MSSI

Although under the bulding code..Someone was telling me today about a wireless interconnected smoke detector... Was I correct in telling him that, If they are not 120v hardwired from a AFIC protected lighting circut they do not meet code ????
Could you have them hard wired(as above) with a "wireless" interconnection? or does code say interconnection has to be hardwired as well??

acrwc10

I don't believe the code cares how they are interconnected just as long as they are. They will still need to be hard wired for power , the wireless part is so they will all go off if there is an alarm event, being on the same cicuit is not nessisary if they on a wireless interconnect , and they only need to be on AFCI if they are in a sleeping area/ bedroom and you are under 2002 NEC or later.

Sparky Joe

I think it is in article 100 where it says things have to be listed by an underwriters laboratory. If the thing is listed for what you intend to use it for then it is fine.
And yes, where it recieves it's power does need to be AFCI protected. Which I think is a big joke because if the dang house is burning down the last thing you want is the fire alarm tripping out on some tempermental specialty breaker.

fridaymean

Speedy Petey

This is generally agreed upon across the board so WHY is there not an AFCI exception for smokes?

Does anyone know if there is any proposals to change this idiotic rule about smokes on AFCIs?

__________________

loobydude

What is so "idiotic" about having the smokes on an arc fault breaker? The code reads that all outlets in the bedrooms have to be arc fault protected. So what is the problem?

mdshunk

Maybe idiotic was not the exact right word, but the sentiment is still the same. Looby, have you any data about arcing fault failures of smoke detectors causing dwelling fires? Do you feel, as many do, that keeping "normal" power to a smoke detector is something that should be important (along the same lines of thinking as how fire pumps are permitted to be wired)?

Speedy Petey

Marc, thank you for the backup. I could not have said it better.

When the scientific data piles up that fires are starting from arcing smoke detectors I'll change my opinion.

Maybe idiotic was a bad word. How about ludicrous?

__________________

Sparky Joe

I think it's great to always see the so called "inspectors" point of view on a subject that makes no sense whatsoever.

It's always black and white with them, a lot of times with no concept of how things work or why.

"The code says.......,so it must be right"

loobydude

So, this is how it is on this site. Since I am an inspector, you are going to treat me like I am the enemy. That is ok. I can handle that. What I can't understand is why complain about something when you can use that energy to find the facts and learn more about the product. So let's see if I can understand some of your comments. I did not know that we had a difference in power. What do you mean by "normal" power? If I am mistaken, I think in the building code it says that the smoke detectors have to be hard wired and have battery back up. So they will still work whether power is on or off. I think the problem here is lack of information. If you would take the time to read up on arc faults and smoke detectors, you might have a different opinion about them. The way you talk about them, you must be having some problems. I thought that is what this forum is for. To help each other with problems they are having. If you are, then let everyone know and maybe someone has an answer. And if this forum is not for inspectors, let me know and I will get out. One last thing for Sparky, it sounds like from your comments that you must be that type of electrician that does not open up his code book. If you had opened your book, you would have seen that my comment did make sense. And if you are going to quote somebody, make sure you have it correct.

Speedy Petey

By "normal" he means non-AFCI.
I must ask,what does the fact that smokes require battery back-up have to do with AFCI circuits??

Instead of chastising us about our views and opinions why don't use use that energy to provide some links or proof of the benefits of smokes on AFCI protected circuits?
It works both ways you know.

__________________

thom

There was some discussion on this on the "Building Code Discussion Group" a while back. They were big supporters of AFCI for SD's in bedrooms, I was the outsider.

In my jurisdiction, the electrical bureau has specifically said that SD's and Ceiling Fans do not need to be on the AFCI's. I called them just last week to verify.

What is apparently in the wind is AFCI's for all circuits. I think the issue here is that the manufacturers are all on the code council. They make more money on a $40 breaker than a $3 breaker. We'll be spending a lot more money on breakers AND because we can't get twin AFCI's we be spending even more on sub-panels. The manufacturers are greasing their own pockets at the expense of others, but they can tell us we are safer.

loobydude

I do not understand your question. All I am saying is whether the smokes are afci protected or not, they will still work with the battery back up. You can call it chastising or whatever you want, instead of complaining about having to put them on an arc fault, tell us why you have a problem with them so that we might be able to help. I think there was a proposal to take the smokes off of the arc fault. But it did not get approved. I don't know if there is some information about the benefits of having the smokes on an afci circuit but I will look and see if there is.

mdshunk

I have a question. Who is "we", in your above statement?

loobydude

Anyone that might want to respond on this forum. Who did you think I was talking about?

mdshunk

Just wondering if you were on one of the CMP's, is all. That would make you part of a "we" who can effect change. Calm down. Coming in with guns blazing isn't fairing so well, thus far, for you.

Speedy Petey

The problem is that AFCIs are an imperfect technology that was thrust upon us in this trade by the manufacturer lobbyists. As opposed to GFIs that were slowly integrated into the code the greedy manufacturers are forcing them into FULL widespread use.




Now here you are being completely contradictory. In your earlier post you say we will be convinced that smokes are better off on AFCI, then you say you are not sure but you'll look and see.
Do you have ANY proof that we as a society will be safer having smoke detectors AFCI protected?????

__________________

loobydude

Guys, I don't know what else to say. I am not upset at anyone.
Petey, you need to reread my post before saying I said things that I did not say. All I am saying is read up on arc faults and you might have a different opinion about them. I was under the same opinion about arc faults as you when they first came out. I thought it was a manufacturers gimmick, until I started to read more about them. They do serve a purpose.

Speedy Petey

Of course they serve a purpose.
The question is do they serve a purpose of protecting smoke detectors. From your reply to me in post #6 you seem to think so.
Obviously I disagree.

I did NOT say you said things you did not say. I quoted you exactly.

__________________

mdshunk

From a business standpoint, I'm in favor of AFCI's. I'm actually one of the few that are happy about the Jan 1, 2008 requirement for all 120v circuits to be AFCI'd. That's lots o' money.

From the standpoint of life/safety enhancement by AFCI protecting the smokes, I think it's silly. I'd think you'd want to keep regular 120v power to the smokes until the bitter end, without having to resort to the battery backup. This is how fire pumps are done. I just don't see the safety enhancement that results from AFCI protecting smokes. This is not a general arguement against AFCI's... it is a very specific issue with AFCI protecting smoke detectors.