Loop powered door retainer

[kurnal]

What make of panel is that in the pics Buzz?

[Allen Higginson]

Not 100% but it does resemble an Algorex or Sinteso

[Wiz]

......


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!

[Tom W]

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

[Wiz]

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.

[Tom W]

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!

[Wiz]

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]

[Tom W]

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 

[Wiz]

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.

[Graeme]

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.

[Tom W]

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.

[Tom W]

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?

[Wiz]

....... 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)

[Wiz]

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)

[Tom Sutton]

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?