Replace wired smoke alarms

[JohnW2]

the far smaller risk associated with the "0.05%" bernard mentioned above.

That is based on the blocking caused by adjacent and compliant systems. The effect of blocking from the non compliant equipment alters that 0.05% significantly. These may transmit for many minutes if the user holds the button pressed as they are intended to block all activity on the channel.

Sure, but I haven't a clue as to the probability of an operating non-compliant system being within range of a wireless alarm system at the very moment a fire arises in the property, have you? I do, however, suspect that such a coming together of circumstances at one point in time would be incredibly improbable, don't you?

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

I do, however, suspect that such a coming together of circumstances at one point in time would be incredibly improbable, don't you?

No. it is significantly probable.

 

[JohnW2]

I do, however, suspect that such a coming together of circumstances at one point in time would be incredibly improbable, don't you?

No. it is significantly probable.

That obviously begs a question! On average, for what proportion of the time do you believe that there is a non-compliant device present and transmitting within wireless range of your home?

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

I have sent a PM with one example. ( mustn't give any criminals the know how ).

Near my cottage. I no longer have an off air monitor so cannot give an accurate answer.

 

[JohnW2]

I have sent a PM with one example. ( mustn't give any criminals the know how ). Near my cottage. I no longer have an off air monitor so cannot give an accurate answer.

Indeed, and as I've said in my response to your PM, I still believe we are talking about an incredibly small (probably 'vanishingly small') risk that a particular dwelling in a particular place will be suffering from 'blocking' of its wireless alarms at the very moment that a fire/smoke alarm is activated - but I don't have any hard figures to back that up, so we'll probably just have to agree to disagree!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

One might indeed decide that - but so many RTAs (I gather we now have to call them RTCs!) are due to deliberate human behaviour and/or human error, I'm not sure what 'pretty high cost' methods of 'avoiding RTA risks' you had in mind.

Not a financial one.

I meant changing your lifestyle so that you were no longer exposed to the risk of RT{A|C}s

Whatever, I have already agreed with you that, in virtually any context, wired connections are always to be preferred to wireless ones, unless there are really compelling reasons to the contrary.

Yes, and then you suggested/implied (or so it seemed) that people should not in practice concern themselves about the small risks of a wireless connection going bad when needed.

... the risk of a particular dwelling suffering a fire during which there was such a delay in the alarm system in a year would be about '1 in 1.1 million' . To put that '1 in 1.1 million in a year' into perspective, the overall statistical risk of an individual dying on UK roads in 2013 was something like '1 in 37,000' about 34 times greater than the risk mentioned above (and the risk of being seriously injured on UK roads many times greater still).

If you constantly worry about the risk of being killed or seriously injured on the roads, you might possibly also want to worry about the far smaller risk associated with the "0.05%" bernard mentioned above.

 

[JohnW2]

Whatever, I have already agreed with you that, in virtually any context, wired connections are always to be preferred to wireless ones, unless there are really compelling reasons to the contrary.

Yes, and then you suggested/implied (or so it seemed) that people should not in practice concern themselves about the small risks of a wireless connection going bad when needed.

Indeed, but that was on the basis of the figures bernard had suggested. I would be extremely happy if the probability of the WiFi in my house 'going bad' at the very moment I needed to use it (just once every 550 years!) was only 0.05%! As things are, if the wireless connection was anything as (un)reliable as my WiFi (which often has to be rebooted every day or three), then I certainly wouldn't trust it to be an important part of my fire/smoke alarm system! However, that's nothing to do with 'channel blocking' but, rather, old/iffy hardware/firmware.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But we've not identified any smoke detectors which use WiFi as an interconnect.

 

[JohnW2]

But we've not identified any smoke detectors which use WiFi as an interconnect.

We haven't - but I was talking about whatever wireless connection the detectors/alarms use, not 'WiFi' in the usual (LAN) sense - which is why I wrote "if the wireless connection was anything as (un)reliable as my WiFi " (rather than "if the WiFi were anything as (un)reliable as mine")

Kind Regards, John

 

[MrMrMr111]

Going back to my original question and not a discussion on the pros and cons of a Nest protect...

An electrician came to do another job, I quickly asked about the wiring, he just said quickly that the yellow was interlink and black/grey loop live to the next one, that's all he said didn't really get chance to ask any more out how to wire the protect.

Do does this mean I should just use the red and blue and nothing else and secure the other wires in a chocky block and tape up and push out of the way?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Going back to my original question and not a discussion on the pros and cons of a Nest protect...

It's not pros and cons of the Nest.

It's pros and cons of any alarms/detectors which use a wireless interconnect.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We haven't - but I was talking about whatever wireless connection the detectors/alarms use, not 'WiFi' in the usual (LAN) sense - which is why I wrote "if the wireless connection was anything as (un)reliable as my WiFi " (rather than "if the WiFi were anything as (un)reliable as mine")

Rewind.

You started out saying that the use of wireless interconnects should be avoided if at all possible, and then pretty soon after said that the risks of a wireless interconnect not working when needed were so small as to be not worth bothering about.

 

[MrMrMr111]

Going back to my original question and not a discussion on the pros and cons of a Nest protect...

It's not pros and cons of the Nest.

It's pros and cons of any alarms/detectors which use a wireless interconnect.

and as I said can I go back to my original question... About wiring and leave the wireless interlink argument now.

Thanks

 

[JohnW2]

Rewind. ... You started out saying that the use of wireless interconnects should be avoided if at all possible, and then pretty soon after said that the risks of a wireless interconnect not working when needed were so small as to be not worth bothering about.

I can understand your point, so I'll try to clarify. Yes, as a general principle, in any context, I would say that wireless connections (for anything) should be avoided (in favour of wired ones), unless there is some compelling reason to use wireless - since one thereby avoids all of the uncertainties (or whatever magnitude) associated with wireless, but not wired, connections.

However, bernard then started quoting probability figures which seemed to suggest that the 'risks' of using a wireless connection in the context under discussion was so small that, frankly, it would make precious little difference whether the connection is wireless or wired.

The important thing to realise is that such a 'risk assessment' only arises because, in context, the probability of a fire/smoke alarm being activated 'in true anger' at any given point in time is already incredibly low (maybe about once every 550 years for a given property). In most other situations (albeit many of them far less safety-critical), one 'needs' communication to be satisfactory far far more frequently than that (often very many times per day) in which case the increased probability of a wireless connection (as opposed to a wired one) 'failing (at least occasionally) at a moment when it is needed' becomes far more of an issue.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

and as I said can I go back to my original question... About wiring and leave the wireless interlink argument now.

OK - let's do that. Let's return to the wiring.

Now I know there is 3 (Delta 530sca?) and they use the interlink between them.

The wiring provides you with a wired interconnect. Keep it. Use it. Do not fit detectors which do not use it.