With installaion change with compulsory fire sprinklers?

[ericmark]

I have been reading this BBC report on compulsory fire sprinklers in homes. I wonder what precautions will be required when the home can become so wet. Will the installation of electrics need to change.

Also will there be any electrics involved in control as one would not want a fire sprinkler to start up with a chip pan fire until all was lost as water in the chip pan is of course not what is wanted.

Personally I think it's the wrong approach. We should aim to stop the fires rather than tattle them once established. I often question how with electrics we have MCB's, Fuses and RCD's to automatically remove the supply yet there seems to be nothing to do the same with the gas supply.

My boilers in the garage I have no real worries about but the gas fire in the living room is far hotter than any electric fire and far more likely to cause fire.

As to the kitchen how we are still allowed to use gas for cooking I don't know. With the electric systems now having auto shut down even if left on when we go on holiday and trying to light a fag with an induction hob is impossible. Yet the gas hobs to day still have a naked flame.

Since only with new houses which of course will have RCD protection I would like to see figures for fires in new houses since 2008 and the cause. It was chip pans and electrical fires but that includes houses build before the 2008 regulations. What is the main cause now?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[JohnW2]

I have been reading this BBC report on compulsory fire sprinklers in homes.

Whilst I realise it is of relevance to you, this applies only to Wales, and I haven't (yet!) heard of any similar proposals for the rest of the UK.

I wonder what precautions will be required when the home can become so wet. Will the installation of electrics need to change.

Good question. maybe, at the least , it will bring about the requirement for RCD protection of everything.

Also will there be any electrics involved in control ......

I may be wrong, but I thought that electrical control of sprinkler systems tended to be avoided, for fairly obvious reasons - i.e. they are are generally 'thermomechanical' - but I may be wrong.

Personally I think it's the wrong approach. We should aim to stop the fires rather than tattle them once established.

My feelings are the same. Indeed, since most deaths in domestic fires are due to smoke, rather than fire, a system to reduce domestic deaths would have to trigger long before a 'raging fire' was established, which could represent a serious inconvenience.

I often question how with electrics we have MCB's, Fuses and RCD's to automatically remove the supply yet there seems to be nothing to do the same with the gas supply.

Agreed. However, with gas it's much less obvious what 'faults' would be sensed to trigger disconnection. Established fire (heat/smoke) is the most obvious trigger - but such systems would obviously be useless for preventing fires (although could reduce secondary explosions or gas-fuelling of an existing fire).

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

I was reading recently that the number of domestic fires is decreasing all over the world. .... Because of the reduced fire incidence french firemen have been trained as paramedics. So whether you call the fire brigade or ambulance, its the same people that turn up.

That has been true in France for many decades (maybe even 'for ever') - so I don't think it's anything to do with recent reductions in fires.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ericmark]

I would think there is no reason why a thermal device could not be included in the supply to under counter washing machines, tumble driers and the like which would remove the supply if overheated. Although it would be better built into the appliance in same way as already done with fan heaters.

In the same way an electrical release mechanism could be installed with the gas supply so heat sensors could cut off supply.

What I am saying there are loads of cheap options to reduce fire risk or to improve the chances of stopping or manual evacuation or extinguishing fires before going to the extreme measure of fitting a sprinkler system which I would guess would need a huge water tank to supply it.

I have to my mine done the right thing and written to my AMP. I have asked for figures on home fires in homes designed after 2008 and pointed out homes before that date don't really count as changes in regulations may have stopped the fire with new homes.

I await reply.

 

[JohnW2]

I would think there is no reason why a thermal device could not be included in the supply to under counter washing machines, tumble driers and the like which would remove the supply if overheated. Although it would be better built into the appliance in same way as already done with fan heaters.

I think you'll find than many appliances already have such devices. I know that our tumble dryer and deep-fat fryer do, because such devices have failed in both!

What I am saying there are loads of cheap options to reduce fire risk or to improve the chances of stopping or manual evacuation or extinguishing fires before going to the extreme measure of fitting a sprinkler system ....

Indeed - and, as I said, I agree with you.

.... which I would guess would need a huge water tank to supply it.

Why not from the water main?

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I think you could all do with reading the FAQs and Myths here:

http://www.firesprinklers.info/

If I were building a new house I would unquestionably have a sprinkler system as well as conventional alarms.

 

[Alarm]

Trying to find a sprinkler company (link) a m8 used a while back.
Sprinkler trigers, gas supply was shut down.
Sprinklers were run fom mains supply. Just had to get an increased bore in from the street main for the flow rate to be sufficient.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ericmark]

At 68°C/155°F to set sprinkler off the fire will be well alight before the device is triggered. Although in some areas the mains pressure may be able to supply the unit since it will not be directed directly at the fire as it does not know where the fire is it needs enough force to cover the whole room.

In my house the supply has a job pushing enough water through the pipes to work my shower (27kW gas powered) so to cover even one room without at the same time preventing and manual fire fighting due to lack of water it would need more than the mains could supply.

Do remember we are talking of the hills of Wales and only new builds which often means there is really not enough water for the new estate until the next Welsh Water upgrade.

The number of house fire deaths is falling see here but 7000 house fires in a year is still quite high. It is 0.55% approx of houses have fires large enough to cause a casualty.

But there are no statistics about homes built after 2008 and many homes have very old systems and they will not be covered by new law so need to be removed from the figures. We all know how statistics can be twisted to suit. I would guess some one known by the AMP who has pushed for this has died but again as to if they lived in a new home know one knows. And over crowding of homes will mean more may died in each fire so there must be a meaningful risk assessment.

 

[JohnW2]

I think you could all do with reading the FAQs and Myths here:http://www.firesprinklers.info/

I'm not sure that I would regard the Residential Sprinkler Association as being the most unbiased of sources!

Experience over the years has shown that these life safety fire sprinklers will virtually eliminate fire deaths

Statistics demonstrate that there has never been any multiple loss of life in a fully sprinklered building.

Does anyone know the phone number of Trading Standards or the Advertising Standards Authority?

If I were building a new house I would unquestionably have a sprinkler system as well as conventional alarms.

I might, as well - not the least because (unless remotely monitored) 'conventional alarms' do little/nothing (depending on neighbours hearing!) to prevent one's house burning down when unoccupied - but I still have my doubts about the extent to which they are likely to save lives in a domestic setting. However, 'belt-and-braces' is never a bad thing when it comes to matters of safety. As Eric said, it might be more appropriate to direct efforts, resources and legislation at the prevention of fires than their detection and extingusihing.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm not sure that I would regard the Residential Sprinkler Association as being the most unbiased of sources!

No, but bias does not equate to writing things which are not true.

Does anyone know the phone number of Trading Standards or the Advertising Standards Authority?

Go for it, if you believe that they are writing things which are not true.

Or write to them to discuss it, and seek clarifications.

I might, as well - not the least because (unless remotely monitored) 'conventional alarms' do little/nothing (depending on neighbours hearing!) to prevent one's house burning down when unoccupied - but I still have my doubts about the extent to which they are likely to save lives in a domestic setting. However, 'belt-and-braces' is never a bad thing when it comes to matters of safety. As Eric said, it might be more appropriate to direct efforts, resources and legislation at the prevention of fires than their detection and extingusihing.

There's also the issue of the amount of damage done before the fire service turn up and then by the water they use, even when alarms are reacted to promptly, nobody is injured, and 999 is dialled immediately.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not sure that I would regard the Residential Sprinkler Association as being the most unbiased of sources!

No, but bias does not equate to writing things which are not true.

Indeed, bias does not necessarily equate to writing things which are not true. However, unbiased sources (of which I' sure there are a good few) don't have any reason to write things which are not true.

Does anyone know the phone number of Trading Standards or the Advertising Standards Authority?

Go for it, if you believe that they are writing things which are not true. Or write to them to discuss it, and seek clarifications.

If it really concerned me, I would at least ask them for the evidence which support what appear to be very rash claims. Most commercial and industrial premises have sprinkler systems; can you really believe that there have never been any 'muliple deaths' (and, unless they are being miseleading, 'multiple' means 'more than one') due to a fire in such premises? I feel sure that if my memory was good enough, I'd be able to cite some publicised exceptions to that claim!

There's also the issue of the amount of damage done before the fire service turn up and then by the water they use, even when alarms are reacted to promptly, nobody is injured, and 999 is dialled immediately.

Yes, that's a factor. I certainly don't doubt for a moment that sprinklers can do a lot to minimise damage to property - it's the 'damage to life' that I am less sure about.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[flameport]

Apart from the substantial cost of installlation, and the ongoing expense of maintenance, sprinklers in houses are totally impractical. The main reason can be found on that website mentioned above:

Residential Sprinklers typically use only about 60 litres of water a minute.

That kind of flow from a domestic water supply simply isn't going to happen.