Re: EOLR Depate

[Crash Gordon® <NONE@xxxxxxxx>]

False alarm fines here are 50-75-100-150-order to cease operation. One =
city offers False Alarm School on the first fine. BTW..usually the first =
2 false alarms are not chargeable. No permit is $500 fine..they let you =
off the first time with just a warning.

Oh...the alarm co. and client are jointly or severably responsable for =
fines...so if the client doesn't pay then we have to - nice huh? So you =
get some cheapskate who wants to blame his false alarms on us, when it's =
his dumb secretary who can' remember her code is 1234 and keeps setting =
of the alarm.




"Aegis" <lordaegis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message =
news:PoO0e.3368$yq2.2418@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>=20
> "Crash Gordon=AE" <NONE@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message=20
> news:MVJ0e.44$TJ1.1888@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dispatch on a trouble...with no other alarms?....hmmmm...do they have =
false=20
> alarm ordinances where you are?
>=20
> *** If it's armed, that would be the first indication of a criminal=20
> attempting to bypass the system. True it may be just a rat in the =
ceiling=20
> chewing through some wires, but the concept of security requires me to =
lean=20
> towards the worst-case scenario.
>=20
> Local false alarm ordinance here is $50 fine to the end user starting =
with=20
> the 4th false (non-fire) alarm dispatch to that address. If a service =
call=20
> is made, the trouble ticket can be submitted in lieu of the $50. The =
end=20
> user is also required to have an alarm permit. The $50 increases if =
they do=20
> not.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> "Aegis" <lordaegis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message=20
> news:ECI0e.1317$oy3.451@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Crash Gordon=AE" <NONE@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:kkG0e.31$j27.976@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > And how do you deal with the trouble signal...dispatch PD or service =
tech?
> >
> > *** If armed, dispatch... If disarmed, CS should call them and ask =
if they
> > want a service tech dispatched.
> >
> > Couldn't be gross negligence if it's commonly accepted practice.
> >
> > ***1. You aren't going to get the judge/jury to randomly drop into =
houses
> > and see what's there.
> > ***2. The plaintiff WILL have an expert testify that EOLR placement =
is
> > commonly known and commonly ignored, which doesn't establish common
> > practice, but rather reveals professional neglect on a massive =
scale.=20
> > Won't
> > help your defense though; just make you look that much more evil to =
the
> > jury.
> >
> > I haven't seen eolr in the right place in a residence in years...not =
even
> > ADT does it anymore.
> >
> > ***Yes we do... Or, at least, I do.
> >
> > In fact I don't even see them in the right place on commercial =
systems by
> > ADT. I'm not saying that makes it right, just that what becomes =
commonly
> > accepted practice couldn't be deemed gross negligence.
> >
> > ***That's just it. The customer doesn't know the resistors are in =
the=20
> > panel.
> > So the commonly ACCEPTED part doesn't apply. If they knew, they =
wouldn't
> > accept.
> >
> > I'm just being argumentative :-)
> >
> > ***Me too! :)
> >
> > In high sec. residential I've run closed circuit switches with eolr =
at end
> > of multiple loop, then on the 2nd pair run 24 hr panic circuit =
through the
> > same loop zone.
> >
> > ***I haven't done residential in years.
> >
> >
> > "Aegis" <lordaegis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:Pcs0e.1199$oy3.715@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > "Crash Gordon=AE" <NONE@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:wxn0e.1503$vB1.1142@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > yah, but with closed circuit switches what are you really=20
> > > 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=20
> > > 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=20
> > > 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=20
> > > 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=20
> > > 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=20
> > > can't
> > > squeeze water from a rock, but they CAN take 40% of your =
disposable=20
> > > 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=20
> > > > 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=20
> > > > > 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=20
> > > > > visit
> > > > > =
<http://www.securitysales.com/t_ci_articleView.cfm?aid=3D1926&sid=3D2>.
> > > > > This
> > > > is
> > > > > a story that appears in this months Security Sales magazine.  =
A=20
> > > > > 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=20
> > > > > future
> > > > > and
> > > > > the future of your company or the company you work for.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Wies
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >=20
>=20
>