "discover" we don't have a replacement on hand. Instead, we treat it like any other "scheduled maintenance" item and replace it on *our* schedule (instead of *its* schedule) so we always know when we will *need* replacements.
Oh, sorry...I'll re-phrase...
"If I want to "upgrade" to a 4" filter, I would have to design my own filter holder *holder*."
Why does that sound so familiar?
Not even for flashlights? That seems risky. Do you change them on a regular schedule whether they need them or not? Do you not have any battery operated flashlights? That seems risky too.
How "common" do you think this is?
Yes, you hear about the homes/lives that were lost to those fires, but you don't hear as much about the people whose homes and/or lives were saved because their detectors worked. The good news doesn't often make the headlines because it doesn't sell.
"Family doesn't die in house fire. House saved. More at 11."
My guess is that "common" is not the right word to apply to the sad situations.
Just FYI...
Many new-ish battery operated smoke and/or CO detectors are designed such that they cannot be (easily) mounted if they don't have batteries installed. A spring loaded tab extends in such a way as to prevent either mounting or (with some older models) from closing the battery door.
Obviously, making the mounting impossible/very difficult is the best method to help prevent the "use' of a detector without batteries. The user would have to physically put the detector someplace else (hopefully not in a drawer) while they run out and buy batteries.
We have two or three of the larger "maglites", a couple of small "pen-light" style with rechargeable batteries, and numerous of the "disposable" HF offerings (again, with rechargeable cells).
We also have several "crank" flashlights and shake-lights.
In an outage, we use CFL's powered by any of the ~13 UPS's scattered around the house.
Most "batteries" here are AA or AAA (or, the larger gelled electrolyte/AGM batteries in the UPS's) -- all these small flashlights, remote controls, electronic magnifiers, etc. So, we keep 4 spares in a charger and swap them out with needs them when the time comes.
Aside from the CO/smoke detectors, *nothing* uses 9V batteries so no reason to keep them on hand.
It do4esn't matter how common it is to the folks who failed to replace their batteries! :> It's not common for folks to get struck by lightning -- yet I don't run outside and stand under a tree when we have an electrical storm! :>
Of course! But, they were saved because they *did* replace their batteries. As *we* do! The difference is, we don't wait for the detectors to chirp to prompt us to do so.
When detector 1 chirps, do you JUST replace it's battery? What about the other detectors? Should you anticipate that they will be needing replacement soon? Or, wait for them to start chirping as well? (How is being proactive in that case different from my approach of anticipating detector 1's failure?!)
Note that modern smoke/CO detectors *acknowledge* this practice by requiring 110VAC operation (with battery for "backup") *or* having 10 year batteries, etc.
So, obviously "enough" people died because they (effectively) disabled their detectors to merit changes in the way those detectors are designed/made. That suggests *someone* thought it enough of a problem to address it!
Most detectors are *easily* removed. Ours require a twist to unlock the detector from the base, then unplug the three conductor cable assembly. Thereafter, where you put the detector is up to you -- the *house* won't complain that the detector is "missing"!
What *will* get complaints is a detector that chirps every few minutes until you "feed it". Given how easily it can be disconnected, it's obvious why so many *do* get disconnected -- "while I remember to run out and buy batteries" (which I suspect is rarely done "right now")
You're changing the subject instead of answering my question. I didn't ask how about terrible it is for those that have been impacted by their mistake, I asked you how "common" you think it is.
You said it was "common" for people to remove the batteries and leave them out. I say it isn't. A tragedy, yes, but common? I think not.
10 year batteries are not required nor do all "modern" battery operated detectors have 10 year batteries. "Modern" detectors that use standard batteries are readily available on the consumer market.Scroll down past the 10 year battery section here:
Addressed it by offering options, but not by *requiring* it.
A problem doesn't have to be "common" for it to be addressed. It is not "common" for people to be killed by the Takata air bag inflator ripping through their necks, yet over 23 million inflators have been recalled.
My only objection is to your use of the word "common". In terms of the number of detectors installed, the practice of taking the batteries out, and leaving them out, is not "common". An issue worth addressing? Absolutely. Common? Until I see the numbers, I'll vote No.
I didn't say anything about detectors be hard to *remove*, I said that the newer ones are difficult to *install* without batteries - as a safety feature. Let me explain:
In the old days, you could twist the detector off the base, remove the batteries from the back, and simply twist the detector back on, saying to yourself "I'll pick up some batteries tomorrow". On some models, you could open the front panel, take the batteries out and close the door. Tomorrow comes and goes, as does the next day and the next, until that detector is forgotten about and people die.
These days, most detectors will not allow the user to twist the detector back onto the base without batteries installed. This adds a layer of safety because the detector will (hopefully) be left out in the open as a reminder that it has no batteries.
See my paragraph above. A detector that can't be remounted without batteries being installed first is much safer than the old style. Yes, you can still disconnect it, but hopefully people will now say "I'll pick up some batteries tomorrow. Since I can't reinstall this detector until I do, I'll put it right "here" as a reminder."
When my basement CO detector came to the end of it's 7 year lifespan, I took the batteries out to stop the chirping. I could not reinstall the unit. I brought it upstairs, put it on the kitchen table and then put my cars keys on top of it. I doubt that *I* would have reinstalled it without the batteries anyway, but I'm sure that some folks would have. I'm sure many lives have been saved because of that feature.
How long is "leave them out" to satisfy you? If they are "out" for an hour, a day, a week? The time when they are not installed represents the time when the detector is inoperative. The period of time when the occupants are not protected.
Do people leave them out *forever*? Doubtful. Do they leave them out for weeks at a time? Probably. How many things do you "drop everything" to address the instant they draw attention to themselves (chirp, chirp)? Or, do you put it on the shopping list for "next week"? Or, hope to remember it??
From a 9/2015 NFPA report:
Smoke Alarm Power Sources Hardwired smoke alarms were present in 48% of reported home fires with smoke alarms. Alarms powered by battery only were present in in 46% of reported home fires.
In reported home fires in which the fire was large enough to activate the alarm,
- Hardwired smoke alarms operated 94% of the time.
- Battery-powered smoke alarms operated in four out of five (80%) fires.
Reasons that Smoke Alarms Did Not Operate when Present in Large Enough Fires
--------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In fires in which the smoke alarms were present but did not operate,
- Almost half (46%) of the smoke alarms had missing or disconnected batteries. Nuisance alarms were the leading reason for disconnected smoke alarms.
- Dead batteries caused one-quarter (24%) of the smoke alarm failures.
- Only 7% of the failures were due to hardwired power source problems, including disconnected smoke alarms, power outages, and power shut-offs.
So, in response to your comment, below: "Common? Until I see the numbers, I'll vote No." I vote *yes* (70% of the fires!) -- unless you'd care to offer some OTHER numbers?
And for new homes, they must have an AC primary power source! This implicitly acknowledges the fact that batteries DON'T get replaced and that this leads to loss of life (see above)
See above. Or, do your own research if you distrust mine.
Having a bit of clutter around the house is not an effective deterrent. If the device was the size of a dishwasher, it might be ("Bob, will you PLEASE get some batteries so we can get this damn dishwasher-sized device out of the middle of the living room??"). I have the old smoke detector for the bedroom hallway sitting on a box of CAT5 wire, here -- has probably been here for months (as long as the box of wire!) since the time when I replaced it's *partner* (and opted to replace both to ensure they were electrically compatible with each other instead of risking an incompatibility)
I could just as easily have put it in a drawer, cabinet, garage shelf, etc.
Like the old detector that's been sitting here, by me?
You can't legislate or design-in common sense. I can put a dead battery in a detector and reinstall it "so I know where I've stored it". I can put a detector in a drawer, garage, etc.
I designed a "marine" autopilot many years ago. I wanted to install an annunciator to alert the "skipper" that we were approaching the programmed destination (otherwise, he would likely go aft or below deck to work on something *else* now that the autopilot had freed him from the tedium of steering the boat.
Boss laughed and said, "The first thing they'll do is cut the wires to your alarm. *THEN* what will you do?? (to protect them from themselves)"
IIRC, our current AC/DC detectors will let you silence the "chirp" for some period of time (hours??). But, it won't go away indefinitely. Despite the fact that AC power is ensuring the detector continues to provide its protective function.
So, when it becomes annoying, we *will* unplug it and set it aside (counting on the next unit to protect us). As we *rarely* buy batteries, its not likely that this detector will be put back into service in short order. Hence our practice of simply replacing batteries yearly. The expense isn't going to bankrupt us. And, doing so annually on New Year's (instead of August 19th or May 27th) makes it a memorable task.
There you go changing the subject again. What does "length of time" have to with my comment related to use of word "common". Perhaps you haven't grasped the point I am discussing or perhaps you are trying to confuse the issue.
You said it's a common practice for people to leave the batteries out. I say it's not "common" in relation to how many detectors there are installed across the globe.
Whether the batteries are left out for a night, a day or a year before the fatal fires starts has nothing to do with the commonality of the practice. How often they are left out as compared how often they are not is all that counts when determining how "common" the practice is.
Right, in 70% of homes *in which the smoke alarms were present but did not operate* dead or missing batteries was the cause. No one denies that dead or missing batteries will cause a smoke detector not to operate. The problem is (once again) that that is not what we are discussing.
I'll try again: You said that the practice of leaving batteries out after they are removed due to chirping is "common". I, once again, say that when compared to all the cases where the batteries are *not* left out, the practice is *not* common. The *practice of leaving the batteries out* is not common. Does it happen? Yes. Do bad things happen when someone does that? Yes. Is it common? Not in the grand scheme of all detectors everywhere.
Can you stick to that statement and tell me how you know that the practice is common? Tell me how many times batteries are left out vs. how many times they are replaced. Citing statistics related to how many smoke detectors didn't operate due to missing batteries (46%) does nothing to support your claim that the practice of leaving batteries out is "common". All that does is tell us that missing batteries is a common cause for smoke detectors not to operate. Well, yeah. I think that's pretty obvious.
Now, citing statistics that show 55% of the millions upon millions of smoke detectors that needed batteries did not have them replaced would indeed indicate that the practice of leaving the batteries out is common.
See above. Please cite relevant statistics.
So, if I understand you correctly, the one sitting on the box of CAT5 wire is no longer needed? If that is correct, then once again, your example isn't relevant.
When you walk by that *un-needed* detector, you may say to yourself "I really should dispose of that (properly)". When someone removes a smoke detector that can't be reinstalled until the batteries are replaced and places on a table, they are likely to say "I really should get batteries for that before I die in a fire."
Which statement holds more emotional weight and will probably get acted upon more quickly?
You mean that *un-needed* one? Please try to stay relevant.
Nice stretch! Yep, I'll bet *that* is a common practice. "Let me locate a completely dead battery so I can reinstall this detector that was chirping from weak batteries. Good thing I have that stash of non-chirp causing, completely dead batteries lying around."
It seems pretty obvious to me that the above statistic cites that 46% of those FIRES had smoke detectors with batteries "missing or disconnected". Do you think the "smoke detector police" are going to arbitrarily survey homes where NO FIRES HAVE BEEN REPORTED to see if their smoke detectors have batteries in place? If a battery is left out for a year (assume a battery normally *lasts* a year, does that count as *one* event? Or, more than one?)
Will the smoke detector police ensure that you *have* smoke detectors in a residence if the residence is not offered for sale?
What criteria would you use to claim this practice was *RARE*? (!common)
"Common" doesn't mean "in a majority of cases". Common means "of frequent occurrence". "Daniel" is a "common" name. By no means are 50.0001% of the people in the world/country named "Daniel". In fact, it is the
*10th* most common name in the US -- yet LESS THAN 1% of the population having it! There are no names that rise to the "55% level" that you seem to suggest would constitute 'common-ness'Why don't *you* come up with a criteria to indicate what *NUMBER* you consider to be representative of the term "common". Then, *justify* that number (in an OBJECTIVE sense).
You can start by obtaining NUMBERS for the actual number of residences/occupancies that have/require smoke detectors, then the number of smoke detectors currently deployed in those areas, then, the NUMBER you would consider to be representative of the adjective "COMMON".
Nor or they required to have AC and battery backup. Battery only ones are widely available. AC plus battery is probably required by code for new construction in many places though.
Thank you! You have finally made my point that the statistic you cited, while true, does nothing to support your claim that leaving batteries out is "common". That statistic is not relevant to this discussion. It took us a while, but we're finally there.
That number was just an example to get you to understand that your 46% statistic was not relevant. It was not the actual value (my fictitious 55%) that matters. What matters is the comparison of detectors that didn't operate because the batteries were left out to detectors that operated properly plus those that didn't operate for other reasons.
You can't use a percentage of a subset to come to a conclusion about the entire set unless you adjust the percentage to match the size of the subset in relation to the entire set. (I'll do that below)
It looks like you have finally gotten my point. Alleluia!
The following comment is paraphrased from:
"In fires considered large enough to trigger an alarm, battery-powered smoke detectors operated 80% of the time."
That leaves us with 20% of the installed battery-powered base that didn't operate.
Paraphrasing your statistic from earlier:
"In fires in which the smoke alarms were present but did not operate, 46% of the smoke alarms had missing or disconnected batteries"
Doing the math and taking 46% of the 20% that didn't operate we end up with
9.2% of detectors involved with a fire that were disabled because the user left the battery out. Even though we are still using a subset of all installed detectors, I'm comfortable saying I wouldn't consider 9.2% to be "common", even if that number applied to the entire installed base. But, wait, there's more...Those percentages only account for the detectors that were involved in a fire. It's a safe assumption that the number of detectors *not* involved in a fire is ridiculously huge compared to the number that were involved. While I'm comfortable in saying that 9.2% is not "common", I'm just as comfortable is saying that the percentage will get even smaller as the sample size grows. I may be going way, way out on a limb here, and it's nothing more than wild speculation on my part, but here's my theory on why those numbers won't scale linearly:
I postulate that a fire is more apt to happen in a home where the residents leave the batteries out than in a home where they are replaced promptly. If I look at it from a "behavioral" perspective, I can imagine that, for the most part, people that would leave the battery out have other dangerous habits, maintenance issues, etc. In other words, there will be more fire causing factors in those homes. Frayed extension cords, combustible materials near the furnace, etc.
If that assumption is true, then the 9.2% is going to get even smaller as we include more and more detectors from non-fire impacted residences. In other words, we will move even farther away from the practice of leaving the batteries out as being "common".
No, you haven't defined "common"!
It is COMMON for people to run red lights! (sit at any intersection in ANY city and you WILL see someone run a light!) It is COMMON for people to be murdered with firearms (in practically any city)! (listen to the news in any city and, chances are, today or yesterday *someone* was murdered) It is COMMON for gunmen to go on rampages at schools, malls, etc. (how many times does it have to NOT happen to be considered a "rare" event)
If you look at the *probability* of any of these events happening, they can be surprisingly LOW. But, that doesn't make them LESS COMMON!
It is RARE for us to find evidence of life on other planets! It is RARE for us to find $100 bills on the sidewalk in front of us! It is RARE for long lost relatives to show up on doorsteps!
You seem to think "common" means "a majority of the time". That's not what "common" means:
- of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar:
- occurring or appearing frequently : familiar
- Occurring frequently or habitually; usual: It is common for movies to last 90 minutes or more
- happening frequently, or existing in large amounts or numbers
etc.
You want "common" to mean:
- the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority)
If that were the case, there would be no "common" names, "common" foods, "common" practices, etc. as very few things occur in a MAJORITY!
Put a NUMBER on your criteria. Or STFU.
Gee...you seem upset. Perhaps if you'd calm down, you could read what I posted and grasp it.
Let me ask you a simple, straightforward question just to get us on the same page:
If something happens 9.2% of the time, would you consider that to be a common occurrence?
All I require is a simple "Yes" or "No". Can you do that?
You are confusing likelihood with frequency.
My chance of being MURDERED is essentially ZERO! Yet, murders are FREQUENT and *common* occurrences!
I am *surrounded* by $20 bills. And, people carrying them. Yet, I *rarely* encounter "loose" $20 bills on the sidewalk, in stores, etc.
We have electrical storms pretty frequently. Yet, I have NEVER encountered a person who was struck by lightning. It's a RARE event!
50,000 cars per day travel a half mile stretch of road a few blocks from here. Some *small* fraction of those encounter a "red light". An even smaller fraction of them encounter a "questionable" red light (i.e., "MAYBE I can sneak through a long yellow"). Yet, I can watch probably 50 people run red lights there in any given 24 hour period. That's 0.1%. FAR LESS THAN YOUR 9.2%!YET, it is a COMMON OCCURRENCE! It happens frequently -- even if it only happens some teeny-tiny fraction of the time that it *could* happen!
Why am I not surprised that you couldn't stay on topic? Now you're starting to yell and make comparisons that are so far off topic as to be as irrelevant as the statistics you brought up earlier.
Moving on...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.