commercial fire alarm

[Anth]

if it's on top of the tray, tie raps are fine, as the cable is supported by the tray, not the ties

I was going to say the samething mate as the tray is mechanical support for the cable.

 

[accordfire]

Fuse spurs to Fire alarm panels need to be lockable, double pole switched fuse spurs.
They are readily available from electrical wholesalers. They are basically premade mk em secret switches in red metal casing.
Also good design to meet DDA is siren/strobe units in all toilets as ammended BS5839, most deaf people don`t used disabled toilets. If this building is large you may considor paging system for disabled, good system by scope. hope this helps

Um.....not actually the requirement. BS 5839-1 *recommends* that the mains supply to all parts of a fire alarm system should be provided by an isolating device such as a circuit breaker. Also that it should be dedicated to the supply of the fire system.

It goes on to state that a *suitable* double pole isolating device should be installed adjacent to the CIE, and that all such isolating devices on the circuit, capable of isolating the fire system supply should be labelled to indicate they are part of the fire alarm supply and should not be switched off.

It does not have to be red, or lockable. It should not be switched, either.

The jury is also out as regards sounders/strobes in toilets. Personally, I agree that strobes as a minimum should be fitted in ANY room in which someone can lock themselves, or to which access for the purpose of raising an alarm may be hindered.

It remains a question for the designer, as so often, when weighing desired system characteristics against requirements, and against client budget. There's no requirement in BS 5839 to provide sounders or strobes in any specific location, just, in general terms that sound levels reach a specific level, or that alternative means of warning are given where the sound level cannot be reached.

IMHO, there should be NO distinction these days as to the DDA - it is my belief that we would have a better standard once it makes the essential aspects of the DDA an integral part of its design. For example, that every sounder on a system should have an integrated strobe in any case. The reality is that it costs a manufacturer very little to add LEDS, for example, to a device, yet we see differences between sounder only, and sounder/strobe of over £20 in some cases.

 

[tazz]

accord, lockable double poled switch fused spur. agreed by bsi by Colin Todd for bs5839 2002. hence mk and other manufactures produced such an item.

 

[accordfire]

accord, lockable double poled switch fused spur. agreed by bsi by Colin Todd for bs5839 2002. hence mk and other manufactures produced such an item.

No, not strictly true.

BS 5839-1:2002, Section 2, Clause 25.2 applies.

It states that every connection to the LV mains supply should be labelled, double pole isolating and *should* be out of reach of unauthorised persons, or operable by means of a special tool.

Time and again, it has been clarified all over the industry that a double pole, non-switched fused spur, with a screw in fuse holder is adequate.

Nowhere at all does it state that it needs to be "lockable" - I've just been through both 2002 and the 2008 A2. Yes, sadly, I can be that ----.

 

[tazz]

Please contact BSI house for clarification, This is also requirement of BAFE.
This information was confirmed to us by the co/writer of standard Colin Todd BSI House

 

[UNG]

if it's on top of the tray, tie raps are fine, as the cable is supported by the tray, not the ties

I was going to say the samething mate as the tray is mechanical support for the cable.

While I agree with your point, I have seen so many installations with a mix of installation methods using FP / Firetuf cable that has been clipped / fixed incorrectly it is probably best to adopt the same fixing standards throughout whether on top of tray or not

This type of installation can mean the difference between life and death so why scrimp and save on the fixings

 

[UNG]

accord, lockable double poled switch fused spur. agreed by bsi by Colin Todd for bs5839 2002. hence mk and other manufactures produced such an item.

No, not strictly true.

BS 5839-1:2002, Section 2, Clause 25.2 applies.

It states that every connection to the LV mains supply should be labelled, double pole isolating and *should* be out of reach of unauthorised persons, or operable by means of a special tool.

Time and again, it has been clarified all over the industry that a double pole, non-switched fused spur, with a screw in fuse holder is adequate.

Nowhere at all does it state that it needs to be "lockable" - I've just been through both 2002 and the 2008 A2. Yes, sadly, I can be that ----.

Please contact BSI house for clarification, This is also requirement of BAFE.
This information was confirmed to us by the co/writer of standard Colin Todd BSI House

Seems to be the old case of "must" and "should" and "interpretation"

To me special tool = some sort of key even if this is a grid keyswitch

With regards to BSI and Mr Todd as the writer if they prefer a particular method this does not preclude other solutions that may be interpreted from their and his publications

 

[accordfire]

Seems to be the old case of "must" and "should" and "interpretation"

To me special tool = some sort of key even if this is a grid keyswitch

With regards to BSI and Mr Todd as the writer if they prefer a particular method this does not preclude other solutions that may be interpreted from their and his publications

I suspect the particular "dangers" that were being guarded against were primarily disconnection of the LV supply to the system.

However, when you remove the LV from a panel, it starts making a noise. That noise is an irritant. That irritant causes customers to phone alarm companies.

It also flashes its fault lights.

If it doesn't do this, it needs replacing. Fast.

IMVHO "lockable" spurs would be a prime example of over-engineering in 90% of the systems I've ever worked on (in 25+ years).

Double pole isolation is just common sense electrical safety. But there's no real advantage to either locking it, or using "special tools" if the system is installed properly.

Ah well, here's to another decade or two of interpretive, subjective Standards huh?

 

[tazz]

Now finalised, BSI state double pole isolator local to the panel, for service and commissioning purposes, which is protected from unauthorised or accidentel disconnection via an enclosure or which is lockable. A simple recommendation is to fit readily made mk or crabtree purpose made lockable fused spurs.

BAFE and LPC both confirm the above stating unswitched fused spurs would be deemed as failure to comply.

Morley/Notifier, Kentec, Haes & Advanced all state within their manuals to install local double pole isolators, they all confirm the easy solution is to install mk.
C-Tec state since 2002 all new manuals state lockable double pole switched fused spur.

FM companies (jack of all trades servicing companies) should become members of BAFE or LPC before making such rash comments on BSi standards

 

[accordfire]

Now finalised, BSI state double pole isolator local to the panel, for service and commissioning purposes, which is protected from unauthorised or accidentel disconnection via an enclosure or which is lockable. A simple recommendation is to fit readily made mk or crabtree purpose made lockable fused spurs.

Okay. Pretty well as I pointed out. The clarification in A2:2008 is simply the addition of the words enclosure or lockable.

BAFE and LPC both confirm the above stating unswitched fused spurs would be deemed as failure to comply.

Well, that's very interesting, as it is conflicting advice from that which we have been given time and again. We've had NSi, SSAIB, FIA, and BAFE inspectors on various of our customer sites, and not one has indicated a failure on that basis. The advice we have been given remains, that a screw fastening fuse holder on a standard double pole spur IS acceptable on ANY existing installation, and potentially on NEW installations, subject only to the criteria of unauthorised access - e.g. the issue of how many individuals are likely to carry a terminal screwdriver around with them for the purpose of disconnecting a fire alarm system, often times in front of a receptionist, or door security, who may wish to enquire what they're doing.

Morley/Notifier, Kentec, Haes & Advanced all state within their manuals to install local double pole isolators, they all confirm the easy solution is to install mk.
C-Tec state since 2002 all new manuals state lockable double pole switched fused spur.

C-Tec's CFP Manual does NOT state lockable at all, and nor does their XFP manual.
As far as I know (I don't have immediately to hand) none of the DX, ZX, or Horizon manuals state lockable.
Kentec's Syncro manual is even worse, and only states that the panel requires "a 230V supply which must be derived from a separate fused spur, labelled "FIRE ALARM - DO NOT SWITCH OFF".....
Advanced state only that mains wiring must be carried out in accordance with National Standards in the MX-4000 manual.

I don't, therefore, know where you've been getting your information from, or what manuals you've been reading, but it is clearly erroneous. This information is from the downloaded manuals, fresh from their website, as of this minute. They're all panels and manufacturers we use regularly.

FM companies (jack of all trades servicing companies) should become members of BAFE or LPC before making such rash comments on BSi standards

[/QUOTE]

As for the dig, perhaps it would be better informed of you, one, to get your facts correct, and two, not to judge companies you know nothing about. I take extreme exception to this comment, given that it is clearly aimed in this direction, and I'm happy to share a beer with you any time you like, during which I'm also happy to show you a whole album FULL of the systems we've taken over from BAFE, LPC, FIA, and other organisation registered or approved companies. That's why our customers choose us over them. Approval is a matter for us, and the body we choose to approve us, not for someone without any evidenced credentials of their own to browbeat us with, in the absence of actual facts.

As for rash comments, no. As you can see, clearly, I have no issue backing up my comments, and doing the research where there's any doubt. Again, this is why our customers choose us over others.

Perhaps your own "rash" comments about companies and their abilities would be better first considered?

Maybe you can tell me where you've seen our work, and what the problems were that you came across?

Or, perhaps it was some other "jack of all trades servicing company" you meant to comment on? - That, by the way is also a misnomer, as we employ specialists in each discipline, and DO NOT multi-task as a rule.

 

[tazz]

Will you please go and get professional advice from the relevent bodies or stick with NACOSS

 

[accordfire]

Will you please go and get professional advice from the relevent bodies or stick with NACOSS

We do get professional advice, whoever you are. Constantly.

Nor are we with Nacoss - which, in fact is the NSi.

Now, fudging the issues you brought up won't solve the issue either.

You were pointed out on your comments, now be man enough to back up the information you gave, and show us specifically where in these manuals it says lockable?

It might be an idea to apoligise too for the comments you made concerning my company.

 

[tazz]

Again I suggest you phone the relivent BSI & BAFE and inquire then we will continue this debate

 

[tazz]

Just checked Ctec, as I wanted to be correct, XFP manual page 6 states feed from a switch fused spur
Current manual rev 3

 

[accordfire]

Again I suggest you phone the relivent BSI & BAFE and inquire then we will continue this debate

Perhaps, my fried, you should read what I wrote above.

You stated clearly, that various manufacturers insists on lockable isolators. I have pointed out to you that none of them say any such thing in their manuals.

You bad mouthed my business, on groundless accusations, without cause, yet whilst also blatantly not evidencing your own qualifications and approvals, if any at all.

You've ignored the fact that I referred to the standard, and have backed up my experience, and further, have pointed out exactly where our information comes from, industry approval and registration bodies we speak to on a daily basis.

You've also ignored the VERY obvious fact, that "having an approval" is NOT, by any means the same as working to the required standard.

And finally, pal, there's no mileage at all in wafting in, making derogatory comments, and then pretending you're holier than thou. It's sad, to be honest.

There's a spirit in here of people helping one and other, and what you've shown today is the anthesis of that - and again, without any intent of backing up your bad mouthing.

So, again, I say to you, back your claims up, tell me where you've seen work of ours that leads you to the conclusion we're "jack of all trade service of FM companies" or shut up.

I was willing to enter into this with you in a spirit of professional friendliness, but clearly, that isn't your intent at all.

So, to be honest, I don't think any of your comments are worth any further comment, since you clearly cannot back up anything you've said, much less your own credentials.