Re: EOLR Depate

[Crash Gordon® <NONE@xxxxxxxx>]

Dispatch on a trouble...with no other alarms?....hmmmm...do they have =
false alarm ordinances where you are?





"Aegis" <lordaegis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message =
news:ECI0e.1317$oy3.451@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>=20
> "Crash Gordon=AE" <NONE@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message=20
> news:kkG0e.31$j27.976@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> And how do you deal with the trouble signal...dispatch PD or service =
tech?
>=20
> *** If armed, dispatch... If disarmed, CS should call them and ask if =
they=20
> want a service tech dispatched.
>=20
> Couldn't be gross negligence if it's commonly accepted practice.
>=20
> ***1. You aren't going to get the judge/jury to randomly drop into =
houses=20
> 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=20
> practice, but rather reveals professional neglect on a massive scale. =
Won't=20
> help your defense though; just make you look that much more evil to =
the=20
> jury.
>=20
> I haven't seen eolr in the right place in a residence in years...not =
even=20
> ADT does it anymore.
>=20
> ***Yes we do... Or, at least, I do.
>=20
> In fact I don't even see them in the right place on commercial systems =
by=20
> ADT. I'm not saying that makes it right, just that what becomes =
commonly=20
> accepted practice couldn't be deemed gross negligence.
>=20
> ***That's just it. The customer doesn't know the resistors are in the =
panel.=20
> So the commonly ACCEPTED part doesn't apply. If they knew, they =
wouldn't=20
> accept.
>=20
> I'm just being argumentative :-)
>=20
> ***Me too! :)
>=20
> In high sec. residential I've run closed circuit switches with eolr at =
end=20
> of multiple loop, then on the 2nd pair run 24 hr panic circuit through =
the=20
> same loop zone.
>=20
> ***I haven't done residential in years.
>=20
>=20
> "Aegis" <lordaegis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message=20
> 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 =
protecting?..one
> > leg of the loop?
> >
> > ***
> > Well, let's see.. With the EOLR, on your NC loop (EOLR in series), =
the=20
> > panel
> > can see an OPEN, NORMAL, or a SHORT. Using common voltages, it could =
see=20
> > 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=20
> > 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=20
> > 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=20
> > 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=20
> > > 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=20
> > > > we
> > > used
> > > > an end of line battery.  The circuit was automatically =
supervised.=20
> > > > 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=3D1926&sid=3D2>.
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >=20
>=20
>