RAfiki detectors

[Allen Higginson]

Just reading this thread made my go into a cold sweat!!!!!!!.

Testing with hover pipes hair dryers what next, lets get out the blow torch or maybe start a small fire in a bin!!.


If you ask any of the manufactures most if not all recomend using a system like the solo ones and most do not recomend spraying the black can stuff into the heads. Anyone who tests a lot with a defuser will tell you that you get a massive build up of a greasy substance in the defuser. Now if this grease was to build up in the head it would soon start malfunctioning.

As for testing with the  hover pipes and hair dryers, I will just say this if you contact the below four bodies and they say test with the hover poles and a hair dryer are the way to test smoke and heat detectors send me their written reports and I will eat my Solo test gear.

a) The manufactures of detectors (rafiki, apollo, Hochiki)
b) British Standards
c) The Health and Safety Exec
d) NIC EIC or ECA (electrical governing bodies)


Ps my opinion of Rafiki is very low, we will not stock it, Sparky's seem to love it as it has been marketed as a easy way for them to bang in a fire alarm and walk away.

Hello Thomas and welcome.The issue of spraying test gas by any means other than a diffuser has been agreed as,to put it mildly,bad practice for the very reason you (and others,myself included) have given.However,I see no issue in using a hairdrier for testing heat detectors where the battery powered heat tester will not activate the detector,provided it is used in a safe manner (I stopped tie wrapping it to my poles years ago),

[Thomas Brookes]

Hello Buzzard905.

Just to clarify the position I have emailed both Apollo and Hochiki to see what their recomendations are, and this is the reply from Hochiki.

Hello Mr. Brookes

We recommend that you use Solo test equipment to test our detectors as it has been designed for that purpose.

The reason being is that spraying can smoke by hand can contaminate the smoke detector chamber. The Solo uses a different formula and delivers a controlled amount of smoke. Using a hair dryer to test a detector can melt or damage the detector, where Solo is a controlled heat test.  

Best Regards
Mark Dale
Technical Support Engineer
Hochiki Europe (UK) Limited
Tel: +44 (0) 1634 260131
Fax: +44 (0) 1634 260132
E-mail: mailto:mdale@hochikieurope.com
Web: www.hochikieurope.com

Looking at that I would say anyone testing with hair dryers is not carrying out maintenance to the manufactures requirements or even complying with H&S at work act etc. and if nothing else it does not look very professional. I will post apollo's reply when I get it.

[Graeme]

Thomas

Tell us something that we don't already know.

Read again and you will see that reply posts "shot down" a new members remarks about using tubes with smoke cans and a hair dryer as an "all else fails" alternative to the Solo Cat tester.I have always used the solo tester.

Interested to see how you test heat detectors fixed at a rate above 90 degrees as the solo kit won't. I have already asked a manufacturer on how they can be tested and i was told a heat gun but i would guess that this would be a naked flame and therefore not to BS.

Also Hawko heat probes which even a haidryer won't look at.

another question aimed at Solo.  If the black cans leave a residue in the chambers then why is it sold as a hand held spray tester?

[Allen Higginson]

Hello Buzzard905.

Just to clarify the position I have emailed both Apollo and Hochiki to see what their recomendations are, and this is the reply from Hochiki.

Hello Mr. Brookes

We recommend that you use Solo test equipment to test our detectors as it has been designed for that purpose.

The reason being is that spraying can smoke by hand can contaminate the smoke detector chamber. The Solo uses a different formula and delivers a controlled amount of smoke. Using a hair dryer to test a detector can melt or damage the detector, where Solo is a controlled heat test.  

Best Regards
Mark Dale
Technical Support Engineer
Hochiki Europe (UK) Limited
Tel: +44 (0) 1634 260131
Fax: +44 (0) 1634 260132
E-mail: mailto:mdale@hochikieurope.com
Web: www.hochikieurope.com

Looking at that I would say anyone testing with hair dryers is not carrying out maintenance to the manufactures requirements or even complying with H&S at work act etc. and if nothing else it does not look very professional. I will post apollo's reply when I get it.

In fairness Thomas I don't need to see what Apollo says - the solo tester is useless for testing high temp heat detectors,plain and simple.If you do manage to get it to activate high temp detectors and you have a lot of them to test then you may buy a LOT of spare batteries.
Personally I don't use the hairdryer method but have a 240vac solo tester which works a treat (but is a glorified hairdryer!)

[Thomas Brookes]

To be fair we have always had wired solo's for high temp detectors, but another point is you need a really good reason to have a detector that only activates at 90 degrees. We service in excess of 6000 fire alarms per year and I can count the jobs that need 90 degree detectors on one hand.

You will have to excuse me, but I do not know what its like where you are based but in Lincolnshire we have a lot of sparkys who do use blow torches, matches  and hairdryers to test fire alarms and to be honest it sickens me that these people can not even go to the effort of having the correct test gear let alone British Standards and proper training, they just use the we are qualified electricians and we know best attitude.

Happy testing

[Graeme]

Thomas

I agree the need for 90 degree and above HD is rare but i have a few sites that require them.

I really like and agree with your attitude regards sparkies and if you search some of my recent posts you will see why.

You have the same attitude regards getting things done right on this forum as with most engineer members,so maybe got off on the wrong foot,so please stick around as you obviously have some worth while knowledge to pass on.

G

[Benzerari]

We recommend that you use Solo test equipment to test our detectors as it has been designed for that purpose.

The reason being is that spraying can smoke by hand can contaminate the smoke detector chamber. The Solo uses a different formula and delivers a controlled amount of smoke.

.

Thank you Thomas for this info;

Why Manufacturers still selling the 'hand spraying can' then, and how they contaminate the smoke detector chamber ?

If spraying with 'spraying can' gives more smoke to the chamber also mixed with air particles that would not make any difference when testing with solo, otherwise what they mean by contaminate the detector chamber then.

I think this statement needs more clear interpretations, I would like know more about that

How can you confirm, if some one is a good sweemer if he doesn't get wet. Air particles have to get into the chamber any way, with spray particles or without. otherwise how can the readings gives analogue values then ?

I personaly want to know more about this statement!

[Thomas Brookes]

I am not a scientist so can only speak from our exeperence and the info we have gathered over the last 20 yrs and from training courses such as BFPSA ones (now known as FIA) etc.

Any how we have about 12 solo smoke tester units and every single one after being used for a month or so is gunked up where the spray is directly sprayed at the defuser. I assume the defuser is their to stop the oily substance from going directly into the head.

For more technical information I would contact no climb but I have got this snipet off a solo site.

This is a patented elasticized diaphragm that enables just the sensing chamber of the detector to be enclosed within the cup and a sufficient seal achieved. Not needing to enclose the detector enables a smaller, less unwieldy cup to be used. The Solo range is unique in this feature (although, of course, larger cups are available for the largest detectors or those in 'cages'.

Residue occurs when a liquid particle impacts a surface 'too early'. Hand held aerosols are often misused with this result. Not only does the Solo dispenser range prevent this inadvertent misuse but it also slows aerosol flow – very important for increasingly sophisticated detector algorithms that are 'knocked over' by fast moving aerosol

[Benzerari]

I am not a scientist so can only speak from our exeperence and the info we have gathered over the last 20 yrs and from training courses such as BFPSA ones (now known as FIA) etc.

Any how we have about 12 solo smoke tester units and every single one after being used for a month or so is gunked up where the spray is directly sprayed at the defuser. I assume the defuser is their to stop the oily substance from going directly into the head.

For more technical information I would contact no climb but I have got this snipet off a solo site.

This is a patented elasticized diaphragm that enables just the sensing chamber of the detector to be enclosed within the cup and a sufficient seal achieved. Not needing to enclose the detector enables a smaller, less unwieldy cup to be used. The Solo range is unique in this feature (although, of course, larger cups are available for the largest detectors or those in 'cages'.

Residue occurs when a liquid particle impacts a surface 'too early'. Hand held aerosols are often misused with this result. Not only does the Solo dispenser range prevent this inadvertent misuse but it also slows aerosol flow – very important for increasingly sophisticated detector algorithms that are 'knocked over' by fast moving aerosol

Very interesting reply Thomas;

For a mater of interest, on the label of the 'spray can', there is an indication that the can has to be shacked first before use, in that shaking movement, the liquid becomes gas and then get it ready to spray the chamber without leaving significant amount of residue or liquid droplets.

But when using Solo (Pole) how can that be practical, or how often should we remove first the can to shack it and than fit it back into the pole to get nearly pure gas particles instead of liquid particles… in my understanding then the pole is contaminator more than a ‘handy spray can’ isn’t  

I personally would like to know as well, what is the guaranty that, a well tested head with ‘spray can’ will detect or behave properly in case of genuine fire?

[Allen Higginson]

Thomas

I agree the need for 90 degree and above HD is rare but i have a few sites that require them.

I really like and agree with your attitude regards sparkies and if you search some of my recent posts you will see why.

You have the same attitude regards getting things done right on this forum as with most engineer members,so maybe got off on the wrong foot,so please stick around as you obviously have some worth while knowledge to pass on.

G

I would just like to echo Graemes sentiments Thomas.Although I have few sites which have these high temperature detectors (3 in total) the actual number of detectors is around 150 in total due to operating processes (which is fine) and incorrectly specified by the installation company (which is not fine but they were speced and agreed at design stage for a sprinkler pre-action system).

[Allen Higginson]

I am not a scientist so can only speak from our exeperence and the info we have gathered over the last 20 yrs and from training courses such as BFPSA ones (now known as FIA) etc.

Any how we have about 12 solo smoke tester units and every single one after being used for a month or so is gunked up where the spray is directly sprayed at the defuser. I assume the defuser is their to stop the oily substance from going directly into the head.

For more technical information I would contact no climb but I have got this snipet off a solo site.

This is a patented elasticized diaphragm that enables just the sensing chamber of the detector to be enclosed within the cup and a sufficient seal achieved. Not needing to enclose the detector enables a smaller, less unwieldy cup to be used. The Solo range is unique in this feature (although, of course, larger cups are available for the largest detectors or those in 'cages'.

Residue occurs when a liquid particle impacts a surface 'too early'. Hand held aerosols are often misused with this result. Not only does the Solo dispenser range prevent this inadvertent misuse but it also slows aerosol flow – very important for increasingly sophisticated detector algorithms that are 'knocked over' by fast moving aerosol

Very interesting reply Thomas;

For a mater of interest, on the label of the 'spray can', there is an indication that the can has to be shacked first before use, in that shaking movement, the liquid becomes gas and then get it ready to spray the chamber without leaving significant amount of residue or liquid droplets.

But when using Solo (Pole) how can that be practical, or how often should we remove first the can to shack it and than fit it back into the pole to get nearly pure gas particles instead of liquid particles… in my understanding then the pole is contaminator more than a ‘handy spray can’ isn’t  

I personally would like to know as well, what is the guaranty that, a well tested head with ‘spray can’ will detect or behave properly in case of genuine fire?

The head tester diffuse the liquid particles so is not a contaminator but I shake the can before use before commencing testing (not before every detector though!).
There is no guarantee that a detector (or anything for that natter) will work after testing no matter which method you use,in the same way as the MOT that cars go through only relates to it's road worthiness at the time of testing.

[Benzerari]

I am not a scientist so can only speak from our exeperence and the info we have gathered over the last 20 yrs and from training courses such as BFPSA ones (now known as FIA) etc.

Any how we have about 12 solo smoke tester units and every single one after being used for a month or so is gunked up where the spray is directly sprayed at the defuser. I assume the defuser is their to stop the oily substance from going directly into the head.

For more technical information I would contact no climb but I have got this snipet off a solo site.

This is a patented elasticized diaphragm that enables just the sensing chamber of the detector to be enclosed within the cup and a sufficient seal achieved. Not needing to enclose the detector enables a smaller, less unwieldy cup to be used. The Solo range is unique in this feature (although, of course, larger cups are available for the largest detectors or those in 'cages'.

Residue occurs when a liquid particle impacts a surface 'too early'. Hand held aerosols are often misused with this result. Not only does the Solo dispenser range prevent this inadvertent misuse but it also slows aerosol flow – very important for increasingly sophisticated detector algorithms that are 'knocked over' by fast moving aerosol

Very interesting reply Thomas;

For a mater of interest, on the label of the 'spray can', there is an indication that the can has to be shacked first before use, in that shaking movement, the liquid becomes gas and then get it ready to spray the chamber without leaving significant amount of residue or liquid droplets.

But when using Solo (Pole) how can that be practical, or how often should we remove first the can to shack it and than fit it back into the pole to get nearly pure gas particles instead of liquid particles… in my understanding then the pole is contaminator more than a ‘handy spray can’ isn’t  

I personally would like to know as well, what is the guaranty that, a well tested head with ‘spray can’ will detect or behave properly in case of genuine fire?

The head tester diffuse the liquid particles so is not a contaminator but I shake the can before use before commencing testing (not before every detector though!).
There is no guarantee that a detector (or anything for that natter) will work after testing no matter which method you use,in the same way as the MOT that cars go through only relates to it's road worthiness at the time of testing.

What sort of contamination the head tester or a 'handy spray can' can cause and how, refering to the previous posts?

[Allen Higginson]

Very interesting reply Thomas;

For a mater of interest, on the label of the 'spray can', there is an indication that the can has to be shacked first before use, in that shaking movement, the liquid becomes gas and then get it ready to spray the chamber without leaving significant amount of residue or liquid droplets.

But when using Solo (Pole) how can that be practical, or how often should we remove first the can to shack it and than fit it back into the pole to get nearly pure gas particles instead of liquid particles… in my understanding then the pole is contaminator more than a ‘handy spray can’ isn’t  

I personally would like to know as well, what is the guaranty that, a well tested head with ‘spray can’ will detect or behave properly in case of genuine fire?

The head tester diffuse the liquid particles so is not a contaminator but I shake the can before use before commencing testing (not before every detector though!).
There is no guarantee that a detector (or anything for that natter) will work after testing no matter which method you use,in the same way as the MOT that cars go through only relates to it's road worthiness at the time of testing.

What sort of contamination the head tester or a 'handy spray can' can cause and how, refering to the previous posts?

I think this is getting bogged down a bit now.There is an oily residue comes from the aerosol regardless if you shake it first or not or spray by hand or not.This is why you should not use the "normal" test gas to test aspirating systems and this is from the manufacturers direct.

[Graeme]

Just been looking at a wholesalers catalogue with Rafiki twin flex section.

one of their selling points is that it is Multipoint. easy to install end NO need to worry about marking in and outs.....


great-playing right into the hands of sparkies again who you already have to pull teeth to get them to do it.

what is the point of telling companies not to mark in and outs with cable routes?  Probably because they will do the usual fit and run and if there is a problem i.e cable fault,then they are long gone and it's us mugs left to physically trace cables because there is no as fitted cable routes left on site.

What happened to good practice of always marking up drawings with cable routes?  No need to bother any more as Rafiki says so..

[Galeon]

So out we bring the good old multimeter and chase voltage around the building and lets play find the eol oh no cant read it its an active eol , tell you what i will swap it for a standard resistor , lets play find the eol , here we go again.
It would be nice to find eol stickers , as i am old school we still fit them , which with raffiki gear it is the device via a dil switch that is the eol , perhaps someone can confirm whether this is right,