The bucket on the pole thing is called the Solo 330 and has been around for years.I believe it acts as a dispenser to evenly disperse the aerosol into the detector. The canister fits into the base and a sprung loaded plate presses onto the canister nozzle when the Solo 330 is placed around the detector. The dispenser gives a controlled release of the smoke and overcomes the possibility of too much smoke being squirted or being too close and flooding the detector, which what can happen if you don't RTFM. I've used the Solo 330 a few times and it is a nice bit of kit.
The other advantage of the bucket is that it can be attached to poles that are available that overcome the hazards associated with climbing ladders (working at height regs). I guess that=92s why the manufactures of the bucket are called No Climb. I borrow a set of Solo poles and dispenser when I need to test any at a height from a mate of mine who works for a large fire company and I find that they do make the whole process of testing easier and safer. But like you lot, I don't do enough testing to justify my own set. Maybe one day.
You will find that most professional fire system maintenance company=92s will use a smoke dispenser of some kind. Either the Solo variety or maybe one of the latest type of testers that don=92t use aerosol canisters =96 see
formatting link
Most of us sparkies or occasional fire system testers keep a handheld can of smoke in our toolbox, such as the brands mentioned above, which will probably be the best solution for most of you. If you want something a little better, take a look at the SmokeSabre product on this page, looks a fun piece of kit! >
formatting link
commercial smoke detectors should be tested at least yearly by carrying out what is called a functional test which is done by introducing smoke, or simulated smoke, from the outside of the detector through the vents of a detector to the sensor. IMO this is the only way to be sure that the thing will work in the event of a fire. Would you risk it, if it was in your home? It is also required by standards (BS5839) and testing by electronic means (ie press red button) does not comply with any standards. Which is a bit weird as that is the method that most domestic detectors use.
When it comes to testing heat detectors, using a hair dryer or paint stripper will probably cause damage to plastic case of the detector and the internals which could affect the ability to detector a fire. IMO I would not chance it and would recommend a suitable device that has the correct levels of heat to trigger the detector without damaging it. Would you chance damaging a detector in your home and compromising your families safety? I wouldn't.
Just as a word of warning, if any of you are referring to anything other than testing domestic fire detectors, I would highly recommend that you have a read up of the RRO - Regulatory Reform Order to see what your legal obligations are. You might find that you could be liable to prosecution if you are seen to be either the responsible or competent person by the RRO and you are testing fire detectors in the way that has been described in this thread. You might find this link useful to get a complete picture >
formatting link
the above is helpful and that i might of put you off some of the cowboy practices that were mentioned. At the end of the day if a jobs worth doing it's best done right. Especially if someones safety is concerned.
Paul