Setting up smokes on M1G Elk

[newalarm]

I am planning for install of M1G.

I was looking to get System Sensor 4WTB smokes/thermal and 5601 thermal detectors. I am homerunning each back to panel on separate zones. I already ran 22/4 wire (I realize now i should have installed larger gauge...) but runs are max of 30feet to panel so SSensor said this should be fine.

House already contains 120volt smokes in rooms/spaces, tied together, with siren. This system required by code, will NOT be tied to alarm system. Since i wanted a monitored system, with information as to what zone is going off, i am installing one or two detectors per floor.

SSensor recommended installing the EOLR-1 for each smoke. From reading some posts, it seems like with the M1G, it is not necessary, all you need is the end of line resistor.

Is this correct?

Thanks.

 

[Del91574]

If you have home run smoke detectors, you need a power supervision relay for each detector. If you have a daisy chain loop, only one is needed per loop.

 

[newalarm]

So i need one EOLR-1 for each smoke? What is the difference between the relay and resistor? It seemed from what i read the EOL resistor was sufficient.

thanks.

 

[apostolakisl]

Yes.

For each zone you have, you need one eol resistor and one eol relay. If you have all them daisy chained together on one zone, you only need one of each. . .at the end of line.

Technically, the units will function fine without the relay or resistor in place. But there is then no supervision. In other words, the Elk will not be able to notify you should something go wrong, like a cut wire or loose connection.

GE makes a smoke detector with the supervising relay built in. I have one of these at my end of line and it makes things nice and neat and easy.

 

[newalarm]

GE makes a smoke detector with the supervising relay built in. I have one of these at my end of line and it makes things nice and neat and easy.

Do you know that model number of that GE? I am homerunning each so it may be easier.

 

[apostolakisl]

This one.

http://www.discounth...ce=bingshopping

There may be others in addition. You will need to read the specs and make sure it is what you want. I am not endorsing this store, it just came up first when I googled it.

 

[Del91574]

Your installation (barring the incorrect cable AWG) would be a heck of a lot easier if you ditched the 4 wire units and installed 2 wire smoke detectors with the existing cabling.

 

[apostolakisl]

Just for the sake of argument, what would be the logic for the code on wire gauge for smoke detectors. If the units have eol relay/resistor, a wiring failure will create a trouble condition. And frankly, I don't really think upping the gauge from 22 to 20 or 18 would change the risk of a wire being transected.

Perhaps it is the power side? Too much voltage drop on a long run? I suppose if that were the logic then you should specifiy length of run/guage combo, not just gauge only.

 

[newalarm]

Changing wire is not an option at this point. drywall is up. otherwise, i would have done it immediately.

My runs are less than 30-35'. heck, the site is 30 wide since it is townhouse. They are pretty short runs and should not be problem. second, we are not adding sirens to smokes since we already have this with 120v smokes. This should be reduce the need to the 18, and probably why the tech at system sensor said it would be fine.

Yes Lou Apo, the longer your run, the more resistance you get, the more loss of power, the greater the wire gauge to compensate for it (up to a certain point). Thanks for suggestion. i will look up.

Any thoughts on the smokes with thermal, such as the System Sensor 4WTB?

Thanks for the help all.

 

[ecborgoyn]

Looks like a good thread to jump into.

I'm designing an upgrade from a Westec 5000 panel to an M1G panel. There are three existing ESL 425C (2-wire) smoke/heat sensors, one per floor (per building code when the house was built). Each ESL 425C is home-run wired to the panel with 22/4 (I believe). in the 'can' the three smoke circuits are spliced into a single 2-wire loop. Both ends of the loop terminate on the W5K for supervision purposes. (I think there is a specific wiring 'class' for this scheme, is it Class D?)

I plan to replace the existing three ESL 425C devices and add new smoke/heat sensors in each 2nd floor bedroom (I have attic access). I also plan to add one in a lower level storage area.

For new circuits, I'll probably make the code folks happy and run 18/2 or 18/4 cable. I may even replace the accessible circuits (lower level and 2nd floor) circuits. Since I'm doing the work, the major expense is materials. Home-run circuits are convenient and I'll most likely add new circuits in a similar manner (one caveat to this explained below).

I'm a VERY conservative guy and would like to build a quality system that is easy to maintain, even if it increases the capital cost. This is why I've been agonizing over the life-safety sensor and system design. I'll be adding a few CO sensors to the system and replacing an existing CH4 sensor.

So I'm torn between a 2-wire and 4-wire design, PLUS I'm looking for the top quality sensors at a reasonable price. I'm thinking about the System Sensor i3 or the GE 400 series. Are these good quality? Good value? Are these others?

I like the CleanMe feature that (I think) is ONLY available on 2-wire models. Is this correct? This is one major point moving me a 2-wire system. The other is simplicity. One of the most vulnerable elements in a circuit is connections or contacts. The 2-wire configuration is simpler and doesn't require power supervision relays. I DO like the design of every sensor on a dedicated zone (all other sensors with be so), but am willing to trade this off for other features.

I plan to use smoke/heat sensors with integral sounders because during a fire I want as much noise as possible. I'd also like the 'unison sounding' function, so I'll be implementing a reversing relay.

The issue of having each detector on a separate zone input is an interesting idea.... Great for testing and debugging. Plus it provides great specificity to the alarm reporting. Or perhaps smaller groups of sensors. Perhaps all 2nd floor sensors on one zone, all lower level sensors on one zone, etc. I don't care as much for alarming purposes. When ANY smoke/heat trips they will ALL sound and nobody should care which one alarmed. Should I place more emphasis on the individual zone concept??

My original though was to incorporate the System Sensor 2W-MOD2 device for status and control. I now understand that the M1G itself can interpret the CleanMe protocol from the System Sensor devices. Would the GE devices work also? Is the CleanMe 2-wire protocol standard?

In the future I plan to install an expansion 'can' in a 2nd floor closet to handle some sensor expansion on the 2nd floor (via the attic). So perhaps one issue in my selection is whether or not I want to run new smoke/heat sensors from this expansion panel. I suppose I could create a second 2-wire loop, and use the 2W-MOD2 device. Or I could use 4-wire devices for this expansion. Perhaps keeping the smoke/heat sensors on the main panel would be preferred. I have conduits run throughout the house for this type of LV expansion. Any thoughts?

Decisions.... Until I started reading this I was planning to use the SS 2WTA-B sensors, the 2W-MOD2 module and the RRS-MOD module. As I said, I liked the status and control provided by the 2W-MOD2 device. This module also 'converted' the 2-wire network to a simple 4-wire interface to the panel. The advantage being that it removed ALL 2-wire protocol compatibility issues from the panel. I could replace the panel with anything in the future.

Maybe I'm over-designing, but I'm a research engineer by trade and have worked on many safety-critical systems over my career.....

Any and all comments are welcome.

 

[apostolakisl]

You mentioned that you want all the detectors to have sounders that all go off when any one trips. If you put each detector on its own zone, that won't happen.

You asked about the ge 400 series. This is what I have. No complaints after three years.

If you are pulling new wire, I would definitely do what code asks for. The added cost is nothing really. Even when the labor is "free" (diy), labor is still the biggest cost (hidden), so I would stick with best quality, especially on labor intensive stuff. They make fire detector wire which has a bright red jacket which is nice.

I don't know if 2 wire detectors are really simpler. True, there are 2 fewer wires, but that is only one point of failure, who knows what goes on in the guts of those things. 2-wire sensors may or may not have more/less internal issues. For arguments sake, lets say they are equal, then, yes 4 wire detectors have more connections and more failure points. However, the failure points will not go unmissed since the design prevents that.

Another point, you can't do 2 wire detectors on multiple zones. At least on Elk, you can only use zone 16 becuase it is powered differently for 2 wire detectors. 4 wire detectors use 2 of those wires to signal an alarm the same as any alarm zone would, so you can plug it in anywhere you like.

Also, this ge 4 wire model http://www.discounthomeautomation.com/GE-Security-Photoelectric-SmokeHeat-Detector-wRelay-4-Wire-GE449CTE?utm_medium=shoppingengine&utm_source=bingshopping has built in "need cleaning" warning. Also, it has the eol relay built in for simplicity.

 

[ecborgoyn]

Thanks for the info.

Regarding the ability to trigger the sounders in unison, I was thinking that I could put each 4-wire device on separate zone, but bring all of the device power through a reversing relay. Would this allow me to command all of the devices to sound? Maybe I misunderstood the specs.

Yes, the M1G only has one 2-wire zone. For multiple 2-wire zones I would NEED to incorporate the 2W-MOD2 type of device.

I see your point about the device complexity and failure possibility/probability. In some sense the 4-wire devices are simpler as they don't multiplex signals onto the same wire pair from which they derive power. The 4-wire devices require an additional circuit but are internally simpler.

It looks as if the GE 400 series does implement a 'CleanMe' indication. But from what I understand, on the 4-wire devices this indication is combined with a general device trouble condition. The panel does NOT see a distinction. One would need to view the sensor's LED to interpret the condition. On the 2-wire devices, there is a distinct indication for 'CleanMe'. If NOT sure if one scheme has significant advantages over the other. On a small installation (max of eight sensors), perhaps I don't need separate indications.... I suppose the 'CleanMe' could be interpreted as a Warning and other trouble conditions as Errors that require immediate attention...

 

[apostolakisl]

Thanks for the info.


It looks as if the GE 400 series does implement a 'CleanMe' indication. But from what I understand, on the 4-wire devices this indication is combined with a general device trouble condition. The panel does NOT see a distinction. One would need to view the sensor's LED to interpret the condition. On the 2-wire devices, there is a distinct indication for 'CleanMe'. If NOT sure if one scheme has significant advantages over the other. On a small installation (max of eight sensors), perhaps I don't need separate indications.... I suppose the 'CleanMe' could be interpreted as a Warning and other trouble conditions as Errors that require immediate attention...

I believe you are correct.

Also, note that the ones with the relay do not have built in sounders. Unless GE makes another model that I am unaware of, it either has the sounder or the relay but not both.

I do not know for certain how the "clean me" function works. Perhaps it just momentarily breaks the connection on one of the daisy chained signal wires taking the eol resistor out, setting the trouble code and then closes it again so that downstream detectors still can alarm in the event of a fire. I suppose it would need to keep doing that on some schedule so that someone doesn't just clear the code and forget about it. But it does not have a way to communicate a "clean me" message on the Elk panel. But, unless you had a gigantic install, it would just take a moment to walk around and check out the led's on each unit to find the trouble.

 

[Del91574]

The 400 series does not do a "clean me" the diagnostics for the detector are the heartbeat flashes on the smoke detector. The 449CTE is the exception to this rule.

The only ESL/GE/UTC smoke detectors that support "clean me" are the 500 series 2 wire detectors, and then only on compatible panels (IE: Vista P series panels).

Electrically speaking, they provide a quick fault on the fire alarm circuit to generate the "clean me" signal for the panel and also send (if enabled) a CID report to the CS. In our case, we found that DSC FSA 210 detectors would cause a maintenance error on the P series Vista panels, so the zone's response time was modified (lots of work with Honeywell and DSC engineers).

 

[apostolakisl]

I think the definition of "clean me" is perhaps not clear. According to GE brochure, all of the 400 series have a self diagnostic that will indicate to the user that the unit needs cleaning.

Only the model with the built-in relay (the cte), will tell the panel that it needs cleaning, but they all will indicate locally that they need cleaning via the led's on the unit. So, defining "clean me" as the detector telling the user that it needs cleaning by any method, then they all have a "clean me" function. If to you "clean me" strictly means telling the panel, then only the cte has that.