It is hard to steal what you can't see... residue or not.
Although it's hard not to laugh at how hilarious tradeshow participants look stumbling out of a smoke injected room, we do have high profile clients that consider unusual alternatives such as this one on remote properties amid growing fears of tumultuous times. Even though we don't usually recommend extreme alternatives, sometimes they find them on their own and won't settle for anything else.
Ultimately the market will decide if the product sticks...!
*That's funny Jack, I wouldn't stick around to find out what was growling at me either, lol.
"combining fog generation in an enclosed area with prerecorded digital tapes of a deep gutteral growl" >> that's funny!
IPVMU Certified | 05/06/13 04:40pm
Fog generation has tried to gain a foothold for over a decade but strong AHJ resistance has made it difficult if not impossible to deploy. We're missing the boat on effectiveness however. As an integrator, combining fog generation in an enclosed area with prerecorded digital tapes of a deep gutteral growl would enhance impact 3-fold. Authorities could simply follow the urine trail left by the intruder fleeing the area.
IPVMU Certified | 05/06/13 02:39pm
Thanks for the details, Louis.
I believe that the 'chemical smoke' in some products is a mineral oil/glycol mix. I know that for the jeweler I mentioned about who uses this platform, the residue you mention was a big concern and they determined that oil rather than water was the solution.
Well, there is the liability. If the burglar gets injurred due to the use of smoke generators, you cannot just say that he/she should not have been there in the first place, ultimately the manufacturer is liable. Also you must not use the smoke generator to create a man trap. Manufacterurs usually have an insurance policy to cater for these circumstances, but also (local) legislation tells you the do's and don'ts. Here is an example of what Danish manufacturer Protect (which is the product we sell) has insured.
"Sums Insured: DKK 30,000,000 (roughly 5,5 million dollar) in the aggregate for bodily injury and/or property damage per insurance year".
Also there is the risk of overfilling a protected area. We have seen some terrible examples of it. Also ventilating after an activation is important. Whilst the smokefluid consists of water and glycol, not ventilating an area within a specific time after activation, might leave some residu. this will eventually disappear, but a stamp collection would not survive this treatment.
On a positive note, I can only say that these devices have proven their usefullness in many "hopeless" cases.
If you want to know more of the certification process, please visit http://www.cenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=WEB:110:3219837381728445::::FSP_PROJECT,FSP_LANG_ID:17059,25 Due to copyright issues, I cannot give you a direct link to the document itself.
Louis , any drawbacks or problems with the legal side of this product .
Thanks for the pdf
It has been an issue, which is why all smoke generators need to be reported to the local authorities. Buildings equipped with such active systems need to be clearly marked with black/yellow labeling. (see attachment). Also all smoke generators need to be certified under Cenelec
Louis, thanks for chiming in! What do you think about the fire / responder concerns? While I can see how it can really make things difficult for thieves, it does seem to risk causing problems for firefighters / responders. Any thoughts on dealing with that side? Has that been an issue?
First experience with this products dates back to 1992. Product was not mature back then. We have been selling these products now for more than 11 years. Strict regulations on the use in the European market. It is a "Certified Installers only" product. Hundreds of users and succesfull applications in jewellers stores and retail and also as a VIP protection. Some companies use them as a hold-up prevention system, although we are not in favour of this solution. In combination with sounders and powerfull strobelights it produces an absolute "no go area" for even the most experienced burglar. It is a last resource for companies sufferring from repetitive burglaries/grab & run situations. And I'm speaking from experience. Even my own company experienced this a couple of years ago. If it was not because of the fog cannon, we would have been robbed from everything in our warehouse.
What are the liability issues associated with this product.
This would be a great product for completion of Fire DD Testing and Facility Evacuation Testing . I have seen these used in some of my Fire Training Video's From systems sensor & Cooper Wheellock
This is the same type of technology used 20-30 years back to current use's in Concerts ( R&R )
Seen this at concert films & movie theaters .
Not a big inovation , just a different slant on the use
Mark, Jim, good feedback!
Marty, if you put it in the car, they might destroy it in retaliation a la Jim's story above!
This begs the question: Who's using this stuff? These people can obviously afford to spend tens of thousands on trade show booths so someone must be using it? So far, Brian seems to have the only examples of significant use.
I show a tape similar to this during presentations on alarms I give to police officers from around the world (probably well over 2000 police officers by now), and I always ask if any of the officers have ever seen this deployed. No one has answered yes, although some have seen the demo. Many think its a good idea until I remind them about the fire chief's concerns. The officers also have concerns about how they would react to a room or building full of smoke. Most said they would call the fire department.
I had a friend who used a tear gas version of this in a camping trailer he kept on his lake front property that had been burglarized twice. Despite my warning against using it, he did.... the burglar's burnt the place to the ground in retaliation.
Despite all this, I think that there may be a very limited use for this product in extraordinary risk situations but there are a lot of conditions that need to occur before it is used. Definitely not for the public. May also find use as a means to ward off an attacker while the occupant observes from a safe room, but in this case, the one under duress would manually discharge the smoke. It would not occur automatically.
Let's not forget the law suit over the trap shotgun. If the burglar hurts himself trying to get out, the owner could be liable for damages.
I think Sean may be on to something.... car thief can't swipe your car if he now can't see through the windows once he sets off the smoke. I like it.
Also, I've never seen one of these devices demo'ed in outdoor environments... could it be used to help disperse/disorient unruly crowds 'wrongfully' assembling? (cough, #OWS). With no containment, how does their particular type of smoke behave?
IPVMU Certified | 04/26/13 07:34am
This is an impractical security feature for any public sector environment and one I have never seen or heard of in actual use or even displayed at law enforcement trade shows. One reason I suspect is the same as with the fire safety industry, it presents a serious hazard to first responders and according to one of the vendor sites, the fog remains for up to 45 minutes. Even if it does not pose a respiratory health hazard, there is no way to safely clear an interior for potential suspects and a good probability that an Officer could be injured just trying to walk around in a low visibility environment. Botton line, as a supervisor, there is no way I would allow one of my Officers to enter the building and would not even bother to wait around for the interior to clear. If anything, the owner could come out and check the property themselves or pay for a board up if needed. So I guess it not only repels burglars but first responders as well.
Nota lot of people in my experience. We have a small handle of customers who have what we have always called smoke cloak. It's neat to work with.
That seems like something that would be a hilarious option for an aftermarket car alarm... disable the window controls, worst case if they break a window out, cops would see a car that looks like its on fire driving down the road.
I've asked a lot of people about this over the years, never heard of a single case in the US of it being used.
Man, they give some pretty compelling reasons not to use it. I tend to believe that if firefighters have reasonable objections to something, we shouldn't do it. And the point about this activating smoke detectors means that the fire department is going to have to respond. And fire departments shouldn't be responding to burglaries.
The central station should be able to know if the fog was activated, and request only police, but I'm curious how many jurisdictions would allow that.
IPVMU Certified | 04/25/13 05:13pm
IPVMU Certified | 04/25/13 05:00pm
The International Association of Fire Chiefs issued a condemnation of these systems a few years back, citing they inhibit life/safety egress. When the local AHJs are sideways with the concept, it is a hard sell for many!
However, I have firsthand knowledge of their deployment for two national retail chains:
- a 'rent-to-own' company that experienced several bad years of 'smash and grab' theft through storefront glass after hours.
- a jeweler that protect inventory in showcases and the showfloor with the system.
Together, these retailers have well over 250 locations in the US, so they are indeed out there.
I asked this on LinkedIn at least once, and the answer was "nope."
I'm curious if that's changed.