What is it with you guys and addressable loop powered notification?
It seems like its a really new technology for you guys but we had it for 25 years+. It also seems like no brand in the US has full on loop powered addressable notification. Before you say simplex has addressable notifaction, it does but its on a separate circuit. For us it goes straight on the detector loop without any external power. Here notifier/system sensor are one of the first to produce addressable notification but notifier/system sensor doesn’t have any over seas. Also on notifier it is as easy to program a sounder just like a detector. addresses the same way as-well. Also we had LED strobes for a long time which reduces the power. It may not be as bright as your absurd regulations though. When the alarm goes off, the panel lets more power through the loop to keep the demand. Also why do some of you American’s bash everything remotely European? Ive seen people when they see a call point or anything alike, they call it shit and cheap quality? why do you people do that? Sorry if it seems like a rant but this is just my opinions and observations.
@Croatian_fire_alarms as a fellow alarm enthusiast, I agree with you man
Heck European and British fire alarms are quite neat and are actually quite good and don’t deserve to be bashed by Americans
Sounds like you answered your own question. Brighter strobes, stricter regs for visual coverage. Also Simplex had a patent in the US.
Addressable sounder bases are pretty common in the US, though not the norm for general audible notification.
A vague understanding of UK low voltage regs leads me to think the voltage and current limits for low voltage wiring are higher there.
Last part: not necessarily
Well a problem with call points is that they’re easy to activate accidentally, and the problem with the notification appliances is that there’s no synchronization.
Thats only the problem with uncovered call points with resettable elements. Thats the problem with UK. Here in croatia and Czechia, the call points have the glass element and plastic cover. most manufactures even package the call points with covers and also most a lot of call points are the german style which only come with glass and its hard to accidentaly set it off as you have to crack it instead of press it like the UK. With syncing, on conventional if you use the same type of sounder, they automatically sync and on addressable, newer systems also sync
To be honest… I would not be surprised if not-invented-here syndrome (a form of xenophobia) was part of the reason.
Now that this has expired (US patents expire after 20 years), I wouldn’t be surprised if other manufacturers start to come out with addressable notification.
Let’s look at it from this perspective (which also should address the issue of us bashing European standards): NFPA 101, a life safety code, defines its goals as the following:
NFPA 101, 2024e, 4.1.1
A goal of this Code is to provide an environment for the occupants that is reasonably safe from fire by the following means:
- Protection of occupants not intimate with the initial fire development
- Improvement of the survivability of occupants intimate with the initial fire development
By these definitions, this code mandates that a wide spectrum of persons be protected. For the US, this will include those with hearing impairments, which can be reasonably expected in a public space (the majority of areas we need to get out of).
Even for those who’s hearing is perfectly fine, there have been multiple case where people will hear the alarm, but not perceive it as anything other than a background noise. If we want to get people out, you have to disrupt their normal routine in as many ways as possible. A combination of visual and audio cues are typically considered minimum practice. I could equally argue that, out of all of the LED “flashers” I see, they would not get the attention of persons unless they’re facing the strobe.
It is also worth noting that fire protection is approached differently in every country. Each country (and jurisdiction, really) has its own way of assessing and accepting risk. These differences, although one code might addresses the problem more directly than another, does not inherently imply that one code - therefore the methods to fire protection - is better than the other.
For example: in some buildings, we are allowed to completely omit smoke detectors in favor of an automatic sprinkler system. However, we need to address notification. If a room is sized such that it would have otherwise required four detectors, but needs only one notification appliance, that’s money saved strictly from an alarms standpoint. Meanwhile, we also have space to have multiple dedicated circuits.
In Europe where water supplies might not be sufficient for a sprinkler system, another method needs to be used. Smoke detectors will be the best at detecting a fire in that same room - they’re quick, although prone to nuisance alarms. You can save money by placing everything on a single circuit, which reduces installation headaches.
Which is better? Neither. We don’t know how each system will fail. What we do know is that there are tradeoffs for each system. American systems will be much slower to respond, but we trade off with a highly effective suppression system. Likewise, European standards will likely save lots of effort on alarms, possibly because they rely more on passive fire protection and other population characteristics which American buildings do not have or want to risk.
Finally someone who makes a valid point
Thank you! really good explanation!