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

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