Heat Detector over Dryers

Status
Not open for further replies.

love9099

Member
What I meant

What I meant

Actually his point is valid.

A rate of rise Heat detector has a response curve. This slows an alarm. In fact a slow smoldering fire will take a LOT longer to be detected with just a heat. (could minutes and that make a HUGE difference in a residential fire developing) With a fixed temp the same delay exists only the alarm point is fixed.


This is why it is not a life safety device and should not be relied upon for fire dectection alone. And again, line voltage smoke and heat manufacturers instructions (kidde, Firex) prohibit the installation of a heat or smoke near washers (Firex manual SPECIFICALLY states not within 10 feet of a washer) http://www.firexsafety.com/NR/rdonlyres/62CD89DB-EC4A-41E0-9DBE-1CD351E80F27/0/110609FEnglish5700.pdf.

In no way do I think smokes should be done away with, I doubt that guy does either, but lets not assume:

Love9099 what did you mean?
I am all for smoke detectors rather than Heats, heats have their place in certain areas and under certain conditions. I appreciate your references. I personally have smokes in all the bedrooms in my home (120v) and in the hallways and yet I also tied smokes to my security system up and down stairs that dial out in case of smoke. Obviously that is not code or mandated that I do such but I did it to protect my family. My whole point is it seemed like someone felt we should put heats in at all the dryer locations and personally I don't think that would alert or wake anyone up but having a decent system with smoke detection in their proper places would. Thank you for your comments.
 

electricmanscott

Senior Member
Not a thing,that is your responsibility. At no point in this thread has anyone disputed the value of smoke detectors,myself included. What has been disputed is the value of others making decisions for you as opposed to you making informed decisions for yourself. If you want to sit back and let someone else make all of your decisions for you then you have no cause to complain when things don't go the way you thought they should . I choose to be aware of my environment and the associated dangers and prefer to make my own decisions regarding my welfare. If the public is educated they too can make their own decisions. If they choose wrong it was their choice,their responsibility.
This entire statement as applied to what we are talking about is both foolish and just plain nonsense. We live everyday by rules and standards that are mandated upon us. That is how a civilized society functions. These rules are not optional.

Equating madatory life safety measure in a home to "making choices" for ones self and lack of education is just bizzarre to me. In many places smoke detetctors are required it is not a choice. In my area and I would bet others, heats were just recently added in conjunction with smokes. Also the smoke requirements have been expanded in recent history to include more mandatory detector locations.

Things such as codes and standards are an ever evolving thing. New products and ideas come along and codes are revised and updated. That's how smart, clear thinking, and EDUCATED people function. It's the uneducated that simply balk at new ideas because they are too stubborn to see a good idea for what it is. They would rather watch their family burn up like a piece of bacon than be told by some government official what to do.


The fact that a firefighter is arguing against this is , I don't even have a word to describe my disbelief.


Just to add. Don't use the "Not a life safety device" baloney as a defense. That is just manufacturer cya speak. Of course a heat detector is a life safety device. Spare me the semantics.
 

nhfire77

Senior Member
This entire statement as applied to what we are talking about is both foolish and just plain nonsense. We live everyday by rules and standards that are mandated upon us. That is how a civilized society functions. These rules are not optional.

Equating madatory life safety measure in a home to "making choices" for ones self and lack of education is just bizzarre to me. In many places smoke detetctors are required it is not a choice. In my area and I would bet others, heats were just recently added in conjunction with smokes. Also the smoke requirements have been expanded in recent history to include more mandatory detector locations.

Things such as codes and standards are an ever evolving thing. New products and ideas come along and codes are revised and updated. That's how smart, clear thinking, and EDUCATED people function. It's the uneducated that simply balk at new ideas because they are too stubborn to see a good idea for what it is. They would rather watch their family burn up like a piece of bacon than be told by some government official what to do.


The fact that a firefighter is arguing against this is , I don't even have a word to describe my disbelief.


Just to add. Don't use the "Not a life safety device" baloney as a defense. That is just manufacturer cya speak. Of course a heat detector is a life safety device. Spare me the semantics.

The Code is an evolving document, I agree completely. Changes are made when there is enough evidence to support the change, not just because it appears to be needed. There is not enough empirical evidence that adding the heat would matter all that much. There are more fires from cooking appliances than dryers by far.

By, the same logic that says, dryers start fires, put a heat there. Stoves cause more, put a high temp heat there. Is that a good idea though? I argue it is not. Doing so will lead to a myriad of false alarms that will burden the property owner and the fire department.

Lets look at the problem in linear fashion: Dryers themselves are not a major cause of fires in the united states. The lack of proper utilization of said dryer is (lint). The causal factor is the human, and we cannot ultimately control them (nor should we), just educate. The dryer can be controlled. Design a smarter dryer, regulate that, not my home. Will I pay for this either way, whether it be a heat in the house or a more expensive dryer, yes.

And that is what my stance is, no more regulation on me or my home.

Also, I believe in Darwinism. Have you seen the stupid things people do to themselves???? I love a good laugh.
 

One-eyed Jack

Senior Member
The Code is an evolving document, I agree completely. Changes are made when there is enough evidence to support the change, not just because it appears to be needed. There is not enough empirical evidence that adding the heat would matter all that much. There are more fires from cooking appliances than dryers by far.

By, the same logic that says, dryers start fires, put a heat there. Stoves cause more, put a high temp heat there. Is that a good idea though? I argue it is not. Doing so will lead to a myriad of false alarms that will burden the property owner and the fire department.

Lets look at the problem in linear fashion: Dryers themselves are not a major cause of fires in the united states. The lack of proper utilization of said dryer is (lint). The causal factor is the human, and we cannot ultimately control them (nor should we), just educate. The dryer can be controlled. Design a smarter dryer, regulate that, not my home. Will I pay for this either way, whether it be a heat in the house or a more expensive dryer, yes.

And that is what my stance is, no more regulation on me or my home.

Also, I believe in Darwinism. Have you seen the stupid things people do to themselves???? I love a good laugh.
Well said. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top