How to choose a NC or NO water shut-off valve for the INTEGRA control panel?

kood wrote:

Can a colleague justify this somehow? Because with this solution I would be more concerned about the quality of the valve itself or its location (I had a situation where a pipe shot out in front of the solenoid valve and water filled the basement).

.
The electronics + valve system is always more fail-safe than the valve alone. That said, I was writing about the situation where the control panel controls the actuator - we have to rely on there being voltage for a certain amount of time, which is not so obvious - e.g. in a situation where there is no power for longer than a sustained period. Clearly this is some extreme scenario, nevertheless, if something can be done better at no cost, why not....

kood wrote:

On the Integra it is quite simple, dedicated sensors connected to the control panel, valve connected to a suitably programmed output, and I make deletion of signalling on this output with a separate password so that the user consciously deletes it and not by accident.

.
Ostensibly this is straightforward. The problem is where to put the flooding sensors. Practically they would have to be everywhere.... Therefore, in addition to the sensor itself, some kind of additional protection would have to be added - e.g. detecting some kind of anomaly - e.g. constant water intake? This is where there is room for improvement.

tmf wrote:

Typically, the current required for backup is many times lower, so correspondingly the losses will also be lower.

I disagree with my colleague, it is not many times lower.... unfortunately as I wrote earlier I have processed this subject and checked how it is in practice, not in theory. And not only with customers but also with myself. I controlled the valve feeding the CO2 to the aquarium in a cycle of open in the morning, closed in the evening. The generally available NO and NC valves ( not some specialised - expensive ones, because I used such in the beginning, on 12, 24 and 110V) just got hot, and when the current was halved, they let go or passed. The same happened with AC valves, they also got hot. and unnecessary energy was wasted. So practice has shown that there are always losses in the form of heat, because quite a large current has to flow for the valve to work.

I solved the problem in a trivial way, I found an old mechanical switch from compressed air in the junkyard, which I adapted to a ready-made electronic radiator thermostat (there is a geared motor that drives the original radiator valve and has quite a large pressure force allowing the valve to start and cycle). To work the thermostat needs 2 AA sticks, good quality ones last almost 2 years of operation in the cycle of morning open evening close.

tmf wrote:

It is possible, but IMHO the protection should be as failure-free as possible. The NC valve will simply close if there is no control, shutting off the flow.

The alarm system is very complex and yet it is considered to be relatively trouble-free. Alarm control panels don't break down on a massive scale.... unless I don't know something.

tmf wrote:

The actuator valve will stay in its current position - i.e. it will not protect anything.

.
Of course, but what are the chances of that happening ???? In the same way what is the chance of a toilet hose bursting ????

Added after 12 [minutes]:

tmf wrote:

Apparently it is simple. The problem is where to put the flooding sensors. Practically they would have to be everywhere.... Therefore, in addition to the sensor itself, some kind of additional protection would have to be added - e.g. to detect some kind of anomaly - e.g. constant water intake? Here there is room for improvement.

The sensor is placed where it is lowest nothing difficult, additionally in places of possible leakage near the washing machine and preferably in the bathroom, kitchen etc.... It is important to take into account that some water still has to spill to reach the sensor ...

Mate @tmf , I am not questioning your knowledge and experience so no offence and please don't take offence to what I write but I have a strong impression bordering on certainty that you have no experience (certainly not much) of working with the components in question such as valves and flooding sensors etc. Theorising about what is better only muddles the subject author's mind. I am describing proven solutions that have worked for years and have been used by practically all installers. And believe me, I have, on more than one occasion, corrected water shut-off devices or other systems of this type after "paproki".

I have analysed all your contributions and the solution I am most convinced of at the moment is a ball valve with bi-directional control. Power supply from a 12V alarm system. Control via IORS. The use of IORS is dictated by the layout of the room and the existing wiring. Triggering in the event of a power failure will be provided by the control panel battery. The valve will be placed immediately after the water meter. Of course, such a solution does not ensure 100% protection, but also the installation is only a house, not a factory of strategic importance. It seems to me that it would be useful to program a cyclic tripping of the valve, e.g. once a day in the middle of the night, to keep it operational. Ball valves have a habit of locking up when not in use.

chudy_b wrote:

I think it would be useful to program the valve to trip cyclically, e.g. once a day in the middle of the night, to keep it operational. Ball valves have a habit of locking up when not in use.

Therefore, if you are leaving the house it is worth setting up an automatic water shut-off when the whole alarm system is armed. The faucets from sinks and WCs are recommended to be closed and opened once a month, so this should not be a problem. It is also possible to shut off the water at night, but if someone uses the bathroom at night this can be a problem. With Integra, you can set it to control the valve in any way you like, ensuring that the valve is cycled to keep it working.

tmf wrote:

However, I was writing about a situation where the control panel controls the actuator - we have to rely on there being voltage for a certain period of time,

.

There may be a lack of voltage and not a voltage. The 7 wire version of the ball valve mentioned can be used and the control panel can independently check if the valve has actually closed. If there is a problem, for example, it will notify the user on the phone. If you have any idea how to use the AquaStop system from dishwashers in a domestic installation, I'd be interested to hear about it, as I find it hard to imagine.
In fact, control panels are well-thought-out and tested constructions in terms of reliability of operation and monitoring of irregularities, and if they have the appropriate types of inputs and types of reaction, then by all means it is a suitable device to detect flooding and react accordingly.
After a prolonged power failure you can close the solenoid valve prophylactically, on an Integra without any problem to do.

tmf wrote:

Obviously this is some extreme scenario, nevertheless, if something can be done better at no cost, why not.

.

This will present a colleague with a specific device and how it works to make it "better" than through a control panel.

tmf wrote:

Apparently it is simple. The problem is where to put the flood sensors. They would practically have to be everywhere...

.

As a standard, 1 per bathroom, kitchen, boiler room, cellar and water connection area, well, if the cellar is large, then more, although even one at the lowest point will result in water up to the ankles and not up to the height of the ground floor.
Sometimes there is also a water cut-off with an alarm system, but this is not always possible because more and more often water is needed even when no one is home.

kood wrote:

There may be a lack of voltage and not voltage. The ball valve mentioned can be used in the 7 wire version and the control panel can independently check if the valve has actually closed. If there is a problem, for example, it will notify the user on the phone.

.
Just why complicate things if a simple NC valve will take care of the problem completely?

kood wrote:

This will present a colleague with a specific device and how it works so that this is "better" than via a control panel.

.
I didn't write that it would be better without a control panel, but that using an NC valve is a better solution than a NO valve.

kood wrote:

Have a colleague an idea how to use the AquaStop system from dishwashers in a domestic installation then I'd be happy to listen as I'm somehow finding it hard to imagine.

.
Please read with understanding. I did not write that AquaStop is the system that applies in this case, but that the electronics of the dishwasher were omitted to implement AquaStop, which gives food for thought....

kood wrote:

After a prolonged power failure the solenoid valve can be closed prophylactically, on the Integra no problem to do.

.
You probably can. But why add logic when, again, a simple NC valve takes care of these problems?

tmf wrote:

Just why complicate things if a simple NC valve will take care of things completely?

Not so completely, because you still have to provide for a voltage backup unless you agree that a power failure should also cut off the water. And with this ordinary valve also not completely, because it was probably already mentioned in this topic that it must be adapted to continuous operation.

tmf wrote:

I did not write that it would be better without a control unit, but that using an NC valve is a better solution than a NO valve.

.

I don't know if you know what you are writing about, but I would rather not call such a ball valve with a motor NO, and you didn't write what is better and what is worse only that the use of a valve with a motor and a control panel is a mistake.

tmf wrote:

but that the dishwasher electronics were omitted to implement the AquaStop gives food for thought....

.

There are several types of this protection, mechanical, some manufacturers do it through electronics, i.e. a flooding sensor and an electro-valve, besides in dishwashers if an abnormality is detected a pump is switched on which draws the water away to the sewer. Also with this omission of electronics it is not quite true.

kood wrote:

Not so completely, because you still have to provide for a voltage backup unless you agree that a power failure should also cut off the water. And also not completely with this simple valve, because it was probably already mentioned in this topic that it must be suitable for continuous operation.

.
You can do a bypass as already written, you can buy a valve with manual control. A colleague is not arguing that there are no valves for continuous operation? So these arguments not so much.

kood wrote:

I don't know if the colleague knows what he is writing about, but I would rather not call such a ball valve with motor NO, and the colleague did not write what is better and what is worse only that the use of a valve with motor and control panel is a mistake.

.
I guess by highlighting the advantages of the NC valve I am clearly pointing out that in my opinion it is the better solution. Again, as my colleague probably isn't reading the thread - I believe that a valve with an actuator, by virtue of requiring an active action to shut off (which this action provides is irrelevant, whether it be a control panel or a dedicated industrial controller, comes out the same) is inferior. A system failure (even if it is a power failure), nullifies the protection. This is why an NC valve is a better solution - I think everyone will agree that it is better to have a temporary lack of water and to have to manually adjust the valve than to be flooded because the protection did not work.

kood wrote:

there are several types of this protection, mechanical, some manufacturers do it through electronics, i.e. a flooding sensor and an electro-valve, besides, in dishwashers, if an abnormality is detected, a pump is switched on which draws the water off to the sewer.

.
The pump in the dishwasher is unlikely to have the capacity to pump away the incoming water if the hose is damaged. Also, if it breaks, the water will not necessarily collect at the bottom of the dishwasher where the sensor is. Rather, it will pour around, but not there - I am writing about a hose that does not have an additional cover hose with which low-pressure water can drain.
I have given my opinion and do not intend to convince anyone. If someone wants to get fancy with 7 control wires, elaborate control logic and whatever else they can think of, be my guest. As I wrote, I think that a simple NC valve, opened by a signal from the control panel, automatically closing in case of any problem is a simpler and more reliable solution. As for me, EOT.

tmf wrote:

You can do a bypass as already written, you can buy a valve with manual control. A colleague is not arguing that there are no valves for continuous operation? So these arguments not so much.

.

Then please be precise and don't write that a simple NC valve is enough and the matter is settled, because that is misleading and I don't think that is the point. Not an ordinary NC but an NC for continuous operation, and you need to provide for bypass or emergency power (or both).

tmf wrote:

I guess by highlighting the advantages of the NC valve I am clearly pointing out that in my opinion it is the better solution.

A colleague wrote that it is wrong to control the valve control panel with the motor, if this sentence was not there I would not even reply to the colleague.

tmf wrote:

That's why an NC valve is a better solution - I think everyone will agree that it's better to have a temporary lack of water and have to manually adjust the valve, than to be flooded because the protection didn't work.

.

I've fitted (or rather done controls) both and I don't think using one or the other is a mistake. You mention manual opening via BYPASS do you know where this ends up in practice? That such a BYPASS is opened and so much for all the protection. The human factor is more unreliable than the power supply in the control panel, and such a ball valve, even manually opened when the control panel gives a signal about flooding, will close by itself again without any intervention from the user. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

tmf wrote:

A system failure (albeit a power failure), nullifies the protection.

tmf wrote:

As I wrote, I think that a simple NC valve, opened by a signal from the control panel, automatically closing in case of any problem is a simpler and more reliable solution.

Yes, and a power failure deprives me of water in the house because I have no bypass and the valve doesn't work.

tmf wrote:

You can do a bypass as already written, you can buy a valve with manual control

.

A colleague contradicts himself in the following statements, besides bypass is another cost, the NC valve with manual control is again more expensive and the valve for continuous operation also costs correspondingly more, please read the prices ...

In summary, it seems to me that the economic factor is important here, because a valve with an actuator has the same advantages as an NC valve, it is cheaper, always has the possibility of manual control, does not consume energy (only when closing / opening). This is how theory and practice diverge.

tmf wrote:

a simple NC valve, opened by a signal from the control panel, automatically closing in the event of any problem is a simpler and more reliable solution.

.

Apparently so. However, there are arguments in favour of a ball valve. None of the NC valves I have seen on the web have a manual control. The ball ones mostly do. This means that when installing an NC, you have to do an additional bypass. Seemingly it's just a few pipes, fittings and a simple valve, but the plumber's work costs money. The other issue is that I live in a rural area. Power cuts are quite frequent. I don't know if I can teach my household members to associate a lack of water with a lack of electricity and the need to use a bypass. At the end of the day, after a dozen or so power outages, this bypass will probably be open all the time because they won't want to close it. When choosing a solution, it is not only the technical side that is important. The human factor is also important. I consider the risk of a leak after a power cut of several hours and a discharged battery to be very low.

chudy_b wrote:

Apparently it's only a few tubes, fittings and a simple valve, but the plumber's work costs money. The other issue is that I live in the countryside. Power cuts are quite frequent. I don't know if I'll teach the household to associate a water shortage with a power outage and the need to use a bypass.

.
I was assuming that you would do such a simple task as connecting this valve + possible bypass yourself. The valve is powered from the control unit, so if the shutdowns are no longer than the battery life of the control unit, then there is no problem - the householders will not notice it. If they are longer then the actuator solution has the same disadvantages:
(a) you leave the valve open - nullifying the protection completely,
b) you close it before the power fails, i.e. you have exactly the same situation as with an NC valve.

chudy_b wrote:

And I estimate the risk of leakage just after a power outage of a few hours and a discharged battery to be very small.

.
The risk of failure is also low, and yet the idea of this solution is to minimise it further. A valve for continuous operation costs about 125 PLN, plus about 30-40 PLN for a so-called economiser which reduces the current when the valve is switched on.

tmf wrote:

I assumed that you would do such a simple task as connecting this valve + possible bypass yourself. The valve is powered from the control unit, so if the shutdowns are no longer than the battery life of the control unit, then there is no problem - the householders will not notice it. If they are longer then the actuator solution has the same disadvantages:
(a) you leave the valve open - nullifying the protection completely,
b) you close it before the power fails, so you have exactly the same situation as with an NC valve.

Please kindly provide links to the proposed devices. Because so far it is just empty words on the part of the colleague, I have provided and shown what I propose.
Does the colleague want to control the NC valve (power it ) from the control panel, 12V the valve draws 1A current.... ??? Unfortunately a sensible NC valve for continuous operation draws more than 12W.... Please provide some technical data, a link to the proposed valve and current reducing circuit, because I have the impression that all the time the colleague is moving in the world of theory.

What does the author think he will gain by using an NC valve? Because according to me, nothing, apart from the feeling that he spent a lot of money...

The cost of bypass components (T-pieces, elbows, ball valve), the cost of the NC valve, the current limiter for it and the work associated with it will exceed the cost of a valve solution on an actuator several times. And it doesn't draw any current for that (only when closing and opening).

Another disadvantage of NC valves is that they significantly weaken the flow of the medium compared to a ball valve with an actuator!!!!. And they are quite sensitive to contamination due to their design.

tmf wrote:

you leave the valve open - levelling the protection completely,

.

It is precisely all the time a colleague fails to understand that this is not true. These valves have a manual open knob and opening with this knob does not cause the control unit to lose the ability to close as is the case with bypass.

@kood Please do not take parts of my statement out of context that change its meaning.
Colleague will you point out where I wrote that the control panel loses control of the valve? Please read post #42 in its entirety.If the control panel is not powered because the power outage lasted longer than the power backup, I think it is clear that the control panel is no longer controlling the valve because it is not working. In such a situation there are two options - leave the valve open with no more protection, or the control panel will close it, so the householder should be informed of the possibility of a bypass (or not do so), which relates directly to the statement:

chudy_b wrote:

Power outages are quite frequent. I don't know if I'll teach the householders to associate a lack of water with a lack of electricity and the need to use a bypass.

By the way, how do you make a program in Integra that closes the valve for a certain amount of time before the battery goes dead? The actuators will take several seconds to close the valve, drawing current from the battery during this time.

Added after 14 [minutes]: .

adversus wrote:

Please kindly provide links to the proposed equipment.

Please:
https://sklep.washservice.pl/elektrozawor-2n15-1-2-cala-230v-lub-12v-24v-42v.html
First one, no special search, continuous operation, increased diameter, high flow. With VAT £125. If I were powering this from the control panel, I'd add a simple ecomiser, which will reduce the power drawn probably 3-4 times.

adversus wrote:

Does the mate want to control the NC valve (power it ) from the control panel, a 12V valve draws 1A current.... ???

.
The high current outputs on the Integra64/128 according to the manufacturer have a load capacity of up to 2.5A. So there is no problem. You can always give a relay (actually, some people will say, you have to give one to separate non-alarm functions), which is necessary anyway with a 230 V powered actuator (except that there you need two outputs and two relays).

adversus wrote:

Another disadvantage of NC valves is that they significantly weaken the flow of the medium compared to a ball valve with actuator!

.
One selects a valve with a flow rate to suit one's needs, if one did this randomly then perhaps this argument would be relevant, although, I can connect an actuator to a 3/8 inch valve and also write that it throttled my flow....

tmf wrote:

First better, no special search, continuous operation, increased diameter, high flow. With VAT £125. If I were powering this from the control panel, I would add a simple ecomiser, which will reduce the power drawn probably 3-4 times.

.

The indicated valve draws 26-32 watts so thank you for such a valve.... The economiser will only reduce the 4 times by half at most, which is still more than 10W of power lost pointlessly....

tmf wrote:

The high current outputs on the Integra64/128 according to the manufacturer have a load capacity of up to 2.5A. So there is no problem.

.

Here again you can see that the colleague is not in the subject, because it is not about the load capacity of the output but the power drawn (current) from the control panel. The system is calculated to work for e.g. 24 hours, after installing such a valve controlled (powered) from the control panel this time will be drastically reduced especially as it draws 26W (which gives a current of almost 2A on the valve), to have this you need a larger battery and further costs... Seriously it's not as simple and obvious as a colleague thinks. With a valve with an actuator, the open/close time is 30s and the current draw is 100-200mA.... as you can see there is a significant difference. Unless the colleague installs a 120Ah battery in the alarm system.... just to prove that it is possible ????

I don't see the point in further proving the superiority of the solution proposed by a colleague because it is pointless foam-beating and knocking down an open door.

tmf wrote:

If they are longer then the actuator solution has the same disadvantages:
(a) you leave the valve open - nullifying the protection completely,
b) you close it by a power failure, i.e. you have exactly the same situation as with an NC valve.

.

Well I will expand on that, they are not the same disadvantages, opening the water manually via BYPASS means that the system will not work until the user closes that valve manually, with a ball valve after manual opening and return of power the system works normally, with BYPASS it does not. Even already the author of the topic has noticed this difference and the colleague probably does not want to or is inconvenienced by it.

tmf wrote:

By the way, how do you make a program in Integra that closes the valve for a certain time before the battery dies? The actuators will take several seconds to close the valve, drawing current from the battery during this time.

.

I see at least 3 different solutions to this problem here, two software solutions and a third using an additional relay.

adversus wrote:

The indicated valve draws 26-32 watts so thank you for such a valve....

.
As I wrote, this is the first better valve thrown up by google. It's heavily oversized, a 2N10 would suffice, which draws 10W, with a limit of probably less than 5W, Parker valves can even nominally draw 6W. So it's just a matter of choosing the right one.

kood wrote:

I see at least 3 different solutions to this problem here, two software and the third using an additional relay.

.
Can you present them? How do you use the integra to implement closing the valve before the battery falls?

To summarise:
- NO valve - disadvantages alone in this solution,
- NC valve - disadvantages: constant current consumption, potentially the need to use a bypass (only if you expect power failures longer than the controller support), advantages: high reliability, most failures cause water shut-off and protection against flooding,
- ball valve with controller - disadvantages: water shut-off is active, any problem with the controller prevents correct shut-off, more complicated control (to take into account emergency situations that require activation of the valve shut-off) and the need to provide power to shut off the flow, advantages: resting does not draw current, no bypass required.

tmf wrote:

Can you present them? How do you use the integra to implement closing the valve before the battery falls?

Obviously,
1. the alarm system should provide a minimum of 12 hours of operation on the battery, you can close the valve e.g. after 8-10 hours, if the operating time is different you can recalculate it and set the closure of the valve at the appropriate time.

2. the Integra has a dedicated output indicating a weak battery, you can use it to drive the electro-valve.

3) When the control panel dies, you can use the remaining battery current to close the valve, 10V is enough to drive the valve.

tmf wrote:

which draws 10W, with a limit of probably less than 5W, Parker valves even nominally can draw 6W. So it's just a matter of choosing the right one.

.

Are you aware that in an alarm system you need to ensure adequate back-up time? Calculate the 30-hour current for an 18Ah battery for the entire system and compare it with what you are proposing for the valve alone.


In summary, whether it is an NC valve or a ball valve, each has its own advantages and disadvantages and I do not believe that using one or the other is a mistake.

tmf wrote:

As I wrote, this is the first better valve thrown up by google. It's heavily oversized, a 2N10 would suffice, which draws 10W, with a limit of probably less than 5W, Parker valves can even nominally draw 6W. So it's just a matter of choosing the right one.

Either we optimise and have what a colleague suggested almost 40W for 125pln or please another one that draws 6W at a similar price. It's really not that we are looking for a hole in the whole, it's just that the topic has been rehearsed and the best solution has been proposed in terms of the cost/performance ratio of the proposed solution. Can't you see that you are going down a blind alley? Perversely, I would like to ask you how many valves your colleague has installed and how many alarm systems and I do not want to bid, but I have been doing it for over 25 years, so I am a practitioner and I do not theorise what would be better, I present proven solutions that have been working for years. I have clients where the cottage has a swimming pool, squash court, gym, saunas, full house automation for millions and every watt in the bulb was counted because it draws less current, hence the subject of valves I have a knowledge of from every side ....

Re 1. The battery has a decreasing capacity over time. I would not assume a fixed time, and certainly not a time corresponding to a fully functional battery.
Re 2. Good to know. Which functions are these?
Re 3. But if the control panel dies, what is going to drive the valve? You can give an additional relay, which will apply voltage to the wire closing the valve, but how will the valve behave having a constant power supply, which will additionally discharge the battery to zero, probably causing its damage. Well, unless we complicate the control system....
12v ball valve controllers - google throws up just expensive ones for me, do you have any cheap ones?

kood wrote:

You do realise that in an alarm system you need to provide adequate back-up time? Calculate the 30 hour current for an 18Ah battery for the whole system and compare it with what you propose for the valve alone.

.
Why do you write in point 1 about a 12 hour backup and here suddenly already 30h? Assuming 6 W, this gives an additional 15 Ah for 30h, for a 12h backup only 6 Ah. A lot, but... if this is an obstacle, you can set the valve to switch off after 5h, for example. After all, if there are household members then the system's holding time is irrelevant, if there are none then, in turn, opening the water valve is irrelevant.
BTW, I see Emmerson Asco valves, for something as much as £240, but for the power consumed - 0.55W. So if I had searched better then maybe the price would have been lower too.

tmf wrote:

ad 3. But if the control panel dies, what will drive the valve? It is possible to give an additional relay, which will give voltage to the wire closing the valve, only how will the valve behave having a constant power supply, which will additionally discharge the battery to zero, probably causing its damage. Well, unless we complicate the control system...

.

Each actuator that controls the valve has a limit (otherwise how would a colleague control it on time or what?)... so there is no problem with a constant power supply.

Added after 4 [minutes]:

Actuator ball valves at 'normal' price on 12V :

https://allegro.pl/oferta/elektrozawor-kulowy-3-4-12-v-dn20-silownik-dc-12v-9471107932

https://allegro.pl/oferta/elektrozawor-kulowy...-th5SSI6_5y0Z2lJbLtqw2zvt1wZ44SBoCZBcQAvD_BwE

http://cosmogate.pl/product_info.php/products_id/518

tmf wrote:

. The battery has a decreasing capacity over time. I would not assume a fixed time, and certainly not a time corresponding to a fully functional battery.

.

I was writing about the minimum time to be provided and not the maximum.

tmf wrote:

Good to know. Which functions are these?

.

Output "battery failure"

tmf wrote:

Why in point 1 you write about a 12 hour backup and here suddenly already 30h?

.

Because there are different systems to meet different standards, some say 12 hours others 30.

tmf wrote:

which further discharges the battery to zero most likely causing damage.

.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with the construction of these valves before asking questions. They only draw current when they are operating, then the cut-off switch cuts off.

adversus wrote:

Another disadvantage of NC valves is that they significantly weaken the flow of the medium compared to an actuated ball valve!!!!. And they are quite sensitive to contamination due to their design.

.
Sorry to interject, but I think some of the discussants don't know how an indirect-action valve works and what the consequences of using one might be. Apart from the completely unnecessary electricity consumption of course.
EM coil valves with passage diameters of more than about 10mm are not direct action valves. The core drawn in by the solenoid only opens the so-called pilot or tiny valve, changing the pressure distribution on both sides of the main valve diaphragm. The emerging flow causes a pressure drop to sustain the opening of the valve. When there is no flow or too little flow, the main valve closes. This can cause so-called fluttering of the valve at low flows.
Therefore, I consider the solution with an actuator and ball valve to be the most correct and even ideal for the subject situation.
The only thing that should be done is to ensure that the ball valve is closed from time to time to maintain the certainty of closure when it is really needed.

jack63 wrote:

This is why I consider the solution with the actuator and ball valve to be the most correct and even ideal for the subject situation.

This is what I and colleague @kood write about all the time , unfortunately colleague @tmf insists on his own all the time, considering NC valves to be the best solution.

jack63 wrote:

The only thing to do is to ensure that the ball valve is closed every now and then to maintain the certainty of its closure when it is really needed.

This was described in the discussion to ensure regular operation by allowing the valve to be 'auto-maintained' or even actuated whenever the system is fully armed which is equivalent to no householders and no water being drawn. In this way we arrange for the ball valve to remain operational.

Valves are different and you simply have to read the note carefully before choosing. There are those that require a pressure differential, and there are those that operate at a differential of zero. All sorts of bizarre arguments have already been made here, starting with price, which I found to be a stretch to say the least. I propose this - show a complete schematic of such a safety device, what you think it should look like. Then you can compare prices, complexity and reliability.

tmf wrote:

Valves vary and you simply have to read the note carefully before choosing. There are those that require a pressure differential, and there are those that operate at a differential of zero. Here

.
The " non-required" ones are direct acting valves. As I wrote, they have small passage diameters, because the spring closing the valve would have to be very strong. And then the force from the solenoid would have to be large, so the solenoid would have to be too. On top of that, the coil would draw a large current.
There is a valve parameter called Kv. It defines the maximum flow rate at an acceptable pressure drop.
Decent manufacturers specify the Kv and the minimum flow rate for valves with pilot.
In my opinion, no direct-acting EM valve is suitable for the water supply of a house because of too much throttling.

jack63 wrote:

When there is no flow or too little flow, the main valve closes. This can cause what is known as valve flutter at low flows.

.

A very important argument in my opinion. Domestic flows can often be very low. Filling the cistern, washing hands etc.

tmf wrote:

But if the air handler dies, what sets off the valve?

.

As I have already written, I plan to use the IORS module to control the valve. It is equipped with relays with NO and NC outputs. Connecting the valve closing to NC will close the valve when the signal from the control panel fails. Connecting the opening to the NO output of the same relay will prevent the simultaneous activation of both valve inputs. As long as the power supply is maintained, the valve will also close when the control panel fails. Unless it breaks down in such a way that it maintains high states on its outputs but stops reacting to signals from the detectors.

You will be pouring this water for a long time????

e-sparks wrote:

Long will you be pouring this water????

Specifically, to whom is the colleague writing ?
.