ECARO clean-agent gas fire suppression system would be my recommendation over sprinklers. While it may not be cheap upfront, the savings in water damage should easily make up the difference.
what would the cost difference be?
It's from the UL, and I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing. You should read the whitepaper.
From what I read on google, the cost would be substantial. Designed for commercial business. Applications. Once the system is activated, it dumps the entire system. A residential system activates one head and can be shut down from the outside. Then only that one head is replaced.
The huge difference in these numbers makes me think that they are insurance numbers. My guess is that the insured did not have flood damage insurance so the insurance company didn't pay anything damaged by the water. I'm not sure you can remodel a bathroom for $2,100 much less any other room in a house with fire, smoke, and water damage.
I'm with some of the others... keep smoke detectors up to date and working along with training the family on what to do.
Wrong, if it's on the internet it's true theory.
I'm a electrical contractor and every 3 years the national electrical code is updated. We now use methods like ground fault recepticals which have been upgraded in the last few years to work much better. Also arc-fault breakers have been recently required that HIGHLY reduce the chance of electrical fires. 40 years ago there were no such devices. Building materials are also better in fire reduction these days for sure.
Lol at the dismissal of the UL as internet hokum. Read the white paper guys!
Regular old homeowners insurance would pay for sprinkler damage. Just not rising water or groundwater.
Regular old homeowners insurance would pay for sprinkler damage. Just not rising water or groundwater.
I have zero experience with residential sprinklers other than seeing them in a few houses. I know of one in particular last summer in a neighborhood at 81st and Hwy 75 in Tulsa that the homeowner was not happy about having it in her house. We didnt even know the system was there until we noticed the piping in the attic for it, which was all the new PEX piping. We asked all about it, and IIRC, she told us that her HO insurance was more because of it. Also probably had something to do with the fact that the for some reason firetrucks had limited access to her neighborhood which initiated the requirement for all houses within to have the sprinklers installed. Its been a year ago so those memories are fuzzy.
One thing I have wondered since then is that I know that commercial fire systems have to be tested every 6 months and monitored by a central station. Would this also be required of a residential system? If so, that would add a decent monthly expense to each system.
One thing I have wondered since then is that I know that commercial fire systems have to be tested every 6 months and monitored by a central station. Would this also be required of a residential system? If so, that would add a decent monthly expense to each system.
Question. If you have a fire in your house and the fire dept comes out don't you get water damage? I am just wondering why people think the sprinkler system would add any more water damage than the fire dept?
Generally firemen are more accurate with water application and then stop when fire is extinguished. The sprinkler will flow water until it is turned off manually.
Similar threads
