The web site seems decidedly lacking in technical information (not to mention they try to re-direct to a different site that doesn't have its security certificates set up properly

I don't like the idea of the sensor unit being attached to the hood - it's going to get gunged up with grease in no time - and you can't expect it to be kept clean in a student environment. There precious little data about the control unit either - the connectors look like the 16A ones you see on lighting installations - which won't be much cop for a typical UK 32A+ single phase setup. Maybe an additional contactor will be needed, but that rubbishes their low power consumption claims and would make installation much more difficult. I wonder how it interacts with conventional fire alarm systems? - I think such kitchens would often have heat detectors - which would trigger first?. The general idea does appeal - but in my mind there's some outstanding questions about the details of the implementation. Maybe better information would reassure.

   - Andy.

I agree with the point about the existing fire alarm - having something that kills power to the cooker if the existing alarms go off might be  more sensible - it does not even have to wire in to the alarm -  there are things that listen for a fire alarm, and then for example lower roller shutters or release door catches - a variation on that theme might be more use than an independent detector of unknown enthusiasm and state of maintenance. That way it gets tested as the alarms do.

(though we have a fire door using one of those  that closes when folk are washing up with too much  enthusiastic clinking of mugs, so the detection of 'alarm sound' may be a bit keen on some models.)

And maybe it's an influence of my scouting/camping hobby but I often fry things with a bit a of flame in the pan, even indoors., and I'd be quite miffed if the power kept getting cut. And deep in the last century, I have been a student...

Mike.

From what I have observered the fire detection is usually heat detectors. From my understanding these trigger at 54deg. By the time the detector has triggered I'd think the fire is well underway(I suspect that is another topic of disccusion). I like the direction that the Norwegians are going in. No doubt there is a balance between a detector that alerts and shuts off the moment water boils, and a full on BBQ on the hob but the detector hasn't triggered. 

From what I have observered the fire detection is usually heat detectors. From my understanding these trigger at 54deg. By the time the detector has triggered I'd think the fire is well underway(I suspect that is another topic of disccusion). I like the direction that the Norwegians are going in. No doubt there is a balance between a detector that alerts and shuts off the moment water boils, and a full on BBQ on the hob but the detector hasn't triggered. 

No doubt there is a balance between a detector that alerts and shuts off the moment water boils, and a full on BBQ on the hob but the detector hasn't triggered. 

Indeed - I'd worry that a 3rd party  unit where sensor placement in relation to things like the cooker itself and then ventilation/ cooker hoods  and so on will affect the trip level could all be a bit uncontrolled may well suffer either failure mode.

Having worked in the middle east for a short time, 54 C seems quite a low threshold to me - its only inside a hot parked car in the summer sort of temperature even in the UK.  200C is a normal chip pan,  250C is only solder melting point and not enough to ignite tissue paper, let alone anything denser.

Incidentally in my kitchen at home I have a 'rate of rise' type, which does not look at the absolute level or rather it does but only as  a secondary trip point and very hot, but rather is intended to trip on rapid temperature fluctuations. Mind you even that can be fooled by lifting the lid on a pan, and has been located to the non-cooker  end of things...

Mike.