In article , Jerry Stuckle writes:
You really cite Wikipedia as a trusted source? ROFLMAO!

It's one hell of a lot more trustworthy than you are.

George

On 9/6/2015 8:19 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/6/2015 8:52 AM, George Cornelius wrote:
In article , Jerry Stuckle writes:
This is one reason why ionization detectors are not recommended any more
- too many false alarms. That, plus photoelectric detectors are much
faster at detecting real fires.

And to avoid everyone just repeating whomever their favorite
pontificator is, let's inject something a bit more authoritative.

Courtesy Wikipedia:


snip rest of crap

You really cite Wikipedia as a trusted source? ROFLMAO!

Try a real source - like reports from NFPA, independent laboratory
tests, etc. Then maybe you can have some respectability - which you do
not have now.


George

He did, via Wikipedia.

"According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)... "

You haven't learned to read yet?

In article , (George Cornelius) writes:
And to avoid everyone just repeating whomever their favorite
pontificator is, let's inject something a bit more authoritative.

Courtesy Consumer reports' "CO & smoke alarm buying guide",
last updated, June 2015:

None do it all

Our tests of two dozen alarms show that effective protection from fire and CO remains far too complicated. For example, smoke
alarms that use ionization technology were great at detecting a fast, flaming fire such as burning paper, but poor at detecting a
smoldering fire, as in a couch or mattress. The opposite was true of photoelectric smoke alarms. A few alarms combine ionization
and photoelectric technologies to cover both types of fire, but they don't detect CO. And those that combine CO and smoke detection
are effective for either type of fire, but not both. Our challenge to manufacturers: Produce a single device that senses both types
of fire and CO.


[...]

Test smoke and CO alarms weekly and vacuum them monthly. Follow the manufacturer's recommendations on battery replacement. Alarms
have a limited useful life. Replace CO alarms every five years and smoke alarms every 10 years. In addition, prepare a plan of
evacuation in case of a fire or CO emergency, and have everyone in the family practice it like a fire drill every few months.

George

On 9/6/2015 11:53 AM, George Cornelius wrote:
In article , Jerry Stuckle writes:
You really cite Wikipedia as a trusted source? ROFLMAO!

It's one hell of a lot more trustworthy than you are.

George


ROFLMAO. How many certifications do you have in fire safety? How many
fire alarms have you installed in your lifetime? I probably am
responsible for more every week than you have done in your life.

Troll.

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

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

On 9/6/2015 12:11 PM, John S wrote:
On 9/6/2015 8:19 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/6/2015 8:52 AM, George Cornelius wrote:
In article , Jerry Stuckle
writes:
This is one reason why ionization detectors are not recommended any
more
- too many false alarms. That, plus photoelectric detectors are much
faster at detecting real fires.

And to avoid everyone just repeating whomever their favorite
pontificator is, let's inject something a bit more authoritative.

Courtesy Wikipedia:


snip rest of crap

You really cite Wikipedia as a trusted source? ROFLMAO!

Try a real source - like reports from NFPA, independent laboratory
tests, etc. Then maybe you can have some respectability - which you do
not have now.


George

He did, via Wikipedia.

"According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)... "

You haven't learned to read yet?


Yup. But anyone can claim almost anything in Wikipedia - but that
doesn't mean it's true. It is far from a reliable source, especially in
technical areas like life safety.

Now show me the facts from NFPA material, for instance. I have plenty
of them here - since it's part of my job.

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

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

On 9/6/2015 12:36 PM, George Cornelius wrote:
In article , (George Cornelius) writes:
And to avoid everyone just repeating whomever their favorite
pontificator is, let's inject something a bit more authoritative.

Courtesy Consumer reports' "CO & smoke alarm buying guide",
last updated, June 2015:

None do it all

Our tests of two dozen alarms show that effective protection from fire and CO remains far too complicated. For example, smoke
alarms that use ionization technology were great at detecting a fast, flaming fire such as burning paper, but poor at detecting a
smoldering fire, as in a couch or mattress. The opposite was true of photoelectric smoke alarms. A few alarms combine ionization
and photoelectric technologies to cover both types of fire, but they don't detect CO. And those that combine CO and smoke detection
are effective for either type of fire, but not both. Our challenge to manufacturers: Produce a single device that senses both types
of fire and CO.


[...]

Test smoke and CO alarms weekly and vacuum them monthly. Follow the manufacturer's recommendations on battery replacement. Alarms
have a limited useful life. Replace CO alarms every five years and smoke alarms every 10 years. In addition, prepare a plan of
evacuation in case of a fire or CO emergency, and have everyone in the family practice it like a fire drill every few months.

George


ROFLMAO! Detector sensing, but no real life figures, i.e. no figures as
to how many fires are detected each year by each type of alarm - as NFPA
publishes. The average time for a photoelectric detector to sense a
fire is on the order of a couple of monutes. An ionization detector,
around 56 minutes.

Reliable reports are available from NFPA. But they'll cost you, so I
know you'll just stick with quoting Wikipedia.

Troll. But we already know that.

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

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

On 9/6/2015 12:11 PM, John S wrote:
On 9/6/2015 8:19 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/6/2015 8:52 AM, George Cornelius wrote:
In article , Jerry Stuckle
writes:
This is one reason why ionization detectors are not recommended any
more
- too many false alarms. That, plus photoelectric detectors are much
faster at detecting real fires.

And to avoid everyone just repeating whomever their favorite
pontificator is, let's inject something a bit more authoritative.

Courtesy Wikipedia:


snip rest of crap

You really cite Wikipedia as a trusted source? ROFLMAO!

Try a real source - like reports from NFPA, independent laboratory
tests, etc. Then maybe you can have some respectability - which you do
not have now.


George

He did, via Wikipedia.

"According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)... "

You haven't learned to read yet?

I think that Jerry is mostly wrong in this case, but I will point out
that even when wikipedia cites sources, that doesn't mean the source
actually supports what the wiki author wrote. I found an example once
(which I didn't bother to bookmark, but might could find via my remark
made in the talk page) where the conclusion drawn in the wiki page was
the *exact opposite* of what the cited reference said!

So for anything important, I agree, don't cite wiki, cite the citations
found in the wiki. In this case though, I think it would be hard to
misinterpret what the NFPA said.

--

Rick

On 9/7/2015 4:36 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/6/2015 12:11 PM, John S wrote:
On 9/6/2015 8:19 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/6/2015 8:52 AM, George Cornelius wrote:
In article , Jerry Stuckle
writes:
This is one reason why ionization detectors are not recommended any
more
- too many false alarms. That, plus photoelectric detectors are much
faster at detecting real fires.

And to avoid everyone just repeating whomever their favorite
pontificator is, let's inject something a bit more authoritative.

Courtesy Wikipedia:


snip rest of crap

You really cite Wikipedia as a trusted source? ROFLMAO!

Try a real source - like reports from NFPA, independent laboratory
tests, etc. Then maybe you can have some respectability - which you do
not have now.


George

He did, via Wikipedia.

"According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)... "

You haven't learned to read yet?

I think that Jerry is mostly wrong in this case, but I will point out
that even when wikipedia cites sources, that doesn't mean the source
actually supports what the wiki author wrote. I found an example once
(which I didn't bother to bookmark, but might could find via my remark
made in the talk page) where the conclusion drawn in the wiki page was
the *exact opposite* of what the cited reference said!

So for anything important, I agree, don't cite wiki, cite the citations
found in the wiki. In this case though, I think it would be hard to
misinterpret what the NFPA said.


Not hard at all - especially when the author is not an expert on the
subject, as is the case of most of Wikiedia.

Let me know when you are certified for fire alarm installation and are
installing 2-3 per week on the average. Then we can talk.

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

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