Waterflow bell question

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ChopperDan

New member
I have been an electrician for along time but now work for a fire alarm company.

What I have is a water flow switch wired to the FACP (low voltage) with FPLR. We are good there. Now a 120v bell must be added and I was being told to use the extra contacts on the existing switch. :mad:

Art 300.3.c.1 States that it can be done if the insulation rating was of the higher voltage (it isn't) or fpn 725.55 I fail to see anything in 725.55 allowing this.

I'm looking for your thoughts on this.

My solution is to add an addressable relay, map it to the flow sw, program it as no silence able and use it to switch the bell power.:grin:
Thanks,
Dan
 
I had to wire one of these in a Walgreens store once in a similar fashion. The bell was added later so we simply used an addressable relay. Done, end of story. :)
 
iwire said:
Not a problem.

Forget 725 and look at 760.136(D)
Click to expand...

he being far wiser than I, he sure doesn't need my support, but I agree with I-wire: 760.136
that section in mind, I don't see a problem (Bob may or may not agree with that)
 
ChopperDan said:
I have been an electrician for along time but now work for a fire alarm company.

What I have is a water flow switch wired to the FACP (low voltage) with FPLR. We are good there. Now a 120v bell must be added and I was being told to use the extra contacts on the existing switch. :mad:

Art 300.3.c.1 States that it can be done if the insulation rating was of the higher voltage (it isn't) or fpn 725.55 I fail to see anything in 725.55 allowing this.

I'm looking for your thoughts on this.

My solution is to add an addressable relay, map it to the flow sw, program it as no silence able and use it to switch the bell power.:grin:
Thanks,
Dan
Click to expand...

The outside bell (Siamese Connection location) Should be independent of the Fire Alarm system, Check with your local AHJ but most require it independent in case the FACP fails. By having a Mechanical switch it eliminates any electronics, you could have thousands of gallons of water blowing all over a building and never know it if say a processor locks up or a programming error wasn't caught on inspection / testing.
 
Stallzer said:
The outside bell (Siamese Connection location) Should be independent of the Fire Alarm system, Check with your local AHJ but most require it independent in case the FACP fails. By having a Mechanical switch it eliminates any electronics, you could have thousands of gallons of water blowing all over a building and never know it if say a processor locks up or a programming error wasn't caught on inspection / testing.
Click to expand...

Well, the AHJ just don't pull that requirement out of the Air did they?

What does a battery back-up of a FACP do to possible of the installment of a Bell?

I don't know, I'm just asking. But I do have some questions for the sprinkler man now...
 
In my area each city and town is different, I have seen it each way mentioned here.

Sprinkler Bell FACP controlled

Sprinkler Bell 120 volt independent of FACP

Sprinkler Bell driven mechanically by water flow


Ask the AHJ:D

But as far as the OPs question it is legal to have FACP wiring and 120 volt wiring in the same flow switch.
 
I'm trying to sort this one out, and am not seeing the same problem you are. Perhaps with more info I would see something differently, but what you describe is a dime a dozen install, required in many areas in the format you speak of. I've never had an issue with this install because:

1. the Potter VSR flow switch (which is by far the most common) has a full height divider between the contact sets, thus eliminating any concern regarding voltage differences as it is effectively two boxes with one cover.

2. FPLR generally has a 300v. rating, so it will reside nicely, and legally, in the same box with a 120v. circuit.


Incidentally, if you did manage to stumble across some FPLR with a rating less than 120v. wouldn't the easy fix be to land the FPLR in a junction box next to the switch and then splice on some THHN leads in a whip to the switch? Worst you'd do is lose your shield and drain for 18"
 
I'm trying to sort this one out, and am not seeing the same problem you are.

1. ...
2. ...

Incidentally, if you did manage to stumble across some FPLR with a rating less than 120v. wouldn't the easy fix be to land the FPLR in a junction box next to the switch and then splice on some THHN leads in a whip to the switch? Worst you'd do is lose your shield and drain for 18"
Click to expand...

I'll agree on 1 and 2, but I have a minor thought about the above statement.
First there should never be any lost of any part in a fire manifold, can I make that layman statement?
100% is required, loaded & hot all the time.

Would you use different colors than B&W since you want to throw in some THHN ?
 
Not sure I follow CadPoint. FWIW I would use the same loop conductor colors just to eliminate any future confusion during sytem maintenance/retrofit. But it turns out electrons are colorblind and therefore jacket color is ultimately insignificant. As to my suggestion, I would agree with you on certain systems. The reality is, I have seen very few systems in the last several years that have a requirement for sheilded cable in general application (even Simplex is phasing out the use of sheilded cable in most applications.) PL signaling circuits on THHN and really quite common and generally accepted. arguably they are a better, or at least easier and more cost effective wiring method on systems where pipe and wire are required. FPLR/FPLP is obviously what one wants when freewiring is the method allowed/used. Even at that, the trend is heavily towords non sheilded configurations in most environments. At this point, unless spec'd. otherwise, we only use sheilded pair for speaker wiring.

But, perhaps I should have clarified my statement. -if the FACP manufacturer and/or FA engineer have made no requirement for sheilding, then I would transition to THHN. You are correct, there are still a few systems / environments where sheilded cable is required or preferred. Mostly, that is no longer the case.
 
You stated earlier that there was a drain of a 18" in a fire manifold as I read it.
I don't beleive that 's allowed thats all I'm saying! :grin:

With any application of modern day FDCP it might be assumed that any or all possible combinations could well be covered IE protected, I can't go with any release of any part of service, and still be protected or not fault to alarm!
 
cadpoint said:
You stated earlier that there was a drain of a 18" in a fire manifold as I read it.
I don't beleive that 's allowed thats all I'm saying! :grin:

With any application of modern day FDCP it might be assumed that any or all possible combinations could well be covered IE protected, I can't go with any release of any part of service, and still be protected or not fault to alarm!
Click to expand...

So the 18" drain in the manifold is not allowed (and would be very messy) and the "drain" in the facp loop conductors is unusally not required at all, but sometimes is... wow a person really needs to keep their "drains" straight in this business :-? :D
 
ElectronDance said:
So the 18" drain in the manifold is not allowed (and would be very messy) and the "drain" in the facp loop conductors is unusally not required at all, but sometimes is... wow a person really needs to keep their "drains" straight in this business :-? :D
Click to expand...

Ok I'll clearify as I read it!
It drained not free drained out of a tap!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top