Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 29 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2087 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Cables and reaction to fire

lyledunn
Why do you suppose that the MHCLG did not feel it necessary to mandate levels of performance for cables with respect to their reaction to fire as was their prerogative under CPR?

Clearly the current non-prescriptive approach is either working or there is no significant evidence that cables and wiring systems have unduly contributed to the propagation of a fire or resulted in emissions that made a situation untenable when it would not have otherwise been. 

Further, what does it actually mean in the note in 422.2.1 that cables need to satisfy the requirements of the CPR in terms of their reaction to fire? I can find nothing specific in the CPR other than the need for CE marking and the requirements placed on the manufacturers for technical information.
Parents
  • 0

    these were not fires but were the alarms reacting correctly (twice through someone in the restaurant at breakfast burning toast activating an alarm and at least once due to a resident leaving the bathroom door open while showering). The fact that this was 100% correct functioning of the detectors is a pretty high success rate.




    To most people that would be interpreted as a 100% failure rate, and adds to the intuition  that most fire alarms can indeed be safely ignored. This is very dangerous.

    A sensor that cannot tell the very significant difference between burnt toast or steam and a real fire, is not making the correct decision, or is the wrong sort of sensor for the location. However, the price of making the sensor less sensitive is to mean that occasionally a real fire will not be detected, or more likely, will be detected later. That is the risk balance.


Reply
  • 0

    these were not fires but were the alarms reacting correctly (twice through someone in the restaurant at breakfast burning toast activating an alarm and at least once due to a resident leaving the bathroom door open while showering). The fact that this was 100% correct functioning of the detectors is a pretty high success rate.




    To most people that would be interpreted as a 100% failure rate, and adds to the intuition  that most fire alarms can indeed be safely ignored. This is very dangerous.

    A sensor that cannot tell the very significant difference between burnt toast or steam and a real fire, is not making the correct decision, or is the wrong sort of sensor for the location. However, the price of making the sensor less sensitive is to mean that occasionally a real fire will not be detected, or more likely, will be detected later. That is the risk balance.


Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines