Re: [Phys-l] Alarm Failure was Ionization Detectors

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

I'm very surprised, as I have four which I occasionally * test w/ a 
blown out match.  None have ever failed, and all modern ones have low 
batt. detection.  Vide:

http://www.chipcatalog.com/Datasheet/F204A73002179D925E5D5AAD3ACCD496.htm

* At least one is from previous residence, therefore, > 11 years old.

bc


Michael Edmiston wrote:

> What's the problem?  Just a bad battery, or an actual fault in the 
> system.  How are they testing them?
>
> Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
> Professor of Physics and Chemistry
> Bluffton University
> Bluffton, OH 45817
> (419)-358-3270
> edmiston@bluffton.edu
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Brian Whatcott" <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>
> To: <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 12:43 PM
> Subject: [Phys-l] Alarm Failure was Ionization Detectors
>
>
>  
>
> > A cautionary note.....
> >
> >    Dennis Fire Department Captain Robert Tucker, who oversees the
> > [Ma] town's fire inspections... said that when he conducts announced
> > smoke detector inspections, the failure rate is about 30 percent.
> >         "People just assume they're working," he said.
> >
> > [as reported Boston Globe, Oct5, 2004]
> >
> >
> > Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forum for Physics Educators
> > Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> > https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> >
> >    
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
>
>