Difference between revisions of "Talk:Smoke Detectors"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
ARWadsworth (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I suppose the question then is what is the purpose of the detectors. I think its fire protection rather than toast brownness detection. | I suppose the question then is what is the purpose of the detectors. I think its fire protection rather than toast brownness detection. | ||
[[User:NT|NT]] 14:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC) | [[User:NT|NT]] 14:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Kitchens== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The suggestion of a smoke alarm in a kitchen is against the advice of all the manufacturers. Even worse is the suggestion of an ionisation detector that will trip more often than an optical one. | ||
Revision as of 15:00, 27 March 2011
False alarm or nuisance trip
It is not really a false alarm if some one burns the toast, the alarm is doing exactly what it should. Would nuisance trip be a better term?
But singed toast isnt a fire, nor is smoking. They also go off when frying, when there's no fire. But soon will be if you dont turn the heat down.
I suppose the question then is what is the purpose of the detectors. I think its fire protection rather than toast brownness detection. NT 14:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Kitchens
The suggestion of a smoke alarm in a kitchen is against the advice of all the manufacturers. Even worse is the suggestion of an ionisation detector that will trip more often than an optical one.