Re: EOLR Depate

["Aegis" <lordaegis@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Crash Gordon®" <NONE@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wxn0e.1503$vB1.1142@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
yah, but with closed circuit switches what are you really protecting?..one
leg of the loop?

***
Well, let's see.. With the EOLR, on your NC loop (EOLR in series), the panel
can see an OPEN, NORMAL, or a SHORT. Using common voltages, it could see 5V,
2.5V, or 0V (voltages vary from panel to panel so I'm using these).

EOLR at EOL:
2.5V means all doors on the loop are closed.
5V means at least one door on the loop is open (or a wire fault if all doors
are closed).
0V means trouble. With a resistor in series at the EOL, this condition can
only exist if there is a wire fault [THIS is your supervision].

Now let's see the possibilities with the EOLR at the panel:
2.5V - All doors closed / Normal
5V - At least one door open (or fault if all doors are closed)
0V - You can't ever get this with the resistor at the panel so it is blind
to a shorted wire condition.  <--- !!!

So you just took 3-state supervision down to 2-state. IF there were a short
introduced on the wire, the end user would never know or be warned of what
SHOULD have been a detectable fault. The loop will arm normally.

The key here isn't the fact that you only lost supervision to a single type
of fault, but that it was PREVENTABLE. Add to that the fact that the law
says you are an expert and consumers are, by default, not experts, you put
yourself into a situation where a jury could find you guilty of actually
taking advantage of the unsuspecting public, when in fact you were merely
being lazy and/or stupid. What's the difference? The word 'gross'. Neglect
can cost you thousands; "gross" neglect can cost you millions. They can't
squeeze water from a rock, but they CAN take 40% of your disposable income
for the rest of your life.

Likely? Perhaps not... But why risk it for a friggin' resistor?
***

"Jackcsg" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Go2dnf0cvp35nN_fRVn-og@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thanks Ron. You're absolutely correct, and it's a good topic around here.
> They are not called "in the box resistors". But I would say at least 50%
> of
> the dealers just don't get it. (Just my opinion)
>
> <rwies@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1143tnbacgj02a8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > EOLR Placement Debate
> >
> > I have been in the alarm industry for about 36 years now and over that
> time
> > I have witnessed many innovations.  One of these is the circuit
> supervision
> > provided by the end of line resistor.
> >
> > When I first entered the industry the EOLR was not necessary because we
> used
> > an end of line battery.  The circuit was automatically supervised.  When
> > technology moved the battery to the control panel this all changed.
> > Since
> > that time we have debated placement of the EOLR regularly.
> >
> > I have taught in my NTS classes that proper placement is critical.
> Placing
> > the EOLR on a terminal in the control panel is just, in my opinion
> > wrong.
> > The supervision is important and not hard to achieve.
> >
> > Well, now there is real evidence to support my position.  Please visit
> > <http://www.securitysales.com/t_ci_articleView.cfm?aid=1926&sid=2>.
> > This
> is
> > a story that appears in this months Security Sales magazine.  A woman
> > died
> > and proper placement of the EOLR would have probably saved her life.
> >
> > I don't know what more to say except do it right.  Protect your future
> > and
> > the future of your company or the company you work for.
> >
> > Ron Wies
>
>