Re: Security systems

["paul gordon" <paul_gordon@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Nigel,

I'd certainly agree with pretty well all your points about wireless -
like I said, I've never been very keen on them, for the practical
limitations that you have mentioned... (but they do have a clear
advantage in convenience...)

I'm certainly not averse to chasing cables into walls (I've already done
this with speaker cable runs in the lounge), and as I redecorate each
room in the house, I am putting plenty of cable in just for good
measure. Unfortunately, I couldn't plan ahead when I did the lounge,
(for several reasons), and so I've ONLY got those speaker cables in the
walls, and now I've gone ahead and finished decorating in there, I'm not
about to rip out plaster again for several years! (all my internal walls
are solid).

Nevertheless, I'm still keen on a wired system, if I can get sensors
into the lounge without damaging the decor...

Cheers for the input.

Paul.



>From ukha_d-return-261-paul_gordon=hotmail.com@xxxxxxx Fri
Feb 26 03:18:50 1999
>Received: from [127.0.0.1] by mc.findmail.com with NNFMP; 26 Feb 1999
11:13:55 -0000
>Mailing-List: contact ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
>X-Mailing-List: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/ukha_d/
>Reply-To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>Received: (qmail 17859 invoked by uid 7770); 26 Feb 1999 11:14:01 -0000
>Received: from cheviot.ncl.ac.uk (128.240.233.51)
>  by vault.findmail.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 1999 11:14:01 -0000
>Received: from searay.ncl.ac.uk by cheviot.ncl.ac.uk id
<LAA10769@xxxxxxx>
>  (8.7.6/ for ncl.ac.uk) with SMTP; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:13:37 GMT
>Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990226111317.008f3a00@xxxxxxx>
>X-Sender: nno@xxxxxxx
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
>Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:13:17 +0000
>To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>From: Nigel Orr <nigel.orr@xxxxxxx>
>In-Reply-To: <19990226104813.686.qmail@xxxxxxx>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Security systems
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>At 10:48 26/02/99 GMT, you wrote:
>>on battery-powered sensors. In the past I have heard of systems
which
>>eat Duracells at the rate of several every month!
>
>I think the previous resident of our house had one of these- she spoke
>glowingly of how the installers were ever so helpful and checked it all
for
>her regularly, but they didn't appear to have told her to replace the
>batteries- when we moved in, _every_ _single_ _battery_ was flat!
>
>>lifespan is true, then I could well be persuaded to reconsider my
>>position - I reckon I could live with annual
maintenance/replacement
as
>>opposed to monthly...
>
>Sounds more reasonable, but...
>
>>So, My first question is: does anybody have experience of this
system,
>>good or bad, and can anyone vouch for the battery lifespan claims?
>
>I wouldn't touch one with a bargepole _unless_ I was renting and wanted
to
>take a system away when I left, or in a house with solid walls and
floors
>throughout, and no place to hide cables.  I'm probably unusual in being
>happy and competent to hide cables, from previous postings to this
list... ;-)
>
>A wired system is cheaper, for the same quality, there's less to go
wrong,
>you can run wires for other HA stuff at the same time, etc etc etc- but
the
>wireless devotees will doubtless come up with equally compelling
reasons
>for wireless- I would suggest you listen to both, then decide for
yourself-
>if one was really clearly provably superior in every case,
>alt.security.alarms wouldn't have been bickering about it for the last
n
>years...
>
>IMO/IME, It's just too easy for them to get jammed/confused- there are
>basically 2 options for domestic-grade boxes, you can either have them
>paranoid so that when the local taxi firm goes past they start calling
the
>police, or you can have them 'chilled out', which leaves them open to
>legitimate jamming/ transmitters being disabled etc.  Future technology
(eg
>spread spectrum) could change all that, but, for now, I don't feel they
are
>so reliable as cable.  Add to that the fact that you are reliant on one
>manufacturer to keep producing matching spares/upgrades as you want to
>expand it, and that they may be unable to do that if RF bandwidth
>allocations change in the future (as they undoubtedly will)...
>
>>Secondly, I've seen lots of good things written about the Napco
Gemini
>
>Likewise, particularly for it's connectability
>
>You could check out www.dejanews.com- there was discussion of alarms in
>uk.d-i-y not long ago.  You could also check out alt.security.alarms
for
>more hints- there are some UK folks there.
>
>Hope that helps,
>
>Nigel
>--
>Nigel Orr                  Research Associate   O   ______
>        Underwater Acoustics Group,              o / o    \_/(
>Dept of Electrical and Electronic Engineering     (_   <   _ (
>     University of Newcastle Upon Tyne             \______/ \(
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Internet FileZone: Always FREE!
>Instantly store & access your valuable PC files on the net,
>from any Web browser.
>SIGN UP NOW - http://offers.egroups.com/click/235/0
>
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/ukha_d
>Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
>
>
>


______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet FileZone: Always FREE!
Instantly store & access your valuable PC files on the net,
from any Web browser.
SIGN UP NOW - http://offers.egroups.com/click/235/0

eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/ukha_d
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com