Talk:Smoke detector

Suggest merge

Americium smoke detector contains no information not available from reading the package it came in and is redundant with this article; any unique content should be merged to give it context. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Done in April. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Typical smoke detector obscuration ratings

This table doesn't quite make sense. Ionization and Photoelectric are two categories of sensors used to detect smoke, while beam, aspiration, and laser are products that utilize these technologies in their product. Also, percent per foot is not how sensitivity is commonly measured in beam-type smoke detectors, which is probably why there is no citation for the value entered. I am going to reformat this table and obtain citations for all values unless there is reasonable argument against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEthug (talk • contribs) 18:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Page is better now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmkeys (talk • contribs) 02:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed I just removed the uncited part about the beam and cleaned up the table a little. Hope that helps. – voidxor 21:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Also, I removed the uncited Air-sampling section, which was under the Design level-2 header right alongside Ionization and Photoelectric. You're right about air-sampling and beam just being specialized implementations of photoelectric. – voidxor 23:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

POV of Performance differences section

Ionization and photoelectric detectors each have their own merits, so why is the Performance differences section so anti-ionization?! Even the comparison table in that section shows that ionization detectors are more sensitive to lower obscuration values, on average (yeah, okay, so there's one photoelectric model than can supposedly 0.2%/foot, but that's clearly an outlier if you follow the reference). Furthermore, photoelectric detectors obviously stand no chance of ever detecting invisible smoke particles, which obviously won't obscure anything. If ionization detectors are so "deadly", why are they still on the market and legal in most places? Why are there combination detectors that offer both ionization and photoelectric technologies if photoelectric can do everything that ionization can do—just better? I don't buy it. We should probably find the other side of the argument and represent it here. – voidxor 21:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

i think that section is POV on another level, too: what performance? in F.Rep.Germ. i cannot see any 40% drop in smoke/fire/flame deaths (ICD-10 X0...), although the legislative ordered a lot of those photoelectric devices... furthermore smoke/fire/flame per (official) inhabitant seems to be more often in the US than in F.Rep.Germ., although F.Rep.Germ. does not have smoke detectors for decades... a newspaper said, that there is no proof for the usefulness of a smoke detector... but of course i do as the gov orders and check the functionality weekly by pressing the test-functionality-button (my computer has an alarm for that)... :) --Homer Landskirty (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we maybe create a Legislation section and split the Performance differences section in half? That would at least take the biased chronological litany of local laws being passed, and move it away from the objective discussion of obscuration and the like. – voidxor 22:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

sounds like pretty good idea... the local legislation told me, that their decision is based on "belief" and not on scientific studies... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The question is asked above, "If ionization detectors are so "deadly", why are they still on the market and legal in most places?" The answer is because the manufacturers fight to keep the truth about them from the public evidenced by the Confidentiality Order placed on campaigners after ionization smoke alarm manufacturer Kidde (owned by UTC) failed to disclose the level of smoke their ionization alarm activated at under controlled scientific tests conducted by the Australian government scientific organization, the CSIRO. This was despite repeated requests by an Australian member of parliament:

• Confidentiality Order: www.SmokeAlarmWarning.org/ba.html
• Request for disclosure of smoke obscuration by Australian member of parliament: www.SmokeAlarmWarning.org/csiro.html
• 60 Minutes Australia's ionization smoke alarm exposé, 'The Alarming Truth' (Oct 2014): http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/60minutes/stories/2014/october/the-alarming-truth/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:8600:2600:29C7:DF81:FDAE:23D3 (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, I worry your conspiracy theory might increase this article's bias toward photoelectric detectors, rather than helping to ensure neutrality. I'll go ahead and split the section though, as Homer and I'd discussed. – voidxor 19:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smoke detector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120416013553/http://www.systemsensor.com:80/lifesafety/2011/05/sophisticated-strategic-fire-and-life-safety-in-mission-critical-applications/ to http://www.systemsensor.com/lifesafety/2011/05/sophisticated-strategic-fire-and-life-safety-in-mission-critical-applications/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm impressed

When I checked this page's history I was sure the recent Nathan for You episode would have resulted in a flood of vandalism to this article, referring to the smoke detector (more specifically the blues smoke detector) as a musical instrument. But nope, none at all. I don't know how we managed that, but good job, I guess. Even though I don't see how it would have been anything but luck. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 17:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)