Programmed obsolescence in smoke alarms?

[Sylvia Else]

I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would surely
not be that consistent.

Sylvia.

 

[McAvity]

On 05-Feb-15 5:20 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would surely
not be that consistent.

Sylvia.

A programmed obsolescence clock would perhaps not be that consistent either.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 5/02/2015 9:33 PM, McAvity wrote:

On 05-Feb-15 5:20 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would surely
not be that consistent.

Sylvia.


A programmed obsolescence clock would perhaps not be that consistent
either.

True enough; I can't see any crystal on the board, and why would there be?

But I don't have a statistically significant sample. A clock variation
of +/- one percent gives a +/- 14 day spread over four years. An
occurrence with 2 days could be chance.

The alternative is a common cause effect, but nothing unusual has
happened in the house.

Sylvia.

 

[McAvity]

On 05-Feb-15 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 5/02/2015 9:33 PM, McAvity wrote:
On 05-Feb-15 5:20 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would surely
not be that consistent.

Sylvia.


A programmed obsolescence clock would perhaps not be that consistent
either.

True enough; I can't see any crystal on the board, and why would there be?

But I don't have a statistically significant sample. A clock variation
of +/- one percent gives a +/- 14 day spread over four years. An
occurrence with 2 days could be chance.

The alternative is a common cause effect, but nothing unusual has
happened in the house.

Sylvia.

Can you smell smoke?

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 5/02/2015 10:08 PM, McAvity wrote:

On 05-Feb-15 7:02 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 5/02/2015 9:33 PM, McAvity wrote:
On 05-Feb-15 5:20 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would
surely
not be that consistent.

Sylvia.


A programmed obsolescence clock would perhaps not be that consistent
either.

True enough; I can't see any crystal on the board, and why would there
be?

But I don't have a statistically significant sample. A clock variation
of +/- one percent gives a +/- 14 day spread over four years. An
occurrence with 2 days could be chance.

The alternative is a common cause effect, but nothing unusual has
happened in the house.

Sylvia.


Can you smell smoke?

Nup, and the detectors don't give spurious alarms at the same time. If
there is a common cause effect, it's damaged the detectors somehow.

Sylvia.

 

[Rick]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjgqviFgsadU1@mid.individual.net...

I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed at
the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a couple
of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This seems a
remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're programmed to
do exactly that. Even aging of the components would surely not be that
consistent.

Sylvia.

A discharged battery will do that, unless they are powered from the mains.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 5/02/2015 10:11 PM, Rick wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjgqviFgsadU1@mid.individual.net...
I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed at
the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a couple
of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This seems a
remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're programmed to
do exactly that. Even aging of the components would surely not be that
consistent.

Sylvia.

A discharged battery will do that, unless they are powered from the mains.

New batteries.

And changed again, just in case.

Still misbehaving.

Sylvia.

 

[Bob Milutinovic]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:cjiq4fF2cajU1@mid.individual.net...

On 6/02/2015 1:43 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 6/02/2015 8:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 5/02/2015 8:20 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would
surely
not be that consistent.

Sylvia.

**I doubt it. I've had the worst experiences with smoke alarms. All
mine, save one, are mains/battery powered. I chose photo-electric types,
as they are reputed to be superior to radiation models. I went to my
local electrical wholesaler and chose the best, most expensive models
(ca. $80.00 each), reasoning that they should be the best. Best be
damned. False alarms at 2:00AM and other times. A real PITA, given that
I have to shut off mains power to the damned things, as well as removing
the batteries. After the last episode, I went to Bunnings and purchased
a couple of cheap, mains powered ones (ca. $30.00 each). Not a problem
in the past year. The other detector is in my workshop and is a battery
only one. I can't see a brand name on it and it cost about 15 Bucks.
It's been up for about 2 years, without a problem. I whack a new battery
in every year and it's all good.


I wonder how difficult it would be to take two, and modify them so that
they have to agree that there's smoke before an alarm can sound.

Sylvia.


**Difficult. However, there are sensors which use more than one type of
detection system, which can lower the incidence of false alarms. They
would be the types used in commercial premises and are probably very
expensive. Got a mate in the fire alarm biz. I'll ask him. FWIW: My alarms
are wired in such a way, that when one detect smoke, both sound the alarm.
Only works with mains powered ones AFAIK.

There was a somke detector controller project in Silicon Chip quite a while
ago (late '90s, I think?), which allowed connection of multiple
battery-powered smoke alarms to a central monitoring/control station, and
when one triggered they'd all sound.

Yep, just found it - January & February '97 (entries #46 & #47 on this
page);
http://www.siliconchip.com.au/Articles/ContentsSearch?category=3&search_7=1&action=search

With current technology and some spare time, one could take the theory of
operation of that unit and put the "smarts" into an Arduino - then
programmatically specify that pairs of detectors must trigger in order to be
considered an alarm state.

--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 6/02/2015 7:10 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:cjiq4fF2cajU1@mid.individual.net...
On 6/02/2015 1:43 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 6/02/2015 8:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 5/02/2015 8:20 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would
surely
not be that consistent.

Sylvia.

**I doubt it. I've had the worst experiences with smoke alarms. All
mine, save one, are mains/battery powered. I chose photo-electric
types,
as they are reputed to be superior to radiation models. I went to my
local electrical wholesaler and chose the best, most expensive models
(ca. $80.00 each), reasoning that they should be the best. Best be
damned. False alarms at 2:00AM and other times. A real PITA, given that
I have to shut off mains power to the damned things, as well as
removing
the batteries. After the last episode, I went to Bunnings and purchased
a couple of cheap, mains powered ones (ca. $30.00 each). Not a problem
in the past year. The other detector is in my workshop and is a battery
only one. I can't see a brand name on it and it cost about 15 Bucks.
It's been up for about 2 years, without a problem. I whack a new
battery
in every year and it's all good.


I wonder how difficult it would be to take two, and modify them so that
they have to agree that there's smoke before an alarm can sound.

Sylvia.


**Difficult. However, there are sensors which use more than one type
of detection system, which can lower the incidence of false alarms.
They would be the types used in commercial premises and are probably
very expensive. Got a mate in the fire alarm biz. I'll ask him. FWIW:
My alarms are wired in such a way, that when one detect smoke, both
sound the alarm. Only works with mains powered ones AFAIK.

There was a somke detector controller project in Silicon Chip quite a
while ago (late '90s, I think?), which allowed connection of multiple
battery-powered smoke alarms to a central monitoring/control station,
and when one triggered they'd all sound.

Yep, just found it - January & February '97 (entries #46 & #47 on this
page);
http://www.siliconchip.com.au/Articles/ContentsSearch?category=3&search_7=1&action=search


With current technology and some spare time, one could take the theory
of operation of that unit and put the "smarts" into an Arduino - then
programmatically specify that pairs of detectors must trigger in order
to be considered an alarm state.

The ones I have flash their LEDs when triggered (i.e. much more often
than the period flashes that shows that they're operating). So one could
disconnect the LEDs and connect the outputs to a PIC, which would
monitor both to detect when they're both being toggled frequently. The
PIC would then drive the beeper.

Given the PIC a decent watch crystal, and it could also monitor the LED
outputs to spot the failure warnings from the detectors, and provide its
own failure warnings at times guaranteed not to wake people up. Ditto
for its own battery low signal.

Hmm.....

News flash - "DIY smoke-alarm mod sets fire to house, while
simultaneously preventing the smoke alarms from sounding."

Sylvia.

 

[McAvity]

On 06-Feb-15 1:36 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 6/02/2015 3:35 PM, McAvity wrote:
On 06-Feb-15 10:31 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 6/02/2015 10:14 AM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjgqviFgsadU1@mid.individual.net...
I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would
surely not be that consistent.

Consider their method of operation - photoelectric means the sensor's
basically an optocoupler with the gap exposed to the environment so it
can detect smoke particles. Even if you're a non-smoker and maintain an
immaculate house, there _will_ be a build-up of dust and other
particles
over a period of time - and after four years, you can imagine that
build-up would be significant.

Actually, it wasn't, and inside the sensor chambers, there was nothing.

Sylvia.


They must be quite sensitive - perhaps the build up was not noticeable
by eye.

Any dust that got into the sensor cavity would settle on its lid
(assuming the alarm is installed on a ceiling). The thing is designed to
detect light scattering from a small volume of space. For light to
scatter from the lid, where the dust would be, it would have to take a
somewhat tortuous path. I tried replacing the black lid with white
paper. The sensor still doesn't trigger provided one keeps external
light out.

I have to wonder whether vacuuming these things from outside the casing
really achieves much, given how little air would flow through the sensor
cavity.

Sylvia.

Maybe you are right, but I would imagine that very fine dust and cooking
oil mist etc would not care too much about gravity and would adhere to
surfaces of any orientation. Most of it would fall but some of it would
stick. Dunno.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-02-05, Bob Milutinovic <cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjgqviFgsadU1@mid.individual.net...
I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed at
the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a couple
of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This seems a
remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're programmed to
do exactly that. Even aging of the components would surely not be that
consistent.

Consider their method of operation - photoelectric means the sensor's
basically an optocoupler with the gap exposed to the environment so it can
detect smoke particles. Even if you're a non-smoker and maintain an
immaculate house, there _will_ be a build-up of dust and other particles
over a period of time - and after four years, you can imagine that build-up
would be significant.

See if you can get at the sensor with a can of compressed air

"canned air" containes no water, and if it sloshes, no air either
- it's a type of HFC often tetrafluroethane. it's "cold in a can"
without the dip-tube.

(or if you
have an air compressor, even better as the air'll be drier), give it a good
blow job, then see if the problem persists. I'd suspect you'll manage to
dislodge just enough dirt to keep them going for a while longer, but the
majority of it will be stuck to the sensors (airborne oil from cooking,
etc), so there's no chance you'll get another four years before needing to
repeat the process.

Maybe hit it with some spray-solvent, perhaps flux remover follwed by pcb cleaner



--
umop apisdn

 

[F Murtz]

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2015-02-05, Bob Milutinovic <cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjgqviFgsadU1@mid.individual.net...
I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed at
the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a couple
of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This seems a
remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're programmed to
do exactly that. Even aging of the components would surely not be that
consistent.

Consider their method of operation - photoelectric means the sensor's
basically an optocoupler with the gap exposed to the environment so it can
detect smoke particles. Even if you're a non-smoker and maintain an
immaculate house, there _will_ be a build-up of dust and other particles
over a period of time - and after four years, you can imagine that build-up
would be significant.

See if you can get at the sensor with a can of compressed air

"canned air" containes no water, and if it sloshes, no air either
- it's a type of HFC often tetrafluroethane. it's "cold in a can"
without the dip-tube.

The same stuff that auto air con techs get fined thousands for venting
to atmosphere, 134a
And was once used as a propellant in asthma puffers.

(or if you
have an air compressor, even better as the air'll be drier), give it a good
blow job, then see if the problem persists. I'd suspect you'll manage to
dislodge just enough dirt to keep them going for a while longer, but the
majority of it will be stuck to the sensors (airborne oil from cooking,
etc), so there's no chance you'll get another four years before needing to
repeat the process.

Maybe hit it with some spray-solvent, perhaps flux remover follwed by pcb cleaner

 

[Phil Allison]

Peter wrote:

I have heard of people that live in larger apartment buildings that are not
permitted to even change the batteries. My guess is the justification for
this is the risk to other tenants should the alarm fail.


** Smoke alarms in apartment building are normally AC mains powered.

The back up battery is there in case that supply fails. The problem is,
that battery is *live* since such alarms have non-isolated AC supplies.

To safely change the battery, one has to switch off the lighting circuit first.

Easy enough, if there is a breaker box in the unit, but older style
blocks have all the breakers in a secure room in a basement area that
occupiers have no key access to.

So, the safest move is to forbid occupants form replacing the battery.

But it does not really stop anyone.



Could there also be the risk of tripping an alarm and then having a fire
few trucks attend and getting the bill?

** Smoke detectors linked to the central alarm system get their power from that system - hence get back up power as well.

The majority of smoke detectors are self contained, only those on the top floor are linked to a central alarm. Reason being that only top floor units have a ceiling that can be penetrated by fire and so travel to other units.

There are exceptions of course.


..... Phil

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/02/2015 6:11 PM, Pelican wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjo393Fdrd1U1@mid.individual.net...
Added aus.legal

On 8/02/2015 1:51 PM, Peter wrote:

http://www.mfb.vic.gov.au/Community-Safety/Home-Fire-Safety/Smoke-Alarms.html



To my mind, that page grossly misstates the obligations of the
landlord and tenant as regards smoke alarms. In particular, the notion
that the tenant has to inform the landlord if the smoke alarm battery
is running down (leading to intermittent chirping) is quite absurd.

The cited section of the law

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rta1997207/s68.html

only requires that the landlord keep the premises in good repair. The
landlord would no more be required to replace smoke alarm batteries
than they would be required to replace clock batteries if a clock
happened to be installed.

The more precise legislation is Part 12 of the Building Regulations
2006, which makes it reasonably clear that the landlord is responsible
for smoke alarms and their maintenance -
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/br2006200/.

However we have

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/br2006200/s1201.html

(2) This Subdivision does not apply to a smoke alarm installed in
a sole-occupancy unit in a Class 1b or 2 building or a Class 4 part of a
building.

And

http://www.insulation.com.au/_literature_61009/BCA_Classes_of_Buildings

which makes a block of units a class 2 building.

Subdivision 2 sits strangely with subdivision 1. It's not entirely clear
whether they're meant to be alternatives, or whether subdivision 2 is
meant to impose additional obligations on owners of building built
before 1 July 1994. I'm inclined to the former view.

Sylvia.

 

[Peter]

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 8/02/2015 2:51 PM, Peter wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 8/02/2015 1:51 PM, Peter wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 6/02/2015 8:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 5/02/2015 8:20 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would surely
not be that consistent.

Sylvia.

**I doubt it. I've had the worst experiences with smoke alarms. All
mine, save one, are mains/battery powered. I chose photo-electric types,
as they are reputed to be superior to radiation models. I went to my
local electrical wholesaler and chose the best, most expensive models
(ca. $80.00 each), reasoning that they should be the best. Best be
damned. False alarms at 2:00AM and other times. A real PITA, given that
I have to shut off mains power to the damned things, as well as removing
the batteries. After the last episode, I went to Bunnings and purchased
a couple of cheap, mains powered ones (ca. $30.00 each). Not a problem
in the past year. The other detector is in my workshop and is a battery
only one. I can't see a brand name on it and it cost about 15 Bucks.
It's been up for about 2 years, without a problem. I whack a new battery
in every year and it's all good.


I wonder how difficult it would be to take two, and modify them so that
they have to agree that there's smoke before an alarm can sound.

Sylvia.

One burning out before the other kicks in could be a problem


I was assuming they'd be next to each other.

Sylvia.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

Sometimes the more you have the more you have to go wrong.


Sometimes, but it's only a guide.

All too often, one hears of people dying in fires where it's found that
the smoke alarms, though installed, had been disabled.

And we know how that happens. A smoke alarm goes off in the middle of
night for no good reason. One is roused rudely from one's sleep, and
rushes out to see what's happening. Eventually one concludes that there's
no fire, and that the alarm has simply thrown a wobbly; but it won't shut
up. So now what? Of course, one takes out the battery, and tries to get
back to sleep once the adrenalin has worn off.

When will something be done about the now disabled alarm? When one gets
round to it, which may be a while if one didn't get back to sleep, and
spent the next day walking around like a zombie. At such times, dying a
peaceful death in one's sleep doesn't seem like such a bad thing.

I suspect that the fact the we get spurious alarms at night is a major
factor resulting in deaths in fires.

Sylvia.

Are you sure you are not cranky due to lack of sleep? ;-)

http://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=445

http://www.homesales.com.au/news/smoke-detectors-in-your-home-and-laws-state-by-state.aspx

And some propaganda from the MFB...

Smoke alarm facts.

If you don’t have a working smoke alarm installed in your home, and a fire
occurs:

You are 57% more likely to suffer property loss and damage
You are 26% more likely to suffer serious injuries
You are four times more likely to die

--

 

[Peter]

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

Peter wrote:

I have heard of people that live in larger apartment buildings that are not
permitted to even change the batteries. My guess is the justification for
this is the risk to other tenants should the alarm fail.


** Smoke alarms in apartment building are normally AC mains powered.

The back up battery is there in case that supply fails. The problem is,
that battery is *live* since such alarms have non-isolated AC supplies.

To safely change the battery, one has to switch off the lighting circuit first.

Easy enough, if there is a breaker box in the unit, but older style
blocks have all the breakers in a secure room in a basement area that
occupiers have no key access to.

So, the safest move is to forbid occupants form replacing the battery.

But it does not really stop anyone.

Could there also be the risk of tripping an alarm and then having a fire
few trucks attend and getting the bill?

... Phil

--

 

[Peter]

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjoan5Ffe91U1@mid.individual.net...
On 8/02/2015 4:13 PM, Peter wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
Added aus.legal

On 8/02/2015 1:51 PM, Peter wrote:

http://www.mfb.vic.gov.au/Community-Safety/Home-Fire-Safety/Smoke-Alarms.html


To my mind, that page grossly misstates the obligations of the landlord
and tenant as regards smoke alarms. In particular, the notion that the
tenant has to inform the landlord if the smoke alarm battery is running
down (leading to intermittent chirping) is quite absurd.

The cited section of the law

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rta1997207/s68.html

only requires that the landlord keep the premises in good repair. The
landlord would no more be required to replace smoke alarm batteries than
they would be required to replace clock batteries if a clock happened
to >>> be installed.

Sylvia.

I think you would have to look a little deeper than that.
A smoke alarm is covered by the BCA, fire safety orders and relevant >> acts.
A battery in a clock is not.
A smoke alarm is considered an essential fire safety measure.
A clock is not.
I have heard of people that live in larger apartment buildings that are >> not
permitted to even change the batteries.

It's conceivable (just about) that there might a strata rule for a
specific building that imposes such a restriction. I do not believe it's > generally true.

My guess is the justification for
this is the risk to other tenants should the alarm fail.

Likely minimal, unless the building has totally inadequate fire
protection > between units.

Nope, there is still significant risk to other tenants even
if that is done the way it is legally required to be.

Much of that is fire ratings which done mean that
the fire can not get out of the unit where the fire
occurs, JUST that say the doors out of it must be
able to withstand a fire for a specified time. Its
still possible that another tenant who can not
get out of the building for some reason may
still be affected because others assumed that
everyone was out when they weren't etc.

I wouldn't be surprised that most fire related deaths in apartments were
due to the smoke.
I wouldn't want to be sleeping a floor or two above an apartment on fire.


--

 

[Rod Speed]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjodmrFg22fU2@mid.individual.net...

On 8/02/2015 5:17 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjo393Fdrd1U1@mid.individual.net...
Added aus.legal

On 8/02/2015 1:51 PM, Peter wrote:

http://www.mfb.vic.gov.au/Community-Safety/Home-Fire-Safety/Smoke-Alarms.html



To my mind, that page grossly misstates the obligations of the
landlord and tenant as regards smoke alarms. In particular, the notion
that the tenant has to inform the landlord if the smoke alarm battery
is running down (leading to intermittent chirping) is quite absurd.

The cited section of the law

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rta1997207/s68.html

only requires that the landlord keep the premises in good repair. The
landlord would no more be required to replace smoke alarm batteries
than they would be required to replace clock batteries if a clock
happened to be installed.

Wrong, because while the clock isn't legally required, the smoke alarm
is.

So, run me through the line of reasoning that shows that the landlord is
responsible for replacing the batteries.

I JUST commented your completely irrelevant line about the clock.

> Not that you will - you never do provide supporting argument.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying
thru your teeth with what I have posted today alone.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/02/2015 7:32 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjodmrFg22fU2@mid.individual.net...
On 8/02/2015 5:17 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:cjo393Fdrd1U1@mid.individual.net...
Added aus.legal

On 8/02/2015 1:51 PM, Peter wrote:

http://www.mfb.vic.gov.au/Community-Safety/Home-Fire-Safety/Smoke-Alarms.html




To my mind, that page grossly misstates the obligations of the
landlord and tenant as regards smoke alarms. In particular, the notion
that the tenant has to inform the landlord if the smoke alarm battery
is running down (leading to intermittent chirping) is quite absurd.

The cited section of the law

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rta1997207/s68.html

only requires that the landlord keep the premises in good repair. The
landlord would no more be required to replace smoke alarm batteries
than they would be required to replace clock batteries if a clock
happened to be installed.

Wrong, because while the clock isn't legally required, the smoke
alarm is.

So, run me through the line of reasoning that shows that the landlord
is responsible for replacing the batteries.

I JUST commented your completely irrelevant line about the clock.

Not that you will - you never do provide supporting argument.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying
thru your teeth with what I have posted today alone.

A simply "no" would have sufficed.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 8/02/2015 7:07 PM, Peter wrote:

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 8/02/2015 2:51 PM, Peter wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 8/02/2015 1:51 PM, Peter wrote:
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
On 6/02/2015 8:32 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 5/02/2015 8:20 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
I have two Exelguard photoelectric smoke detectors that were installed
at the same time about four years ago. They've both started, within a
couple of days of each other, giving frequent spurious alarms. This
seems a remarkable coincidence, and makes me wonder whether they're
programmed to do exactly that. Even aging of the components would surely
not be that consistent.

Sylvia.

**I doubt it. I've had the worst experiences with smoke alarms. All
mine, save one, are mains/battery powered. I chose photo-electric types,
as they are reputed to be superior to radiation models. I went to my
local electrical wholesaler and chose the best, most expensive models
(ca. $80.00 each), reasoning that they should be the best. Best be
damned. False alarms at 2:00AM and other times. A real PITA, given that
I have to shut off mains power to the damned things, as well as removing
the batteries. After the last episode, I went to Bunnings and purchased
a couple of cheap, mains powered ones (ca. $30.00 each). Not a problem
in the past year. The other detector is in my workshop and is a battery
only one. I can't see a brand name on it and it cost about 15 Bucks.
It's been up for about 2 years, without a problem. I whack a new battery
in every year and it's all good.


I wonder how difficult it would be to take two, and modify them so that
they have to agree that there's smoke before an alarm can sound.

Sylvia.

One burning out before the other kicks in could be a problem


I was assuming they'd be next to each other.

Sylvia.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

Sometimes the more you have the more you have to go wrong.


Sometimes, but it's only a guide.

All too often, one hears of people dying in fires where it's found that
the smoke alarms, though installed, had been disabled.

And we know how that happens. A smoke alarm goes off in the middle of
night for no good reason. One is roused rudely from one's sleep, and
rushes out to see what's happening. Eventually one concludes that there's
no fire, and that the alarm has simply thrown a wobbly; but it won't shut
up. So now what? Of course, one takes out the battery, and tries to get
back to sleep once the adrenalin has worn off.

When will something be done about the now disabled alarm? When one gets
round to it, which may be a while if one didn't get back to sleep, and
spent the next day walking around like a zombie. At such times, dying a
peaceful death in one's sleep doesn't seem like such a bad thing.

I suspect that the fact the we get spurious alarms at night is a major
factor resulting in deaths in fires.

Sylvia.

Are you sure you are not cranky due to lack of sleep? ;-)

Somewhat miraculously, the recent spate of false alarms have all
occurred when I haven't been in bed.

http://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=445

http://www.homesales.com.au/news/smoke-detectors-in-your-home-and-laws-state-by-state.aspx

And some propaganda from the MFB...

Smoke alarm facts.

If you don’t have a working smoke alarm installed in your home, and a fire
occurs:

You are 57% more likely to suffer property loss and damage
You are 26% more likely to suffer serious injuries
You are four times more likely to die

Those are more than likely true. I'm just observing that the way smoke
alarms are currently permitted to behave increases the likelihood that
they won't operate when required.

Sylvia.