Re: Electric Lock choice

[J. Sloud <jsloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:32:56 -0400, "Jackcsg" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>> >"J. Sloud" <jsloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message
>de
>> >news: fgrpe1luvhd1adm2h7oufdaf0gi5fpuoqh@xxxxxxxxxx
>> >> On 29 Jul 2005 18:53:11 -0700, bhnjr@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Not so different.  Maglocks aren't suited for high security
>> applications on exterior doors anywhere.
>
>I disagree with that statement. If you said electric strikes, I would agree.
>Strikes offer NO, NONE, ZIP NOTTA, form of Access Control, period.

How do you figure?  I normally wouldn't post this but you've got some
bad information:
Maglocks can easily be defeated.  Pull the fire alarm and the doors
open. Slip a piece of paper through the crack around the door and wave
it in front of the REX motion and the doors open.  Cut power to a
facility and  wait until the batteries drain, the doors open.  Take a
sawsall and cut through the door frame where you know the powers going
to the maglock, the doors open.  Door strikes are locked until
energized. They are fail secure and a much better choice for security
and life safety.  How could you defeat a properly installed strike?
Maglocks are installed because they are easy and cheap.

>Physically dis-allowing access to a door, is what access control is all
>about. Now I agree that there are very few individuals, and companies that
>know how to correctly install a mag lock, but I also blame the AHJ's who
>also have no clue about Maglocks either, or their correct disconnect means.
>Anything, and I mean anything, that is electronically driven to de-energize
>a maglock is incorrect right off the bat. Including touch bars, REX motions,
>Timers, etc., anything that is powered to work, period. Only a manual
>physical means of disconnect will be 100%, in 100% of any application.
>(Along with an FACP interface).

Read NFPA101 for the approved method.  The commonly installed pull
station that cuts power to the mag is fine and good, but doesn't meet
code since it requires previous knowledge that it is there.  To meet
Life Safety Code you need two REX deives including a 2" button at the
door that says push to exit.  It's in the code in black and white.

>  Although it's a common
>> practice here.  If you have controlled egress (swipe a card to get out
>> of a building), then there must be an approved emergency exit device
>> such as a touch sense bar or a pressure sensitive maglock that will
>> release after an audible alarm sounds for 20 seconds.
>
>That can fail to work. This is were companies get in trouble. Don't relie on
>anything electronically powered to always work correctly, period.

Actually, I've stated the only approved method according to NFPA101
Life Safety Code for allowing maglocks on non-free egress exits. .
I've done several applications that require emergency egress into
securd areas.  Think fire door that opens into a SIDA area where only
badged personnel are normally allowed.

>
>>
>> I don't discuss techniques to compromise security systems here, so
>> suffice to say, maglocks on exterior doors aren't a good idea.  The
>> practice is so bad here, that some companies actually mount the
>> maglock on the unsecured side of an inswinging door because they are
>> too stupid or too lazy to know what a Z bracket is.
>
>You said it: Too Stupid.
>