Re: 22. Are you an OLD or a NEW VICTIM of wireless alarm systems

["Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey, don't waste your time with this guy. He has been polluting Usenet for
years with his endless dribble. He will never understand. All we can do is
sit back and let the clown do his dance routine.

Jim Rojas



"mikey" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:auOdnVhl7Oqm0QffRVn-tw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <-pull@shoot> wrote in message
> news:2rki915vkrlhpe4rlplcui3iipnn8n6uc2@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> Are you an old or will you be a new VICTIM of wireless alarm
>>  systems wrong advertisements and sellers talk?
>>
>> Wireless alarm systems fail during Radio Frequency Interferences (RFI)
>> without warning to the owner or CS and nothing can prevent it.
>>
>> TEST YOURS if you have one, get a FCC/CE approved transmitter...
>>
>> :For all frequency types of wireless alarm systems:
>> www.mipot.com
>> http://www.aurel.it/
>> www.rfsolutions.co.uk
>>
>> OR
>>
>>  Ask "so called" professionals to explain you why wireless alarm
>> systems are reliable and how they avoid RFI, the well known nuisances
>> of low power radio wave reception.
>
> Interference is avoided by repeatingly sending the signal across an FM
> band
> comparable in "width" to the FM band on your radio. That's a lot of
> frequencies to jam or otherwise have interference. One of the multiple
> signals is
> bound to get through and it only takes one.
> Because there's no wire (or EOL), the transmitter has to send check-in
> signals
> to ensure it is able to report an alarm (supervision).
> If the receiver doesn't see the check-in signals, it complains to the poor
> sap carrying
> the pager.
> So, it seems we're doing the best we can where it's unrealistic to use
> wire,
> Paul.
> If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.
>
>
>
>