Bs5839 1988

[Bill]

Niether have I said a T&E install was "better" then a FP install, all I have questioned is the justifaction of the supposed "need" to replace fully working BS5839-88 systems simply due to a different cable used in the detection circuits that was and still is legal.

As for the fire in the void, well if the fault caused somone to check the area involved before the detection circuits activated that would mean possible earlier detection of a problem. It's pie in the sky stuff to this point, the bloke checking it may have no sense of smell and miss the acrid smell of a T&E burning in the void, he may go to the wrong zone if it was serviced by some of the cowboys that operate everywhere, he may spot a small fire in a area not covered by detection, need I go on?

The thread has lost it's debate value for me now, opinions seem polorised so I won't continue with it unless some freash valid points are raised.

Luggsey

The justification, in simple terms, is the fact that twin and earth cable used in an installation means that the system will not comply with BS5839:2002. Therefore, your customer has an installation which is non-compliant, and put them in a position whereby they may have to answer that non-compliance legally. The reason twin and earth cable is a non-compliance, simply, is because it does not offer a fire rating - as I mentioned elsewhere, twin and earth cable will break down under fire conditions in seconds - whereas the COP calls for a minimum of 30 minutes.

Regarding your "fire in the void" - this is a really dangerous idea for so many reasons. As I said before, you're playing roulette if you imagine that under those conditions twin and earth will short every time - and also for the fact that the End of Lines are not stuck in the panel, head removal detection is working, and so on - there are so many reasons why a fault condition might NOT ensue from your scenario, it's just too variable to be a reliable detection. Now, on the other hand, your suggestion actually involves putting someone in harm's way too - investigating this fault condition in a void that is actually a fire - they open the void door and suddenly the little smouldering fire you envisage has been fed by a heap load of oxygen and is now a roaring fire, consuming oxygen at its point of entry (where you are standing) - and super heating at the same time - it is now a fire that has taken hold, taken a victim and probably, still NO alarm, since the guy finding it just got hit by flame or smoke.

Most logically, twin and earth or not, you find a void like this, your first action is to make an urgent recommendation that proper detection is fitted immediately - that, and that alone, would go some little way to mitigating the scenario - but relying on a fault condition to lead to a fire is a MAJOR no-no, for the reasons above.

Finally, it's a shame the thread has lost its debate value for you - there is a lot of sense in here, and a lot of good reasons why it isn't a good idea to try to save your customers a few quid sometimes - misguided, I think - as you'd be the one ending up in the mire. What you've been doing here is the equivalent of bringing your company van to an F1 race at Brands, and then arguing that your van is essentially the same as those F1 motors on the track, and that you should be able to race alongside for that reason.

You claim you're trying to do this for the purpose of undertanding - well, you've had collective wisdom gathered over very many years to understand, and you don't seem to want to understand that the reasons twin and earth is not acceptable any longer include not just technical aspects, but also issues of life safety - the very reason most fire alarms are fitted in the first place.

Don't give up the debate - and do question everything - that's the right way to do it - but please, if you're going to question, be prepared to listen to the answers........ opinion is polarised for a reason - and most of us get totally why twin and earth is a bad thing for fire alarm systems.

Regards,

[Guest anguscanplay]

whats up with your website Bill ?

[Bill]

whats up with your website Bill ?

Lol - too busy ripping out all that twin and earth to finish it....... )

Seriously, I haven't had a chance to finish it, but will be devoting time to it over the weekend......it may at least then look a little like I mean it.......

Regards,

[luggsey]

Luggsey

Ok I'll have to answer your points as some are not accurate nor do they fairly represent the statements I have made in this now boring thread.

The justification, in simple terms, is the fact that twin and earth cable used in an installation means that the system will not comply with BS5839:2002. Dosen't have to if it was installed before BS5839:2002 this is the point I have made over and over. Therefore, your customer has an installation which is non-compliant, Non compliant with a new BS which they neither have to be compliant with both legaly and technicaly. and put them in a position whereby they may have to answer that non-compliance legally. Where is the illegal non compliance, if a BS5839-88 system is installed and maintained it is fully legal. The reason twin and earth cable is a non-compliance, simply, is because it does not offer a fire rating - as I mentioned elsewhere, twin and earth cable will break down under fire conditions in seconds - whereas the COP calls for a minimum of 30 minutes. Nobody is arguing T&E is better then FP, T&E is non compliant only if used after 2002, installations before that using T&E are legal and do not have to be upgraded. Nobody is saying they are better!!!

Regarding your "fire in the void" - this is a really dangerous idea for so many reasons. As I said before, you're playing roulette if you imagine that under those conditions twin and earth will short every time I never said that, I pointed out a T&E may melt and go short/open before a FP cable in a void/cable run which "may" give an indication of a fire, I never said it should be a design feature- and also for the fact that the End of Lines are not stuck in the panel, head removal detection is working, and so on - there are so many reasons why a fault condition might NOT ensue from your scenario, it's just too variable to be a reliable detection.That's something else I never said. Now, on the other hand, your suggestion actually involves putting someone in harm's way too - investigating this fault condition in a void that is actually a fire - they open the void door and suddenly the little smouldering fire you envisage has been fed by a heap load of oxygen and is now a roaring fire, consuming oxygen at its point of entry (where you are standing) - and super heating at the same time - it is now a fire that has taken hold, taken a victim and probably, still NO alarm, since the guy finding it just got hit by flame or smoke.Well ok, better he stays asleep and waits for the fire to really get hold, imaginations are really running wild now. Would it not be investigated if the fire alarm activated in the same area...Not everyone calls the brigade out to check activations. Again this is all pointless pie in the sky stuff.

Most logically, twin and earth or not, you find a void like this, your first action is to make an urgent recommendation that proper detection is fitted immediately - that, and that alone, would go some little way to mitigating the scenario - but relying on a fault condition to lead to a fire is a MAJOR no-no, for the reasons above.It depends on the size of the void as you must know, that would be a service/inspection issue, it could easily be a cable run under a floor couldn't it?

Finally, it's a shame the thread has lost its debate value for you - there is a lot of sense in here, and a lot of good reasons why it isn't a good idea to try to save your customers a few quid sometimes - misguided, I think - as you'd be the one ending up in the mire. Not if the installation is legal to the requriments of BS when it was installed. What you've been doing here is the equivalent of bringing your company van to an F1 race at Brands, and then arguing that your van is essentially the same as those F1 motors on the track, and that you should be able to race alongside for that reason. So you think I have compared the performance of T&E cables to FP cables and concluded they are the same, again I never said any of this, more fiction and imagination then anything?

You claim you're trying to do this for the purpose of undertanding - well, you've had collective wisdom gathered over very many years to understand, and you don't seem to want to understand that the reasons twin and earth is not acceptable any longer include not just technical aspects, but also issues of life safety - the very reason most fire alarms are fitted in the first place.Now I don't "understand", that's the next claim that's fiction, you need to re-read my posts from the start of this thread and you need to understand what point I was making. I was not and have not defended the use of T&E for detection circuits, I have stated to the best of my knowledge correct facts about the legality of BS5839-88 systems which most have agreed are correct, how this is reported and explained to the customer is my concern.

Don't give up the debate - and do question everything - that's the right way to do it - but please, if you're going to question, be prepared to listen to the answers........ opinion is polarised for a reason - and most of us get totally why twin and earth is a bad thing for fire alarm systems. It's no longer a debate when I have been mis-quoted so many times and have to challenge almost everything you have written due to it's inaccuracies, you really must carefully read what has been written before claiming I have made such comments.

Regards,

As far as I'm concerned unless there are any new and accurate points of debate.

[Guest G.J.M]

.

GJM now you are agreeing that you should not simply condem a system and say it dosen't comply with BS5839-2002 without explaining to the client that it is a legal installation and in order to be kept as it is if they are made aware of the tiny risk of a cable failure leading to a failure to detect a fire, (

i have never mentioned condemming a system nor have i mentioned that i would not inform the customer why it did not comply.

how decides on this "tiny risk" factor?

however big or small a risk it is not up to us to decide.

no one is scare mongering on here but if we all go by what we are told to adhere by then we should never be subject to any comeback.

you are entitled to opinion and how you want to do things that's up to you.

i will stick to being boring and go by the book.

[Bill]

As far as I'm concerned unless there are any new and accurate points of debate.

Okay - let's close it with some accuracy - Luggsey, I answered the points you raised, based on what you wrote - I'm happy with the fact that I repplied to what was written - if you meant to infer something different, perhaps you should have written what you meant - I'm not the only one that got something "different" out of what you wrote than you're saying you intended. I'm not here for a fight mate, only to try to pass on some of the twenty three hard fought years of experience I have.

On that note, BS5839:2002, Part 1, section 46.2 applies for any first service after 2002 came into effect (advice given by both BAFE and BFPSA) - this points out quite clearly that there is a major non-compliance where any of the conditions in clause (B) are true - and item 6 of that caluse is cabling which fails to meet the requirements of Clause 26.2 - this in turn states cable must provide fire resistance to at least "standard" level. Twin and earth cable fails to do that.

The Standard states clearly that it is a MAJOR non compliance. That's on Page 109.

By inference, every service subsequent to this one will be in accordance with 5839:2002, and again, the major non-compliance is still in effect.

Now, BS5839:2002, Part One, opens with the Foreword, and the statement that:

This part of BS 5839 has been prepared by Technical Committee FSH/12/1.

It supersedes BS 5839-1:1988, which will be withdrawn on 15 July 2003.

It makes the requirements of the 1988 edition irrelevant - even the maintenance section.

It is clear that the use of twin and earth cable is a major non-compliance, and should always be notified as such - what the customer does with that, is a matter, as also stated in the standard, for the customer, based on the advice of the servicing company, insurer, and local fire authority. If you don't notify that, you're not servicing in accordance with the standard.

But do me one favour - please re-state the specific point you were trying to make - since you feel I've answered you incorrectly - and that wasn't my intent.

Regards,

[luggsey]

i have never mentioned condemming a system nor have i mentioned that i would not inform the customer why it did not comply.

If they give you the old line that "it complied when it was installed 20 years ago" then tell them that their electrics would have complied too but should have been rewired 5 years ago.

Well you said what you said, then you said:

As Esp puts we are not suggesting that a system should be regarded as non complaint without an explanation to the customer

Which is the point I have been making, the explanation needs to inform the customer a BS5839-88 system is still legal if installed correctly and maintained properly.

how decides on this "tiny risk" factor?

however big or small a risk it is not up to us to decide.

Customer FRA or expert opinion, do you know if any lives have been lost because a detection circuit was wired in T&E? Can you refrence any case law to support the claim of "butt protection" (I'm not quoting you, that seems to be the main reason for recomending customers comply with BS5839-2002) .

no one is scare mongering on here but if we all go by what we are told to adhere by then we should never be subject to any comeback.

If the customer is fully informed of the reasoning and risk then they can make a decision themselfs, if the information provided is inaccurate and does not mention the fact their system may be fully legal and ok to stay as it is then I would call some of the wording used in this thread as scare mongering. I do agree with you that we need to adhere to the BS as I have already stated, however when looking at a fire alarm system installed to BS5839-88 it needs to be made clear there is no retrospective requirement in the new BS to upgrade the old installation as long as it was installed and maintained correctly.

you are entitled to opinion and how you want to do things that's up to you.

i will stick to being boring and go by the book.

Well that's your opinion and you are entitled to it as I am to mine, however I do question your refrence about going by the book, depends which book you mean, you still seem to fail to realise that I would also report the non-conformance to BS5839-2002 if it applied, but I would also ensure the information I provided made it clear the installation was a "legal" BS5839-88 installation and the non-compliences were to the newer BS5839-2002 which is not retrospective.

Modern BS standards improve all the time, EN standards "usually" improve as well, that dosen't mean we all rush round and upgrade every safety system because the BS has been updated, recomend updating if there is a valid reason but not simply because the old installation is not up to the latest BS when legally it dosen't have to be.

[Guest G.J.M]

Modern BS standards improve all the time, EN standards "usually" improve as well, that dosen't mean we all rush round and upgrade every safety system because the BS has been updated, recomend updating if there is a valid reason but not simply because the old installation is not up to the latest BS when legally it dosen't have to be

i totally agree with you and well put but no one is going round expecting all systems to be automatically upgraded because the standards have been updated.

We are all trying to explain that it is asked by 2002 to highlight all non complainces of any system regardless if it was installed this year or 20 years ago.

The customer is then put under no time scale to address all the items brought to their attention.

If he does then great but if he choses not to then that's up to them and they can't at least say that it was not brought to their attention.

some insurance companies insist that a building is brought up to current standards for obvious reasons that modern fire systems installed properly will protect the building far better than older ones.

[luggsey]

Modern BS standards improve all the time, EN standards "usually" improve as well, that dosen't mean we all rush round and upgrade every safety system because the BS has been updated, recomend updating if there is a valid reason but not simply because the old installation is not up to the latest BS when legally it dosen't have to be

i totally agree with you and well put but no one is going round expecting all systems to be automatically upgraded because the standards have been updated.

We are all trying to explain that it is asked by 2002 to highlight all non complainces of any system regardless if it was installed this year or 20 years ago.

The customer is then put under no time scale to address all the items brought to their attention.

If he does then great but if he choses not to then that's up to them and they can't at least say that it was not brought to their attention.

some insurance companies insist that a building is brought up to current standards for obvious reasons that modern fire systems installed properly will protect the building far better than older ones.

I agree with you this time! Mostly....what I also say is that the customer must be clearly informed an existing BS5839-88 system is legal and complies to the requlations it was installed to. I have been asked for second opinions on BS5839-88 systems when a service enginer has used wording like "does not comply with British Standards....." without making it clear the system is fully legal. In my opinion this "non complience" issue can be used to scare customers into upgrading legal systems. (I'm not pointing the finger at anybody on here before I get pounced on again and have to circle wagons!)

Is this subject done to death now?

I agree an insurance company may want a fully up to date system, no doubt that happens at all.

[esp-protocol]