Smoke Generator for Security System?

[MAK]

I stumbled across this site about "smoke" generators.http://www.isc365.com/511_537.aspx

I was wondering does anyone know if something like this would effect smoke detectors? I was told that you are not allowed to use "canned smoke" to test smoke detectors. I'm wondering if this type of system would wreak havoc on smoke detectors (maybe interfere with their sensitivity). I read that it is not suppose to leave any residue from the smoke but I think that may not be entirely accurate.

 

[iwire]

Seems like it would trip any SD in the area.

In the past we have been required to rent a smoke machine to test the smoke evacuation systems we have installed in some large retail stores.

The smoke machine was run until it tripped a smoke detector (did not take long) then we watched as the smoke evacuation system did its job.

 

[dbuckley]

The SmokeCloak system is used throught the world, and as a security device, it rocks. But yes, it blows if you've got smoke detectors.

Have a read of This note from The Office of the Fire Marshall, Ontario..

 

[EBFD6]

I was told that you are not allowed to use "canned smoke" to test smoke detectors.

Who told you that? Canned smoke that is used properly (key word), is perfectly fine to test smoke detectors and actually is the recommended method of most manufacturers. We (fire department) do it all the time, and actually is required to pass fire inspection, magnetic contact closure is not acceptable, the Chief wants to see smoke activation.

 

[nakulak]

I think it depends on the jurisdiction. Ive had fire marshals that allowed canned smoke and I've had ones that required me to use real smoke.

 

[mdshunk]

I think it depends on the jurisdiction. Ive had fire marshals that allowed canned smoke and I've had ones that required me to use real smoke.

Huh? By what means do you normally accomplish that? Set a straw bale on fire?

 

[MAK]

Who told you that? Canned smoke that is used properly (key word), is perfectly fine to test smoke detectors and actually is the recommended method of most manufacturers. We (fire department) do it all the time, and actually is required to pass fire inspection, magnetic contact closure is not acceptable, the Chief wants to see smoke activation.

Let me first say I have yet to work on any fire alarm systems. The company I work for does not install or maintain them. I am trying to learn about them and installation practices from whatever media I can.
Some of my colleagues who do work on fire stated that canned smoke was a no no. That maybe an AHJ thing in the areas they work in.

After reading Bobs post (a Mass. guy) :smile: I am no longer "certain" that canned smoke is a no no.
My curiosity in these systems made me wonder how one could be deployed in a commercial setting (presumably with smoke detectors installed) tested and not void a smoke detector.
I see that I may have been misled.

 

[peter d]

I was told that you are not allowed to use "canned smoke" to test smoke detectors.

Next week we are doing a fire alarm test and the AHJ wants us to use a wick to test the smoke detectors. (We bought the wick at ADI.) So there is some truth to that, some AHJ's want real smoke to test the system.

 

[MAK]

Next week we are doing a fire alarm test and the AHJ wants us to use a wick to test the smoke detectors. (We bought the wick at ADI.) So there is some truth to that, some AHJ's want real smoke to test the system.

I see then it is/can be a local requirement. I guess then it warrants checking with the powers that be on how they want the tests performed.

 

[peter d]

I guess then it warrants checking with the powers that be on how they want the tests performed.

Yes, that is the bottom line. When it comes to the final testing and approval of FA systems, it's basically the AHJ's way or you don't get signed off.

 

[iwire]

Huh? By what means do you normally accomplish that? Set a straw bale on fire?

I have used a burning paper towel. :grin:

But we own a tool that accomplishes this safely

At the operator end it has a battery powered fan and a place to place a burning 'punk'.

To this you add as many poles as you need to reach the SD, at the end of the pole(s) you have a head that surrounds the SD.

Now you push a button and the fan forces the smoke from the punk up to the detector, once it trips you hit another button the fan reverses and drags clean air back through the detector.

I tried to find it on the web but I do not know who makes it. I know it is not cheap.

 

[mdshunk]

I know what 'punk' is, because that's what you use on the golf course to keep bugs away from you. Never seen the gadget to deliver it to the smoke detector.

 

[cschmid]

We have can smoke and it works good..We also have these sticks that you light and it just emitts smoke no flame and I like them as well..But I do not know who makes them off the top of my head..I only smoke test twice a year and when someone is in doubt I use can smoke..I am always open to new ideas..:smile:

 

[nakulak]

Huh? By what means do you normally accomplish that? Set a straw bale on fire?

no, I used to keep a pack of smokes in my truck even though I quit smoking. I had a firemarshall insist on real smoke, and I had to do the "thru the pipe blow the smoke" to get the thing to go off even though there were no smoking signs

 

[Weaver Road]

Very Interesting

Very Interesting

As an inspector for an AHJ, I have the chance to do this quite a bit. I am aware that some of my fellow inspectors do free-lance their own rules. I find that unfortunate to say the least. While I want to go home each day feeling I can sleep well because I made sure an install was done safely, I always must revert to the code. While local codes in certain areas can be completely legit, the typical standard is, as we all know, NFPA 72. The testing methods are clearly laid out for us. Where the book leaves off on prescriptive requirements, the manufactureres listing (UL, FM, etc.) fills in. Test it as designed and approved by the listing agency and manufacturer. This helps both sides. I'm lucky that my entire state is governed by the same requirements: 2002 NFPA 72, here's the excerpt I am referring to: "Testing with smoke or listed aerosol approved by the manufacturer shall be permitted as acceptable test methods. Other methods approved by the manufacturer that ensure smoke entry into the sensing chamber shall be permitted." That's from Table 10.4.2.2 13 G. As long as the installer is following this, I cannot ask for another method.

I am completely happy to have a vendor politlely challenge my requirements. Again, I expect a professional demeanor, and I will always give the same in return: I am human and I make mistakes, so check with me, you might be right. If I can't prove it in the book or by consulting with NFPA, ICC etc., I can't make you do it!