# Help Disabling Smoke Alarm, yellow wire.



## JimmyStewart (Jan 3, 2015)

Hey folks,

We had a house built a little while ago, all the smoke detectors are wired to each other. One goes off, they all go off.

We want to disable this feature on the basement alarm, and install a separate one next to it that will go off independently should there be concern in the basement.

If I recall, the yellow wire is what connects them all to go off at the same time.

I can easily snip this from the basement alarm...I just want to be sure that is the correct thing to do, to accomplish my goal, without it impacting the other units in the house.

Would much appreciate this. The kitchen one is going off too much due to minor cooking issues (please don't suggest alternatives, I need to know if what I am trying to do can be accomplished). We are tired of being traumatized by the whole house alarms going off, we like to cook a lot, and are dealing with tinnitus issues as well. It is a serious problem.

Just let me know if cutting this one wire will do the trick, and thanks a bunch. It will be a huge relief, since we are making a living space out of the basement.


----------



## jbfan (Jul 1, 2004)

Code requires the smoke detectors to be interconnected, so I doubt anyone here will tell you how to do it.


----------



## JimmyStewart (Jan 3, 2015)

jbfan said:


> Code requires the smoke detectors to be interconnected, so I doubt anyone here will tell you how to do it.


There is nothing illegal about telling others how to do it. It may be illegal for ME to do it...but not to be *told* how to.

This is likely the case. Ten years of law study behind me, so I'm betting I'm correct. 

If anyone can offer suggestions I'd appreciate it. If everyone wants to refuse for whatever reason, I'm just going to disconnect the yellow. Be nice if I could receive some input before I did.

(Or, how to disable the speakers on the alarm. This way nothing is being disconnected if that is the concern. Thanks.)


----------



## collegetry (Feb 7, 2012)

JimmyStewart said:


> Just let me know if cutting this one wire will do the trick, and thanks a bunch. It will be a huge relief, since we are making a living space out of the basement.


If you disconnect the wire that inter-connects the smoke detectors then if the detector that you disconnect senses a triggerizing alarm then you are correct that none of the other smoke detectors will go off. I would disconnect the wire marked OUT from the wire nut. I would not cut it.


----------



## JimmyStewart (Jan 3, 2015)

rosem637 said:


> If you disconnect the wire that inter-connects the smoke detectors then if the detector that you disconnect senses a triggerizing alarm then you are correct that none of the other smoke detectors will go off. I would disconnect the wire marked OUT from the wire nut. I would not cut it.


Thank you...I didn't mean to suggest I'd cut it, I was going to remove it from the wire nut.

The picture doesn't match up to what I have very well. It seems to me the yellow in our system is the inter-connecting wire. But I was hoping this was universal; apparently it may not be. (Grr)


----------



## ToolSeeker (Sep 19, 2012)

Wouldn't it be better to unhook the one in the kitchen.


----------



## collegetry (Feb 7, 2012)

JimmyStewart said:


> The picture doesn't match up to what I have very well. It seems to me the yellow in our system is the inter-connecting wire. But I was hoping this was universal; apparently it may not be. (Grr)




The yellow wire in the photo is from the detector. The red in the picture is the interconnecting wire between the multiple detectors in this home


----------



## wpollock (Jun 2, 2013)

perhaps you can use pigtails to bypass the detector(s) connected in series you want to disable?


----------



## Oso954 (Jun 23, 2012)

I do not why you are disconnecting the basement, if the problem is cooking in the kitchen.

Change the kitchen smoke detector. It is probably an Ionization unit. Replace it with a Photoelectric. That should cut down or eliminate your false alarms.

While you are doing that, check the age of your detectors. They should be replaced after 10 years.


----------



## ChuckF. (Aug 25, 2013)

You can also pick up a smoke detector that is made for kitchens; when it goes off there's a disable button on it that you can press which resets it and holds it off for about thirty seconds.


----------



## md2lgyk (Jan 6, 2009)

Oso954 said:


> Change the kitchen smoke detector. It is probably an Ionization unit. Replace it with a Photoelectric. That should cut down or eliminate your false alarms.


Thanks for that tip! We have lived with nuisance alarms for several years because when we built the house (following the latest trendy "open concept" design), my wife didn't want a detector visible in the living/dining room, so the required one per floor is in the corner of the kitchen just six feet from the oven. We do have the alarms with a momentary "silence" button, but they still repeatedly go off. I'd suggest cooking lessons if I had more backbone, but changing the one detector seems a safer route.


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

I don't think you need a smoke detector in the kitchen any more.


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

JimmyStewart said:


> There is nothing illegal about telling others how to do it. It may be illegal for ME to do it...but not to be *told* how to.
> 
> This is likely the case. Ten years of law study behind me, so I'm betting I'm correct.


Actually, the person telling you how to do it could be charge as an accessory to the crime. 

The simple act of telling you how to do it is not a crime, but within the context of this thread, you stating your intent to commit a crime and someone else giving you the information to commit the crime and then you do in fact commit the crime, makes the provider of the info an accessory. :thumbup:


----------



## md2lgyk (Jan 6, 2009)

ddawg16 said:


> Actually, the person telling you how to do it could be charge as an accessory to the crime.


Crime? What crime? Siince when is violating a residential building code a "crime?" An infraction of a regulation, perhaps, but speaking as a former police officer, that's not the same thing as a crime. You certainly couldn't be arrested for it, or other than being made to fix the issue, punished either.


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

md2lgyk said:


> Crime? What crime? Siince when is violating a residential building code a "crime?" An infraction of a regulation, perhaps, but speaking as a former police officer, that's not the same thing as a crime. You certainly couldn't be arrested for it, or other than being made to fix the issue, punished either.


I'm guessing you didn't catch the tongue and cheek intent of my post.

However, when some one gets hurt or dies from that 'infraction', you will find out about 'crime'.

As for you being a former police officer, I'm a bit disappointed in the attitude. But then again, maybe that is why you're a former officer.


----------



## JimmyStewart (Jan 3, 2015)

ddawg16 said:


> I'm guessing you didn't catch the tongue and cheek intent of my post.
> 
> However, when some one gets hurt or dies from that 'infraction', you will find out about 'crime'.
> 
> As for you being a former police officer, I'm a bit disappointed in the attitude. But then again, maybe that is why you're a former officer.



The other poster, ironically a former police officer, beat me to it. It is not in the realm of crime, no where in the Penal Law of my state.

Also, it does not then carry over to crime if what you suggested happened. It is not by definition a crime, it therefore cannot be raised to one under any conditions. Never mind the burden of proof required to even suggest such a thing.

It's such a disappointment to see so many people pro massive legislation/codes/rules/laws/policy in this country. Wasn't like this when I was growing up, with this huge communist bent (I'm not partisan, no politics...just making a point). The fact that the very first response to this post immediately cried foul about breaking laws/codes is so disappointing. "Follow the *rule* or we'll tell on you."

The smoke detectors, specifically kitchen ones, are causing way too many problems that then have people disabling them, which is of course completely counterproductive. 

There needs to be settings on them and/or visual prompts, such as lights, vibrations, alternate sounds, etc. over the piercing pitch. After all, a person hard of hearing or deaf can't even benefit from them (and yes I know there are alternatives for them, but the vast majority of us are not deaf).

Thanks to the alternative suggestion above for kitchens, I'm surprised I have not heard of them.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

ddawg16 said:


> However, when some one gets hurt or dies from that 'infraction', you will find out about 'crime'.


The home owner takes the heat.... and if someone decides to sue the homeowner in the event of a death, he can TRY telling the judge that Frank Forthwright on DIY told him to do it... but my guess is the judge in going to say... " and if Frank told you to jump off a bridge... you would do that too?"

Frankly, I wouldn't do what he plans on doing, But it's not my house. It's his. 

There are plenty of warnings in this thread that what is being done is not code worthy. If the home owner chooses to do it anyway... it's all on him


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

Once again, the tongue and cheek intent went over your head.

But.....let someone die in your house because you disabled a smoke detector, well, you will find out about crime the hard way.

As for the kitchen....just remove the smoke detector. There is no requirement (law) that says you have to have one in there.

Or...stop burning the food.

BTW....some references for your idle reading.

http://www.gazettenet.com/news/town...red-smoke-detectors-discovered-in-rental-home

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1640&ChapterID=38


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

ddawg16 said:


> BTW....some references for your idle reading.
> 
> http://www.gazettenet.com/news/town...red-smoke-detectors-discovered-in-rental-home
> 
> http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1640&ChapterID=38


The laws are different all over. Here for example it's not the tenant who is responsible for the smokes. It's the landlord. We must provide them according to code. We must change out the batteries, and we must test them to ensure they work. We have very specific clauses written into the leases that any temporary and/or permanent disabling of the smokes at all will result in instant eviction. They have to read this in front of a witness and sign that they have read it.


----------



## FatBear (Jan 14, 2009)

Crime this, crime that. Who cares? But I tell you what: having interconnected alarms is very smart and having an interconnected one in the basement especially so. We had a grease fire on the stove last spring (we have a rule: never leave the kitchen with a burner on high, but you gotta _follow _that rule.) Anyway, a friend is renting a room in our finished basement and the fire was all out before he ever knew it was happening. If we hadn't got it out quick, I don't like to think about him getting trapped down there. 

So my opinion is: change the kitchen smoke detector to a photoelectric one and leave the basement one interconnected. 

We are currently looking for wirelessly interconnected photoelectric detectors...


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

I never interconnected my units when I installed them. One is that they are powered off of the Bedroom/hallway/bath lighting circuit. Two, I wanted it so that I know which unit is going off, or goes bad.

There is no real state law that mandates you must have all units interconnected. But if you have a large home or multi floor home with bedrooms on the top floor and no way of hearing an alarm going off in the basement, you need to have them interconnected.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

ddawg16, if you read the IL bill, it states in it that the units "need not to be interconnected". The whole bill along with the state of Il CO detector bill, was legislated by the Chicago political machine (ie Rod Blagojovich & Mike Madigan).


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

FatBear said:


> Anyway, a friend is renting a room in our finished basement and the fire was all out before he ever knew it was happening. If we hadn't got it out quick, I don't like to think about him getting trapped down there.


If you follow code then your friend should have access to an alternate fire escape and would not get "trapped". Code states there must be an alternate fire escape route for any "bedroom" (ie; a window of proper size). If you can not provide an alternate route then you must provide a sprinkler system. If you can't do either then the area in question can not be treated as living space.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

gregzoll said:


> There is no real state law that mandates you must have all units interconnected. .


Like I said... the laws are different all over. As of December 2011 smokes in Manitoba must be interconnected.



> *2.15.2.6. *Smoke Alarms. 1) A _smoke alarm _must be installed in each sleeping room and on each floor level at the egress locations.
> 
> 2) _Smoke alarms _must be installed by permanent connections to an electrical circuit and must not have a disconnect switch between the overcurrent device and the _smoke alarm_.
> 
> 3) All _smoke alarms _must be interconnected to form an early warning system.


You may as well connect yours because it's just a matter of time before this law becomes universal.


----------



## FatBear (Jan 14, 2009)

Bob Sanders said:


> You may as well connect yours because it's just a matter of time before this law becomes universal.


I agree.


----------



## md2lgyk (Jan 6, 2009)

ddawg16 said:


> I'm guessing you didn't catch the tongue and cheek intent of my post.
> 
> However, when some one gets hurt or dies from that 'infraction', you will find out about 'crime'.
> 
> As for you being a former police officer, I'm a bit disappointed in the attitude. But then again, maybe that is why you're a former officer.


Yeah, I guess I did miss the "tongue and cheek" intent. As for my attitude (whatever you think that is), it's irrelevant here. Anyone who's never worn the badge wouldn't understand anyway. Oh, and I'm a "former" police officer because I'm 67 years old and can no longer handle the physical requirements of the job. Not that that's relevant here either. I just get worked up by supposed "experts" dispensing incorrect or meaningless advice on forums such as this. Visiting DIYers deserve better.


----------



## collegetry (Feb 7, 2012)

md2lgyk said:


> I'm a "former" police officer because I'm 67 years old and can no longer handle the physical requirements of the job.


Enjoy your retirement. 

I thought the comment of, "But then again, maybe that is why you're a former officer" was off base myself. Did the author of that comment believe that you were a former police officer because maybe you looked the other way when you came upon a smoke detector that disabled.

Some people have no clue. And thats not tongue and cheek.


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

rosem637 said:


> Enjoy your retirement.
> 
> I thought the comment of, "But then again, maybe that is why you're a former officer" was off base myself. Did the author of that comment believe that you were a former police officer because maybe you looked the other way when you came upon a smoke detector that disabled.
> 
> Some people have no clue. And thats not tongue and cheek.


For the record....I'm a deputy sheriff, going on 26 years. No intent to retire yet.


----------



## Bob Sanders (Nov 10, 2013)

eee-gads, man.

Where is this thread going! The guy wants to disconnect one of his interconnects. It's his his house. He can if he wants to. If you feel like you're breaking the law by telling him how then don't participate in the thread!

As for code, I doubt there is a house in this world which meets all code in every direction. Mine certainly doesn't. I've tossed the idea of battery back up on smokes because I think it's silly overkill. Mine are hard wire only, and I do have a sprinkler in the basement but it is not up to code because the system is supposed to include a fire pump since city water pressure is only 65psi. Screw that. I'm not going to get stuck doing annual maintenance on a bloody fire pump.

I can't even begin to tell you of the countless other code violations, and that's fine with me. This is my house, not the inspector's and I'm perfectly willing to take a 10 thousand dollar hit on the house if I should sell because I want to live in MY house the way I think I should.

Now there are some things that aren't safe and against code and the op should be made aware of that, but at the end of the day... it's his house, not yours, not the inspector's. 

Now.... If you know something about the code and want to participate in the thread then it would be truly negligent not to mention it.... and since that has been done above, the home owner is now doing it with full knowledge. That pretty much negates anyone here from the death penalty, life in prison, exile, shunning, or other things of that nature.


----------



## md2lgyk (Jan 6, 2009)

rosem637 said:


> Enjoy your retirement.
> 
> Did the author of that comment believe that you were a former police officer because maybe you looked the other way when you came upon a smoke detector that disabled.


I rather doubt it. I was an officer in a relatively small town and had several "non-typical" duties because of that, but checking smoke detectors wasn't on the list. I was once asked to measure a guy's grass to see if he should be cited for unkempt property, but I "politely" refused. Gotta love small towns.


----------

