Re: Firelite MS5024UD

["Crash Gordon" <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would "think" that given the product liablility issue would prompt
FireLite to just replace the panel rather than use an active fire alarm site
as a TEST site!....this seems like a liability  suit waiting to happen.



"Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_cmdnbTTGP5Irs3eRVn-vg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:o0O3f.15619$5l.1364@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > I have heard some claims before when a Firelite panel  is reporting to
an
| > Osborn Hoffman receiver. I had some problems with a Firelite panel on a
| > newly installed system with unfined signals coming in that the panel
isn't
| > capable of sending. One of the questions Firelite ask is what receiver
is
| it
| > reporting to. I wasn't sure as I use a third party center. As it turns
out
| I
| > was not connected to a Osborn Hoffman receiver but they seem to beleive
| that
| > this receiver and Firelite equipment are not on the same page for what
| ever
| > reason.
|
| I can't speak for Osborne-Hoffman receivers since I've never messed with
one
| but it still seems like a stupid suggestion by Fire-Lite's support.
| Regardless of which format you are using and it doesn't matter if the the
| two devices cannot communicate with each other at all that panel SHOULD
NOT
| lock up.
|
| I've seen problems in the past with other manufacturer and in the end it's
a
| panel problem that later gets quietly fixed in the next BIOS revision. Of
| course only AFTER that fix is in place do they bother to confirm the
problem
| existed.
|
|
|