Watersparkfalls---I'd love to hear the specifics presented at that "seminar!"
UL tests detectors using two different "standard" fires; one is hot and clean, while the other is a "cold" smouldering fire. These tests are very standardised, and very repeatable. Every detector evaluated is exposed to these sources probably 50 times in the course of routine evaluation.
Additionally, UL conducts full-scale fire tests of building components. Often, detectors will be added to the test, as an additional check of the validity of their tests.
Feel free to e-mail me with the details, if you don't want to post them. I have been to "seminars" that were outright dishonest in the advocacy of their non-listed, unapproved, or irrelevant products. A certain "heat detector" sales force comes to mind.
CO detectors are another thing all together. Sure, fires can produce CO- but their performance in detecting "fire" is a complete failure. Period. Now, that CO itself presents an entirely different risk to address is another issue- let's not mix apples with oranges.
Heat detectors- of any type- have their uses. But, if you're going to tell me that I need to mount some wind-up item on my walls, in line with every stud bay, to "protect" me from the virtually non-existant "inside the wall" fire...well, it just won't happen.
Besides fire testing, UL testing also includes some testing to evaluate the effects of corrosion, humidity, vibration, and age on the detectors. There is an emphasis on reliability- which means minimising false alarms.
Under the "standard" tests, two entirely different methods of detection (photo-electric and ionization) have prooven themselves. Some other ideas- such as sound- have failed miserably.
