Couple things: #1: I have no problem at all with mechanical heat detectors, they're still pretty reliable despite their seemingly-outdated technology, what I *do* have a problem with though is the fact that it's *standard* to make them non-reusable. I've seen reusable/auto-resettable mechanical heat sensors used in other applications, so why not for fire detection & alarm use too? For one thing you wouldn't have to have a technician replace them after use, & of course they'd be better for the enthusiast/collector's community too (I know the latter's not the concern of the companies making them, but still...). #2: There are conventional electronic heat detectors too you know.
@@BukuiZhao Nice to know there's at least one thing we agree on. I agree: for one thing it would cut down on the amount of waste in landfills (even with how infrequently heat detectors are replaced), & as I said for another you wouldn't have to have a technician come out & replace a heat detector that had tripped, which would both mean that you'd be inconvenienced as a business owner having the technician on site who might end up disturbing normal day-to-day operations, & that the fire alarm system would not be protecting the area that the heat detector activated until it was replaced (not with a reusable/auto-resettable detector though).
@@TheCarson116 Yea, if it is activated then you must replace it. If not it will just re-alarm. So until it is replaced you have to just take it off, and if there is a fire there, it will take longer to go off because the nearest detector is removed.
One-shot mechanical heat detectors are also better suited for non-climate-controlled environments such as parking garages, your typical electronic heat detector will only likely be listed down to 32F, if the environment gets colder than that during the winter, then that electronic heat detector will be operating outside of its listed temperature range, which will put it at risk of failing.
If the heat detector goes off, it often means that the fire is almost 100% confirmed and needs immediate evacuation. Single-use heat detectors can ensure that the whole fire alarm system cannot be reset under and even after such urgent conditon, therefore ensures the evacuation to be carried out and prevents the premises owner's any possible attempt to flee from further scene investigation from police and fire brigade.
My big problem with these things is that they're not really testable. After 15 years, all non-restorable heats must be replaced, OR 2 out of every 100 must be laboratory-tested. And nobody actually does this. Now, RESTORABLE mechanical heat detectors are my absolute favorite. Those tiny ones in the thumbnail look like "button-type" heats, but are actually fully restorable.
Agree. When I was in the field we encountered many single-use heat detectors that couldn’t really be tested outside of pulling the device down and shorting the contacts, which doesn’t actually test it. In a world of more intelligent systems and devices coming about, I’m sure we’ll see conventional go away all together.
i'm 11 months late here but another thing i'd like to add is electronic heat detectors have operating environment limitations where they may not be waterproof, or won't function in extreme cold such as outdoors or inside walk-in freezers. That's an environment where these excel.
A nice informative video from Robert and the rest of the TFP team. Keep up the good work, and I am looking forward to the next video!
Couple things:
#1: I have no problem at all with mechanical heat detectors, they're still pretty reliable despite their seemingly-outdated technology, what I *do* have a problem with though is the fact that it's *standard* to make them non-reusable. I've seen reusable/auto-resettable mechanical heat sensors used in other applications, so why not for fire detection & alarm use too? For one thing you wouldn't have to have a technician replace them after use, & of course they'd be better for the enthusiast/collector's community too (I know the latter's not the concern of the companies making them, but still...).
#2: There are conventional electronic heat detectors too you know.
It’s just an op-ed video bro
hang on, let me put my reading glasses on.
Though I do agree with you on this one. Why not use reusable heat detectors more when possible?
@@BukuiZhao Nice to know there's at least one thing we agree on. I agree: for one thing it would cut down on the amount of waste in landfills (even with how infrequently heat detectors are replaced), & as I said for another you wouldn't have to have a technician come out & replace a heat detector that had tripped, which would both mean that you'd be inconvenienced as a business owner having the technician on site who might end up disturbing normal day-to-day operations, & that the fire alarm system would not be protecting the area that the heat detector activated until it was replaced (not with a reusable/auto-resettable detector though).
@@TheCarson116 Yea, if it is activated then you must replace it. If not it will just re-alarm. So until it is replaced you have to just take it off, and if there is a fire there, it will take longer to go off because the nearest detector is removed.
simplex has the most modern heat detectors by far
I also think that rate of rise (ROR) ones are more popular, because they can reset automatically without replacing the detector, I think...
One-shot mechanical heat detectors are also better suited for non-climate-controlled environments such as parking garages, your typical electronic heat detector will only likely be listed down to 32F, if the environment gets colder than that during the winter, then that electronic heat detector will be operating outside of its listed temperature range, which will put it at risk of failing.
If the heat detector goes off, it often means that the fire is almost 100% confirmed and needs immediate evacuation. Single-use heat detectors can ensure that the whole fire alarm system cannot be reset under and even after such urgent conditon, therefore ensures the evacuation to be carried out and prevents the premises owner's any possible attempt to flee from further scene investigation from police and fire brigade.
My big problem with these things is that they're not really testable. After 15 years, all non-restorable heats must be replaced, OR 2 out of every 100 must be laboratory-tested. And nobody actually does this.
Now, RESTORABLE mechanical heat detectors are my absolute favorite. Those tiny ones in the thumbnail look like "button-type" heats, but are actually fully restorable.
Agree. When I was in the field we encountered many single-use heat detectors that couldn’t really be tested outside of pulling the device down and shorting the contacts, which doesn’t actually test it. In a world of more intelligent systems and devices coming about, I’m sure we’ll see conventional go away all together.
The warehouse complex my dad works at all have system sensot i3 smokes and for the actual warehouse pary have those 5600 detectors
Really cool! ...
When are you going to do another system test?
Nice video!
Interesting
i'm 11 months late here but another thing i'd like to add is electronic heat detectors have operating environment limitations where they may not be waterproof, or won't function in extreme cold such as outdoors or inside walk-in freezers. That's an environment where these excel.
Also agree.
Cool
you look like a combination of jschlatt and nikocado avocado
gee thanks
@@therealAZLN you are most certainly welcome
Hi
Do a fire alarm test with with all simplex
Have a look at my channel, I've done a few. Though Simplex is a favorite of mine
@@TheFirePanelWhat happen to Twoplyboy's all video I remembered?
3rd
First