RAfiki detectors

[John@EPL]

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

[John@EPL]

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??

[Galeon]

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

[Wiz]

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

[John@EPL]

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?

[Graeme]

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

[JonnyG]

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??

[John@EPL]

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.

[Wiz]

............ 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

[Allen Higginson]

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.

[John@EPL]

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

[Allen Higginson]

Sorry John,I hadn't realised - glad to see you got your posting access sorted.

[David Rooney]

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......

[Allen Higginson]

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!!!

[John@EPL]

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.