Newbie Question: Use of 4-wire Smokes without panel

[George Patton]

Background:

I'm finishing up a house remodel and have prewired for burglar alarm
sensors and 4-wire smoke detectors. I ran HR's from each smoke detector
location to the low voltage panel boxes using 4 conductor fire-rated
wire of the appropriate gauge. I'm not ready to install my main panel
(yet) but I need to get the smoke detectors up and running ASAP. To
accomplish this I installed a 16 volt AC transformer in the wiring
closet and hooked both the transformer and a 12V7AH battery to a 12v
power supply. Next I ran a pair of wires from the + and - terminals on
the power supply to the + (in) and - terminals on smoke detector #1.
Then I ran a second pair of wires from the + (out) and - terminals on
smoke detector #1 to the + (in) and - terminals on smoke detector #2.
In short, I connected the two smoke detectors in series. They both
power up and appear to be working, but I need to arrange things so that
a trigger event on detector #1 causes the whole series of detectors to
sound off. What do I need to hook up to accomplish this end? MANY
THANKS IN ADVANCE. If this is a FAQ please accept my apologies and tell
me what to search for on google to find an appropriate solution. All
the articles that I've found so far involve a main panel.

BTW, the terminals on the dectors are marked: + in, + out, -, A, and A.
I'm guessing that I need to include the A terminals in my temporary
panel-less circuit but how?

 

[G. Morgan]

That won't work. The 4-wire smokes you describe don't have an
"interlock" terminal, or internal sounders. The A + and - are for
remote LED annunciators (which could be used for sounders, but
shouldn't).


What's the model number of 4-wire smokes? If it's only temporary
there is a way to rig the A+/- to piezio buzzers.
BTW, you wired them in parallel.

 

[Allan Waghalter]

Background:

I'm finishing up a house remodel and have prewired for burglar alarm
sensors and 4-wire smoke detectors. I ran HR's from each smoke detector
location to the low voltage panel boxes using 4 conductor fire-rated
wire of the appropriate gauge. I'm not ready to install my main panel
(yet) but I need to get the smoke detectors up and running ASAP. To
accomplish this I installed a 16 volt AC transformer in the wiring
closet and hooked both the transformer and a 12V7AH battery to a 12v
power supply. Next I ran a pair of wires from the + and - terminals on
the power supply to the + (in) and - terminals on smoke detector #1.
Then I ran a second pair of wires from the + (out) and - terminals on
smoke detector #1 to the + (in) and - terminals on smoke detector #2.
In short, I connected the two smoke detectors in series. They both
power up and appear to be working, but I need to arrange things so that
a trigger event on detector #1 causes the whole series of detectors to
sound off. What do I need to hook up to accomplish this end? MANY
THANKS IN ADVANCE. If this is a FAQ please accept my apologies and tell
me what to search for on google to find an appropriate solution. All
the articles that I've found so far involve a main panel.

BTW, the terminals on the dectors are marked: + in, + out, -, A, and A.
I'm guessing that I need to include the A terminals in my temporary
panel-less circuit but how?

 

[George Patton]

That won't work. The 4-wire smokes you describe don't have an
"interlock" terminal, or internal sounders. The A + and - are for
remote LED annunciators (which could be used for sounders, but
shouldn't).


What's the model number of 4-wire smokes? If it's only temporary
there is a way to rig the A+/- to piezio buzzers.
BTW, you wired them in parallel.

Parallel? I wired the + (out) terminal on the first sensor to the +
(in) terminal on the second sensor. In this way, Detector A would be
wired to Detector B which would be wired to Detector C, etc. Series, no?

I'm working with System Sensor 4WTA-B detectors which have integral 85db
sounders that would wake up the dead. For my purposes at this point, I
don't need or want to raise the sound level. What I do need to do is
arrange things so that an event on Detector X will trigger the sounders
on all the units.

 

[George Patton]

Robert L. Bass wrote:

You really should get the fire alarm control panel, keypad(s) and associated
stuff now. Please don't jerry-rig your fire alarm. The potential
consequences of a failure are way beyond whatever you might save.

Not in this situation. All I need at this point is a mechanism so that
a trigger on any single smoke detector will sound the alarms on all the
other detectors. I don't need a facility for easy testing, a device to
call the fire department, etc, etc, etc.

If you need help or if you need components, feel free to call. I sell
alarms and home automation systems to DIYers.

The components have already been spec'ed out and sourced, but given my
particular situation it would be STUPID to install them at this point in
time. If we were bullshitting over a few beers I would be happy to
explain the situation, but it's pretty much irrelevant in the case at
hand. BTW, I tried corresponding with you when I went shopping for
parts, but you didn't return my two phone calls.

Getting back to the technical question, I assume that I need to install
a polarity reversing relay somewhere in the loop, but I'm not quite sure
how this would work.

Can anyone point me in the right direction

 

[George Patton]

Will this structure be inspected? I assume it's in the US. If not,
disregard.

Precisely. Let's disregard these political issues because they are
irrelevant to the situation at hand.

Also, how do you plan to reset the smokes once they go off? If
they're hard wired to a power supply they will sound until someone pulls the
power. That might be a real pain.

Toggle switch for $1.00 = end of pain. I may spend the buck although
the odds of having an event occur before the panel is installed are
probably one in a hundred thousand.

...



The reversing relay goes between the DC power supply and the smokes. I have
a FAQ page on it.

I couldn't find any material on this topic on your website and a brief
search using your search function turned up a bad link. Thanks just the
same.

 

[Julian Vivaldi]

PATTON!!!!!!!!
still hate the russians after all this time?

 

[anomynous]

Background:

I'm finishing up a house remodel and have prewired for burglar alarm
sensors and 4-wire smoke detectors. I ran HR's from each smoke detector
location to the low voltage panel boxes using 4 conductor fire-rated
wire of the appropriate gauge. I'm not ready to install my main panel
(yet) but I need to get the smoke detectors up and running ASAP. To
accomplish this I installed a 16 volt AC transformer in the wiring
closet and hooked both the transformer and a 12V7AH battery to a 12v
power supply. Next I ran a pair of wires from the + and - terminals on
the power supply to the + (in) and - terminals on smoke detector #1.
Then I ran a second pair of wires from the + (out) and - terminals on
smoke detector #1 to the + (in) and - terminals on smoke detector #2.
In short, I connected the two smoke detectors in series. They both
power up and appear to be working, but I need to arrange things so that
a trigger event on detector #1 causes the whole series of detectors to
sound off. What do I need to hook up to accomplish this end? MANY
THANKS IN ADVANCE. If this is a FAQ please accept my apologies and tell
me what to search for on google to find an appropriate solution. All
the articles that I've found so far involve a main panel.

BTW, the terminals on the dectors are marked: + in, + out, -, A, and A.
I'm guessing that I need to include the A terminals in my temporary
panel-less circuit but how?

Where's Mr. Olsen and his 'Read the manual (installation sheet that came
with the detector)'?

 

[Jackcsg]

George, I understand what your wanting to do, but you have to realize that
even though the units have built in sounders, those sounders are not
interconnect-able. The sounders are built into the unit, and do not wire
like a conventional (Typical) 120 vac smoke detector in series for what your
wanting to do. You need, at a minimum, a control panel, one keypad, and a
siren that will activate when one unit is tripped. It's the only way to this
properly, and obtain a CO. Why risk thinking you'll run into an inspector
who doesn't know better?
I'm not a big fan of low voltage detectors with built in sounders, in some
areas multiple sounding alarms are against code. Again referring to the fact
that if one trips, they all do not. Save yourself some aggravation, just get
a control panel, and do it correctly.

Jack

 

[Frank Olson]

George, I understand what your wanting to do, but you have to realize that
even though the units have built in sounders, those sounders are not
interconnect-able. The sounders are built into the unit, and do not wire
like a conventional (Typical) 120 vac smoke detector in series for what your
wanting to do. You need, at a minimum, a control panel, one keypad, and a
siren that will activate when one unit is tripped. It's the only way to this
properly, and obtain a CO. Why risk thinking you'll run into an inspector
who doesn't know better?
I'm not a big fan of low voltage detectors with built in sounders, in some
areas multiple sounding alarms are against code. Again referring to the fact
that if one trips, they all do not. Save yourself some aggravation, just get
a control panel, and do it correctly.

Jack

There are smoke alarms rated 12/24 VDC with "interconnects" out there. The only
way the OP's going to make this work (with the equipment he already has) is by
following Bass' and your suggestion. Buy yourself a panel from a local dealer
(or one of the online ones) and install the reversing relay to activate all the
sounders at once. Do it right the first time.

 

[Frank Olson]

Where's Mr. Olsen and his 'Read the manual (installation sheet that came
with the detector)'?

You've been here long "enuff" to know my name's spelled with an "O". Read the
manual or take a hike... )

 

[alarman]

Background:

I'm finishing up a house remodel and have prewired for burglar alarm
sensors and 4-wire smoke detectors. I ran HR's from each smoke detector
location to the low voltage panel boxes using 4 conductor fire-rated
wire of the appropriate gauge. I'm not ready to install my main panel
(yet) but I need to get the smoke detectors up and running ASAP. To
accomplish this I installed a 16 volt AC transformer in the wiring
closet and hooked both the transformer and a 12V7AH battery to a 12v
power supply. Next I ran a pair of wires from the + and - terminals on
the power supply to the + (in) and - terminals on smoke detector #1.
Then I ran a second pair of wires from the + (out) and - terminals on
smoke detector #1 to the + (in) and - terminals on smoke detector #2.
In short, I connected the two smoke detectors in series. They both
power up and appear to be working, but I need to arrange things so that
a trigger event on detector #1 causes the whole series of detectors to
sound off. What do I need to hook up to accomplish this end? MANY
THANKS IN ADVANCE. If this is a FAQ please accept my apologies and tell
me what to search for on google to find an appropriate solution. All
the articles that I've found so far involve a main panel.

BTW, the terminals on the dectors are marked: + in, + out, -, A, and A.
I'm guessing that I need to include the A terminals in my temporary
panel-less circuit but how?

Several people here have already told you what you need, yet you seem bent
on doing it wrong anyway. If this is or your house, you are cheating
yourself. If you are working on someone else's house, you are a lawsuit
magnet.

You have not done the wiring correctly, so you're probably either an
electrician or a DIY. Please call a pro and step back out of the way.
js

 

[G. Morgan]

Parallel? I wired the + (out) terminal on the first sensor to the +
(in) terminal on the second sensor. In this way, Detector A would be
wired to Detector B which would be wired to Detector C, etc. Series, no?

It's actually parallel wiring.

I'm working with System Sensor 4WTA-B detectors which have integral 85db
sounders that would wake up the dead. For my purposes at this point, I
don't need or want to raise the sound level. What I do need to do is
arrange things so that an event on Detector X will trigger the sounders
on all the units.

Nevermind what I wrote last night. I looked at the installation
instructions for your detectors and the "A" terminals are actually
alarm contacts. (Usually "A" is designated for remote annunciation)
You can't accomplish what you want to do without reversing polarity to
the smokes. I suppose you could use the alarm contacts to trigger the
coil on a DPDT relay to reverse polarity. I'll make you a drawing if
you like.

-Graham

 

[G. Morgan]

I'll make you a drawing if
you like.

http://we-protect.us/smokedetector reverse polarity.jpg

 

[George Patton]

They're not just political issues. Most professional installers won't even
consider what you're doing for safety / liability / regulatory reasons.

Only the fools. A professional who understood *all* the facts of the
situation at hand would not hesitate to do EXACTLY what I'm doing. You
may *think* you understand my situation but you really don't have a
clue. I'm not accusing you personally, BTW, because your replies
were more "on target" than most of the others, but you still made a few
assumptions that weren't valid.

Nonetheless, if you have appraised yourself of this and still feel
comfortable doing it, the decision is yours alone.

This is true. It might not be my decision alone if I were violating
safety codes and/or jeopardizing someone's rights but I'm not.

...



As long as whoever happens to be on premises knows how to reset it, that is
true.

It's true period. In the situation at hand, no one should ever "happen"
to be on the premises during the lifetime of the installation -- other
than myself and a few associates.

...
On the left frame of my FAQ website there is a cascading menu. Select as
follows:

Burglar Alarms
\_How to Install a Security System
\_Installation
\_Protection
\_Fire Alarm
\_Reversing Relays

Thanks. I'm not sure what triggers the reversing relay so I'm still not
sure this will work. It's quicker and easier to set up a prototype than
to analyze the hardware. A friend of mine who has worked extensively
with this hardware claims that it definitely will. Another colleague
with equal experience insists that it will not -- although I suspect
that he's afraid of imaginary liability issues... having read too many
propaganda flyers from the Insurance Misinformation Institute. In
any case, I'll know tomorrow.

You're welcome. BTW, you might want to consider sounding a bit less
dismissive when someone replies to your request for assistance.

Let me address this point. Back in the early days of usenet
(pre-mid-80's), it was possible for anyone to post technical information
or request technical information and to expect relevant replies that
addressed the technical issues without moral repremands, pretense,
marketing ploys, etc. This has changed. Post a query on any topic of a
technical nature in almost any newsgroup, and at least 50% (perhaps all)
of the replies to any given question will involve some sort of moral
judgment. And in the vast majority of cases, these moral judgments are
bogus because the correspondents are themselves unaware of all the
facts. Is it ok to be dismissive of such behavior? I think so. Of
course, dismissals may offend the sort of people in a.s.a. who spew out
"Hire a professional" or "Read the F. Manual" but I think it's fair to
say that such people deserve to be offended. Their goal, by and large,
is to stroke their own puny egos.

Again, I'm not including you in this criticism, Bob. Truly. I've read
enough of your contributions to believe that you are seriously making an
effort to contribute needed information (in addition to selling
hardware). Moreover, I suspect that you, yourself, would agree with my
assessment of the "twit moralizer" problem in usenet newsgroups.
However, I do owe you an apology. You'll probably waste the time that
it takes to read the twit-replies to this posting -- whereas I'll be
spending my time elsewhere in activities that are both rewarding and
entertaining.

Thanks again for the links and the info.

 

[George Patton]

Technically its very simple to do what you want to do,

This remains to be seen. Bob Bass has suggested one solution, but the
schematic on his website -- if I recall correctly -- may have entailed
circuitry in the typical panel to trigger the reversing relay. I'd be
interested in chatting with someone who's actually SUCCEEDED in wiring
up a circuit to synchronize autonomous sounders without a conventional
panel.

Side note to Moralizers: Yes, we know. *You* are superior so *you*
have never attempted to do such a thing because *you* obey the universal
codes passed down from heaven and know that people could die, yada,
yada. However, it's certainly not a code violation anywhere in the USA
to rig up this kind of circuit on a test bench just to see if it works,
and the results of such an experiment might be revealing.

the fools are the ones
who have offered a "solution" without knowing *all* the facts of the situation
at hand, most professionals would tell you to do it to code or not all.

Sounds like a decent chant, but before committing it to memory perhaps
we should spend some time learning how, when, and where a given set of
codes apply. It's been my experience that usenet pretenders, fools and
moralizers will find something to preach about, regardless of the facts,
in their ambitious quest to stroke their own egos. If you're personally
familiar enough with my precise situation to render a non-foolish
judgment about possible code violations, please feel free to post the
SPECIFIC details that would justify your conclusions.

 

[George Patton]

You are 100% correct that there are no codes that prohibit you from engaging in
experimental testing. Anyone who attempts to say otherwise is just pulling
your leg. However, you are not free of blame for this attitude. In your
opening statement, of your original post, you mentioned that you were
remodeling a house and immediately went into asking about this type of setup.
Any logical, practical person

Change "logical, practical person" to read "moralizing twit". I don't
hold it against you that you're a moralizing twit, however, since you
probably had no control over the developmental course of your own
personality. I probably won't respond to you anymore because you,
unlike Bass and several others, seem to have nothing to offer apart from
childish moralizing. >

By not telling anyone in any fashion that you were simply conducting a bench
experiment, and by mentioning the remodel of the house, you provided a false
scenario for comment.

I'm under no obligation to tell you anything about my situation. I
wasn't asking for moral advice, although I anticipated moralizing
responses from twits like yourself because they are the #1 stock in
trade in almost all usenet newsgroups. The fact of the matter is that
it doesn't take much effort to preach from a pulpit. It's a good deal
more difficult to address technical issues with facts and sound
arguments.

The first reaction of any professional in any trade when
asked a question, isn't to analyze the specific technical or workmanship
issues, but they immediately key on the dangers that may be present.

Self-aggrandizing nonsense. I doubt that you are a professional or you
would realize that the world of possibilities is far beyond your present
understanding. If you are a "professional" I would suppose you're
driving a truck for some company that specializes in $89 alarm systems
in exchange for a zillion year monitoring contract.

...
May I also add that, it amazes me that you adopted a "stuck-up" attitude that
permeates your responses against the very professionals that you are asking for
help. A hat-in-hand, gets much better results than a bat swinging in the wind.

In my experience -- in other technical newsgroups -- the moralizers
rarely offer constructive advice that addresses another posters specific
needs... so I'm not missing much by telling you the truth about the
moralizing crap that clogs this newsgroup (and many others).

 

[alarman]

George Patton wrote

Change "logical, practical person" to read "moralizing twit". I don't
hold it against you that you're a moralizing twit, however, since you
probably had no control over the developmental course of your own
personality. I probably won't respond to you anymore because you,
unlike Bass and several others, seem to have nothing to offer apart from
childish moralizing. >

I'm under no obligation to tell you anything about my situation. I
wasn't asking for moral advice, although I anticipated moralizing
responses from twits like yourself because they are the #1 stock in
trade in almost all usenet newsgroups. The fact of the matter is that
it doesn't take much effort to preach from a pulpit. It's a good deal
more difficult to address technical issues with facts and sound
arguments.

Self-aggrandizing nonsense. I doubt that you are a professional or you
would realize that the world of possibilities is far beyond your present
understanding. If you are a "professional" I would suppose you're
driving a truck for some company that specializes in $89 alarm systems
in exchange for a zillion year monitoring contract.


In my experience -- in other technical newsgroups -- the moralizers
rarely offer constructive advice that addresses another posters specific
needs... so I'm not missing much by telling you the truth about the
moralizing crap that clogs this newsgroup (and many others).

Well, I guess you told us.
js

 

[George Patton]

Instead of using the panel's alarm output (switched +12V DC) to operate the
relay you would wire the relay coil through the output relay of one of the
smokes.

"One" of the smokes? The way I read this you could have a string of
smoke detectors in multiple floors of a house, but only one of them
could trigger a universal response from all the detectors. Am I missing
something here, Bob?

I think part of my confusion may come from comments appearing in the
System Sensor literature concerning "coded outputs".

When the smoke detector goes into alarm its relay closes, throwing
the reversing relay and triggering the built-in horns. Some smoke detectors
may reset during the split-second loss of power as the reversing relay
crosses, especially if they were tripped using a test magnet. A latching
relay can be added to the mix to vercome this should it occur.




You have not said where this job will be or how it will be used.

Exactly. I simply haven't provided enough information for anyone to
provide moral advice vis-a-vis fire codes. And more importantly the
uses will change dramatically week-by-week over the next few months with
entirely different sets of needs as the project matures. A system that
addresses needs in the early phase of a project may be inadequate in
latter phases, and vice-versa.

Without
that it's impossible to give a definitive answer regarding applicable code.

Right again. Wasn't it Socrates who said, "If I am smarter than
my opponents it is only to the extent that I do not claim to know that
which I do not know."

 

[Mark Leuck]

George Patton wrote



Well, I guess you told us.
js

I'm shaking, he was very aggresive in his post