Linking two fire alarm panels

[Allen Higginson]

Put two HAES conventional panels in (for example!!) and network them via your two core would keep everyone happy!!Provided you supress the relays you could use the sounder outputs to hit the relay coil.

[chris.]

with some panels, u can use the 24v alarm output that becomes live when the panel goes into fire (just 2 cores, + and -)
connect it to a timer relay in the other panel to make a closed connection when the delay is up and connect it to the EVAC terminals that sound the bells when they are shorted.

just a possibility that ive seen used on one site, where when the building next door goes off, they have 3mins to confirm or silence before the building next door is tipped out.

[Wiz]

Wow! I went away for a quick ski and obviously some things got a bit warm around here! If Matron finds out there has been so much feistiness in our members then she might increase the dosage of our medication!

I'd like to add my comments in respect of a number of the recent posts as follows:

1) There is nothing in BS5839 that indicates it is wrong to install a spur on an addressable loop, with or without any isolating device, other than the recommendation to ensure that a single wiring fault does not disable protection in an area of more than 2,000m2.
Spurs can be useful/necessary even for the best fire alarm engineers. I can't see a spur on an addressable system being any harder to fault-find on than one without a spur, in most circumstances. Having spurs does not make anybody a cowboy (especially not G.M. who has proven his credentials on this site on numerous previous occasions)
-To be a cowboy, as well as spurs, you would also need guns, a hat and a horse!


2) Surely the 'two wires between the two non-addressable panel' question must be based on panels that have latching fire zone inputs? If you have panels with class change inputs and aux. fire relays that do not operate on class change, but do on fire conditions, then you don't need any extra relays at all - so this can't be the solution to the original question. I thought my previous answer to use a twin/sav/two wire panel was a 'wizard' solution and I thought the promised 'big bucks' would be winging their way to my account in time to pay for my next ski holiday.

3) The Haes 'network' solution proposed by Buzzard is also a good one. The Haes Envoy expandable takes a two-wire network card that would allow seperate panels to operate as one system. (Please note that the Envoy Extendable is for a maximum of 4 fire zones)

4) Can we stop using the term 'conventional' in respect of fire systems? Matron has told us that systems are now either 'addressable' or 'non-addressable'. Conventional died with the 2002 update and I attended the funeral.
 I know that we all conventionally called 'non-addressable' panels 'conventional' previously, but current conventions suggest that we should address the issue properly and do as Matron advises. If necessary we could form a panel to discuss and/or address the convention of the proper address for conventional panels or non-addressable panels and hopefully reach a conventional and rational conclusion. Or maybe not.
p.s This has been approved by our legal department.

[IrishFire]

Spurs can be useful/necessary even for the best fire alarm engineers. I can't see a spur on an addressable system being any harder to fault-find on than one without a spur, in most circumstances. Having spurs does not make anybody a cowboy (especially not G.M. who has proven his credentials on this site on numerous previous occasions)
-To be a cowboy, as well as spurs, you would also need guns, a hat and a horse!

Are you saying it's ok to use spurs??

I thought this was put to bed (although if you had bothered your arse to read the posts correctly you would have seen that it was or are you just trying to stir up ****??

As for the hat and guns comment well that says it all!!!

[Wiz]

To IrishFire:

Yes, I really have only just seen the posts. Even I deserve a holiday.

No, I am not trying to stir things up. I thought the matter of spurs had not been resolved. I noted that the thread had deteriorated into some nasty comments and I tried to ignore this, but it seemed to me that the main point had not been resolved and that Graeme's comment on spurs was made to appear to be wrong. I had in fact 'been arsed' (what a wonderful turn of phrase you employ!) to read all the posts and it seemed to me the impression had been given that spurs on addressable systems were just not allowed. This is not the case.

Yes, There is nothing in BS5839 that stops you using spurs on addressable systems as long, of course, as it doesn't affect other recommendations.

Yes, I found the mention of 'spurs' and 'cowboys',  too good an opportunity to miss making a light-hearted comment on.  Surely we are meant to be sharing knowledge and opinions in a friendly manner. I like to do this in a light-hearted way. There is already too much aggravation in life to take some matters too seriously. Although I can do whatever is necessary as the situation demands.

No, I don't understand why my 'hats and guns' comment says anything in particular. I'm sure you'd like to explain.

[kurnal]

Welcome back Dr Wiz.
You are just in the nick of time- everybody seems to want to shout at each other or shoot each other up. The homes not apache of what it used to be.
The best convention may be to address each other in a polite and friendly manner.

[Wiz]

Professor K, Always nice to hear from you. How nice to find you are still a resident in the home!

Yes, all this beating of drums and war-dancing is very worrying. I couldn't believe the sort of arrows being fired in Graeme's direction. I hope he survived. If this sort of thing carries on I can even see an eventual Sioux-ing situation or even another battle of the little big fire alarm horn. Heap bad medicine.

I'm still waiting to be addressed but it wouldn't surprise me if the protocol is going to be corrupted and I get a lot of rubbish being returned.

[Graeme]

Wiz-i survivied and thanks for your comments.

Regards

G

p.s i hope the ski-ing was good? I fancy going on the piste all weekend..no ski's needed though.

[IrishFire]

Professor K, Always nice to hear from you. How nice to find you are still a resident in the home!

Yes, all this beating of drums and war-dancing is very worrying. I couldn't believe the sort of arrows being fired in Graeme's direction. I hope he survived. If this sort of thing carries on I can even see an eventual Sioux-ing situation or even another battle of the little big fire alarm horn. Heap bad medicine.

I'm still waiting to be addressed but it wouldn't surprise me if the protocol is going to be corrupted and I get a lot of rubbish being returned.

Wonderful tripe!!!!!!!

[kurnal]

Irishfire
Tripe it most certainly is but it is completely inoffensive and light hearted unlike some of your comments.

The forum is whatever you want it to be. Nobody has to read it or to comment.
For me I spend usually 7 days a week assessing premises then writing the most boring, factual and technical reports, policies and procedures you have ever seen. This forum is a bit of light relief but along the way it also helps a lot of people free of charge.
In 33 years in the industry I have learned that nothing is ever absolutely clear cut. There are different opinions and sometimes these can cause us all to review our long held views.
The issue of spurs on a loop is a very interesting one and I would love to see it taken to a conclusion. I do not have the expertise to comment either way but am interested in learning fom all of you techies.

[IrishFire]

Irishfire
Tripe it most certainly is but it is completely inoffensive and light hearted unlike some of your comments.

The forum is whatever you want it to be. Nobody has to read it or to comment.
For me I spend usually 7 days a week assessing premises then writing the most boring, factual and technical reports, policies and procedures you have ever seen. This forum is a bit of light relief but along the way it also helps a lot of people free of charge.
In 33 years in the industry I have learned that nothing is ever absolutely clear cut. There are different opinions and sometimes these can cause us all to review our long held views.
The issue of spurs on a loop is a very interesting one and I would love to see it taken to a conclusion. I do not have the expertise to comment either way but am interested in learning fom all of you techies.

As I said in an earlier comment this issue WAS put to bed and I said if the postings were read correctly this conversation would not be happening would it??

[Wiz]

I am pretty certain, and most pleased, that the only aspect of this post that appeared to have previously been 'put to bed' was the unseemly nasty comments being made between some members.

However, the simple fact is, many strong negative comments have been made about the use of 'spurs' on addressable systems and these have not only not been put to bed, they haven't even been discussed.

The following are an example of some of the comments (whilst not mentioning who made them):

........making suggestions like use a spur off a loop is in any competent and professional persons book "cowboy" style work!!! And regardless of what comment you may come back with you made the suggestion so you have left it open for the opinion that you would partake in this crazy and unprofessional type of work. Just consider the reaction if you said it in a job interview? Would you get the job? I know I would not employ anyone who made a suggestion like that. .......... Does it not annoy you when you see work like this? I know it drives me up the bloody wall and to be honest I've sacked lads for less ......

I have re-read all the posts and have not seen any retraction of the above comments.

Graeme originally made the comment about using a spur on an addressable system as a solution to a particular problem. The responses to this have suggested that he was totally wrong to even consider it because there is something seriously wrong in doing so. I suggest that Graeme has previously shown that he is no mug when it comes to technical matters so his views should always merit proper consideration.

In my opinion the general concept of using a spur on an addressable system is perfectly o.k. both technically and within the recommendations of BS5839 part 1 2002.  I welcome any considered views to the contrary for discussion.

Even if Graeme made a suggestion that was definitely wrong , then surely a gentle query of his  suggestion and the start of a discussion would be the right way to move forward. If we all go straight for the 'jugular' on people who 'make a mistake or get it wrong'  then no-one will ever dare ask a question or propose a different viewpoint. Surely, we all visit this site to learn, educate and be able to discuss subjects that we are all interested in with like-minded people, and not to be rude to them (intentionally or not)

Prof. K has said he is interested in learning more about this 'spur' question and I would therefore propose the following explanation for his consideration (the rest of you can ignore this if you want!):

The pulse signals that form the method of communication between the control panel and the addressable devices are transmitted over the same pair of wires that also power the devices.

In fact, from a technical point of view the addressable communication would still work even with a whole two-wire radial circuit containing loads of  tees and spurs etc. It doesn't need a loop to function.

Most addressable systems in fact only communicate from one end of a typical loop circuit whilst that loop is complete i.e. in real terms it is communicating along a two wire radial circuit from the 'loop out' terminals in the panel right to the other end of the cable.

The communication pulses only start to also transmit from the panel into other end of the loop only when the loop is detected as broken.

If addressable circuits were wired only as radials then the BS recommendation that a single wiring fault should not affect the protection in an area greater than 2000 m2 would apply. However when they are wired as loops (and capable of communication from each end) then the BS recommendation of two simultaneous wiring faults not affecting protection in an area of greater than 10,000m2 applies. i.e one loop can cover up to 10,000m2 wheras it would mean that if only 'addressable radials' were used, you would need five addressable radial circuits to cover the same area as a loop. This is the only reason I know why addressable systems are generally wired as loops

So there is nothing to stop anyone using radial circuits, radial circuits with 'spurs' or loops with radial 'spurs'. However because a single wiring fault shouldn't affect the protection in an area greater than 2000m2 then any two-wire radial, tee or spur should never cover an area greater than this.

In the above explanation it is assumed that Prof. K is also aware of the importance of the role of short-circuit isolators in addressable systems (If not Prof. , then please let me know)

 I would confirm that my view is only that it is wrong to categorically say or infer that spurs are not allowed in any format in addressable systems when there appears to be no technical or leglislative reasons to totally disallow them.

I admit that there are a lot of practical benefits in keeping as much of any addressable system as a loop wherever possible, but this is not the point. I maintain you shouldn't tell anyone that something is categorically wrong, when it isn't.

[IrishFire]

Wiz this is your opinion and but, I do feel that it's not correct to use spurs on a loop. As I said earlier how would you feel tracing a cable fault etc.. finding a bucket load of spurs on a system (and it happens). Not to sound smart but you are correct in saying that it's not mentioned on BS5839 (we don't use these regs anymore in a lot of cases our regs are slightly higher), but if is not mentioned in BS or any other standard does that mean that its ok, my opion is that it is not ok to use spurs in any case on a loop at the end of the day you are dealing with life and to me this is the way it is and that it isw not ok to use spurs under any case. And one of my reasons for this is how may time have you seen a spur with no isolator, it happens so often its not funny. "I maintain you shouldn't tell anyone that something is categorically wrong, when it isn't." I would tend to agree with this comment but I find that spurs are not correct and would not let any of my staff use them, to be honest I would sack them.

[Wiz]

Wiz this is your opinion and but, I do feel that it's not correct to use spurs on a loop. As I said earlier how would you feel tracing a cable fault etc.. finding a bucket load of spurs on a system (and it happens). Not to sound smart but you are correct in saying that it's not mentioned on BS5839 (we don't use these regs anymore in a lot of cases our regs are slightly higher), but if is not mentioned in BS or any other standard does that mean that its ok, my opion is that it is not ok to use spurs in any case on a loop at the end of the day you are dealing with life and to me this is the way it is and that it isw not ok to use spurs under any case. And one of my reasons for this is how may time have you seen a spur with no isolator, it happens so often its not funny. "I maintain you shouldn't tell anyone that something is categorically wrong, when it isn't." I would tend to agree with this comment but I find that spurs are not correct and would not let any of my staff use them, to be honest I would sack them.

Irishfire, how nice to have a considered discussion with you. Yes, I agree that you are perfectly entitled to demand that your staff do not use spurs on addressable systems. However, I maintain that it does not mean that anybody else using them is wrong or incompetent or a 'cowboy' in doing so.

Despite what you might think of the technical Standards, these are probably the only thing (apart from manufacturer's specific instructions in respect of their own equipment) that we can all use to determine and hopefully agree exactly what is and what isn't 'allowed'.

I agree that the use of 'spurs' can sometimes make fault-finding a bit more difficult. However, using them in a system, with due regard to BS recommendations, does not necessarily make such a system less reliable or less good or less compliant than every system wired as a loop. I welcome any discussion on this opinion.

The reason I have 'highlighted' this matter is because I believed the comments made about the use of 'spurs' were wrong and misleading. Many people use this site to 'learn' new things and it is important that we all try to ensure that anything that is stated as a 'fact' rather than an opinion is 100% correct.

People often tell me that something has to be done a certain way because it says so in the Standards. When I ask them to direct me to that particular recommendation in the Standard, they then advise me that, in fact, they haven't seen it themselves but were actually 'told by someone else' that 'they had to do it this way' and then assumed that this was the only way detailed in the Standards. I think this is similar to 'Chinese whispers'.

I hoping that you will now agree with the conclusions that I have now reached about this matter as follows:

1) It is o.k., both technically and also in respect of the recommendations in BS5839 part 1 2002, to have radial spurs connected to addressable loops as long that any single wiring fault does not affect the protection covering an area of a maximum of 2,000m2.

2) That in your opinion you do not like the use of radial spurs to addressable loops sytems. However you can't say it is 'incorrect' to use them

3) Anyone using radial 'spurs' on an addressable loop is not necessarily incompetent or a 'cowboy'

[kurnal]

Thanks Wiz for your explanation. I would be grateful to see your expanation of the role of short circuit isolators, I guess that without it a single wiring fault on a loop would potentially take out  the entire loop and on a radial any device beyond the isolator? That on a conventional system a short circuit would effectively cause the thing to go into alarm mode (ie fail safe of sorts)  but on an addressible the signalling would be lost so we would get  communication faults only?

Like I have said before I only drive the things but an insight into the technical side is always useful. I do often refer to the BS (which I can understand as far as it goes)  and always  read the system manuals (which are usually double dutch)  so that I can write the  fire procedures and test instructions  for the responsible person.  But the trouble with the manuals of course is that they tend to assume full technical understanding as a starting point.