FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: John@EPL on April 12, 2008, 05:09:37 PM
-
Hi all, I have been finding testing rafiki (twinflex) detectors a bit more time consuming to test than conventional detectors. They need a good old spray form various angles, and then they think about it for 20 seconds or so.
Question: Am I missing something? Has someone worked out a better technique when smoking these pods?
I don't own a set of solo poles but was thinking of recreating the smoke chamber to smoke soak the pods using half a pop bottle or something, just to see whether they like to be soaked rather than sprayed, before I invest in a set of poles I wont use that often.
Anyone with lots of rafiki experience recommend a technique?
Also I have found the cheapest place to find replacement detectors is sdfire on internet. No one seems to sell just the inner detector part, just the full pod with base and defuser as well.. Are they available? as when changing a detector there is rarely a need to change the base or defuser just the electronics bit.
thanks
john
-
I have just looked on the rafiki site and they say I can change a contaminated optical chamber but keep the multipont (electronic bit). To me the chamber ( the first detachable plastic cover on the pod) doesnt have much too it. Molded plastic and a bit of mesh. I know this system is quite clever , but again am I missing something??
-
John ,
In my opinion in using a held held can on any commercial detector is contaminating it , although I know the spray has been greatly improved from the early days and less greasy , you are flooding the chamber . If anything I would suggest you invest maybe in the new Solo Kit , the boys have already posted a thread on this.
You would probably stand more chance with the old smoke pole , that had the tip at the end that generated smoke , although most people always moan about the pungent smell left behind after testing.
Have a look at the Sandown Fire-Expo thread under the search section , you might find it useful
-
I don't know if it's the case with Rafiki but many detectors now incorporate false alarm discrimination circuitry that tends to cause a slower response to testing using aerosols. It is definitely the case with Apollo Discovery. I have found that the same amount of spray but waiting a longer time for a reaction is what is required. i.e. don't keep soaking the detector with lots of spray but use the normal amount and just wait a bit longer!
The earlier post's reference to a new tester can be found at:
http://www.fire.org.uk/punbb/upload/viewtopic.php?id=2738
-
I think it might be the case that they have the false alarm circuits. Will phone rafiki on monday to see what they say. I also found that they triggered after about 20 seconds regardless of the amount of stimulus. They do have an unusual chamber design, where as say appolo are very open the sensors on these are tucked away in the center of the baffle which makes them tricky to test anyway as unless you fill a chamber with smoke around it you would have to spray in a direction through the baffles.
I agree on the spray front. It isn't great stuff although better now, but it must leave residue on the sensors. I currently don't favour the poles as most of my testing is around HMO student properties (dirty blunt end of the market)which only get serviced and fully tested once a year( yes I know, I keep telling them too, but the council only stipulates yearly test and service). I like to getup on my ladder blow out the dust and check the wiring and dates on detectors when I take on new properties. Most of them haven't been well looked after or serviced so I like to take stock. So having the poles most of the time doesn't suit me. If I was weekly testing on office or commercial systems that I knew were professionally installed in a clean environment the poles would be a winner.
Not to say I wouldn't spend the money if they proved the way forward in not damaging the detectors plus smoke , heat and Carbon in one, soooo how much are they ones with what looks like a remote control stuck on them worth?
-
i find the hand held spray to be useless as it does not hang around after its sprayed. Any room near an open door or ventilation is even worse to test a detector.
The solo cup keeps the test aerosol in the detector so testing is much easier and quicker. Buy a Solo kit as you are wasting man hours using a can and as mentioned before the can contaminates the chamber.
Solo make a bigger cup version for larger detectors
-
John,
I've done a bit of work on these systems, they are quite complex. Each detector can have 3 levels of sensitivity to smoke, could this maybe be the reason why they take so long??
-
Hi Graeme and Jonny,
The 3 levels of smoke detection seems to allow for a ion , somewhere in between, or optical bias How it works it out I'm not sure, but I guess the price of replacement detectors answers that. I did try the smoke 1,2 &3 settings much the same response. I will update you tomorrow on what rafiki help line say. I will be testing a house this week with a rafiki system in it, so dependant on what raffiki recommend Will borrow a set of solo poles for the day and give it a whirl.
-
............ Will borrow a set of solo poles for the day and give it a whirl.
John, email me first if you ever consider buying your own Solo kit
-
Hi Graeme and Jonny,
The 3 levels of smoke detection seems to allow for a ion , somewhere in between, or optical bias How it works it out I'm not sure, but I guess the price of replacement detectors answers that. I did try the smoke 1,2 &3 settings much the same response. I will update you tomorrow on what rafiki help line say. I will be testing a house this week with a rafiki system in it, so dependant on what raffiki recommend Will borrow a set of solo poles for the day and give it a whirl.
John - I fthought that the areplies given on the other site would have been sufficient as you seem to be getting the same answers.
-
Hi Graeme and Jonny,
The 3 levels of smoke detection seems to allow for a ion , somewhere in between, or optical bias How it works it out I'm not sure, but I guess the price of replacement detectors answers that. I did try the smoke 1,2 &3 settings much the same response. I will update you tomorrow on what rafiki help line say. I will be testing a house this week with a rafiki system in it, so dependant on what raffiki recommend Will borrow a set of solo poles for the day and give it a whirl.
John - I fthought that the are plies given on the other site would have been sufficient as you seem to be getting the same answers.
Hi Buzzard,
Are you referring to the same question I posted on the security installer site? if so my post was moved somewhere on the forum I don't seem to have access to ( or if I do I can't find it). I asked admin where my post got moved to but I have had no reply. It was at this point I posted the question here hence I have replied to postings on this site only. Will contact admin again to see where my post went as I don't want people to think I am ungrateful for their input on the security installers website.May be because I have only just got trade membership and maybe privileges not set right or something. Thanks for informing me.
Back to rafiki :
Called tech help today. The detectors do incorporate a false alarm circuit. However on smoke 2 (ion) mode the response should be more instantaneous, smoke 3 setting more delayed. They recommended when testing on smoke 3 a few short bursts of smoke and put on a dust cap for the pod to keep the smoke in. Due to the angle of the baffles in the pod they said they have been having reports of difficulty testing heat detectors with poles as the the heat can't be angled in effectively.
The replacement outer chambers advertised are caps with mesh filters that apparently are monitored in the pods software for contamination and are sold separately ( if required) as they don't respond greatly to vacuuming or cleaning on site. Ideal for heavy dust or insect prone environments.
Thanks all for your comments
John
-
Sorry John,I hadn't realised - glad to see you got your posting access sorted.
-
Back to rafiki :
Called tech help today. The detectors do incorporate a false alarm circuit. However on smoke 2 (ion) mode the response should be more instantaneous, smoke 3 setting more delayed. They recommended when testing on smoke 3 a few short bursts of smoke and put on a dust cap for the pod to keep the smoke in. Due to the angle of the baffles in the pod they said they have been having reports of difficulty testing heat detectors with poles as the the heat can't be angled in effectively.
John
Well fitting caps is a great idea when the detector is 15 ft up in the air.... !!
And regards the angle of the heat source.... lets hope if there is a real fire the thermals are travelling the right way too...... :)
-
Back to rafiki :
Called tech help today. The detectors do incorporate a false alarm circuit. However on smoke 2 (ion) mode the response should be more instantaneous, smoke 3 setting more delayed. They recommended when testing on smoke 3 a few short bursts of smoke and put on a dust cap for the pod to keep the smoke in. Due to the angle of the baffles in the pod they said they have been having reports of difficulty testing heat detectors with poles as the the heat can't be angled in effectively.
John
Well fitting caps is a great idea when the detector is 15 ft up in the air.... !!
And regards the angle of the heat source.... lets hope if there is a real fire the thermals are travelling the right way too...... :)
Was thinking that myself - sounds like a bench monkey to me giving that advice!!!
-
Its not the first time I have read about heat testing then being tricky tho, but can't remember where I saw it. Can anyone with solo poles with heat comment if they have tested raffiki multipoints? Maybe something to do with the diameter of the detector, they are much larger than normal detectors. I have noticed solo do 2 sizes of cup, but I guess they are for mains interlinked heat and smoke detectors, maybe they need to be tested with the larger cup??? They don't have openings on the top of the detector either, heat has to come horizontally through the side baffles. Probably not a problem if there is a fire in the room as when heat hits the ceiling it will disperse sideways,, may be a cup tester is a bit vertical. Maybe I'm thinking too much about it or talking rubbish!!!!
Either way, I know some installers love them due to quick and easy installation but I'm not convinced, The detectors seem to die at about 5-8 yrs and they are between £25-55 each depending on where you buy them, which never makes for a cheap service. I think they are a bit complex and suffer on reliability for it. I think conventional system is cheaper to run over the long term.
-
Its not the first time I have read about heat testing then being tricky tho, but can't remember where I saw it. Can anyone with solo poles with heat comment if they have tested raffiki multipoints? Maybe something to do with the diameter of the detector, they are much larger than normal detectors. I have noticed solo do 2 sizes of cup, but I guess they are for mains interlinked heat and smoke detectors, maybe they need to be tested with the larger cup??? They don't have openings on the top of the detector either, heat has to come horizontally through the side baffles. Probably not a problem if there is a fire in the room as when heat hits the ceiling it will disperse sideways,, may be a cup tester is a bit vertical. Maybe I'm thinking too much about it or talking rubbish!!!!
Either way, I know some installers love them due to quick and easy installation but I'm not convinced, The detectors seem to die at about 5-8 yrs and they are between £25-55 each depending on where you buy them, which never makes for a cheap service. I think they are a bit complex and suffer on reliability for it. I think conventional system is cheaper to run over the long term.
Speaking on a personal opinion capacity the Rafikki gear fills the electrical contractor market in that they are a good first install then run type of product.It's the maintenance guys after who get the headaches.
-
Its not the first time I have read about heat testing then being tricky tho, but can't remember where I saw it. Can anyone with solo poles with heat comment if they have tested raffiki multipoints? Maybe something to do with the diameter of the detector, they are much larger than normal detectors. I have noticed solo do 2 sizes of cup, but I guess they are for mains interlinked heat and smoke detectors, maybe they need to be tested with the larger cup??? They don't have openings on the top of the detector either, heat has to come horizontally through the side baffles. Probably not a problem if there is a fire in the room as when heat hits the ceiling it will disperse sideways,, may be a cup tester is a bit vertical. Maybe I'm thinking too much about it or talking rubbish!!!!
Either way, I know some installers love them due to quick and easy installation but I'm not convinced, The detectors seem to die at about 5-8 yrs and they are between £25-55 each depending on where you buy them, which never makes for a cheap service. I think they are a bit complex and suffer on reliability for it. I think conventional system is cheaper to run over the long term.
Speaking on a personal opinion capacity the Rafikki gear fills the electrical contractor market in that they are a good first install then run type of product.It's the maintenance guys after who get the headaches.
I agree, here in Northern Ireland they are becoming more popular, I have definitely found that the reliability of the detectors is terrible. Would probably be fine for a bedsit type, student accommodation.
-
Loved the two other products that this guy did first , the Roshni and Squashni sounders , did not rate this fire panel and devices in the same way.
-
I find the rafiki twinflex systems better and more reliable. As someof the replies above Imight repeat some of them. I find it easy to test my detctors. The cheap and cheerful way is to stick the multipoint orange dust cover onto a broom stick or hoover pipe and when sprayed with detector tester hold the dust cover around the detector until it starts flashing and thn goes into alarm. Also dont bother replacing the bas and elctronics module. Just buy the whole multipoint and only put on the parts required and keep the rest as it ybe needed if one goes faulty
Just reply if you need any more help
-
Solo poles are o.k for smoke testing but in the standard heat guns just go for a hairdryer.
I find them quite unreliable and the panels o.k for install, rubbish on servicing. Just my way of thinking, i personally like the sms panels best, does anybody out there agree?
-
I have to agree, I find the panels a pain. I loose count the amount of times I pull the power rather than listening to the long piercing panel buzzer when you've pressed too many buttons too quickly. Sometimes you just can't seem to reset them.
Got called out on Saturday morning at 7am. Yup another rafiki. This one another detector fault going into fire.
Install under 5 yrs old. I did an inspection on it only a month or so ago.
I can see their popularity in installation , especially due to the price of cable these days.
-
Solo poles are o.k for smoke testing but in the standard heat guns just go for a hairdryer.
I find them quite unreliable and the panels o.k for install, rubbish on servicing. Just my way of thinking, i personally like the sms panels best, does anybody out there agree?
hairdryer is another option if you can be bothered to carry an extension lead and ladders everywhere.
The solo cuts out at 90 so you dont damage the detector housing.
saying that though-how are you expected to test 100 HD and above without a heat gun and this could be a "naked flame" as per BS?
-
Solo poles are o.k for smoke testing but in the standard heat guns just go for a hairdryer.
I find them quite unreliable and the panels o.k for install, rubbish on servicing. Just my way of thinking, i personally like the sms panels best, does anybody out there agree?
hairdryer is another option if you can be bothered to carry an extension lead and ladders everywhere.
The solo cuts out at 90 so you dont damage the detector housing.
saying that though-how are you expected to test 100 HD and above without a heat gun and this could be a "naked flame" as per BS?
Battery one is ok for standard heats but,as Graham has said,useless on anything else (have a site with a shedload of Fenwall stats on it - thankfully I have the mains version which is superquick and doesn't cut out).
-
What I do when I test these devices is get the head removal ool and attatch a hoover pipe or something similar onto the end of it and then spray the detector tester spray through the bottom of the tube and it goes off twice as fast because the little plastic tabs fit straight into the chamber and directs the spray into the optical chamber under the thin mesh.
-
What I do when I test these devices is get the head removal ool and attatch a hoover pipe or something similar onto the end of it and then spray the detector tester spray through the bottom of the tube and it goes off twice as fast because the little plastic tabs fit straight into the chamber and directs the spray into the optical chamber under the thin mesh.
Be careful with the residue out of the test gas - you can see it gathering under the proper tester which diffuses it before it gets to the detector.
Do you do fire alarm maintenance full time?
-
Solo poles are o.k for smoke testing but in the standard heat guns just go for a hairdryer.
I find them quite unreliable and the panels o.k for install, rubbish on servicing. Just my way of thinking, i personally like the sms panels best, does anybody out there agree?
No!
SMS (Gent xenex) are not the worst but can be unreliable. (They used to be very unreliable until a few years ago).
Kentec Sigma (we use the 2 wire version) are excellent tho not cheap.
For replacement panels we often use the CTEC MFP (note "MFP" for those who knock CTEC) this is one of the best panels ever, although now showing its age.
-
rafiki may be some old junk , other weise it is good
-
What I do when I test these devices is get the head removal ool and attatch a hoover pipe or something similar onto the end of it and then spray the detector tester spray through the bottom of the tube and it goes off twice as fast because the little plastic tabs fit straight into the chamber and directs the spray into the optical chamber under the thin mesh.
oh dear!!!
-
What I do when I test these devices is get the head removal ool and attatch a hoover pipe or something similar onto the end of it and then spray the detector tester spray through the bottom of the tube and it goes off twice as fast because the little plastic tabs fit straight into the chamber and directs the spray into the optical chamber under the thin mesh.
You are testing a duct detector then!
I think it is better to test detectors from any angle and in an open air environment ..., to make a normal world simulation...
-
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.
-
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),
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!)
-
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
-
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
-
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!
-
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
-
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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..
-
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,
-
The EOL is set on the DIL switches and then the det or bgcp flashes to let you know that it's the EOL.
-
Detectors
one flash every 5 secs = EOL
one flash every 20 secs = OK
one flash every 1.5 secs = faulty detector / loose chamber
rapid flashing = detector in fire condition
call points, no flash = ok (or not connected!)
I hate these things, the theory is excellent but in practice - yeuch!
We make lots on call outs tho.
-
Yep you are right, I only yesterday had a phone call from someone asking if we can have a look at there fire alarm system fitted just over a 1 year ago and it keeps going into fault. Aparently the electrician who fitted it says he only gives a years warrenty and does not do maintenance.
Guess what it is "Yep Rafiki"
-
The only Rafiki i have commissioned i got the pleasure of getting the manual thrown at me by the sparky.
he had done his job-run all the cables on top of the suspended ceiling. used nylon ties throughout. not set up any sound levels or detector types. Guessed the spacings.
etc etc
according to him all i had to do was "blow smoke into everything"
and in aacordance with Rafiki recomendations-no cable routes on drawings and i had an open circuit fault...
the big irony in this is the site i mentioned before is gardiners who are currently flogging FIA courses to us all to prove our competance and pushing BAFE but sell systems obviously aimed at sparkies with none of the above.
-
Graeme,
You don't use gardiners do you?. Great for getting your staff through the FIA courses but as for back up and prices you really can do better, have you tried EU fire, if you want a company where they have really good expert knowledge on fire equipment they are really good. Pm me if you want further details.
-
The only Rafiki i have commissioned i got the pleasure of getting the manual thrown at me by the sparky.
he had done his job-run all the cables on top of the suspended ceiling. used nylon ties throughout. not set up any sound levels or detector types. Guessed the spacings.
etc etc
according to him all i had to do was "blow smoke into everything"
The commissioning engineer always runs the risk of upsetting the system designer or system installer. It can also lead to a loss of future business.
This is because the general term 'commissioning' has a defintion of 'putting into operation' to most people whereas the BS term includes much more.
An offer of a Fire alarm commissioning service to BS should clearly include a description of what it includes (this will also go someway to explain the 'high' cost) and specifically that deviations (I used that word purposely so it isn't confused with variations) from BS will be included on the certificate and explained in such a way that the commissioning purchaser realises the implications of those deviations being recorded.
The question I ask is should a 'businessman' also offer a service that basically involves just 'blowing smoke into everything' if that is only what the customer wants? (as long as the customer clearly realises that this is not a BS commissioning)
-
I suppose it depends how you set your stall out. I can only comment on my company, but we are doing less and less commissioning now but, as we hold the British Standard Kitemark to BS839-1 we will only carry out commissioning to BS5839-1 nothing eles. And yes we have often failed work carried out by people who give us quite a lot of work. I recently failed a job one of my very best friends had installed, although he was disapointed he did appriciate my reasons and then put them right.
-
Graeme,
You don't use gardiners do you?. Great for getting your staff through the FIA courses but as for back up and prices you really can do better, have you tried EU fire, if you want a company where they have really good expert knowledge on fire equipment they are really good. Pm me if you want further details.
Thanks Thomas
use them now and again but not for the main products, mostly because of what you have mentioned on price.
-
I suppose it depends how you set your stall out. I can only comment on my company, but we are doing less and less commissioning now but, as we hold the British Standard Kitemark to BS839-1 we will only carry out commissioning to BS5839-1 nothing eles. And yes we have often failed work carried out by people who give us quite a lot of work. I recently failed a job one of my very best friends had installed, although he was disapointed he did appriciate my reasons and then put them right.
same.
i end up upsetting a few contractors when they get the certificate that reads more like an essay but i won't put neck on the line for their lack of knowledge and corner cutting.
-
Best thing for rafiki in my humble opinion is a lump hammer.
A childs toy car seems to have better quality build ?? ( alledgedley ) than some of the rafiki detection i have seen.
-
Only this week i had a pub manager phone us. " can you come out and have a look at our fire alarm, its only been in a couple of years".
Arrive at site, its Rafiki.
-
Any Rafiki system we have inherited gets ripped out , as the client is fed up with call outs , we always use Protector Alarms as we have never had any aggro with their stuff in over 20 years.