So what makes you think you need to replace a smoke detector every 5
years? I had units in my house that lasted over 20 years.

On the other hand, I have not seen a CO2 detector for near the price of
a smoke detector. Are they really so inexpensive?

Rick


On 6/12/2015 8:19 AM, Tom wrote:
Yes, thanks for the correction on the wont sulfate.
And thanks for all the advice.
But that is what the chap claimed, the sulfating is what is killing
these deep cycles very early. And I will follow your advice very much, I
will never allow
these batteries to fully discharge or to not be topped up monthly. I
will top them up monthly. I always have paid close attention to my
batteries when in storage for winter season, now I will pay closer
attention.

Interesting the chap there at C.T. told me that the new battery will not
desulfate.

Interesting enough also that when I put the two batteries side by side
and the new advanced ultra model was actually the same weight yet
smaller in size.

Just like any other industry, especially marine, they will not make me a
battery to last a lifetime, they need me to replace my batteries
regularly. Their accounting and marketing departments bank on it. Same
as the smoke detectors in the home, our firedepartment is going door to
door in my neighborhood inspecting and if you do not have they will sell
you for $45.00 one for each floor (also a carbon monoxide detector) for
same price, yet if you check ebay they are only $8.00 . But I am sure
smoke detectors and CO2 detectors can last longer than 5 years and
function properly, but if they lasted a lifetime or the lifetime of the
house, the smoke/CO2 detector businesses would hurt. So industry leaders
bribe political leaders and so goes a nanny state.

O well,,

Thanks a lot for all the advice, much appreciated

73s

--

Rick

rickman wrote:
So what makes you think you need to replace a smoke detector every 5
years? I had units in my house that lasted over 20 years.

Likely a dusty environment.

On the other hand, I have not seen a CO2 detector for near the price of
a smoke detector. Are they really so inexpensive?

You mean CO detector.

My detector rolled over yesterday; full of dust and crap.

In Lowes I found battery powered, stand alone CO and smoke detectors
starting out at about $20, battery powered, stand alone combo CO/smoke
detectors starting at about $50.

High end, network enabled models for a bit more, hardwired dumb models
a bit less.


--
Jim Pennino

So what makes you think you need to replace a smoke detector every 5
years? I had units in my house that lasted over 20 years.

Have you actually tested it with (real or artificial) smoke, to make
sure that the sensor still senses?

The test button does not test the entire sensor chain, so you can have
a smoke detector which passes the button test but fails to alarm on
actual smoke or ionization.

Most of what I see on the Net says that replacing smoke detectors
after 8-10 years is recommended.

Likely a dusty environment.

Pretty common problem.

The Americium in ionization-type detectors has a very long lifetime,
but dust and debris and etc. can cause the sensitivity to degrade.

On the other hand, I have not seen a CO2 detector for near the price of
a smoke detector. Are they really so inexpensive?

You mean CO detector.

My detector rolled over yesterday; full of dust and crap.

In Lowes I found battery powered, stand alone CO and smoke detectors
starting out at about $20, battery powered, stand alone combo CO/smoke
detectors starting at about $50.

My understanding is that the sensor in the CO detectors, being
chemically based, does have a limited lifetime. As of 2009, ANSI/UL
specs require that such alarms begin chirping an "end of lifetime"
signal after 5 years of operation... and a couple of weeks after this,
you can no longer turn off the chirp.

On 6/12/2015 2:25 PM, wrote:
rickman wrote:
So what makes you think you need to replace a smoke detector every 5
years? I had units in my house that lasted over 20 years.

Likely a dusty environment.

You mean *not* a dusty environment? These were AC units and most likely
died from a power surge. This house is in the boonies where voltage
surges are more common because of the long reaches.

Aren't most houses about the same level of dust? Being upside down on
the ceiling helps keep the crap out. My PCs pick up tons more dust.


On the other hand, I have not seen a CO2 detector for near the price of
a smoke detector. Are they really so inexpensive?

You mean CO detector.

Yes, of course.

My detector rolled over yesterday; full of dust and crap.

In Lowes I found battery powered, stand alone CO and smoke detectors
starting out at about $20, battery powered, stand alone combo CO/smoke
detectors starting at about $50.

High end, network enabled models for a bit more, hardwired dumb models
a bit less.

I have always been able to find battery powered smoke detectors for $10.
Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot...

--

Rick

Dave Platt wrote:
So what makes you think you need to replace a smoke detector every 5
years? I had units in my house that lasted over 20 years.

Have you actually tested it with (real or artificial) smoke, to make
sure that the sensor still senses?

The thing was constantly alarming.

Hitting it with a canned air duster blew out a cloud of dust.

The chirping went intermittant.

I then tossed the thing and went to Lowes.

$20 every 5 to 10 years is a trivial expense.

My understanding is that the sensor in the CO detectors, being
chemically based, does have a limited lifetime. As of 2009, ANSI/UL
specs require that such alarms begin chirping an "end of lifetime"
signal after 5 years of operation... and a couple of weeks after this,
you can no longer turn off the chirp.

Which reminds me that my portable CO monitor for the airplane is likely
at or near its end of life and they are quite a bit more than $20.


--
Jim Pennino

rickman wrote:
On 6/12/2015 2:25 PM, wrote:
rickman wrote:
So what makes you think you need to replace a smoke detector every 5
years? I had units in my house that lasted over 20 years.

Likely a dusty environment.

You mean *not* a dusty environment? These were AC units and most likely
died from a power surge. This house is in the boonies where voltage
surges are more common because of the long reaches.

I mean a dusty environment causes a shorter life.

Aren't most houses about the same level of dust? Being upside down on
the ceiling helps keep the crap out. My PCs pick up tons more dust.

The dust level in any given house is going to depend on a whole bunch
of factors; where it is, local winds, what is in the interior, presence
or absence and efficiency of whole house filters, number of people, number
of pets, etc.

On the other hand, I have not seen a CO2 detector for near the price of
a smoke detector. Are they really so inexpensive?

You mean CO detector.

Yes, of course.

My detector rolled over yesterday; full of dust and crap.

In Lowes I found battery powered, stand alone CO and smoke detectors
starting out at about $20, battery powered, stand alone combo CO/smoke
detectors starting at about $50.

High end, network enabled models for a bit more, hardwired dumb models
a bit less.

I have always been able to find battery powered smoke detectors for $10.
Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot...

So was I until yesterday...

--
Jim Pennino

On 6/12/2015 3:26 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
So what makes you think you need to replace a smoke detector every 5
years? I had units in my house that lasted over 20 years.

Have you actually tested it with (real or artificial) smoke, to make
sure that the sensor still senses?

The test button does not test the entire sensor chain, so you can have
a smoke detector which passes the button test but fails to alarm on
actual smoke or ionization.

Most of what I see on the Net says that replacing smoke detectors
after 8-10 years is recommended.

Likely a dusty environment.

Pretty common problem.

The Americium in ionization-type detectors has a very long lifetime,
but dust and debris and etc. can cause the sensitivity to degrade.


Ionization detectors are seriously frowned upon. Tests by independent
laboratories show that photoelectric alarms are much more sensitive (1-5
minutes vs. 50+ minutes) to most fires. NFPA is now recommending
photoelectric alarms as a minimum; dual alarms may be used. But I don't
expect it will be long before ionization alarms alone are not approved.

On the other hand, I have not seen a CO2 detector for near the price of
a smoke detector. Are they really so inexpensive?

You mean CO detector.

My detector rolled over yesterday; full of dust and crap.

In Lowes I found battery powered, stand alone CO and smoke detectors
starting out at about $20, battery powered, stand alone combo CO/smoke
detectors starting at about $50.

My understanding is that the sensor in the CO detectors, being
chemically based, does have a limited lifetime. As of 2009, ANSI/UL
specs require that such alarms begin chirping an "end of lifetime"
signal after 5 years of operation... and a couple of weeks after this,
you can no longer turn off the chirp.


Very true. It also is quite sensitive to chemicals.

Also, in the U.S., the governing body is the NFPA. UL/ASCII can set
standards - but NFPA requirements is what most jurisdictions follow.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

"Dave Platt" wrote in message ...


Most of what I see on the Net says that replacing smoke detectors
after 8-10 years is recommended.

===============================================
I agree in principle. However, this past Wednesday, we cooked hamburgers in
the kitchen. One of two side-by-side smoke detectors in the hallway (~20
ft) went to alarm. The one that didn't alarm is three years old. The one
that did alarm was bought in 1978. I remember the year because I bought it
for my barracks room while I was still in the Navy. 37 years and still
kicking. I buy it a new battery every year on my birthday -- sort of a
reverse present.

Based on failure data, an 8 - 10 year replacement cycle may be advisable but
they do last longer.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)

On 6/13/2015 1:19 AM, Sal M. O'Nella wrote:


"Dave Platt" wrote in message ...


Most of what I see on the Net says that replacing smoke detectors
after 8-10 years is recommended.

===============================================
I agree in principle. However, this past Wednesday, we cooked
hamburgers in the kitchen. One of two side-by-side smoke detectors in
the hallway (~20 ft) went to alarm. The one that didn't alarm is three
years old. The one that did alarm was bought in 1978. I remember the
year because I bought it for my barracks room while I was still in the
Navy. 37 years and still kicking. I buy it a new battery every year on
my birthday -- sort of a reverse present.

Based on failure data, an 8 - 10 year replacement cycle may be advisable
but they do last longer.

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)

Which proves it needs replacement. It's calibration is off. False
alarms are almost as bad as missing real alarms.

It's not a matter of them working or not - it's a matter of them working
*correctly* or not. This means not only sounding when there is a fire,
but *not sounding* when there is *no fire*.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:26:15 -0700, (Dave
Platt) wrote:

My understanding is that the sensor in the CO detectors, being
chemically based, does have a limited lifetime. As of 2009, ANSI/UL
specs require that such alarms begin chirping an "end of lifetime"
signal after 5 years of operation... and a couple of weeks after this,
you can no longer turn off the chirp.

The lifetime of the smoke detector is determined by the battery life,
not the sensor life. Kidde and others make them with a 10 year life.
In order to do that, the battery is not replaceable. This requirement
was designed to prevent the all too common smoke detector with a dead
battery installed problem. Kidde uses "sealed battery" as their
buzzwords for non-replaceable battery.
http://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/us/products/fire-safety/smoke-alarms/
(Click the "10 year battery" box)
Note that all of them are photo-electric, not ionization type sensors.
Photo-electric detectors will detect the smoldering beginnings of a
fire long before an ionization detector. However, once flames start,
both work equally well.

The industry would love to get 10 years for CO detectors, but the
technology is not quite there yet. The currently fashionable
electro-chemical type CO detectors have about a 5 years life, and then
must be replaced. There have been CO detectors sold with replaceable
sensors, but since the sensor is the largest part of the cost, they
were deemed uneconomical. There are CO detectors available that can
last 10 or more years, but they're complex, expensive, and/or power
hogs. There was one patent (that I can't seem to find) that was
essentially a gas chromatograph.

There are also one-time sensors, that change color when exposed to CO,
but do not change back. These have their uses, but not in the home.
The main advantage is that they are far more sensitive than the common
electro-chemical detectors, which require 10 minutes at 400 ppm to
produce a reading.

Some detail on the different type of sensors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_detector#Sensors


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558