Talk:Smoke detector

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Fire Protection, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to fire protection equipment. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 History 2 I need to know more info on George Andrew Darby 3 Photoelectric detectors 4 Reliability 5 Smoke Detector vs Smoke Alarm 6 Volume

[edit] History

Anybody know any history? When was it invented, where, by who? Edward 10:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quote-The first battery-operated home smoke detector was patented in 1969 by Randolph Smith and Kenneth House.

What is the source of that quote?--AI 02:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfiresprinkler.htm is the source of the quote.

WHAT IS THE SOURCE FOR THE ANDREW DARBY ARTICLE?

[edit] I need to know more info on George Andrew Darby

I need a book,encyclipedia,etc. on George Darby

[edit] Photoelectric detectors

• Note: There has been some recent research that has proven that "Photo-Electric" smoke alarms do a much better job at detecting smaller fires, whereas the Ioniasation detectors could only detect a small fire (which could in turn, could burn rapidly out of control) after a minimum of ten minutes! The photo-electric alarms however detected the fires almost a fast as they detected a large fire. This issue is still under investigation and research but the word is spreading and a few government (Australian, I'm not sure about others) organizations have admitted that these new alarms do work a lot better. - Random Australian Guy (Sydney)

[edit] Reliability

The two paragraphs under the reliability section are conflicting:

In the 1990s Texas A&M University did a full scale scientific investigation... The study determined that in a smoldering fire, with its relatively low number of large smoke particles, optical detectors fail 4.06% of the time, while ionization detectors fail 55.8%. For flame ignition fires, which have a large number of small, energetic smoke particles, photoelectric smoke detectors had a 3.99% probability of failure while ionization smoke detector failed 19.8%.

In 2004, NIST issued a comprehensive report... The report concludes, among other things, that "consistent with prior findings, ionization type alarms provided somewhat better response to flaming fires than photoelectric alarms, and photoelectric alarms provided (often) considerably faster response to smoldering fires than ionization type alarms".

So which is it? The A&M study is not cited, but that doesnt prove anything on its own.

[edit] Smoke Detector vs Smoke Alarm

The introduction paragraph makes a statement that may need a rewrite of the article and its structure;

A smoke detector or smoke alarm is an active fire protection device, subject to stringent bounding, that detects airborne smoke and issues an audible alarm, thereby alerting nearby people to the danger of fire.

What I mean by this is that there is a difference between a Smoke Alarm comprising a sensor and audible warning device and a Smoke Detector that forms part of a network of sensors connected to an alarm panel.

Perhaps the article could be written with s summary of the technology of smoke detection (ionisation vs optical) and then the application of these technologies, being in the form of smoke alarms and smoke detectors.

[edit] Volume

I "heard" that in Canada tests have caused the volume of the smoke detector alarms to be increased beyond the pain threshold level. This was apparently driven by the discovered that many people, particularly children, had no trouble sleeping through a normal smoke detector even when it was positioned directly above their bed. A quick look around, and I couldn't find a cite.

Personal experience tells me this is true, though. My parents moved from their temporary apartment that was less than a year old into a newly constructed house. The detectors in both these locations are so loud as to be very painful, even for a few seconds while you push the "silent for 20 minutes" button (i.e. after burning the toast). Fracture^Talk   06:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a ton of research on the volume of alarms. Recent studies gaining attention have tested the effectiveness of waking children with alarms of different volumes and in combination with voice recordings (parent's voices) Here's one such study from Australia's Victoria University: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT ALARMS IN WAKING SLEEPING CHILDREN It supports your claim children are generally more difficult to awaken.MikeDayoub 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can believe it, too. I put some chips in the oven last year while drunk, fell asleep, and only woke up when every alarm in the house was going. The pain in my ears from the things was incredible. Very ow. And this little drunken baby would almost certainly have slept through an alarm only as loud as, say, my alarm clock.Unreadablecharacters 15:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)