smoke alarms / loft / thatched roof

[kevindgas]

have a customer who wants to put smoke alarms in the loft spaces of a
thatched cottage. there are already mains powered alarms in the living areas.
can we just link the new ones (3) together with the existing 4 and will that work all if 1 in the loft goes off?
i know that if upstairs ones go off then they make the downstairs ones ring as well.
any thoughts on this ?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[kevindgas]

thanks for that Holmslaw. i will pass that info on about sprinklers.

 

[pkh911]

Is there a reason for putting smoke detectors in a thatched loft????
Answer NO
Why? A fire is already happening.
What you need is an EARLY WARNING SYSTEM.

There is a company in Aylesbury Buckinghamshire, who are insurance recognised and use insurance companies for thier work.
Contact them and get a price.
Or goto LPOC or LARK Insurance for details.

 

[Alarm]

From an insurance company sepecialising in thatched house insurance,

Other Safety Measures

Smoke detectors: One of the most cost effective of fire safety devices. In thatched houses it is recommended that, where an attic is accessible, a smoke detector is installed as near to the apex as feasible and linked to a second detector on the landing or hallway.

If your going to give advice do it correctly.

More real advice,

Spark Arrestors

In recent years spark arrestors have received a mixed press from both the fire service and insurers of thatched properties, with no definitive decision by either on whether they are a good or bad investment. If your chimney is around the 1.8m recommended height above the surrounding thatch and is free of all impedimenta such as slabs, ridge tiles or "T" shaped terminals, the fitting of such a device should not be necessary. If, as is the case with longstraw, coats of thatch have built up over the years and the height has been drastically reduced, they are worth considering, but the best course of action is to have the height of the chimney raised.

If contemplating a spark arrestor, look for the type that fits on top of the chimney pot. The over-riding problem with spark arrestors has always been the ability of the owner and sweep to keep the mesh clean and unclogged; if this is not regularly done they become a danger to both the property and the health of the owner.

Source
http://www.playlerussell.com/index.htm

 

[bernardgreen]

Having just purchased a 490 year old thatched cottage I have been researching what is needed to provide safety from fire and what the insurance companies require.

I would recommend your client to talk to their insurance company about fitting smoke alarms inside the loft or read the small print of the insurance policy.

Different insurance companies have different ideas. One required spark arrestors and another would not insure if a spark arrestor is fitted.

Common sense suggests a smoke detector in the attic is a good idea but some companies are very fussy about mains electrical wiring in the loft and may not permit a smoke detector to be fitted in the loft. ( Be ironic if a faulty smoke detector ignited the thatch ).

One company required all electrics above the thatch line to be run in pyro or other fire and rodent proof cable and be at least 450mm from the thatch.

One source gives the most common cause of thatch fires as over heating and / or leaking chimney stacks as they pass through the thatch and suggests temperature sensors on the stack and flue gas detectors to provide warning to shut down the fire.

Even the tools you can use in the loft are limited.

 

[Alarm]

Last Grade 2 I worked on they insisted on LV smokes, so used a Galaxy G2-44 with wireless.
Wound up the supervision to max. REDGSM and SMS reporting.

This was in addition to the existing Aico from previous owner.

 

[pkh911]

As explained before where theres smoke theres fire then it's too late.
Bearing in mind I seem to remember a seminar at racecourse that spark arrestors where not the best investment and indeed some dont even work at all!!!.
A smoke detector will only tell you of a fire not heat build up.
Remember Playlerussell at seminar. Very interesting seminar it was too. Where quite interested in what we were promoting took unit to a new level using a anti flame liquid from America called Airbourne. Still in development but working well. So bear in mind that smoke detectors detect when effectivly it's too late.
4 insurance companies use our system. And have done now for over 2 years.
So I think my post was justified.

 

[JohnW2]

As explained before where theres smoke theres fire then it's too late.

With respect, if that's meant to be a generalisation, that's a daft attitude which flies in the face of common sense, very widespread practices and many regulations. It's a good case of 'better late than never', and one has to remember that the primary purpose of smoke/fire detectors is to save lives, even when property is damaged/destroyed.

Sure, one should take whatever measures are possible to prevent fire arising and, where possible, to detect situations which may indicate an imminent risk of fire (before the fire starts), but it nevertheless makes total sense to back that up with alarms that indicate that, despite all the other measures, a fire has actually started.

It's very analogous with screening tests for serious diseases. Again, one always attempts to take measures to prevent diseases arising (e.g. by dietary/lifestyle advice, vaccines, even medicines in some cases), and, where possible, one also utilises screening tests which detect 'imminent disease' (e.g. 'pre-cancer', 'pre-diabetes' etc.), but it would again be totally daft to write off screening tests designed to detect disease (e.g. cancer) after it had arisen, on the grounds that it was then 'too late'. Just as with fires, there is still scope to at least partially salvage the situation, and potentially save (or, at least, improve/lengthen) lives, even if the disease is detected aftrer it has arisen.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[bernardgreen]

As explained before where theres smoke theres fire then it's too late.

With respect, if that's meant to be a generalisation, that's a daft attitude which flies in the face of common sense,

Very daft.

Thatch like a few other materials can smoulder creating smoke for several hours before flames appear and the fire starts to spread.

If a smoke alarm reacts to the smouldering then the building can be evacuated before flames appear and the fire brigade get there earlier and may be able to prevent the fire from developing.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnW2]

Wake up, pkh911 is just trying to flog open fire spark arresters.

That's obvious - and, as I said I have no problem at all with people developing and promoting products for fire prevention and/or very early detection of fire or imminent fire. However, to suggest that the use of such products removes the need for means of detection of established fires is (IMO) just plain crazy.

If anyone felt that their products were so good and infallable that they removed that need, I would expect them to be prepared to enter into formal agreements accepting full moral, legal and financial responsibility for the consequences (to life, limb or property) of any fire which became extablished despite use of their product(s) without any fire detection systems in place - and unless they were doubly crazy, I would not expect them to be prepared to enter into such an agreement!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Alarm]

VESDA is too expensive for most domestics but another good idea.
Heat and rate of rise can also be used in conjunction with smokes.


phk911, you join a thread with no previous making a dire innacurate comment, and then say your flogging the kit you mention.

Sad fooker.
As before get the facts right before you spout off.