I meant the AICO ones, and should have said "not rechargeable in his circumstances (of a constantly failing mains supply).
They state they use Vanadium Pentoxide Rechargeable Lithium Cells which sounded wonderful when they were launched and do perform well but can't take constant discharging/charging of the sort associated with places which constanly lose mains supply. I think the company are a little re-miss in not mentioning this though it is a very small minority who have the problem of course.
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 20:35:57 +0100, "G&M" strung together this:
I'm sure the BCO wouldn't really notice whether they were actually suitable for the conditions, they know just enough to be dangerous. I suppose in the OP's case then the only solution would be a UPS for that circuit supplying the smoke alarms, although if it were me I would build one as all the AVR stuff that's built into them isn't neccesary in this case. Although thinking about I might not, depends really!
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 20:17:31 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named "G&M" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:
The preamble to the Approved Document says: "The Approved Documents are intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations. However, there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance with the requirements. Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way". This implies that any alternative solution must meet at least the same level of safety as that in the AD. It's hard to argue that a lower grade alarm system is equally acceptable.
But it doesn't say (or intends to infer) that the Approved Document is of the minimum standard to meet the requirements, with a few obvious exceptions such as the A regs Appendix A timbers spans where the strengths of standard C16/C20 timbers are calculated and stated very accurately.
"Lurch" wrote | >...it is a very small minority who have the problem of course. | I'm sure the BCO wouldn't really notice whether they were actually | suitable for the conditions, they know just enough to be dangerous.
AFAIK there is no requirement for a dwelling to have an electricity supply of any nature. There must be a fixed lighting installation, but gas lighting meets that.
I don't know if they can insist of them. However, I do know that I would insist on them. I would be unwilling to live long term in a house without interlinked mains powered smoke alarms (with battery backup) as a minimum. Both houses that I have owned have had mains powered detectors installed by myself as one of the first priority items of renovation. My new house even connects them to the intruder alarm system.
These things save lives. They really do. Battery ones are nowhere near as good as (a) the batteries are normally dead or disconnected and (b) a fire elsewhere in the building doesn't set off the alarm near your bed, so you may get a minute or two less warning, enough time for the stairs to burn or become impassable from smoke.
A correctly fitted mains powered smoke detector will NEVER give a false detection even on burnt toast or a fry up. My alarms have only gone off when there was a genuine fire or when tested. They do have hush buttons, but these have never been used.
It is essential that the correct mix of ionisation, heat and optical alarms are installed, giving due attention to positioning. If this is done, false alarms are a thing of the past. In normal circumstances, building regulations state that smoke detectors shouldn't be placed in or near kitchens, for the very reason that false alarms significantly reduce the response of building occupants. Only heat detectors are suitable for kitchens.
I fitted Kidde Fyrnetics branded detectors with Alkaline backup (Lithium type also available). They are very good, available with all main detector types and auxilliary relays and are circular, which makes installation easier (no lining up) and look nicer than square types.
What is the point of the approved document if they don't suggest a technique that is adequete to meet the requirement. If a battery alarm was "appropriate", then the approved document would state that fact. The very fact that it doesn't allow battery alarms suggests that the author considered them inappropriate and the BCO would be well within his rights to refuse the application.
Don't think that just because the Approved Documents don't have the specific force of law that you can just ignore them willy nilly. You must come up with an alternative scheme that is JUST AS SAFE. Battery alarms are not. Surveys have shown that only a small percentage of battery alarms are functional in service. They provide a dangerous and unfounded sense of security.
Whilst you might remember to change the battery once a year and press the test button every month, you can be sure that the majority of the population (which the BCO is concerned with) certainly do not. The "average" person just pulls the battery out when the fry-up goes wrong or the alarm starts low battery beeping and requiring another expensive 9V battery.
Thanks to yourself and also all other people involved in this discussion
- I've learnt a lot, and yet again you raise an interesting point regarding the whole "interlinked" thing. Definitely something that is a huge plus point versus battery ones - and yes, I do make sure that mine are always batteried-up and working, 'cos I value the lives of myself and family...which is why I'm now far more amenable to fitting some of the damn interlinked things regardless of the regs!
I must confess, that my only experience of mains powered ones was at Centreparcs, where the single alarm was placed relatively close to the kitchen area and it made it almost impossible to cook (and I mean cook, not burn!), which kinda jaundiced my opinion of them when I tried to shut it off. I'm pleased to hear that this is not actually a problem, that most do have a "shuttup" button, and that you've also never had to use it!
And I will strongly argue they should be allowed in certain cases. Of course these units need maintainence but so do many other items. In rural areas where power cuts are regular, mains units are often next to useless. Also in old listed buildings, ripping into walls and ceilings to install extra wiring is frowned upon big time.
And then we end up in the expensive appeals process. What I am looking for is some common sense when applied to renovating old buildings. Nobody is saying new buildings or extensions shouldn't have mains alarms.
No !! One must come up with something to meet the Statutory Instrument
2531. No more, no less. The approved documents ARE NOT a minimum standard (except in a few areas as already noted), they are a guideline as to what can be considered approvable without further debate. This is where some BCOs have been exceeding their powers on an all too regular basis.
One of the prime examples of this is stairways where they often try to apply the "100mm child's head test" willy nilly to buildings where it is simply not appropriate. Result : we all live in Barratt boxes. Even modern architecture needs far greater flexibility from building control.
Completely false. Just install types like mine with Alkaline backup. Then you have all the advantages of both systems. You have the mains power, which saves battery life and ensures operation even with a dead battery and you have alkaline so it works perfectly during your many power cuts. The only situations I could see battery only models as being appropriate is when it is not feasible to supply a mains supply at all, such as a touring caravan (where mains power may be extremely sporadic), certain listed buildings (where building fabric would be disturbed) and weirdos living in the forest with no power.
Of course you wouldn't install a mains only system in a rural location prone to power cuts. Frankly, I wouldn't install them anywhere. The electrical fire that sets the things off might have cut the power to the whole house by the time the smoke reaches the detector.
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.