'Isolator'/switch for smoke etc. alarms?

[Harry Bloomfield]

You really are scraping the barrel

Maybe I'm scraping the very same barrel as you, with your need to have the alarms on your lighting circuit

As Sparkamarka pointed out, most/all such alarms, bleep annoyingly, anyway, making them incredibly difficult to ignore.

 

[ebee]

Well often to replace its a matter of plug and unplug sort of thing, however if things are a bit adrift and/or being altered or repair required to the wiring then easy isolation would be a benefit. Someone might unplug one and pull the connection away by being a little heavy handed or if the connection it might come adrift. In any event very unlikely to actually be in a box. So yes Isolation is required (but often not done) .
Easy isolation has its merits so long as unintended consequences are avoided.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As often discussed, although most mains-powered smoke/heat etc. alarms give an indication of power failure, I personally favour running them off a downstairs lighting circuit (rather than a 'dedicated' circuit) so that failure of the circuit concerned is rapidly noticed.

As also often discussed, it's generally considered undesirable that alarms be fed through a switch or FCU, since the alarms are then too easily 'disabled', deliberately or even 'by accident'.

However, since there's something to be said for being able to 'isolate' the alarms (to work on them) without losing lighting, what do people think about feeding them through a key-operated switch or suchlike? That would certainly prevent accidental operation, and would do at least something to deter deliberate operation.

It's up to you.

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe I'm scraping the very same barrel as you, with your need to have the alarms on your lighting circuit

It's not a 'need'. It takes no more (often/usually less) effort and materials to connect alarms to a lighting circuit than to put them on a dedicated circuit (which obviously requires there to be a 'spare way' in on's CU), so "why not?". As far as I can see, the only significant 'downside' that could be invoked is that it is more likely that a circuit serving other things than just the alarms would be 'more likely to fail' (due to faults in those 'other thin gs') - but failure of a 'constantly used' lighting circuit could not go on for very long in an occupied house!

Particularly since this is a DIY forum, there is also, of course (for those concerned about such things!) the fact that installing a 'new circuit' for alarms would be notifiable work whereas connecting them to an existing lighting circuit would not.

As Sparkamarka pointed out, most/all such alarms, bleep annoyingly, anyway, making them incredibly difficult to ignore.

Most of them only bleep occasionally and, as I have said, many people would probably not understand the significance.

 

[JohnW2]

Well often to replace its a matter of plug and unplug sort of thing, however if things are a bit adrift and/or being altered or repair required to the wiring then easy isolation would be a benefit. Someone might unplug one and pull the connection away by being a little heavy handed or if the connection it might come adrift. In any event very unlikely to actually be in a box. So yes Isolation is required (but often not done) .
Easy isolation has its merits so long as unintended consequences are avoided.

All agreed.

 

[JohnW2]

It's up to you.

In terms of my house it is, and I decided very long ago not to bother with any 'separate isolation' for my alarms, being happy with them 'permanently connected' to a lighting circuit.

However, my question was a general one, prompted by something that a 'third party' had asked me.

I think that most of us agree that to have a simple switch or FCU for alarms is not a good idea for alarms (because of the risk of deliberate or accidental 'switching off') (although, ironically, many seem to advocate a 'dedicated circuit', hence with a 'dedicated' MCB/RCBO which can be 'switched off'!) but I was wondering whether others felt that a key-operated switch would be OK.

 

[EFLImpudence]

In terms of my house it is, and I decided very long ago not to bother with any 'separate isolation' for my alarms, being happy with them 'permanently connected' to a lighting circuit.

However, my question was a general one, prompted by something that a 'third party' had asked me.

Ok. It's up to them.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

It's not a 'need'. It takes no more (often/usually less) effort and materials to connect alarms to a lighting circuit than to put them on a dedicated circuit (which obviously requires there to be a 'spare way' in on's CU), so "why not?".

I have no argument with that, it would be a very sensible solution.

Most of them only bleep occasionally and, as I have said, many people would probably not understand the significance.

I would suggest you are wrong there, one would need to be really stupid, not to be able to appreciate that a regular noise from an alarm, was meant to convey that something was amiss with the alarm.

 

[ebee]

I would suggest you are wrong there, one would need to be really stupid, not to be able to appreciate that a regular noise from an alarm, was meant to convey that something was amiss with the alarm.

.A bit more often than you might think Harry, working a lot for people above 60 (when I was 30 or 40 onwards ) I have come accross many old/disabled who were not sure what those beeps were (if they actuall always heard them) quite a few were up to about 90 years old too or even ninety odd , now I have passed 60 and recently 70 I am beginning to wonder what I am like compared to the mes as I was back then (it might be a little concerning to think about that too much) , anyways might be more than you think.

Never be surprised I says.

I must admit, a long time ago I did favour the separate circuit idea (prior Part P by quite a way) but did evtually come round to the well used local lighting circuit idea. Your ideals (well nearly ideals) change sometimes as you get older/more experience/witness more silly things

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I think that most of us agree that to have a simple switch or FCU for alarms is not a good idea for alarms (because of the risk of deliberate or accidental 'switching off') (although, ironically, many seem to advocate a 'dedicated circuit', hence with a 'dedicated' MCB/RCBO which can be 'switched off'!) but I was wondering whether others felt that a key-operated switch would be OK.

A separate circuit, is a very different thing, compared to an isolation switch. A separate circuit, means opening up a consumer unit, to gain access to the circuits MCB/RCBO - much less chance of such being accidentally operated, and more obvious too....

Reminds me of a 50-way fire alarm board, in a bank I was called out to, because it was bleeping. It had been installed with a switched, fused, spur unit, mounted some distance below it, at light switch height, close to a large bank of light switches, and spurred from a socket close to the floor. It was bleeping away merrily, every few minutes. Obviously, someone unfamiliar had walked in, and had randomly tried switches by trial and error, in the process turned the unmarked fire alarm spur off.

 

[JohnW2]

Ok. It's up to them.

It is - but I was asked to advise whether a key-operated switch would be 'acceptable' in the eyes of those who felt that an ordinary switch or FCU was not a good idea. I personally felt that the answer was 'yes', but I thought I would see if others here agree (and, frankly, didn't really expect it would be so difficult to get some 'straight answers' )

 

[JohnW2]

I have no argument with that, it would be a very sensible solution.

Glad you agree.

I would suggest you are wrong there, one would need to be really stupid, not to be able to appreciate that a regular noise from an alarm, was meant to convey that something was amiss with the alarm.

I think you might well be surprised!

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

A bit more often than you might think Harry, working a lot for people above 60 (when I was 30 or 40 onwards ) I have come accross many old/disabled who were not sure what those beeps were (if they actuall always heard them) quite a few were up to about 90 years old too or even ninety odd , now I have passed 60 and recently 70 I am beginning to wonder what I am like compared to the mes as I was back then (it might be a little concerning to think about that too much) , anyways might be more than you think.

That's the sort of age, where many (not me), tend to refer such problems on, due to reducing capacity. Me, I tend to sort my own problems out, rather than take the risk of employing, and have issues made somewhat worse

 

[ebee]

Well it is easy to find a tradesman/pro who will fix something so that is fard worse than before - most of us have probably met a few such people

 

[JohnW2]

A separate circuit, is a very different thing, compared to an isolation switch. A separate circuit, means opening up a consumer unit, to gain access to the circuits MCB/RCBO - much less chance of such being accidentally operated, and more obvious too....

I think that the majority of people are probably familiar with the fact that they can (e.g. 'in an emergency') switch off any circuit by simply opening the CU door.

Anyway, if you would be happy with an MCB/RCBO in a CU, would you be equally happy with a switch (fed from a lighting circuit) inside some sort of enclosure that had an easily openable door?