The performance of heat detectors is well established. I've seen enough of 2 ionisation detectors in kitchens over 10+ years to observe a vast improvement over simple heat detectors. That you are unable to grasp that tells me there is no point in further discussion. That you have failed to register that there are a variety of better solutions than government guidance in this world tells me you've missed a fair amount. I've met plenty of people like that.
NT
Peter has already explained to you that in the event of a kitchen fire, you expect the hall / landing / circulations apace smoke detectors to sense it first. The heat detector is there only as a backup in case there is obstructed air flow from the kitchen.
You have failed to grasp that installing a smoke detector of any type in most kitchens will simply increase the false alarm rate in the vast majority of situations. High false alarm rates will reduce the occupant safety, not increase it.
This is why the all the regulations and advice proscribes fitting smokes in kitchens.
I can confirm that that is true in my house, having left a chip pan on the gas it set the smoke detector off in the living room through two closed doors before there was an actual fire. I now have a heat detector in the kitchen, one of the modern ones that detects the rate of rise rather than just being hot, and a smoke detector in the hall between the two doors.
He didn't cook it up - that would have set it off :-)
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:57:07 +0000, John Rumm wrote: <snip>
When I fitted mine several years ago it warned agains putting it near/over the cooker etc. but recommended the kitchen for one. I placed it just inside the kitchen, at a suitable distance from the wall and by an open archway to the dining room. Looks as if I was wrong to do so. False alarms in low single figures (<1/year), but my 'cooking' comprises electric kettle (so that I don't burn the water) and click - buzz - ping. Now wondering if I should move it.
If you are not cooking much then you are not going to get many false alarms - so no pressing need to move it since it will still work ok.
Move it. And I have suggestion where to install it.
yes, he did explain how it works with heat alarms. But my approach doesn't use a heat alarm, and I've already explained more than once its upsides. Such as it detecting real risks much sooner than a hall/landing alarm, and not being blocked from working by a kitchen door etc.
You seem to be a little behind in the discussion. That smoke detectors tend to cause false alarms in kitchens was discovered a very long time ago. That the setup I describe has not produced false alarms despite a wide range of cooking for over a decade has also been discussed. Again, repeatedly.
NT
If you only get 1 false alarm a year it's better in there than not. The further from the cooker the better if the kitchen is small.
It's only when they cause so many false alarms that people ignore them that they become not too useful. If that happens the suggestion to remove it would be suitable.
NT
As with most discoveries, your results would be that bit more persuasive if independently verified. I failed to do so but perhaps you could encourage others to have a go.
Well you are obviously convinced that your statistically insignificant results are superior to the far more exhaustive and extensive testing done by the BRE, and fire brigades et al over the years...
To borrow the phrase from messrs Dunning and Kruger; ignorant and unaware.
I find that alarming!
It is described as "toast-proof"; FireAngel 622.
Feel free to google, I bet plenty of folk have done it. It's obvious after all, the only surprise was how well it worked.
NT
they've correctly alarmed or not alarmed on numerous occasions. A heat alarm would not have triggered on any of those occasions. The improvement is considerable. The number of what are effectively unplanned test passes I don't know, haven't counted, but many. It's certainly not an insignificant number. And there's no reason to expect such detectors to work differently in most other kitchens.
There are, as I already addressed, several possible reasons why they have not recommended this approach. But we did already cover that.
Not really. I've tried it & it works well. There's no mystery over that. As for why it's not fire brigade advice... again we did discuss that briefly.
Reality is you've never had any valid argument for your position. Your only point noteworthy in any way is appeal to authority. And that has long been known to not be a valid argument. You just don't have one.
If you believe government sanctioned advice can never be improved on then good luck with that. I'd be long dead if I bought into that naive idea.
NT
"numerous"?
So how many of those were genuine house fires that the occupants were not otherwise aware of? Since that is the case that matters.
As said before, the heat alarm is a secondary detector.
You seem to be equating frequent alarms with "improvement".
To what other alarms is the kitchen one linked?
How do you know which alarm is actually triggering?
I would be more worried that the occupants are obviously having that many genuine fires!
Either that or you have created a system that false alarms on a semi regular basis.
The argument is simple. If you install a system as per guidelines (multiple interlinked alarms in circulation spaces, none in the kitchen) it will be effective detecting all types of fires, including kitchen ones. It tends to *not* alarm when someone burns the toast of fries something.
If you install an alarm in a kitchen, it has been shown (many many times) that this *frequently* leads to a high nuisance alarm rate.
Taking those two observations together, there is only one sensible recommendation for how to do an install.
Even if you have personally produced two ideal installations with an alarm in a kitchen that works as well as the prescribed setup, that does not justify promoting that solution as a replacement for the standard one since in all likelihood it either won't work as well next time, or will take a significant amount of titting about with to get it to the same level of performance.
and experience (mine and many others) and common sense and logic
Bzzzzt, extension into absurdity. try again.
You have set fire to your kitchen on numerous occasions?
Thomas Prufer
The times they alarmed they detected a situation that was an immediate risk of a fire and required action without delay. Unlike heat alarms, they detect before the fire breaks out.
I'm equating detection of imminent fire with improvement. And no, that does not mean smoking toast.
They aren't linked. Linked systems require other alarm types & aren't convenient to move.
neither. I don't like some of the cooking habits I've seen either.
... but only after fire has broken out. Waiting until that point greatly increases the hazard & reduces odds of survival. Not to mention the financial downside.
If you stick it somewhere indiscriminately yes. Position it far enough from the cooking area that it doesn't false alarm then no.
those observations are of course not correct
better. Much better.
promotion is not very relevant here
there is a definite lack of evidence for that.
It does take some. It's trivial. If it false alarms, move it a bit further away.
have you any experience of using this method?
attempted logic with errors
once the errors in what you say are removed it's all you're left with. The reality is advice from authorities can frequently be improved on. And so far these detectors have worked far better than heat alarms.
NT
Why are you comparing them to the response of a heat alarm, when in a normal installation its the alarms in the circulation spaces that will trigger first?
FFS Nige, do you mean to say we have gone through this whole discussion when what you are describing is not even a functional alarm *system*?
So what happens when your carefully positioned smoke alarm in the kitchen goes off, but the occupants don't even hear it because they are asleep in other rooms?
Quite the reverse, alarms are very good at triggering on smouldering fires before they establish - optical detectors especially so. Ionisation detectors tend to be faster detecting well established fires with low smoke and small particulate sizes.
Assuming you can even get far enough from the cooking area.
That is your opinion, however you will forgive me for not accepting it, since I have not seen any evidence that you have adequate experience or expertises in this subject to give general advice on the installation of fire detection systems.
For starters it appears you are suggesting the installation of a battery powered stand alone alarm. That in itself is very poor advice; yes it is "better than nothing", but it falls far short of what the building regs now include as a minimum standard installation.
Have you conducted extensive scientific tests with multiple locations, fire types, sensor types etc? Have you attended the aftermath of hundreds of house fires where smoke alarms were present and made a forensic study?
Others have, and the results are available and in the public domain. They have also strongly influenced the guidance on instillation of alarm systems contained in the building regs, and that dispensed by the manufacturers of the equipment.
That is at best guesswork, since I suspect you have not also installed a multi alarm interlinked system in the same properties to compare results.
You have made many posts now advocating your hokey-kokey alarm installation routine, why would you do that if you were not suggesting that the practice is something that others should follow?
Could I suggest you go and actually read some of the research on this?
Really? In the context of a hardwired interlinked system, its trivial?
Appeal to authority is a sound argument, when that authority is recognised as such, and has domain specific knowledge and experience. This is why citation of previous works, and peer review are such fundamental parts of the scientific process.
I have seen a number of installations that have (or had) smoke alarms in a kitchen. In nearly all the cases the owners did not find the experience particularly satisfactory judging by the number with batteries removed, alarms covered with shower caps, or alarms removed from the wall/ceiling, and stuffed into drawers.
So I would not even dream of trying it personally.
I would also caution anyone replying on battery only detectors, or replying on non interlinked detectors.
You are the one typically arguing that the only metric worth considering is death rate, and yet here you are arguing in favour of an approach with a documented death rate significantly higher than those from "regs compliant" systems.
that is not what occurs
heat alarms don't trigger on anthing until a fire is established.
sure
millions of houses have had them fitted. I'm merely describing a way that has made them work properly.
of course. And as said repeatedly there are a number of possible reasons for other approaches.
the properties have other detectors. They alarm later, unsurprisingly.
I've responded to an assortment of comments on the approach. If you can't discuss something without claiming any discussion to be promotion, something ain't right there.
to pick where to put one, yes. Find your place before the hardwired system goes in.
so no, you've not tried it or observed it.
Your data is not from what I'm talking about. It's from alarms that aren't checked and aren't positioned to avoid false alarms.
NT
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.