A new fix for ionization-type smoke alarms? (electric, player, universal)

[Pink Jazz]

As I have stated in a previous thread, I have been opposed to ionization-only smoke alarms due to their ineffectiveness at detecting slow smoldering fires compared to photoelectric or dual sensor alarms.

However, it looks like Universal Security Instruments (USI, the #3 player in the smoke alarm industry behind Kidde and BRK/First Alert) has come out with a new patented ionization technology known as IoPhic:
The New IoPhic® Universal Sensing Technology® from Smoke Alarms.com

According to USI, the new IoPhic models are more effective than dual photoelectric/ionization models at sensing both fast flaming as well as slow smoldering fires, yet costs less than competing photoelectric-only models. USI also claims it is less prone to false alarms than a standard ionization smoke alarm.

This looks like it could be a good solution, however, as with any claims by a company, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, some will still be uncomfortable with the americium that is used in any type of ionization alarm.

For our new house in Gilbert, since it will have Kidde alarms, we just bought a Kidde PI2010 dual-sensor hardwire alarm (brands must match when interconnecting). However, the house that my brother lives in has USI alarms (one photoelectric, the rest ionization), and maybe if one of those ionization alarms fails or breaks a new IoPhic model would be an option.

What does anyone think about this?

[harry chickpea]

Looks really, really good, especially model MDSCN111
I'd like to see some U.L. or Consumer Reports testing on it and evaluation of the claims.
If accurate, this could be something we both agree on fully. You might have a winner here.

[Pink Jazz]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

Looks really, really good, especially model MDSCN111
I'd like to see some U.L. or Consumer Reports testing on it and evaluation of the claims.
If accurate, this could be something we both agree on fully. You might have a winner here.

It still remains to be seen whether or not they will get approval in Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont require photoelectric alarms, while Iowa requires dual-sensor alarms. If USI's claims are true, maybe they will.

[fredbaker]

I frequently use as a reference safety advocates who have the chairman of the first home fire detection code on there advisory board according to them the ionization product is never a good idea even if it is a dual sensor I will point out that they have stated that kidde used a fraudulent ad to say that 75% of fire deaths or something are flaming. the safety advocate has stated that the majority of deaths approximately 75% smoldering they also said that they called Kidde products insideous I will point out I am sure all manufacturers been sued.( some with confidentiality orders) So My answer is that they could have generated a bar graph to show the effectivness of the new alarm but base on what I have just said it is always possible that they could generate a false graph any ionization alarm is not something you want. You will also want to note that the first fire science phd has stated that the combination alarm recevied a poor grade because they were more concerened with avoiding false alarms rather than early detection but is a possible problem what if it malfuctions and it considers a fire instead of cooking smoke some type of false alarm? Can you sue? well there was a court case mercer vs. brk that orginated the limtiations being required in smoke alarms so if you try to sue well they could pull out their limitations sheet and say see we were honest we told you it might not work!!!!
I my notes indicate that the industry seem to be aware of the faulty smoke alarm issue but the have made little if any to correct it what I would recommend is that what ever manufacturer you buy I am sure they all have skelletons in their closet is that it always be a photo electric alarm and not an ionization alarm Texas a& m has determined the failure rates of photo-electric alarms to be 4% for both smoldering and flaming fires while the ionization failure rates are 56% smoldering and 20 % for flaming fires

the main concepts are below

my notes also show that the units sent to ul lab could have different sensitivity settings than the ones used in our homes

the smoke alarm standard it flawed so I would think that there is a greater chance of being able to certify a defective product

so again the manufacturers have been known to use fruadulent ads to promote there prouducts I would not want to take such a risk {do not buy any type of dual sensor)

there are 3 types of smoke alarms (iophic is a dual) you must think of it like a raffle the highest chance of winning is to have a photoelectric unit (important for life safety) the use of an ion and (test show that you can die of carbon monoxide poisoning before an ion activates at an hour)
(dual sensor?? some tests have shown that the dual sensor could be the last to activate

I think I have given you the concepts I will not tell you which manufacuter to by from I will say that no matter which you use/chose it must be photo electric only and not a dual sensor. IOn?? why would you want to die of carbon monoxide poisoning before the thing went of at an hour? A Fire Evacuation specialist is saying that you need up to an hours pre-warning so you can run to the exit before the smoke comes down to eye level since when the smoldering fire becomes flaming it could ignite the room in about 3 minutes so you need to run and be out under 2 minutes.

[fredbaker]

I think this test will help explain what you were saying if you read the post By Mr. Butler About the guy behind legislation is going to Australia he is the guy in this test Captain Russ Ashe



Matt Cetin (Life Or Death Smoke Alarm Test) - YouTube