FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: JonnyG on November 27, 2008, 07:03:59 PM
-
This has been bugging me for a while, We use these quite a lot on larger installs.
Are they compliant with BS?? As far as I'm aware they don't report a fault condition to the panel, unlike the XP95 equivalent.
I found a faulty one today during a sounder test, just didn't sound at all, no fault on the control panel..
Any one have any ideas??
-
This has been bugging me for a while, We use these quite a lot on larger installs.
Are they compliant with BS?? As far as I'm aware they don't report a fault condition to the panel, unlike the XP95 equivalent.
I found a faulty one today during a sounder test, just didn't sound at all, no fault on the control panel..
Any one have any ideas??
Can you display its picture or at least its link ?
-
This has been bugging me for a while, We use these quite a lot on larger installs.
Are they compliant with BS?? As far as I'm aware they don't report a fault condition to the panel, unlike the XP95 equivalent.
I found a faulty one today during a sounder test, just didn't sound at all, no fault on the control panel..
Any one have any ideas??
The ancillary base sounder must be installed under a detector. To physically 'remove' it from the circuit would also require removing the detector which will obviously bring up a 'fault' condition. This is the best you will get.
Is this good enough monitoring? Well imagine installing an electronic sounder (non-addressable) on to a standard monitored sounder circuit - If someone removed it and then reconnected the wires to the circuit you wouldn't be any the wiser. No different from the ancillary sounder.
As for actual reporting of the device not working, this is no different, again, in comparison to a normal sounder. The first you know it's not working is when you physically test it and you can't hear it.
Therefore it is my opinion that the Apollo ancillary base sounder meets BS recommendations equally well as a standard (non-addressable) sounder.
If you want a 'better' loop-powered sounder then choose the Integrated Base Sounder. This has voume control, group addressing and a self-testing facility although, of course it uses an extra address (whereas the ancilary doesn't) and it doesn't cost much morethan the ancillary!
-
Cheers Wiz, that puts a few concerns to rest.
Benz this is it.
http://www.apollo-fire.co.uk/45681-276.html
-
Just to pick up and agree with one of Wiz's points - I had a bell fail during maintenabe yet the panel indicated no fault as it only monitored for open or short circuit on the sounder circuit.
-
As itis triggered from the remote LED output of the detector head and to actually remove the sounder would mean removal of the head as Wiz said it does fully comply.
Apollos statement when I challenged them on this was the above, plus if the integral parts failed after the monitoring of the circuit on any device that wouldn't produce a fault on a standard sounder anyway.
I think it's a bit of a grey area, but they are damn cheap !!!!
-
No cause and effect possible , I bet a few people have been caught out here then.
-
Indeed. Also, you cannot pulse the sounder, nor is the sounder syncronized !!
-
and they don't work on C-tec AFP as you cannot tell the panel there is a sounder with the detector.
-
Benz this is it.
http://www.apollo-fire.co.uk/45681-276.html
We used to call it just 'sounder base', it can be fitted above the detector or on its own, but with additional cover, the conventional version behaves just like a normal Roshni sounder or bell in terms of fault monitoring by means it is like terminal block to inssure continuity of the loop, by removing it, the panel would sees open circuit, and by closing back the loop, the panel clear off the open circuit fault, as the panel keeps looking for the EOL only... etc, if you want to test it individually, you have to test it with spare battery + to + and - to -... etc and see if it sound... etc
If you say it doesn't comply to BS... , so any normal conventional sounders such as Roshni, Squashni, Horn, cryer, Bell, wouldnt comply too! which is not the case
-
Benz, I didn't say it didn't comply with BS. I was asking if it did!!!! ;D
-
A point that bigfella touched upon, the sounder works off the remote led o/p. If you remove the head when in alarm the sounder stops so surely if the ancillary base used the head ought to be locked!
-
Isn't the ancilarry base sounder only a local sounder, in that it only works when the associated detector operates?
This being the case it doesn't operate on a general fire alarm.
Might be wrong though!
-
Buzzard, all ancillary base sounders operate in a fire condition.
-
Literature confusing then http://www.apollo-fire.co.uk/editpics/270-1.pdf .
I know the integrated and intelligent sounders are the most common ones used though.
-
Buzzard, all ancillary base sounders operate in a fire condition.
experience that i have with them is that will only operate with the detector if the control panel is not told that there is a sounder at the detectors address.
-
In hindsight I get these things now (used similar on the old Minerva 80 etc.) and now wish I had've considered them on other projects instead of (a) worrying about the umber of devices on the loop )in relation to actual address numbers) and (b) grouping sunder bases with the same address.
Everyday is a school day,huh?? ::)
-
The ancillary sounder will only operate if the detector head is in place as it operates off the remote LED output of the head. Therefore the detector should be locked in the base.
Although there are some manufacturers where the sounder is built into the head rather than the base. These detectors for this very reason do lock in the base and require a special tool to remove the head/ sounder from the detector base
-
B.Fella;
I personally never ever seen a sounder base working as remote LED, they are rather fed from to the zone circuit or loop circuit (+, -) and not from the remote LED connections (+R,-R) in case of Apollo... etc, the remote LED connections wouldn’t supply enough current to sound a sounder base, it could be enough to light up some LEDs only…
-
B.Fella;
I personally never ever seen a sounder base working as remote LED, they are rather fed from to the zone circuit or loop circuit (+, -) and not from the remote LED connections (+R,-R) in case of Apollo... etc, the remote LED connections wouldn’t supply enough current to sound a sounder base, it could be enough to light up some LEDs only…
Apollo one does Benz,as per the datasheet I attached earlier in the thread.
-
Benz,
The sounder is switched on using the LED output of the associated detector, It may still draw a small portion of current from the loop to power the device, but the remote LED output is what switched the sounder 'ON'
It draws 3.2 mA in an alarm condition.
Because it has no address and is switched ON from the remote LED programming of cause and effect of the sounder is not possible.
Because of the way Apollo operate the device etc you can have a considerable amount of sounders on a loop, which is good if there is no cause and effect. Although note that the maximum dB output is 85dB.
-
Could be, probably I am not yet updated ???
-
Question :
Who invented the loop sounder , and is the concept under patent , and are they built under the licence based upon the concept.
-
Could be, probably I am not yet updated ???
Benz, listen to what Big Fella is telling, learn something and hopefully, finally, become a bit more 'updated'!
-
Question :
Who invented the loop sounder , and is the concept under patent , and are they built under the licence based upon the concept.
I don't think you can really patent a concept. There has to be 'specifics'. The idea has to have something tangible such as a physical design or a way of doing something that can be accurately described before it can be patented.
Years ago, just after platform sounders first came out, I invented a version for use in non-addressable systems where the detector remote indicator output of an operated detector caused the sounder to continue to emit a bleep even after the main sounder had been silenced. The purpose was to assist in the precise location of the operated detector when searching a fire zone containing dozens of detectors. It even meant you didn't need to 'throw open' a closed door in a room potentially containg a fire - you could listen for the bleep through the door.
I offered the idea to the major sounder manufacturers for free - but no-one took it up.
These days I take my ideas to Dragons Den. Their insults are far better quality!
-
Question :
Who invented the loop sounder , and is the concept under patent , and are they built under the licence based upon the concept.
I don't think you can really patent a concept. There has to be 'specifics'. The idea has to have something tangible such as a physical design or a way of doing something that can be accurately described before it can be patented.
Years ago, just after platform sounders first came out, I invented a version for use in non-addressable systems where the detector remote indicator output of an operated detector caused the sounder to continue to emit a bleep even after the main sounder had been silenced. The purpose was to assist in the precise location of the operated detector when searching a fire zone containing dozens of detectors. It even meant you didn't need to 'throw open' a closed door in a room potentially containg a fire - you could listen for the bleep through the door.
I offered the idea to the major sounder manufacturers for free - but no-one took it up.
These days I take my ideas to Dragons Den. Their insults are far better quality!
Good idea Wiz,
If approaching the Dragons, they always suppose that you have completed 99% of your project, and they prefer to collaborate with the last droplet, while expecting to share much of your profit..., there is no thing wrong with that, this is business, but still down to you to negociate the best deal..., you have to have all the figures ready, how much you are going to sell…, and how much profit you are going to make..., that's what they want to hear, they look more pragmatic
-
Wiz - I will buy one from you... and I wouldn't expect to pay more than a tenner ;D