Apollo Ancillary Sounder

[JonnyG]

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??

[Benzerari]

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 ?

[Wiz]

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!

[JonnyG]

Cheers Wiz, that puts a few concerns to rest.

Benz this is it.
http://www.apollo-fire.co.uk/45681-276.html

[Allen Higginson]

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.

[Big_Fella]

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 !!!!

[Galeon]

No cause and effect possible , I bet a few people have been caught out here then.

[Big_Fella]

Indeed.  Also, you cannot pulse the sounder, nor is the sounder syncronized !!

[Graeme]

and they don't work on C-tec AFP as you cannot tell the panel there is a sounder with the detector.

[Benzerari]

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

[JonnyG]

Benz, I didn't say it didn't comply with BS.  I was asking if it did!!!!

[Rosjes]

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!

[Allen Higginson]

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!

[Rosjes]

Buzzard, all ancillary base sounders operate in a fire condition.

[Allen Higginson]

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.