FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Galeon on October 17, 2009, 03:34:58 PM
-
I am in possession of a demo unit , which will sit on a loop ,you can have up to 20 of these , and I am putting it through its paces at the momnent .
Anyone care to give some feed back on this bit of kit.
-
I am in possession of a demo unit , which will sit on a loop ,you can have up to 20 of these , and I am putting it through its paces at the momnent .
Anyone care to give some feed back on this bit of kit.
Who makes it?
-
I am in possession of a demo unit , which will sit on a loop ,you can have up to 20 of these , and I am putting it through its paces at the momnent .
Anyone care to give some feed back on this bit of kit.
Would love to give a full and comprehensive run down on sitting on loops if I knew what you were talking about. Is it a contraption to aleviate the pain, allegedly experienced by woman, during and after childbirth?
Until then I will live in blissful knowledge that you have strayed into the wrong forum with this lot.
I am thinking of starting a gobbiltygook section of the forum especially for you techno and maternal types.
-
I am with you on this one NT. ???
-
I am with you on this one NT. ???
can be wired directly into the wiring(loop) of an analogue addressable fire alarm system
-
Could it be something like this???
http://www.kendrion-electromagnetic.com/medias/sys_master/8451684651778080.pdf?mime=application/pdf&realname=Kendrion_HahnCQ_Loop.pdf (http://www.kendrion-electromagnetic.com/medias/sys_master/8451684651778080.pdf?mime=application/pdf&realname=Kendrion_HahnCQ_Loop.pdf)
Looks like one of our panels in the background!
-
Even though we are in the tech section , will keep it simple , the unit is compatible with a major standard open protocol that is readily avaliable on the market . Cant give you the manufacturer at the moment. The unit takes up one address on the loop . and you can have 20 units directly on a single loop.
The magnet does not require separate batteries to actual change the state of the magnet but uses electronics inside the unit that operates should the panel tell the loop to operate the device under fire condition or indeed fault.
-
Galeon, a couple of questions;
Apart from a specific 'fault' signal transmitted from the control panel what other fault conditions will cause the magnet to automatically release the door?
If you can operate 20 from a single loop would that be a 250mA loop or a 500mA loop?
If you can operate 20 on a loop, how much other equipment can you have on the loop? i.e. is that 20 retainers and nothing else or 20 retainers and only a few other devices?
-
1. Total loss of the loop
2. Programming actions will be avaliable , ie fault on the main panel
3 .Depends on your panel , but we are not taking power from the loop to energise the magnet
4 .The device will be assigned as a specific device(TBA) so you can do your loop loading
-
sounds good. there is definately a market for it.
-
Galeon, the phrase 'not taking power from the the loop to energise the magnet' leads me to surmise it must use the now popular method of two magnets north on to south, one of which is then physically twisted to create a 'same pole to same pole' effect to cause the release action.
But power is needed from somewhere to twist the magnet, And if this doesn't come from the loop, where does it come from? Also if this power is not 'stored' in some way then surely it wouldn't be available on a loop disconnection fault. If it is 'stored' how reliable is this storage?
The 'twisting' action possibly uses a motor. Does the motor ever interfere with the data communication?
Obviously, the unit takes power from the loop (if not to keep the magnet energised) at some point. Also further power must be taken to operate the addressable communitcation part of the device. If it really took no power, or even very little power, the maximum number on a loop wouldn't be restricted to 20!
For 'total' fault monitoring the unit would also automatically release on 'loss of data' on the loop. Does it do this?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not being critical of something I know nothing about. I like the sound of it. It could be very useful. I'm just trying to find out the probablity of being able to use these devices in a practical manner taking into account BS7273 etc..
-
Could it be something like this (click on link)??
http://www.kendrion-electromagnetic.com/medias/sys_master/8451684651778080.pdf?mime=application/pdf&realname=Kendrion_HahnCQ_Loop.pdf (http://www.kendrion-electromagnetic.com/medias/sys_master/8451684651778080.pdf?mime=application/pdf&realname=Kendrion_HahnCQ_Loop.pdf)
It uses the loop as it's power for the magnet.
Looks like one of our panels in the background!
Ammended so link works!!!!
-
Cant seem to get this link open Buzz ,
-
Galeon, the phrase 'not taking power from the the loop to energise the magnet' leads me to surmise it must use the now popular method of two magnets north on to south, one of which is then physically twisted to create a 'same pole to same pole' effect to cause the release action.
You would be correct in that assumption
But power is needed from somewhere to twist the magnet, And if this doesn't come from the loop, where does it come from? Also if this power is not 'stored' in some way then surely it wouldn't be available on a loop disconnection fault. If it is 'stored' how reliable is this storage?
That's where the unit is clever and its ability to retain the required current
The 'twisting' action possibly uses a motor. Does the motor ever interfere with the data communication?
20 of them on a heavily populated loop for the last 3 months , no reported incidents so far .
Obviously, the unit takes power from the loop (if not to keep the magnet energised) at some point. Also further power must be taken to operate the addressable communitcation part of the device. If it really took no power, or even very little power, the maximum number on a loop wouldn't be restricted to 20!
Fair comment , but turning water into wine is another story .
For 'total' fault monitoring the unit would also automatically release on 'loss of data' on the loop. Does it do this?
Yep , as required in your favorite BS document
Don't get me wrong. I'm not being critical of something I know nothing about. I like the sound of it. It could be very useful. I'm just trying to find out the probablity of being able to use these devices in a practical manner taking into account BS7273 etc..
Value your input , no worries
-
Cant seem to get this link open Buzz ,
Hmmm,it's in PDF but I'll post the jpeg image -
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a3/buzzard905/looppwd1.jpg)
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a3/buzzard905/looppwd2.jpg)
-
What make of panel is that in the pics Buzz?
-
Not 100% but it does resemble an Algorex or Sinteso
-
......
For 'total' fault monitoring the unit would also automatically release on 'loss of data' on the loop. Does it do this?
Yep , as required in your favorite BS document
.......
Galeon, thank you for your replies. Your answers to my questions tell me that this product is a sure-fire winner. I can see it being used in 100,000's in the future. I hope you have a patent!
I have quoted just one of your replies above, and I need to ask questions about it.
I'm not sure that BS7273-4 requires monitoring of the addressable communication data. It is one of the many confusing areas of the document. However, if your product does do this then it is surely the first loop-powered device to do so.
What I mean by 'monitoring the addressable communication data' is that if just the normal addressable data fails for whatever reason, this is detected by the device and it then carries out the fail-safe action i.e. in your product case; releases the doors.
I think BS7273-4 only requires the cie to monitor the communication data and to produce a fault condition if it fails. However, in these circumstances, the fault condition cannot be transmitted to devices on the loop precisely because the communication data has failed! A catch 22 situation.
If your product has overcome this problem, it is extra interesting!
-
In my eyes the System X Hardwired system is better. It willl take an unlimited amount of equipment on it and will be more cost effective than kit like that because it won't require all the wiring (ie installation costs). Its wired into the CIE then its all radio. It can also link up to the Deafgaurd product. Its doing the same job with the same amount of fail safe options but it can handle more kit, its less intrusive and will be more cost efficient.
http://www.firecoltd.com/Systems.asp
-
Piglet, in many installations I don't believe a wireless system will be cheaper or better.
Firstly, all wireless systems kit is expensive but overall cost-savings are made by not having to install wiring. But if you already have a wired addressable fire system that you a linking to a wireless door-holder system then you are wasting the wiring you already have installed!
Secondly, all wireless system need a radio survey and careful positioning of equipment to avoid problems. This is a cost that has to be factored in. Also no survey/poor installation leads to long-term and expensive identification and rectification of the problems.
Thirdly, all wireless equipment, by its very nature, is battery operated. Batteries need regular replacement. Therefore the ongoing maintenance costs are much higher than with a wired system.
Obviously a product such as System X has it's place i.e
1) Existing wired non-addressable fire alarm system that now needs door holders
2) Any building where wiring is not possible etc.
But I can see Galeon's product becoming a very useful and cost-effective product for both new wired and many existing addressable systems.
Being able to include door holders on the loops with mcps, detectors and sounders is the next logical step in providing a cheap, easy to install, reliable, low maintenance, fully integrated wired addressable fire alarm system.
-
Piglet, in many installations I don't believe a wireless system will be cheaper or better.
Firstly, all wireless systems kit is expensive but savings are made in not having to wire. But if you have a wired addressable fire system that links to the wireless door-holder system you already have almost all the wiring in place if you are using Galeon's product! I don't understand your response! Why would you have the wiring for door holders already if you don't have door holders?!
Secondly, all wireless system need a radio survey and careful positioning of equipment to avoid problems. This is a cost that has to be factored in. Ive looked into this already - its a free of charge survey
Thirdly, all wireless equipment, by its very nature, is battery operated. Batteries need regular replacement. Therefore the ongoing maintenance costs are much higher than with a wired system. Its easier to use electricity but that comes at a cost and the cost of someone putting new batteries in every 12-18 months isn't going to be much!
-
Piglet, in many installations I don't believe a wireless system will be cheaper or better.
Firstly, all wireless systems kit is expensive but savings are made in not having to wire. But if you have a wired addressable fire system that links to the wireless door-holder system you already have almost all the wiring in place if you are using Galeon's product!
I don't understand your response! Why would you have the wiring for door holders already if you don't have door holders?!
It is surely simple to understand? If you already have, say, an addressable smoke detector installed close to the door that you now need to add a door holder to, you just re-route the loop wiring to include the door holder. New jobs are even easier, you just include the door holder on the loop. The cost of a wireless system will never be cheaper than that.
Secondly, all wireless system need a radio survey and careful positioning of equipment to avoid problems. This is a cost that has to be factored in.
Ive looked into this already - its a free of charge survey
The cost of the 'free' survey is included in the cost of the equipment. No-one ever gives you anything for nothing!
Thirdly, all wireless equipment, by its very nature, is battery operated. Batteries need regular replacement. Therefore the ongoing maintenance costs are much higher than with a wired system. Its easier to use electricity but that comes at a cost and the cost of someone putting new batteries in every 12-18 months isn't going to be much!
The cost for mains electricity to power door holders will cost you a fraction of the cost of a new battery every 12 to 18 months. There is obviously also a cost for someone to physically replace these batteries. If you already have an employee who has the spare time to do this then, it costs you nothing! If you have employ someone (a contractor?) to do this for you, it will never be described as 'not much' by a customer. For example, I calculate the typical cost (parts and labour) of replacing, say 40 no. PP3 alakaline batteries, in wireless units to be approx. £200 + vat. And unless this was carried out at the same time as a fire system service visit you would also need to add travelling time and expenses.quote]
[/size]
-
1. right you are! Your first statement confussed me for a bit! The door holder is not going to right next to the smoke detector though so it does factor a cost, new build thats minimal but existing would prove problematic surely.
2. Im sure the site survey is factored into the cost of the kit but atleast thats not an extra cost as you first mentioned, its all in. Do we know how much this new bit of kit will cost?
3. Im sure in most places they will have someone who can unscrew a lid and put batterys in! Batteries you can buy from your local corner shop. If they are willing to pay £200 for the pleasure then fair enough!
If you are looking at costings for 40 units, then you need to remember that the bit of kit can only take 20, the System X will take unlimited and you can install other bits of kit onto it easily.
With mags you only have the option of holding door fully ajar not true with the other system.
No one ever thinks about risidual magnetism either! Mags aren't the safest product everyone always seems to think they are
-
Piglet, just a couple of small points regarding your last reply.
Whilst the limit Galeon mentioned is 20 per loop, you can obviously have more than one loop on a system.
I can assure you that the staff employed in many typical public authority buildings will not be prepared to take on the 'extra work' of replacing a few batteries. They will get a contractor in to do it. Why should they take on the extra work and responsibility when they can avoid it? (These people are not like you and me!) However, the public authority 'bean counters' will eventually notice that the overall service costs have increased when battery operated systems have been installed and, as such, they will prove to be more expensive to maintain.
I'm intrigued with your comment 'With mags you only have the option of holding door fully ajar not true with the other system' What do you mean by this?
I agree that wireless systems have a niche in the market, I just don't agree that wireless systems are better than Galeon's proposal in every situation.
-
Wiz you beat me to it.
I have yet to see anyone willing to take on more than what's in thier job discription in such places,so changing batteries is a non starter.
-
Oh il agree with its horses for courses but considering that there must be hundreds of thousands of the normal dorgards on the market (inc public authority) all of which are having the batteries changed i don't think this will matter.
I would say having more than one loop, adds time and adds to the cost!
With the hardwired system x it still uses a similar unit to the dorgard so it will retain the door at any angle, something a magnet will not do.
I think we are in agreement that they both have pros and cons. There is not anyone that can argue against the possibility of residual magnetism though, surely a very real possibility.
-
What I mean by 'monitoring the addressable communication data' is that if just the normal addressable data fails for whatever reason, this is detected by the device and it then carries out the fail-safe action i.e. in your product case; releases the doors.
I think BS7273-4 only requires the cie to monitor the communication data and to produce a fault condition if it fails. However, in these circumstances, the fault condition cannot be transmitted to devices on the loop precisely because the communication data has failed! A catch 22 situation.
If your product has overcome this problem, it is extra interesting!
Has this actually been confirmed by Galeon yet?
-
....... There is not anyone that can argue against the possibility of residual magnetism though, surely a very real possibility.
Residual magnetism is a problem but it is well known by manufacturers. Most door holders have a phospher bronze pin to create a small air-gap but big enough to reduce the effect of residual magnetism. On some versions this pin is also sprung-loaded to push the armature plate away from the magnet.
The net effect of all of the above plus the pulling force of the door closing mechanism means that residual magnetism is not a common problem. At least I have not seen evidence of it in 30 years of using these products. Has anyone else?
The biggest problem I find to doors not closing is when they catch on the floor surface. This can affect Dorgard plunger style holds as much as the traditional magnet style.
Another major problem with door holders used to be that they would sometimes make a loud buzzing noise (caused by no 'play' being provided in the door-mounted armature plate - but most modern versions now have a moveable joint that avoids this problem)
-
What I mean by 'monitoring the addressable communication data' is that if just the normal addressable data fails for whatever reason, this is detected by the device and it then carries out the fail-safe action i.e. in your product case; releases the doors.
I think BS7273-4 only requires the cie to monitor the communication data and to produce a fault condition if it fails. However, in these circumstances, the fault condition cannot be transmitted to devices on the loop precisely because the communication data has failed! A catch 22 situation.
If your product has overcome this problem, it is extra interesting!
Has this actually been confirmed by Galeon yet?
I don't think so. And I don't think it will be. This is a very difficult type of monitoring to achieve.
However, I don't think it is actually required to comply with BS7273-4 because the relevant clause is written unclearly enough to argue that it isn't required (although I think that a truly total fail-safe system would require it)
-
This discussion is way out my league but I would still like to ask a question.
On the subject of residual magnetism previously you spoke of reversing the polarity of the magnet now if a permanent magnet was fixed to the door and an electro magnet in the device. When you reversed the polarity wouldn’t the magnets repel each other and in this situation would residual magnetism be a problem?
-
TW, the door might spin through 180 degs or the building spin and the door stay put (may be good for waking people up- or could be used as an auto exit eject system -- patent pending!!);D
But seriously, Wiz capped it, as the door closers should be set to overcome this possibility, but, also I have never encountered that problem. Having in place a system for securing the use of means of escape at all material times means any closer-device problems will be high-lighted and dealt with before getting out of hand, or the RP may find themselves in the crud.
[
-
Having tried wirefree and doorguards I would need asbestos gloves to touch either again.
-
Having tried wirefree and doorguards I would need asbestos gloves to touch either again.
Why?!
-
There are problems with all systems. The magnets "should" have something to overcome the chance of risidual magnetism. The problem with magnets is that any sparky can install them. If they have not correctly installed them, there is a chance when you have complete power failure that the magnets could still retain the door. There have been cases of this. It makes me worry that a system that is retaining power in its magnet station is not going to keep/use this power in the event of a mains failure and or standby power.
-
This discussion is way out my league but I would still like to ask a question.
On the subject of residual magnetism previously you spoke of reversing the polarity of the magnet now if a permanent magnet was fixed to the door and an electro magnet in the device. When you reversed the polarity wouldn’t the magnets repel each other and in this situation would residual magnetism be a problem?
TW, to answer your question, in typical fashion, this thread is talking about two things at once!
The traditional method of door holding was by a simple electromagnet.
The new method is to have a permanent magnet on the wall and a permanent magnet on the door. These permanent magnets have opposing poles so they attract/hold together. To get the door to release, you physically twist one of the permanent magnets so that you get oppossing poles and the magnets repel and the door hold releases.
In this new method no continuous electrical power is needed to keep the door held closed. The only power is required when you need to power whatever physically twists one magnet. This low power consumption method is ideal for battery-operated or other low current consumption necessary systems.
In his promotion of the new method over the traditional electromagnetic method, Piglet highlighted the problem of residual magnetism in electromagnets. I suggested that this problem was well known and methods were available to deal with it.
-
There are problems with all systems. The magnets "should" have something to overcome the chance of risidual magnetism. The problem with magnets is that any sparky can install them. If they have not correctly installed them, there is a chance when you have complete power failure that the magnets could still retain the door. There have been cases of this. It makes me worry that a system that is retaining power in its magnet station is not going to keep/use this power in the event of a mains failure and or standby power.
An electromagnet doorholder is the most simple fail-safe door-holding method available - when you lose power the magnet simply releases! It is the other versions that have the most potential to fail!
If it is suggested that a 'sparky' is not up to installing and testing an electromagnetic door holder for correct operation then there is no hope for the world!
As a fire alarm engineer there are many things that I feel that 'sparky' should leave for to me to do, but installing and wiring up an electromagnetic door-holder circuit is not one of them!
With his training and experience 'Sparky' can do many things very well, in fact, including many things that a fire alarm engineer can't do!
-
To Mr P Ho! Ho! Ho! :-\
Thanks Wiz My interest was not about residual magnetism, I had never heard of the concept of reversing the polarity of the magnet as opposed to switching off the supply and this seems an interesting development and as you explained it, residual magnetism would be even be less of a problem.
-
Sorry TW, I need to get out more...
-
Having tried wirefree and doorguards I would need asbestos gloves to touch either again.
Why?!
Because I got my fingers burnt.
Doorguards haven't worked for any of the customers that I have suggested them to and even though I told them of the potential issues I was still blamed and the wirefree ones were a pain for signal strength, with hindsight the hard-wired ones would have been easier and cheaper to fit.
They might be good in some applications but I am yet to be convinced after my experiences.
-
GregC
I would be very interested to hear of the type of problems you had with the dorgards - was it related to issues such as insufficient alarm audibility, or uneven floors or too much ambient noise? I use quite a lot of them and provided you carry out a test in situ befdore fitting, and use the door plate if necessary I have had few problems.
-
Centre for young adults with learning difficulties, the doors would close when the trolleys were pushed through with the glasses and cutlery for dinner times, on some floors the gap between the bottom of the door and the floor was uneven or flexed as people walked in and out of the office causing the doors to move, we inherited these and have swapped them to hard wired.
Nursing home, the units are quite bulky and the residents were forever banging their heels or kicking the units in the corridors, these were also changed.
-
Centre for young adults with learning difficulties, the doors would close when the trolleys were pushed through with the glasses and cutlery for dinner times, on some floors the gap between the bottom of the door and the floor was uneven or flexed as people walked in and out of the office causing the doors to move, we inherited these and have swapped them to hard wired.
Nursing home, the units are quite bulky and the residents were forever banging their heels or kicking the units in the corridors, these were also changed.
Just FYI I will say it mostly sounds like incorrect installing.
Trollys - The units are sound adjustable, turn them up should be end of problem or use the radio one.
Uneven floors - They supply raised floor plates now.
Kicking the units - Not much you can do about that!
-
You will always have a problem with the communications part of the loop , trying to meet that bit of the standards , however if you build in redundancy to the panel with a second processor that will take over automatically , this can get you around that .
As with any device that uses standard batteries to release 'the permanent magnet', there is always a danger that the cell could fail or short circuit , and actual not be picked up as a fault on the monitoring side of door retainer unit.
I have looked at system X and it looks to be fairly good to me , however it says it complies with Category B doors , you still have the problem looking for a system for Category A .
I will update you guys as soon as practicable , when I have some more defined solid constructive news , thanks for the comments so far.
-
I have looked at system X and it looks to be fairly good to me , however it says it complies with Category B doors , you still have the problem looking for a system for Category A .
FYI They have a hardwired version of the system x coming out to meet Cat A
See page 11 http://www.fia.uk.com/objects_store/focus_issue10_may09.pdf
-
Good news then , however unless you wire the main controller to the 240v of the fire alarm supply ,and have fail safe fire and fault contacts along with Wizz's other beloved sections of BS document , it still aint no good to use unless the deviations are recorded and agreed and accepted .
-
Centre for young adults with learning difficulties, the doors would close when the trolleys were pushed through with the glasses and cutlery for dinner times, on some floors the gap between the bottom of the door and the floor was uneven or flexed as people walked in and out of the office causing the doors to move, we inherited these and have swapped them to hard wired.
Nursing home, the units are quite bulky and the residents were forever banging their heels or kicking the units in the corridors, these were also changed.
Just FYI I will say it mostly sounds like incorrect installing.
Trollys - The units are sound adjustable, turn them up should be end of problem or use the radio one.
Uneven floors - They supply raised floor plates now.
Kicking the units - Not much you can do about that!
I keep forgetting how long I have been in this trade, my experiences date back nearly 10 years, I shall have a look at their website to see how they have progressed :-[
-
We have installed the salamander kit in a few places now and have only had problems with lifts that can cause doors to close randomly - we purchased the survey kit for that....
We have also purchased the survey kit and been "trained" for dorguard X as apparently they won't sell it to just anybody....! - not sure where the " free survey" comes from mentioned earlier?
Personally I'd use the salamander over dorguard every time.
-
Dave ,
I like the salamander kit and don't have any issues with it , however what all these companies fail to promote is all the stuff that you need to do to comply outside their remit ie derive the 240v from source ie the fire panel circuit.
There aint no solution at present , possibly until now , wait for it I am off to see my old mate Toddy to see what he thinks , and hopefully be able to have the holy blessing applied to this bit of kit I have.
I am hoping for early retirement next year , if you boys play the game and spend some filthy lucra / mazzola and stop wasting on BS updates. ;D
-
I think the "mains supply from one source" etc is a bit of a herring, you can power CIE etc from local dist boards so long as its written as a variation, so I don't see why you can't provide power to these types of door controllers in the same way. So ong as doors release in the event of any mains power loss then not a problem.
But if your kit does what it says on the tin then I think you will have pretty much cornered the market for the practical hardwired solution and if you need a distributor down south I may join you in early retirement....!