Fire detection

[Blueflash]

Indeed. That's why I wrote (and didn't bother to repeat when I refered back to it) ....
... although I concede that one might fall asleep in a "most frequently used room" even if it's not a bedroom.

However, as I said, I now suspect that the requirement for an alarm in the 'most frequently used room' is probably more to do with having a linked sounder in that room than to having a smoke/heat detector there.

One interesting thing is that in a good few houses I know, the 'most frequently used room' is probably the kitchen. The Scottish regulation we are talking about would then appear to require the room to have a smoke detector, whereas a heat detector would probably be more appropriate. Yes that is what is stipulated, if you read the document.

Dave

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Yes that is what is stipulated, if you read the document.

If by 'the document' you mean the BBC news report that was linked to, yes I've read it - and that's what I've been talking about.

It does, indeed, say that there should be at least one heat detector in every kitchen. That is standard advice, since people get driven mad (and therefore are inclined to disable the alarm) by smoke alarms in kitchens, since they tend to go off frequently due to cooking.

However, my point was that the report also says that there must be at least one smoke alarm in "the room most frequently used". As I said, I know a good few houses in which 'the room most frequently used' is the kitchen - in which case these regulations appear to be requiring at least one smoke alarm in such a kitchen (contrary to normal advice, as per the above) as well as at least one heat detector. Do you really think this is what they intended?

Kind Regards, John

 

[Blueflash]

No that's why it's not what is written

Dave

 

[SimonH2]

Given that part of the process of designing a smoke/fire alarm system SHOULD include an assessment of the acoustics, there really is no logic in demanding that a device be installed in the most frequently used room just as a linked sounder. Without one in that room, at least one other sounder will be clearly audible - if not, then the system was not designed properly. It would make more sense to require that the system be designed to some standard or other which covers such matters.

I find the mention of sprinklers interesting - but also alarming (no pun intended). I don't think I've ever seen these in normal domestic premises, and retrofitting them would not be a trivial job in most properties, and impractical in many. It may be a case of "send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance" - where someone has heard a suggestion that certain types of buildings needing them in certain areas (communal hallways & stairs of high rise flats/apartments being a prime example), and somewhere along the line, the details have been lost and so people are led to believe that it will apply to regular houses and low rise flats.
As an anecdote, an architect acquaintance told me years ago that she was doing some work for a well known supermarket chain - and queried the lack of sprinklers. The policy from the supermarket was not to fit them as "false alarms" regularly caused significant costs in damaged stock and fixtures - which is a valid concern, spraying a load of water around does cause a lot of damage. Shortly afterwards, the supermarket suffered two fires in different stores within a couple of weeks of each other - causing total loss of the buildings which were reduced to twisted piles of heat-softened steel. There was then a program of retrofitting sprinklers to all their stores as they'd obviously re-assessed the relatives risks of the to have/to not have questions.
I know where I worked, they had sprinklers right through the site - offices, factory, and warehouse. Fortunately we didn't have any false alarms - but apparently it can be a real problem with events like forklifts (or their loads) breaking a head. Some systems are dry - needing a separate fire alarm to release water into the system - but most are wet and the water is only held in by a liquid filled glass phial keeping a plug in each sprinkler head, when things get hot, the internal pressure breaks the glass, the plug pops out and water flows.

 

[JohnW2]

No that's why it's not what is written

What are you reading? What I am reading is:

• have at least one smoke alarm installed in the room most frequently used
• have at least one smoke alarm in spaces such as hallways and landings
• have at least one heat alarm in every kitchen

In the absence of any qualifications (which may exist in the actual legislation - the BBC are not famous for telling the whole {or necessarily the correct} story!), do you have a way of interpreting that which means that if the "room most frequently used" is a kitchen, it does not have to have at least one smoke alarm (as well as at least one heat alarm)?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If I were building a house then without question I would have a sprinkler system installed. But as Simon, in a credible shot at understatement of the year, says, retrofitting them would not be a trivial job in most properties.

 

[Blueflash]

Yes, well done ! ........


Dave

 

[Blueflash]

If I were building a house then without question I would have a sprinkler system installed. But as Simon, in a credible shot at understatement of the year, says, retrofitting them would not be a trivial job in most properties.

If you were building a house it should be bomb proof

Dave

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, well done ! ........

Either I'm having a senior moment or you write in riddles.

Kind Regards, John