Re: Napco MA3000 - Dialer Test on both Lines?

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
>>I openly admit I don't know anything about this
>>particular panel, so maybe I am missing something.
>>Let's go through this step by step...
>
>
> Ok.  Two programmable relays are set to interrupt a  24-hour test zone and
> to short phone line 1 at the designated time.  This causes the panel to
> report the 24-hour zone as a silent alarm, but the code/zone is configured
> at the c-station to be viewed as a test signal.  A third relay can be
> triggered by "general trouble" and run in series with the phone shorting
> relay so that line 1 will not short out if the panel is currently
> experiencing a trouble condition.

Suddenly there are *three* relays involved in this "solution" (which
actually isn't one because it's against NFPA and code and no self
respecting installer would do such a thing).  NFPA states that the
communicator is the first device on the incoming telephone line.  You're
now placing a *relay* (no...  make that *two* relays) between the
incoming phone line and the communicator.  And you *say* an AHJ actually
approved this??


>
> Here's an interesting thing about the MA3000 when used with the 2-line
> dialer board.  If either line develops a trouble condition during a
> reportable event the panel will only display and attempt to report the
> trouble after finishing the original report.  What happened with this
> sequence was the panel would report the 24-hour zone and the line would
> immediately restore.

Don't care about the "sequence".  What you've proposed here is against code.


>
> The MA3000, unlike most commercial fire alarmcontrol panels, is also an
> extremely flexible burglar alarm / automation system.  Because I liked
> tinkering with Napco panels I learned a few things they could do that even
> Napco tech didn't always know about.  I've installed a lot of them, even
> used one as a 2-line dialer when taking over a system in a church / daycare
> site.

Uh-huh...  sure...


>
>
>>As I understand it, you want to use a programmable relay
>>to interrupt  the primary phone line at a predetermined
>>time.  The phone line monitor detects the  "bad" primary
>>phone line and sends a phone line trouble report using
>>the secondary phone line.
>
>
> Not quite right.  The panel wasn't actually sending a phone line trouble
> signal.  It was simply reporting a 24-hour zone when triggered by another
> programmable relay.

How would you prevent it from calling out the predetermined "test"
signal on line 1 when the second relay's now engaged to "restore" the
first interruption to the panel??  The way I see this is that you've
just defeated your purpose.


>
>
>>This means a good test signal consists of a phone line
>>trouble report.
>
>
> Nope.  I wouldn't do that for two reasons.  First, you wouldn't want to
> defeat th4e abaility of the panel to report a true phone trouble condition.
> Doing so would cause the C-station to view such a trouble as a test -- not
> good.  Second, as you mention, that would create a daily trouble alarm on
> premises -- also not good.

So, when the panel actually goes *into* trouble the second relay engages
probably interrupting the panel's first attempt at communication...
Interesting...


>
>
>>I am not surprised that an AHJ approved something like
>>this.  AHJs approve stupid things sometimes, because
>>their level of technical expertise is not all that high.
>
>
> Carl Earn of W Hartford, Ct fire dept. (NBFAA Fire Marshal of the Year some
> years ago) was one of the AHJ's who routinely examined my systems.  I used
> this on several installations in W Hartford when we took over and replaced
> panels after the WHPD ceased running an in-house C-station receiver.

And I take it you also have his letter (or stamp) of approval on the
installations you did which utilized this shoddy method of yours.  Why
not simply allow the old panel to continue functioning as it would no
doubt have been "grandfathered"?...  Ahhh...  I see...  another way for
you to generate "business"...  ;-)


>
>
>>So, as I understand your plan...
>
>
> Actually, you didn't understand it but had it been as you surmised it would
> indeed have been a bad idea.  Perhaps if you had asked for more details
> first...

No need.  What you proposed is utterly preposterous.  Typical of you,
though...  How about explaining to us in detail how you get a Napco 32
character LCD keypad to display:  "Attention Burglar!" on the first line
and "Go Ahead! Make my day!" on the second??


>
> Nah, that's not SOP in ASA.  :^)

Your SOP is to continue to defend *bad advice* 'till the bitter end...