Radio fire detection and alarm systems for the disabled

[Nimrod]

What criteria would you use that would lead you to select the supplier of the best technical Radio fire detection and alarm system for the disabled solution if cost was no barrier for say a hotel or college halls of residence?

For example:

Is there any benefit if a system uses UHF over VHF frequencies? PCM of FM? Which would represent the Rolls Royce solution or doesn't it matter? Are all systems basically the same?

With what standards would the the superior system have over the others or are they all compliant? Indeed what are the basic standards that even a basic system must meet for it to meet insurers needs?

What sort of things should be mindful of when looking at a specification that may be a bit misleading. Like mentioning a standard implying that it covers the whole system but in fat only deals with a small part.

Is there an open standard that allows equipment of different manufacturers pagers or alarms to operate with different operators base station?

What are the killer questions to ask a supplier that would weed out the weaker system?

Is there a 'gold standard' radio fire detection and alarm systems for the disabled against which all other systems may be judged?

So many questions---so little time.

Any help and guidance the wise ones of the forum can share will be gratefully received?

Many thanks

Bob

[David Rooney]

What criteria would you use that would lead you to select the supplier of the best technical Radio fire detection and alarm system for the disabled solution if cost was no barrier for say a hotel or college halls of residence?

There isn't (as far as I know) a radio FD&A system developed specifically for the disabled.

Your basic choices are EMS or EDA if you want full on radio, EMS generally speaking I would say is considered the better of the two.

Or you can use a hybrid system, my up and coming favourite being the Sterling System using VEGA protocol on a standard hardwired analogue addressable panel.

For example:

Is there any benefit if a system uses UHF over VHF frequencies? PCM of FM? Which would represent the Rolls Royce solution or doesn't it matter? Are all systems basically the same?

If a radio survey is carried out and is satisfactory then either will work. I presume you are talking EMS over EDA.....??!!

With what standards would the the superior system have over the others or are they all compliant? Indeed what are the basic standards that even a basic system must meet for it to meet insurers needs?

Arguably panels should meet BS EN54-2 : 1998, BS EN54-4 : 1998.

There is a draft EN Standard 54-25 for radio systems that will be brought in eventually, as far as I know only the Sterling system is ahead of the game and compliant with the draft as it stands.

What sort of things should be mindful of when looking at a specification that may be a bit misleading. Like mentioning a standard implying that it covers the whole system but in fat only deals with a small part.

Get someone who knows what there talking about to read the specification provided by who ever is specifying the system and make sure you know what you are buying.

Is there an open standard that allows equipment of different manufacturers pagers or alarms to operate with different operators base station?

EMS have pager that can be used on their system but it's not DDA compliant. Deaf Alerter is a bolt on paging system, and Scope also make a system thats about half the price and compliant....

What are the killer questions to ask a supplier that would weed out the weaker system?

All systems have good and bad points... depends what you want your system to do. Write your evacuation strategy first, then build the system around it. Some systems use Alkaline cells, others Lithium. All claim generally a 5 year battery life... take with a pinch of salt.

Is there a 'gold standard' radio fire detection and alarm systems for the disabled against which all other systems may be judged?

No, unless your talking about little domestic systems that you buy out of a catalogue....

So many questions---so little time.

Any help and guidance the wise ones of the forum can share will be gratefully received?

Email me if you need further help.

Many thanks

Bob

[ian_spleen]

I assume you are referring to Deaf Alerter type systems. These are not fire alarm systems, they are radio paging systems which activate on a signal from  the fire alarm and send signals to pagers carried by the deaf person. If that's what you are getting at, then yes, there is an enormous difference between them.

UHF systems rely on the radio signal being 'bounced' around a protected area. This means that a signal can be very strong in one area of a room, but almost negligible in another only a few meters away. Even moving a cabinet can have a significant effect on the singal being received by the pager. VHF singals tend to penetrate solid structures better, albeit over shorter distances.

The big difference comes over 5839 compliance. Firstly, the standard clearly states that such a system must require a licenced frequency. This ensures that the frequency it transmits on is dedicated to that particular purpose. Domestic type systems (pm me if you want some names) do not have this and seem to suggest it is some kind of advantage, as a radio licence costs money. Nevertheless, without this, the system does not comply with BS5839 - end of.

Secondly, any messaging, other than fire alarm messaging, which is carried on the system, has to be prioritised such that a fire message takes priority. Many such systems allow general paging messages to be sent via a computer programme. For instance, the deaf user may be sent a notification of a meeting or lecture room being changed. In order to comply with 5839, these MUST be overwritten by any fire alarm signal. Again, this precludes the use of many such systems (pm me, etc). The Scope system is only compliant if the messaging function is NOT used. The Scope manual actually says that using this function would negate compliance with 5839, although (surprisingly?) the sales literature doesn't.

Deaf Alerter meets all of these criteria, but may be overpriced and overspecified if you only want simple fire alarm warning. The Scope system may be adequate and would be much cheaper, although the quality is far lower (IMHO). Also, Deaf Alerter is the only system which allows the user to carry pagers between buildings on a site - a patented function called 'Roaming'. No other system should claim to be able to do this, as it would infringe patent.

Finally, Deaf Alerter will take responsibility for surveying the building and installing, commissioning, etc the system. Other systems are usually sold to and fitted by fire alarm companies or contractors with no specialist radio knowledge. But oh boy, do you pay for the expertise.

Pm me if etc. etc

[David Rooney]

Deaf Alerter meets all of these criteria, but may be overpriced and overspecified if you only want simple fire alarm warning. The Scope system may be adequate and would be much cheaper, although the quality is far lower (IMHO). Also, Deaf Alerter is the only system which allows the user to carry pagers between buildings on a site - a patented function called 'Roaming'. No other system should claim to be able to do this, as it would infringe patent.

Finally, Deaf Alerter will take responsibility for surveying the building and installing, commissioning, etc the system. Other systems are usually sold to and fitted by fire alarm companies or contractors with no specialist radio knowledge. But oh boy, do you pay for the expertise.

Pm me if etc. etc

Regarding compliance with standards and roaming etc etc..... I thought the pager had to get get a message when the transmitter failed or effectively went out of range, how does the deaf alerter overcome this when its "linked" to X number of transmitters......

[ian_spleen]

The transmitter is monitored for short/open circuits, loss of communication with the fire alarm system, removal of the antennae, etc. The pager unit is monitored for a low battery. The same is true for most of these type of systems.

It's not necessary to have an 'out of range' alert, as (assuming the system has been properly set up) the unit will only be out of range of the transmitter once you leave it's radio pattern (i.e you leave the protected building). Once you've left the building, you no longer need to get signals from the transmitter. As soon as you enter a protected building, the pager unit will fall into the radio pattern from the transmitter and will activate with any messages sent by it.

[David Rooney]

18.2.2

f) A failure of the interconnection (e.g. radio transmission) between the transmission equipment and the portable alarm device should be identified at the portable alarm device by a visual and tactile signal within five minutes of the failure. The visual indication should remain until the interconnection is re-constituted or the portable alarm device is switched off. The tactile indication may be cancelled by operation of a manual control, provided that, at intervals not exceeding 15 min, it is then repeated for a duration of at least 0.5 s, unless the portable alarm device is switched off.

Out of range isn't a requirement, but monitoring of the signal between the transmitter and the pager is. So the failure of the transmitter (which is pretty much the same as going out of range) should cause the pager to react.... I know the Scope version does this.

Last time I used Deaf Alerter (very long time ago admittedly) it didn't. And when questioned they told me it needed to be written as an agreed variation from the code.... just failed to mention it in their brochure.......!!

Hence the Deaf Alerter vision of selling a single pager to all the hard of hearing, and thinking that they can sell a transmitter to every shop unit in every high street in the country won't comply or work.

[ian_spleen]

Yes, a fault on the transmitter (such as a mains power failure) will be relayed to all pagers within the radio pattern of the transmitter. Out of range is not a fault.

As for their mission statement - you've got to have a dream if you don't have a dream, how you gonna make a dream come true?

[kurnal]

Thanks to all for educating us through this most valuable thread.

EMS have pager that can be used on their system but it's not DDA compliant.

Dave please could you expand a little on this- why is the pager not DDA compliant? Where can I find out about DDA requirements for pagers?

[Wiz]

I also had to use a Deafalerter system years ago. It had some facilities that made it a better option for use with fire alarm systems than what was available from Scope at that time. These were monitoring of the aerial connection and a fault output relay that could be used to indicate paging system faults on the fire alarm control panel.

At the time I am pretty certain there was no mention of Paging systems in BS 5839 Part 1. The literature from Deafalerter at the time proclaimed that their system was being approved by all Government agencies and was complying with a soon-to-be issued Standard.

The system operated very well in use, but was ten times the cost of equipment available from Scope at the time which could do everything Deafalerter could but without the monitoring etc.

From David Rooney's earlier posts it would seem that Scope now produce something that possibly complies with the latest BS5839 Part 1 and Deafalerter do not. I don't know what the comparitive costs are but it wouldn't at all surprise me if Scope was still much cheaper since I always had the impression that Deafalerter were just trying to charge as much as they could for their product.

As for the 'out of range' facility, I have more experience of Blick paging systems but not used for fire alarm purposes and the pagers on these systems were forever being accidently removed from site and taken home for children to 'play' with until we started using systems with the 'out of range' facility. It was a very useful benefit for our systems and I would imagine a critical facility for pagers being used with fire alarm systems.

[ian_spleen]

Sorry to interrupt Kurnal, but the principal reason that the EMS pager is not 5839 compliant is that it does not work on a licenced frequency.

[ian_spleen]

Wiz.

The Scope equipment complies with 5839, as long as it is not used for messaging, for the reasons I listed above.

Out of range is not a monitoring function and is not required to comply with the standard. In fact, it could be considered either a good or bad function depending on how you view it. Many types of pagers give out of range signals, but this doesn't equate to complying with 5839 monitoring requirements. The pager has to respond to faults (i.e power loss, etc). Out of range is not a fault.

Deaf Alerter pagers are designed to 'roam'. That is, many people own their own and carry them as part of their daily routine at work, college, etc. Hence, a visitor from one site with a system can visit another site and be automatically protected by the fire alarm system. This is why they do not go 'out of range'. It does however mean that the system management have to monitor the issue of devices (which cost about £200, against a pager which costs about te equivalent of a big bag of Doritos), to stop people 'roaming' off with them.

People constantly receiveing out of range signals are as likely to turn the pager off as return it.

My take on it is simply this. The Scope kit is adequate if all you want is a simple fire alarm warning paging system. It complies with 5839 if used for this purpose and is about one third the cost of Deaf Alerter - however, it is rarely installed properly - for instance most Scope transmitter simply get bolted to the wall next to the fire alarm panel. As a result, half of the radio signal immediately heads for the car park, leaving parts of the building liable to not being protected unless the installer understands radio systems.

Blick systems also comply with the standard unless used for messaging and are similarly priced. However, Blick seem to show little interest in actively supporting the system and technical back up may not be all it could be. Advance Electronics now own what was Clarion Communications, who made a system almost identical to Deaf Alerter and complied with 5839 even when using the messaging functions. It just does not allow the patented 'roaming' function. Again however, technical support is variable.

If you are going to use all the Deaf Alerter functions (messaging, roaming, on going tech support, specialist installation, etc) then it's probably worth the extra money. If not, then it probably isn't.

[David Rooney]

Hello Kurnal...!

The main reasons the EMS pager doesn't comply is because the panel doesn't continuously transmit the alarm message, the transmitter isn't monitored for failure, the pager doesn't react for the required time and the fact you can turn the pager off, and all sorts of techy stuff.

I'ts ok for security guards but not for DDA compliance.

Ian...

"People constantly receiveing out of range signals are as likely to turn the pager off as return it."

I thought i read somewhere that you shouldn't be able to turn the pagers off??

And so, in a nutshell, if the deaf alerter doesn't monitor the transmitter for failure, it is non compliant... and as you say, costs at least two thirds more than Scope.

[Wiz]

Ian, well responded.

I can see the benefit of hearing impaired persons owning their own pager and being able to use it on many sites that might have the Deafalerter system installed.

Thanks for pointing out the pluses and minuses with each system (by the way, I wasn't promotong Blick as a fire alarm option, only mentioning that I had some past experience of their systems. However I do agree with your opinion of their service)

Whilst I accept it might well happen, anyone installing any wireless signalling system without proving it operates correctly wherever it is meant to do, is making a very basic but big mistake and I can't imagine most fire alarm companies being this remiss. they should be used to testing 'cause and effect'

Thank you for explaining the services available from Deafalerter that may justify the higher cost of their system.

[kurnal]

Sorry to interrupt Kurnal, but the principal reason that the EMS pager is not 5839 compliant is that it does not work on a licenced frequency.

Thanks Ian - but  I am particularly interested in why it is not DDA compliant??

On your topic though - are there any allocated and licenced frequencies allocated specifically to such pagers by the radio licencing people? Why was BS5839 so specific about this?

Was it considered best practice at the time for performance based technical reasons such as  frequency allocation to avoid interference between adjacent  units (which should not be a problem with digital systems?) or just because someone  writing for the BSI thought it would be helpful to comply with red tape and support those nice people at the DTI who take money of us for these things and then do very little in return?

Thanks David- we posted about the same time.

[kurnal]

Hello Kurnal...!

The main reasons the EMS pager doesn't comply is because the panel doesn't continuously transmit the alarm message, the transmitter isn't monitored for failure, the pager doesn't react for the required time and the fact you can turn the pager off, and all sorts of techy stuff.

I'ts ok for security guards but not for DDA compliance.

Thanks David
Is there anywhere I can read up on these requirements for DDA compliance- eg for access to buildings we have BS8300, is there something similar for pagers and the like?