Talk:Fire alarm system

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.

I removed the "Bounding" section, which had begun (as much of this artcle) as an excerpt from a contract specification for the Veteran's Administation. Fireproeng 08:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This a bit like it has been lifted from formal documentation, either from NFPA 72 itself, or something closely related.

I propose that either this article be re-named (to reflect its relationship to that standard), or alternatively the content be made more generic. Thoughts and opinions? mattp 19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree this could probably use a bit of massaging from an active fire protection expert. It does appear to be lifted right out of a manual. NFPA "shall mean" not much of anything at all outside of North America, for instance. Considering fire statistics comparisons between Switzerland and the US, as an example, would lead one to believe that there are a few other countries who also have some good ideas.---Achim 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Audio Evacuation System

Regarding the proposed merge of Audio Evacuation System with this article, it is fine by me. Anyone else? SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "extra alarm" fire (indicating severity)

I'm not sure whether it would belong in the alarm article, this article, or the fire protection article, but I was looking for a definition of what exactly is meant by a "multiple alarm" fire. In Chicago when there is a large fire (say, in a large warehouse) it's reported in the news as an "extra alarm" fire, a "three alarm" fire, etc. My impression is that it has to do with how many fire stations are required to respond to the call, but I'm having trouble verifying that.

Can someone with more information update an appropriate article with the definition and its applicability. I assume this is at least a U.S. term (rather than just Chicago), but imagine it might be used in other countries as well (or some equivalent).

Mleinart 17:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Where it goes definitely would have to do with what you come up with for a definition on it. However, my gut feeling is that the meaning you cited is correct. I've understood it to be how many units responded. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You can Google an answer for this if you like, but a good definition for one fire department's definition can be found here: http://www.nbc4.com/money/9208480/detail.html Here's a discussion: http://www.lostremote.com/2006/12/08/news-tip-how-many-alarms-in-a-fire/

Long story short, it varies based on your locality but by the time it's a three-alarm fire you've got over a dozen emergency vehicles on scene or on route. Thankfully a three-alarm fire is unusual wherever you go! 208.228.181.183 (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Older buildings, smoke 'alarms'

Removed, as is not clear. Smoke detectors are more sensitive to heat, and reference to fire spread is true of any type of fire alarm system.Fireproeng 16:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Regardless of whether the style manual permits references to be in the notes section or not, I think it makes little sense to have a set of references, but for them not to be in the already existing 'References' section. As it was, you have two sections basically dealing with the same thing. Placing all references in the same section, headed 'References', makes by far the most sense. TheIslander 23:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the two sections, then the references currently in the "references" section need to be pinned to specific passages in the text. Then the "Notes" section becomes "References", as we have only one section. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, as I did not include that reference, I have no idea what it refers to. It could be argued that, as it is not attached to anything, it is fairly useless and could be removed altogether. That aside, it is still a reference, as is the reference that is pinned to a section in the article, thus it's completely logical that they go together, and illogical to place them in separate section. I've edited them together in a slightly different way this time; perhaps you'll see that they make more sense this way. TheIslander 23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but I prefer my general references and my specific references separate, and it is supported by the style guide. Visually, the one section with both doesn't work. But now it's moot, because I've demoted the other link to an External link. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)