Why Automist^TM?

In the United Kingdom alone, there are an estimated 300,000 dwelling fires each year,
of which 180,000 start in the kitchen¹. Of the 55,000 dwelling fires reported to the Fire and Rescue Service (FRS), the average cost is £24,900, leading to an economic cost of at least £1.4 billion². Independent research has also concluded that fire extinguishers in residential blocks can be fire risks, delaying evacuation and proving ineffective when used by untrained people attempting to fight dangerous fires.

There is no question that traditional sprinkler systems can save lives, but their penetration in UK homes is very low. UK government reports conclude that sprinkler systems in ordinary homes are “not cost-effective” due to their high cost of installation and due to water damage incurred when triggered. This report by the CLG/BRE provides great detail on the scenarios where sprinkler systems are to be encouraged and casts light on why they have not generally become mandatory in the UK. Today, legislation (through Approved Document B) only mandates smoke and heat alarms and passive fire protection such as fire doors and walls. 

Alarms provide only a warning that a fire is taking place and do not actively address the problem (though higher end systems may alert the local Fire and Rescue Service).  Moreover, nuisance triggering of smoke alarms whenever toast is burnt has driven many residents to disable or remove alarms.  Excessive false alarms have even become a problem for Fire and Rescue Services, wasting precious time and resources.

Legislation also mandates passive fire protection: spaces must be divided up by fire doors and walls ("compartmentation").  Expert opinion has recently shifted and these measures are now seen as of limited effectiveness. The efficacy of passive protection is highly dependent on the quality of the installer, and is significantly sensitive to remedial works or refurbishments that may alter the original fire protection design of the space.  This is especially problematic in private homes where the building contractor will normally have no deep passive protection training.  Passive protection is also hard to test regularly; this is not the case with active protection systems (like sprinklers) which may be readiness-tested more comprehensively (e.g. on an annual basis). 

A final set of weapons in the fight against fire are non-mandatory add-ons for homes, such as fire blankets and extinguishers.  Unpopular for their poor aesthetics and not always easy to use, these devices also require a voluntary (usually amateur) fire fighter present to stay and fight the fire at close quarters.  We don’t think this is a good idea and some fire risk assessors have the same opinion.  In the event of a fire, a conscious and mobile untrained person should be solely concerned with leaving the premises safely, not fighting the fire, and fire protection measures should be designed with this in mind.  Those measures should also be designed to help anyone else, either immobile or unconscious, to survive, by minimising their exposure to toxic gases and heat so that rescuers may have time to arrive. 

From our discussion it may have become apparent that a fire protection system should:

• trigger automatically like an alarm system
• safely tackle fires without user intervention or special skills
• be as safe in operation as sprinklers
• avoid water damage like a CO₂ extinguisher
• avoid the nuisance false alarms that are so familiar with smoke alarms
• seamlessly integrate into the home environment
• focus on where the majority of fires occur
• be affordable even in a retrofit scenario.