Re: 26. NEWBEES, if possible avoid wireless alarm systems

[Crash Gordon® <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<-pull@shoot> wrote in message =
news:1rkga152el42ls67gb7ueiinha35c4irhi@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 22:20:19 -0400, "Craig B" <twl3001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>=20
> >Just an FYI, most wireless systems, if they are to meet UL =
requirements for=20
> >resi or commercial burg (and fire too for that matter), are REQUIRED =
to send=20
> >a supervisory report at least every hour which includes bits that =
tell the=20
> >panel the batteries are low.  UL requires that this signal is sent=20
> >consistently every hour thereafter, and the battery must last for two =
weeks=20
> >after the initial low battery signal.
>=20
> I'm not talking about the panel but the sensors who are blown out when
> Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) occur.

The panel will send a jam when any of the transmitters are jammed (your =
term: muzzled) or if any of the transmitter batteries are low, or if any =
of the transmitters do not check in within their specified time frame =
which on some systems can be set to specified time frame, but most check =
in every hour.



>=20
> >As for interference, most panels if they are worth their salt include =
some=20
> >sort of option which provides a time window after which, if the=20
> >above-mentioned supervision signals are not received from EVERY =
sensor, the=20
> >panel will notify the user and/or the central station.
>=20
> I like your statement "option" and what about the others, how do they
> react when RFI occur and muzzle incoming sensor signals?
>  By the way having that marvelous option that give a warning after a
> long period is of no use or not efficient for intruders.
>  The long period is required to avoid false alarms and it give only a
> warning that the system is bingo.=20
> It don't solve the inability of the system to give any kind of alarm
> because the sensor signals are no longer valid due to that RFI
> muzzling problem anyway.

Patently incorrect. See above response.


>=20
> >Out of curiosity, which system was giving you this trouble?
> >Craig B.
>=20
> Its not a mater of type of the system, its a mater of radio data
> communication who is unreliable/unusable when an other transmitter use
> and block the sensor alarm convey frequency, the problem is known by
> radio tech's as RFI.
> ALL wireless alarm systems go bingo when RFI occur.
> It seems that you didn't read my other posts about it.

We have all read your misunderstandings of how wireless alarm systems =
work. I suggest you read and try to understand our responses rather than =
rant on about something you just don't understand.

In addition: IF you had done this much research BEFORE you bought the =
piece of crap alarm system you had a problem with you would have (MAYBE) =
bought a reliable system instead.



>=20
> >
> ><--> wrote in message =
news:uciba110rm8fs20unqhlo7uq934ploimrc@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> They are not reliable and are dead on warning when a transmitter
> >> operates in a condition who muzzle the wireless alarm system.
> >>
> >> This is easily done with Radio Transmitters operating:
> >> - ON the wireless frequency
> >> - Saturating the receiver
> >> - Intermodulation
> >> - Harmonics
> >> - Falling in the receiver bandpass
> >> - On the IF frequency
> >> - and more...
> >> This is what i call basically Radio Frequency Interferences (RFI) =
but
> >> in fact it covers, like you can notice above a lot more.
> >>
> >> In essence the problems is the fact that by no way two (or more)
> >> systems can use simultaneously the same frequency, its called
> >> collisions, interferences and more like you see above.
> >>
> >> The WORST is that the OWNER DON'T KNOW THAT HISS alarm system is no
> >> longer operational, no message (20 years records hold by so called
> >> experienced professionals: no RFI alarm).
> >>
> >> Use a wired systems and use WIRELESS only when impossible to wire, =
but
> >> BE AWARE that YOUR SAFETY IS HAZARDOUS (my system was dead during =
more
> >> than one year before i found out by accident and measuring the
> >> wireless receiver output signal content).
> >> Muzzling can occurs permanently or occasionally, mine was =
permanent.
> >>
> >> Note: So called low level mechanically (who claim them self
> >> professional) try to let you believe that my system was dumb and/or
> >> badly installed and they don't realize that it is an external
> >> influences that can't be avoided whatever wireless alarm system you
> >> have.
> >> Its a pure radio communication problem know by telecommunication
> >> specialists.
> >> There is a way around for $$$ investments but that is out of reach =
of
> >> a wireless alarm system.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >> NOTE: My system is replaced with a wired one, do the same.
> >>=20
> >
>