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