Re: Honeywell 60 / DSC PC1550

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Leuck wrote:
> "Frank Olson" <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:80zsf.211362$Gd6.50686@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>R.H.Campbell wrote:
>>
>>>Correct on both points. Time to upgrade really. As the saying goes, you
>>>wouldn't run your business on a 486; why run your security on the same
>>>vintage of alarm panel...
>>
>>
>>What's wrong with a 1550??  Is it going to communicate faster than the
>>newer stuff??  Yes.  How much faster?  Maybe 5 seconds.
>
>
> A typical 4/2 signal sends in roughly 45 seconds, CID or SIA sends in about
> half that

My experience has been a bit different.  DSC's phone-line simulator is
able to display 4-2.  It also has a listen in feature so you can hear
and visually identify the signals going to the receiver in real time.  A
4-2 burg signal will transmit and kiss-off in about 20 seconds (on
average).  Your experience may be different because you're probably
monitoring a whole lot more accounts per line card in addition to the
fact that more time may be required for the CS software to interpret and
display the signals from the receivers.  My point was that SIA (which
most modern panels are capable of transmitting these days) is a lot
faster.  I've seen nine seconds on some phone exchanges, but typically
it's between 10-15 seconds.  It turns out what I posted in response to
the OP was "sorta ass-backwards" (too much rum in the Eggnog).  Sorry
for the confusion.


>
>
>>If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
>
> Agreed


You musta met my Dad.  :-)