Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #25729
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Stupid design decisions |
| Date | 2017-01-30 23:36 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <o6pb6p$3ff$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <o60u6c5ebpdopgrth3flc1vscseb52mshj@4ax.com> <2570a1d7-d01d-4d54-92b0-77cb524bc592@googlegroups.com> <o6o8vl$asp$1@dont-email.me> <ca3a48c4-00cc-4d94-a34c-16fa09e70553@googlegroups.com> |
On 1/30/2017 11:18 PM, Ed Prochak wrote: > On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 3:52:58 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote: >> On 1/30/2017 1:28 PM, Ed Prochak wrote: >>> So together we investigate, and After a few chirps, >>> we manage to locate the culprit. Under a dust tarp, >>> on a shelf, is one of the old smoke detectors that >>> I removed over three years ago!!! >> >> Yeah, I spent some time the other day chasing down what was obviously >> an "alarm clock". Apparently, only rings for a minute or two, then >> self-resets. So, if you're not in the garage (which is where it was, >> sitting in a pile of items to be recycled) when it goes off, you'd >> never know! >> >> I figure I've just saved the folks at the recycling plant a hassle or two! >> >>> So two rants: >>> >>> BIG ONE: detector companies, PLEASE change the low battery >>> signal to something more easily located!!! >> >> People KNOW where their smoke detectors are located. > > I had TWO detectors: one smoke, one CO, located about 12 feet apart > with the furnace in between and a shelf in between. And I could not > tell which was chhirping! As I've mentioned before, you need a range of frequencies to localize most sound sources. Listen to a cricket, chirping ENDLESSLY in a room. You can wander around until you are exhausted and still not deterministically identify its location -- you have to hope to SPOT it or otherwise stumble across it. >> The goal >> of the alarm in the detector is to be as loud and annoying as >> possible. > > I said NOTHING about the alarm. Comon Don you are better than that. There is one "annunciator" in the device. It is chosen to be "as loud and as annoying as possible". The designers didn't add a *second* device just to help you locate a "bad battery"! >>> Small one: Batteries obviously last more than one year! >> >> Of course! You can buy detectors with non-replaceable batteries >> (the entire detector is discarded after 10 years) > > You couldn't do that twenty years ago when that old detctor > was installed. Yes, but older detectors tended to eat batteries at a higher rate. So, you wouldn't typically plan on it *lasting* more than a year. >>> (but I am still replacing them yearly, better safe than cheap.) >> >> Yup. It also gives you a reminder to test the thing and remind >> yourself what it sounds like when it sounds off (ours are >> combination units so the alarms for smoke and Co are different). >> As well as testing the interconnect -- to make sure ALL sound >> when *any* sounds! > > yes our smoke detectors are interconnected, which is another reason > I kept the combo smoke/CO detector. And knowing the old CO detector > was likely still okay, I put it in the garage. (I don't use my > fireplace much any more.) We have gas heat (and hot water) so CO is a possible "normal occurrence" -- if something "goes wrong" with an appliance. Here, CO detectors are contraindicated in garages! I guess the fear is one of "false alarms". I've been looking for a suitable "temperature sensor" for the furnace room as most other detectors are ill-advised, there. [Apparently, a lot of the places you'd think would be prime locations for smoke and CO detectors are "not advised"] >>> End of story. >> >> A $60 leson you will undoubtedly not need to repeat! :> > > I hope so, but my brain gets so overloaded from work wsometimes > that I cannot guarantee it. 8^) You need to find pleasant diversions! :> I spent most of today wading through piles of recycled equipment: "Gee, I wonder what THIS is? And, what is it supposed to do??" (Had two friends in surgeries and knew I would need something to act as a diversion lest I "waste" the day worrying about them!) [Managed to "find" a hand tool another friend had misplaced a week or two ago thereby earning her ebullient gratitude. Always fun to watch a woman *jump* for joy! ;) And, both friends appear to have come through their surgeries well, so... A Good Day!]
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-05 21:14 -0600
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-01-06 12:27 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 14:51 -0500
Re: Stupid design decisions Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-06 20:22 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-08 17:11 +0100
Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 17:10 -0500
Re: Stupid design decisions Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-01-09 11:30 +0200
Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 04:58 -0500
Re: Stupid design decisions Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2017-01-09 13:10 +0200
Re: Stupid design decisions Clive Arthur <cliveta@nowaytoday.co.uk> - 2017-01-09 11:15 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-09 13:48 +0100
Re: Stupid design decisions Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-08 17:40 -0500
Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-10 21:42 -0600
Re: Stupid design decisions Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-01-06 15:33 -0600
Re: Stupid design decisions Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 12:28 -0800
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-01-30 13:52 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-30 20:55 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-01-30 14:18 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-30 21:20 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-01-30 14:31 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-30 23:37 -0600
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-01-30 23:20 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 22:29 -0800
Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 02:10 -0500
Re: Stupid design decisions Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2017-01-30 22:30 +0100
Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-31 02:00 -0500
Re: Stupid design decisions Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-01-30 22:18 -0800
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-01-30 23:36 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions jladasky@itu.edu - 2017-01-31 16:01 -0800
Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 09:47 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 06:35 -0500
Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 16:26 -0600
Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 19:49 -0500
Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 01:27 -0600
Re: Stupid design decisions Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-03 07:18 -0600
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-03 10:14 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@highlandtechnology.invalid> - 2017-02-03 10:12 -0800
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-03 14:10 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 11:15 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 13:52 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-02-05 04:36 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 21:55 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-05 21:39 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:55 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-05 23:38 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 21:25 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-04 17:26 -0600
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 16:56 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-02-03 21:40 -0600
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-03 21:48 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 11:03 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-04 13:00 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 01:49 -0600
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 10:43 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-05 21:31 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 15:22 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-05 23:24 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-02-06 03:51 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 10:11 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 20:07 -0500
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 21:08 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions mac <acolvin@efunct.com> - 2017-02-04 14:42 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 02:00 -0600
Re: Stupid design decisions Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-05 09:11 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 03:51 -0600
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 11:10 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-05 22:22 +0000
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 16:01 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-02-05 11:03 -0700
Re: Stupid design decisions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-30 23:44 -0600
csiph-web