Re: Reliability of glass breakage listening devices

["Robert L Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know how long ago that study was performed.  Acoustic glass break
detectors have never been 100% reliable.  They can and do add to the
security of an installation when properly installed though.

Almost all of them will false if there's a heavy thunderstorm directly
overhead.  I used glass breaks (along with full perimeter magnetic contacts
and interior motion detection)
on most of my installations for many years with relatively few problems.
That was in Connecticut.  Now I live in Florida and I'd hesitate to use them
here -- way too much lightning.

Everyone has his own preferences on makes and models.  I've had good results
with IntelliSense (Honeywell) glass breaks.  When they first came out
Sentrol's (GE Security) Shatterbox series were awful.  They would false if a
broom dropped in a neighbor's house. :^)  I haven't used these but several
friends who use them indicate the more recent ShatterPro series seem to have
overcome the early problems.  I sell both brands to DIYers online and have
not had any returns in quite some time.

Best of luck.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
941-866-1100 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>


"Andrew" <asrichman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1136404492.450925.16240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The local consumer magazine in Washington DC says of glass breakage
> listening devices "A recent study by the Association of Central
> Monitoring Stations declared these devices unreliable".
>
> I can't find a date on the article, so I checked the web site of the
> Central Station Alarm Association.  I couldn't find anything there
> either.  I have had a few local companies come by to assess my home and
> almost all have recommended them.
>
> Are they reliable?  Do they give lots of false alarms?  Should I use
> them iin my home?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew
>