3 ms·

Now I wonder how we allow companies to try to squeeze every drop of profit from life saving devices. Smoke detectors cost a good few tens of bucks here in US, a

Now I wonder how we allow companies to try to squeeze every drop of profit from life saving devices. Smoke detectors cost a good few tens of bucks here in US, and they still feel the need to use ionization instead of photoelectric? I've taken a few photoelectric smoke alarms apart, and it's literally just an LED, a photodiode, some cleverly shaped black plastic, and a few integrated circuits. I imagine doing reliable averaging/signal conditioning wont be super trivial, but surely it's something that can be all integrated into a single IC for cheap. All of that should seriously cost no more than half a dollar to produce at large scale.

Syonyk 4y ago
I have no idea. That sounds cheaper than trace radioactives to me, but the photoelectric ones are reliably more expensive than ionization, at least around here. And a lot harder to find, too. I'm pretty well annoyed that ionization types are still allowed and the default, if it doesn't show. "YOU LIT THE KITCHEN ON FIRE!" alarms are nice, but radically less useful than "Hey, something's smoking and has been doing so for a while and you're all asleep," based on empirical evidence from the studies on fire deaths. Fires while someone's awake and (often enough) involved in the process are important to warn about, but if one has to pick between that and the stuff that kills people at night, I'd bias towards the ones that (a) meet the requirements they're supposed to meet and (b) provably save lives. I suppose I ask too much... :/
- sitharus 4y ago
  Wow, where I am you can get a photoelectric smoke alarm for approx USD 7, or one with a 10 year battery for US$12. Ionisation type detectors are pretty much gone from the market.
eternityforest 4y ago
Some people might automatically assume that anything that feels modern is bad. Ionization calls to mind the space age, vacuum tubes, and the like, while photoelectric makes you think "Oh, a computer and a sensor like everything else we make". People love to rush to the defense of anything slightly but not that significantly dangerous, and seem to feel that there has been a loss for all mankind if it goes.

Syonyk 4y ago

I have no idea. That sounds cheaper than trace radioactives to me, but the photoelectric ones are reliably more expensive than ionization, at least around here. And a lot harder to find, too. I'm pretty well annoyed that ionization types are still allowed and the default, if it doesn't show. "YOU LIT THE KITCHEN ON FIRE!" alarms are nice, but radically less useful than "Hey, something's smoking and has been doing so for a while and you're all asleep," based on empirical evidence from the studies on fire deaths. Fires while someone's awake and (often enough) involved in the process are important to warn about, but if one has to pick between that and the stuff that kills people at night, I'd bias towards the ones that (a) meet the requirements they're supposed to meet and (b) provably save lives. I suppose I ask too much... :/

sitharus 4y ago
Wow, where I am you can get a photoelectric smoke alarm for approx USD 7, or one with a 10 year battery for US$12. Ionisation type detectors are pretty much gone from the market.

eternityforest 4y ago

Some people might automatically assume that anything that feels modern is bad. Ionization calls to mind the space age, vacuum tubes, and the like, while photoelectric makes you think "Oh, a computer and a sensor like everything else we make". People love to rush to the defense of anything slightly but not that significantly dangerous, and seem to feel that there has been a loss for all mankind if it goes.