Pv & smoke alarms !!!!!

[NozSpark]

IMHO there wouldn't be much difference (electrically) between a house with PV connected through a dedicated CU and 2 houses fed from the same summation supply.... So what are you mean't to do, check the neighbours houses aswell??

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was made at 23:44 ----------

TBH I think this leaflet is mean't for installations "off grid"

 

[binky]

OK, lets hang on a minute.This WILL end up as a contract law dispute if it ever gets that far.

Which was installed first, smokes or PV?

When either was installed, NOT NOW, what did the makers guidance state?

That will be what matters.

IF you installed a solar PV system into a house that had Aico smokes and when the solar PV was installed the Aico instructions did NOT include the solar PV warning, then regardless of anything that follows no issues.

If when the solar was installed the smokie makers data said no PV, then deep doo doo.

If someone came along after the solar was installed and installed smokes that were incompatible, their issue.

End Of Story.

Your Professional Indemnity Insurer would win this for you as they would subpoena the makers of both sets of equipment to provide the information that was in force at the time of your design.

thats a bit like saying you can't fit a new exhaust without checking the tyres first. If it's a standard part designed to fit your car, why should I consider checking the full parameters of everything else fitted. Anyone designing a product for connection to standard electrical supply needs to consider all electrical /environmental conditions that their quipment might encounter. There are numerous standards to comply with when considering any design, but any equipment fitted by me that the maker says complies with standards (CE marking being a major one) is not my problem if it subsequently fails due to lack of foresight of the designer. We do of course occassionally see failures in this process due to not forseeing certain unexpected conditions of operation - like drying the dog in a microwave oven - hence litigation and get out clauses are so popular.

 

[steptoe]

we also dont get to hear of folks frying their new stereo cos they fitted in a lorry @ 24v

manuf instructions and all that, if the smoke alarms state not to be fitted in conjunction with PV then you cant do it, and you cant then fit PV,

back to the car again, you have a petrol car but decide to make it more economical so fit a diesel engine, well you cant, the CAT in the exhaust wont comply, so you have to change that as well,

same as fitting PV, you will have to change the smokes to comply.

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 01:16 ---------- Previous post was made at 01:12 ----------

thats a bit like saying you can't fit a new exhaust without checking the tyres first. If it's a standard part designed to fit your car, why should I consider checking the full parameters of everything else fitted. Anyone designing a product for connection to standard electrical supply needs to consider all electrical /environmental conditions that their quipment might encounter. There are numerous standards to comply with when considering any design, but any equipment fitted by me that the maker says complies with standards (CE marking being a major one) is not my problem if it subsequently fails due to lack of foresight of the designer. We do of course occassionally see failures in this process due to not forseeing certain unexpected conditions of operation - like drying the dog in a microwave oven - hence litigation and get out clauses are so popular.

I think this is the sticking part,

its NOT designed to fit YOUR car, it is designed to fit cars of that model, not any particular car that the manuf has no control over any mods that may have taken place,

PV is designed to fit a standard building, smoke detectors are designed to fit a standard building,

like I said above, some items have conflicts,

normal sockets are designed to fit a standard building, baths and showers are designed to fit a standard building, do you see where I am heading here?

 

[Phoenix]

just a slightly flat top of the sinewave but as the scope is an older lcd one he reckons this could be the screen distortion as its the same on the mains with no PV

Often flat topped since waves are caused by equipment with switching power supplies such as computers, as most of the current is drawn on the peaks leading to volt drop during this time, which causes the voltage to drop a little, thereby flatting it out

 

[binky]

I see what your argument is Steps, but seeing inveretrs are designed to work within G83 tolerances which mimic a standar electrical supply from the DNO, then anything else designed to use a standard power supply should be resistant to damage from it. It still stirkes me as a get out clause due to not really knowing if the problem exisits or not??? My own house has AICOs and a Power One inverter, the very first job I did has AICOs and Enecsys micro-inveretrs, neither have shown any signs of problems.

 

[ProDave]

shouldnt you have a little bit on your contract for supplying the PV that it is the property owners responsibility to ensure all the equipment within the property is compatible with the specified inverter/PV kit you are fitting?I think that is going to have to be the get out clause for the future.

I don't fit PV so it's not a direct issue for me.

But I simply refuse to follow the herds into putting lots of "get out" clauses in contracts.

As I see it, I'm an electrician. I fit electrical items. I buy said items from a wholesaler in good faith that they are fit for purpose.

ANY accessory should be fit for purpose and safe to fit into any installation.

This one case of one manufacturer adding this get out clause and telling you not to fit their products if you have solar PV (or not fit solar PV if you have their products in use) is to me, simply not acceptable.

What trade bodies do we have looking at issue like this? Should trading standards be looking into this? I think they should, and should be demanding these defective designs (there's no other description for them) are removed from the marketplace.

What about a product recall? Wylex recalled their MCB's when found to be technically lacking, why are all these unfit smoke alarms left alone? Why is it seen as okay to leave possibly faulty smoke alarms in service that could fail and cause a death?

They are clearly unfit for service in the real world so they should be recalled.

Can anyone give me a good reason why this is not happening?

Instead the manufacturers seem to think a simple get out clause of "do not fit PV" is good enough. I don't think it is.

If they are allowed to get away with continuing to sell defective products, and trying to cover their rse with a get out clause, then I fear other manufacturers will do the same, and standards will fall.

I do hope this is not a case where it's going to take a death due to a defective smoke alarm, before anyone takes a proper look at what's happening here.

They need to be called to account NOW, before it's too late.

 

[PC Electrics]

I've applied to go on the Aico Trained Installer Scheme. I'll ask about this on the course (after I've passed and been handed my certificate!).

 

[hmmm]

aico have a tech bulletin about this its basically a disclaimer

 

[batty]

On this subject of interference are PV panels likely to interfere with internal PIR's on lighting?

 

[sparky b]

I've applied to go on the Aico Trained Installer Scheme. I'll ask about this on the course (after I've passed and been handed my certificate!).

Does it cost much PC?

 

[steptoe]

Does it cost much PC?

do you seriously need to go on a course to learn how to install domestic smoke detectors?

cos in all essence that is what this is going to be,

and yet you feel yourself adequate enough to be going round peoples houses installing electrics and most likely calling yourselves electricians,,,, :shakehead

---------- Post Auto-Merged at 00:52 ---------- Previous post was made at 00:52 ----------

now,

where was my case against 5WW at?

 

[sparky b]

Wtf, I install their products on a regular basis, just because a man takes an interest you jump to conclusions???? Why don't you direct your sh1te at PC, he's the one going on the course....or maybe you can't because it weakens your pointless argument against 5ww cause he's probably 'time served'

Your case against 5ww doesn't include me, I did it in 8 days...

 

[binky]

calm down lads. I did the AICO course a few years ago. It was free, I did learn a bit more about their products and possible applications, and got listed on their website. Did I need to do it, no, was it useful all the same, yes.

 

[ProDave]

aico have a tech bulletin about this its basically a disclaimer

Is it on the web? if so do you have a link?

 

[PC Electrics]

That's unworthy Steps.

The course is free of charge. It lasts a morning.

I might learn something new. Unlike Steps, I don't know it all.

Once completed you get listed on the Aico online list of trained installers for 3 years.

There are no others listed anywhere near me.

This might help gain jobs involving smoke detection with a little 'kudos'.

I live on an estate of 350 or so houses all about 12 to 15 years old. Gonna try and drum up some business by replacing all those 10+ year old smokes with new. Thinking about a leaflet campaign. Already replaced a few and am trying to spread the word.

If fitting smokes is so easy and no training is required, how is it then that most contractors fit ionisation smoke alarms just outside the kitchen door, thus plaguing the owner with years of false alarms thanks to cooking fumes, when what they should have done is fit an optical which is less sensitive to this type of input? And anyway, if you read the literature you will find opticals are recommended for halls and landings anyway.

(actually, they do it because ions are cheaper than optis!)

It'll also give me the opportunity to ask about smokes and invertors. We might all learn something??

Don't see how anyone can be criticised for doing some training and learning, especially when it's free.

I can't see smoke alarm systems anywhere on my apprentices college syllabus.

I wire up and fault find loads of heating systems too, but I'm still thinking of going on the Honeywell course. Again, just a day and free (I think). And you get to be able to claim "Honeywell trained".

Something else they don't teach electricians on apprenticeships. They teach it to plumbers though. Hhmm, must ask the college why that is.

 

[steptoe]

WOW,

I state the obvious and I get lambasted,

again.

so this is what its all boiled down to,

trained this, trained that,

surely if you are a competent electrician you should be able to do all this, ?

as for fitting ionisation smokes everywhere, then they are numpties that shouldnt be doing anything like that sort of work cos clearly they arent competent to do it,

doesnt take a training course to do it properly though.

are we all so insecure in ourselves that we need to feel self-important by being honeywell trained? or is it so we have more rubbish 'qualifications' ?

 

[Sidewinder]

Steps,

It's about marketing mate.

Your USP, how you can differentiate yourself from the others out there.

IF you can demonstrate that you have the AICO smoke alarm installers course, and the Honeywell heating control course, and none around you have, then this would be a means of legitimately distancing yourself from the others, they, may, still be sufficiently competent, but, you have the "certs" to prove it and thus, you can use these as sales and marketing tools.

Whilst we may well be sparks, first and foremost, those of us who are "self-employed" are salesmen and businessmen, running a business to pay our bills/wages etc.

Thus we HAVE to sell and market ourselves.

Just as Specs has said several times, we have to understand running a business first and foremost, because, if you can't be successful at running the business side of things, no matter how good a spark you are, you will end up bankrupt.

IYKWIM