[raldi]

> In sixty (or even ten) seconds of gentle sounds, you'd probably be dead.

Which is why I also said that, if the problem gets worse that just a few wisps, the detector should immediately escalate to full alarm.

> And chirping only during the daylight hours - how is that helpful if you're out at work? The battery will be dead before you even know about it.

Again, it can start quiet and polite, and then escalate to more aggressive notifications if you ignore it.

[danparsonson]

> Which is why I also said that, if the problem gets worse that just a few wisps, the detector should immediately escalate to full alarm.

Indeed, but personally I don't want a dumb electronic device to make that judgement for me - I'd like to do it myself. I'll know instantly whether or not the house is on fire and I'd like to know instantly whether or not it seems like it might be. False positives are, as I said earlier, infinitely preferable to "he'd have made it out if he'd heard the alarm earlier". Besides, how do you decide what's "house fire smoke" vs "burnt toast smoke"? if the fire isn't adjacent to the detector then smoke may only reach the detector slowly.

I get the drive to make devices more intelligent and thus more convenient but I strongly disagree that this philosophy should apply in all cases. Sometimes 'basic' really is better. Not to mention that there's less to go wrong.

[raldi]

> Indeed, but personally I don't want a dumb electronic device to make that judgement for me

But ultimately, you have no choice. Even the ideal smoke detector that you have in mind is going to be a dumb electronic device that has to make a judgement for you.

It'll have some sort of threshold before the loud alarm goes off. I'm not suggesting that be changed.

What I'm suggesting is that, in addition to that, at an even more sensitive threshold, there be a quieter alarm, too.