Re: pir false alarms

[Matt Ion <soundy106@xxxxxxxxx>]

Roland Moore wrote:
> I agree.

Alright, so the next time a customer complains that their MUX is beeping, and I
find the cause is a video-loss alarm caused by a camera being out, I guess the
fix is to just go into the MUX menu and disable the VL alarm.

> "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3149630eb734f9ca60442b81e8dce34d@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>Matt Ion said:
>>
>>
>>>My take is, the installer who's billing him has failed to correctly
>>>diagnose the problem and has merely treated the symptoms, and should not
>>>be paid for an
>>>incomplete job.
>>
>>The installer's job is to make the false alarms stop, not to determine the
>>precise cause of those false alarms.  In other words, replacing relatively
>>low-cost equipment like PIRs is often cheaper than making multiple service
>>visits to try and nail down the exact reason the substandard PIR went off.
>>
>>If the customer is in a city that charges for false alarms, it's even more
>>important to get the problem fixed immediately.  In this case, replacing
>>the sensors made the false alarms stop.  Now, if he had installed three
>>new
>>dual-tecs and the false alarms continued, I would expect the tech to make
>>a
>>healthy adjustment in the bill, and spend more time figuring out what was
>>really going on.
>>
>>The cost of the parts vs. the cost of troubleshooting labor is what
>>counts.
>>I gather you work mostly on more expensive video components, where it
>>makes
>>good economic sense to spend more time troubleshooting.  With a PIR, weigh
>>the cost of the part against one additional service call, and it just
>>makes
>>more sense to change the damn thing.
>>
>>- badednov
>>
>
>
>