|
Home > Archive > Home Repair forum > June 2007 > Smoke alarm sounding; for no reason. (Humidity?)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Smoke alarm sounding; for no reason. (Humidity?)
|
|
|
| Within the last year or so there were postings here about smoke alarms
that had sounded for apparently no reason. Batteries were good etc.
Somebody mentioned a smoke alarm in close proximity to a shower that
had triggered and we mentioned our own experience a few years ago
where a smoke alarm in the passageway outside bedrooms in my daughters
house had sounded, for no apparent reason, on a warm/humid day.
Recently we finally had what are, for here (North Eastern tip of North
America), a couple of much warmer and humid days. I mean around 78-80
F and sorta sticky! Now I know that's nothing to even mention, having
just come back from the Middle East where it hit +43 Celsius or
approximately 118 Fahrenheit! But around 80 is,-for here, warm;
phew!!!!
I had front door screen open and other windows open letting the
breeze blow through. Suddenly the smoke alarm mounted at the bottom of
our basement stairs started sounding on a regular 30 second to one
minute basis. But this was not how these smoke alarms normally sound
if triggered by smoke. Two other both very ordinary battery models, on
the main floor did not sound.
After a quick check to make sure a pan or kettle had not been left on
and/or overheated on the stove etc. removed the smoke alarm from
above the workshop door way in the basement and brought it up to main
floor. Its been on the kitchen counter for week or so and has been
quiet since! Battery tests good, as it should; only replaced a few
months ago.
Supposition: Some of the seasonally warmer humid air coming in through
front door had drifted down the stairwell, had cooled to the basement
temperature probably around 60 degrees F and thereby acquired an
apparently higher percentage of humidity.
This seems to confirm that some smoke alarms can be triggered by
higher than normal humidity?
Thought I'd post this for information and/or possible discussion.
Terry.
| |
| Joseph Meehan 2007-06-12, 5:25 pm |
| terry wrote:
> Within the last year or so there were postings here about smoke alarms
> that had sounded for apparently no reason. Batteries were good etc.
Spiders, dust and old age can cause it. If they are over 5 years old
replace them. If they are over 10 years old replace them even if they
appear good.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia 's Muire duit
| |
| Charles 2007-06-12, 5:25 pm |
|
"terry" <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1181673627.503474.188350@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> This seems to confirm that some smoke alarms can be triggered by
> higher than normal humidity?
>
> Thought I'd post this for information and/or possible discussion.
This source:
http://www.tucsonaz.gov/fire_preven...ectors.html#sd4
states: "Steam from bathrooms can also cause a false alarm."
| |
|
|
Bugs is the most likely cause, not humidity.
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:40:27 -0700, terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>Within the last year or so there were postings here about smoke alarms
>that had sounded for apparently no reason. Batteries were good etc.
>Somebody mentioned a smoke alarm in close proximity to a shower that
>had triggered and we mentioned our own experience a few years ago
>where a smoke alarm in the passageway outside bedrooms in my daughters
>house had sounded, for no apparent reason, on a warm/humid day.
>
>Recently we finally had what are, for here (North Eastern tip of North
>America), a couple of much warmer and humid days. I mean around 78-80
>F and sorta sticky! Now I know that's nothing to even mention, having
>just come back from the Middle East where it hit +43 Celsius or
>approximately 118 Fahrenheit! But around 80 is,-for here, warm;
>phew!!!!
>
>I had front door screen open and other windows open letting the
>breeze blow through. Suddenly the smoke alarm mounted at the bottom of
>our basement stairs started sounding on a regular 30 second to one
>minute basis. But this was not how these smoke alarms normally sound
>if triggered by smoke. Two other both very ordinary battery models, on
>the main floor did not sound.
>
>After a quick check to make sure a pan or kettle had not been left on
>and/or overheated on the stove etc. removed the smoke alarm from
>above the workshop door way in the basement and brought it up to main
>floor. Its been on the kitchen counter for week or so and has been
>quiet since! Battery tests good, as it should; only replaced a few
>months ago.
>
>Supposition: Some of the seasonally warmer humid air coming in through
>front door had drifted down the stairwell, had cooled to the basement
>temperature probably around 60 degrees F and thereby acquired an
>apparently higher percentage of humidity.
>
>This seems to confirm that some smoke alarms can be triggered by
>higher than normal humidity?
>
>Thought I'd post this for information and/or possible discussion.
>Terry.
| |
| Nancy Young 2007-06-12, 5:25 pm |
|
"Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote
> terry wrote:
>
> Spiders, dust and old age can cause it.
Oh my goodness, mine just did that to me a couple of weeks
ago at about 4am. My old programmer's habit kicked in and I
was halfway down the hall in 3 steps before I realized it wasn't
my beeper.
Since my detector is new and the batteries were changed, I'm
going with spider. Makes sense to me.
nancy
| |
| checkengine@lights.com 2007-06-13, 3:25 am |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:40:27 -0700, terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca>
wrote:
>Within the last year or so there were postings here about smoke alarms
>that had sounded for apparently no reason. Batteries were good etc.
>Somebody mentioned a smoke alarm in close proximity to a shower that
>had triggered and we mentioned our own experience a few years ago
>where a smoke alarm in the passageway outside bedrooms in my daughters
>house had sounded, for no apparent reason, on a warm/humid day.
>
>Recently we finally had what are, for here (North Eastern tip of North
>America), a couple of much warmer and humid days. I mean around 78-80
>F and sorta sticky! Now I know that's nothing to even mention, having
>just come back from the Middle East where it hit +43 Celsius or
>approximately 118 Fahrenheit! But around 80 is,-for here, warm;
>phew!!!!
>
>I had front door screen open and other windows open letting the
>breeze blow through. Suddenly the smoke alarm mounted at the bottom of
>our basement stairs started sounding on a regular 30 second to one
>minute basis. But this was not how these smoke alarms normally sound
>if triggered by smoke. Two other both very ordinary battery models, on
>the main floor did not sound.
>
>After a quick check to make sure a pan or kettle had not been left on
>and/or overheated on the stove etc. removed the smoke alarm from
>above the workshop door way in the basement and brought it up to main
>floor. Its been on the kitchen counter for week or so and has been
>quiet since! Battery tests good, as it should; only replaced a few
>months ago.
>
>Supposition: Some of the seasonally warmer humid air coming in through
>front door had drifted down the stairwell, had cooled to the basement
>temperature probably around 60 degrees F and thereby acquired an
>apparently higher percentage of humidity.
>
>This seems to confirm that some smoke alarms can be triggered by
>higher than normal humidity?
>
>Thought I'd post this for information and/or possible discussion.
>Terry.
Smoke Detectors DO NOT sound without smoke. It's not possible.
There is a fire somewhere in your house, but its a small fire. You
must find it before it gets big. Get off the computer and go look
NOW. In minutes you may be experiencing an inferno.
| |
| John Doe 2007-06-13, 3:25 am |
| terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Within the last year or so there were postings here about smoke
> alarms that had sounded for apparently no reason.
> This seems to confirm that some smoke alarms can be triggered by
> higher than normal humidity?
I've had lots of experience with ordinary smoke alarms (name brands
purchased in the USA). They are some of the most accurate devices
I know of. They are dirt cheap and can easily save your life.
In my opinion, they're one of the best inventions of modern times.
They might not make the evening news since preventing charred bodies
doesn't make the news.
Smoke alarms will detect particles you cannot see (that includes
particles from burning things). You just need quick access or a way to
provide fresh air.
Mine work perfectly.
>
> Thought I'd post this for information and/or possible discussion.
> Terry.
>
> Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca>
> Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
> Subject: Smoke alarm sounding; for no reason. (Humidity?)
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:40:27 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 39
> Message-ID: <1181673627.503474.188350@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.162.129.19
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1181673628 27491 127.0.0.1 (12 Jun 2007 18:40:28 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:40:28 +0000 (UTC)
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
> Injection-Info: a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com; posting-host=142.162.129.19; posting-account=J8f3NA0AAAApayX7upsAHyq0lPJRDLXM
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.home.repair:986285
> X-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:40:28 EDT (newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
>
>
| |
| Joseph Meehan 2007-06-13, 9:25 am |
| checkengine@lights.com wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:40:27 -0700, terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
....
>
> Smoke Detectors DO NOT sound without smoke. It's not possible.
> There is a fire somewhere in your house, but its a small fire. You
> must find it before it gets big. Get off the computer and go look
> NOW. In minutes you may be experiencing an inferno.
Yea sure ....
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia 's Muire duit
| |
|
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:25:52 -0500, checkengine@lights.com wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:40:27 -0700, terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>
>Smoke Detectors DO NOT sound without smoke. It's not possible.
>There is a fire somewhere in your house, but its a small fire. You
>must find it before it gets big. Get off the computer and go look
>NOW. In minutes you may be experiencing an inferno.
Or in weeks. A neighbor had an analog clock that was setting off the
smoke alarm. They concluded the smoke alarm was broken, but it wasn't.
It burned out the whole kitchen, with smoke damage upstairs, and
probalby water damage in the basement after the fire deparatment came.
| |
| Nate Nagel 2007-06-13, 8:25 pm |
| checkengine@lights.com wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:40:27 -0700, terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Smoke Detectors DO NOT sound without smoke. It's not possible.
> There is a fire somewhere in your house, but its a small fire. You
> must find it before it gets big. Get off the computer and go look
> NOW. In minutes you may be experiencing an inferno.
Sure they can - at least in commercial applications most smoke detectors
now are photoelectric, which simply measure obscuration. They don't
care whether the light transmission is obscured by smoke, dust, or steam
- if it's x percent obscured, the detector signals an alarm.
I suspect that some (most?) residential detectors may still be
ionization type which have advantages and disadvantages - they respond
quicker to a real fire than photos, but they also contain a small amount
of radioactive material and work well over a narrower range of air
velocities.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
| |
| jmagerl 2007-06-14, 3:25 am |
| From experience: also check for spiders in the alarm
"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:2av0735hnn23lcdatr9san59i7b7ukepn3@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:25:52 -0500, checkengine@lights.com wrote:
>
>
> Or in weeks. A neighbor had an analog clock that was setting off the
> smoke alarm. They concluded the smoke alarm was broken, but it wasn't.
>
> It burned out the whole kitchen, with smoke damage upstairs, and
> probalby water damage in the basement after the fire deparatment came.
>
| |
| pheeh.zero@gmail.com 2007-06-14, 9:25 am |
| On Jun 13, 6:45 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> checkeng...@lights.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sure they can - at least in commercial applications most smoke detectors
> now are photoelectric, which simply measure obscuration. They don't
> care whether the light transmission is obscured by smoke, dust, or steam
> - if it's x percent obscured, the detector signals an alarm.
>
> I suspect that some (most?) residential detectors may still be
> ionization type which have advantages and disadvantages - they respond
> quicker to a real fire than photos, but they also contain a small amount
> of radioactive material and work well over a narrower range of air
> velocities.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Tests show photo-detectors respond faster. It is best to have the dual-
type in your home.
I remember, some 40 yrs ago, a door-to-door salesman wanting $250 for
one.(ionization-type) Claiming rodents cause the majority of fires
with their appetite for insulation.
If you gave him 10 leads (and they were sales) we could have one free!
8^)
|
|
|
|
|