Modify a wireless Kidde smoke detector for use in ATTIC??

Hello folks,

Can I modify a Kidde smoke detector?

I'm wondering if someone out there can help with my dilema. I live in a neighborhood where there have been 3 lightning strikes to houses, causing attic fires, in the past 3 years. Two of those houses burned completely and will be razed. The third fire was seen by kids in time to warn the occupants who were in the house at the time and they saved the house. I would like to extend my wired smoke alarm system to protect the attic space.

However, I do NOT want a wired alarm in the attic, because I reason that it increases the likelyhood that a lightning strike will destroy the entire alarm system. I thought that Kidde WIRELESS smoke alarms offered a perfect solution. I have a wireless unit in the attic, another attached to my wired system, which sets the whole system off, and a third on the main floor as a backup. If a strike destroys the wired alarm system, I've still got the redundant wireless system working.

Unfortunately, it gets too hot in the attic and the alarm is set off by the heat. I do not believe dust is a problem in the attic - my air conditioner stays cleaner than my desk. The problem seems to be just the excessive heat. So, I am looking for a solution that still allows me to use the wireless unit.

Is anyone out there familiar enough with Kidde wireless smoke detectors to know if I can change a component on the PCB that alters the temperature alarm point? I'm thinking there may be a discrete component on the PCB to accomplish the temperature sensing, rather than a sensor built into the chip. I have not taken the alarm apart yet because the wireless unit is expensive, but from what I can see, there ain't much in there. It's surface mount technology on a small PCB. Might anyone have a schematic for these things? If it seems a modification is possible, I'll go ahead and open the unit up and give it a shot.

Any advice is thankfully accepted. I'd like to try to get some fix up and running soon, as lightning season is upon us, and I'd like to spend my time researching a proper lightning protection system. In the meantime, I still would like to protect the attic space.

Thanks.

Dan

Reply to
danube
Loading thread data ...

Don't know if they have a temp detect but if so it's most likely in the chip. Every penny counts in producing these devices.

If you get this much lightning have you thought about installing lightning arresters? That's what I did on our previous home because that area saw lots of summer thunderstorms. Cost was not outrageous, maybe $200 in materials or so plus "free" labor (me). Could have been much less but I opted for the thickest honking conductor they had, about 1/2" diameter. Anything metallic on the roof such as the antenna was tied in.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Joerg

Another group deals with those items all the time:

formatting link
. . Look at the first line of this post.

If, *instead* of using an email address for a username, you would use JUST A NAME--without a domain tacked on,

*THAT* won't be obfuscated by Google and it will make it easier for others (especially other Google Groupers).
formatting link
Reply to
JeffM

JeffM wrote in news:2a154147-7aa9-4c7a-9ecb-44c21605c670 @w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

The email addy very clearly meets all usenet standards. This *is* a usenet group. Perhaps dropping a note to google asking them to handle plain old ASCII...

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply
Reply to
Scott Seidman

Scott Seidman wrote:

True.

...to which the OP is posting *from Google*. You would like to believe he would have READ the group a bit and noticed how those are munged there. I would think a little consideration for others in the same situation would follow.

If you respond to one of those from Google, the blockquoting of the username is borked and you have to make an effort to get the name.

It's *the way* Google obfuscates them that's stupid. All other Web-based archives mung **the domain**. Only Google is clueless enough to mung the *name* part.

I don't remember if they inherited this from Deja, but I think they did--and never corrected it (or maybe never even realized how stupid it is). They don't seem eager to fix it.

Reply to
JeffM

JeffM wrote in news:d76ef32f-d37c-48f1-bacc- snipped-for-privacy@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

Deja didn't mung anything, IIRC

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply
Reply to
Scott Seidman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.