Re: Napco MA3000 - Dialer Test on both Lines?

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Bass said:
>
>
>>Nope.  You need to consider the thread in context.  The discussion was about
>>a Napco MA3000.  The panel doesn't have an intrinsic function to test both
>>lines.  If the OP is doing a new installation, he'll likely need to use a
>>different product.
>
>
> I'm glad you agree that this panel does not meet the requirements of the
> current edition of NFPA 72, with or without the addition of one, two, or
> three extra relays.
>
>
>>>Test time arrives, and your relay shorts out
>>>line 1.  Since the panel hasn't detected a phone
>>>line trouble, your trouble relay does not prevent
>>>this from happening.
>>
>>You really need to read what I said more carefully.  Shorting or opening
>>line 1 is not done to cause a line trouble report.  It is done to ensure
>>that the signal from a 24-hour zone is sent via line 2.
>
>
> It's you who needs to read more closely.  Especially the part where I said,
> "Since the panel hasn't detected a phone line trouble."  My point is that
> if line 2 is bad (voltage present, but no dial tone), the panel's phone
> line monitor will not detect a problem, and when test time rolls around,
> your setup will disable line 1 as well.  Not a good plan.
>
> I think I'll finish with a couple of quotes from NFPA 72, 2002 edition:
>
> "4.3.1 Equipment.  Equipment constructed and installed in conformity with
> this Code shall be listed for the purpose for which it is used.  Fire alarm
> system components shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
> installation instructions."
>
> Contrary to popular belief, the code does not say, "Install it any way you
> want, so long as the AHJ signs off on it."  If that were the case, there
> would be no need for a code at all.  The AHJ's job is to enforce the code,
> not make up his own, and to interpret issues not addressed by the code.  He
> does not have the authority to disregard a code requirement.
>
> Section 1.5 addresses the issue of equivalency:
>
> "1.5.1 Nothing in this Code shall prevent the use of systems, methods,
> devices, or appliances of equivalent or superior quality, strength, fire
> resistance, effectiveness, durability, and safety over those prescribed by
> this Code."
>
> "1.5.2 Technical documentation shall be submitted to the authority having
> jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency."
>
> So, unless Napco approves your phone line testing system, section 4.3.1
> prohibits its use, since these components are not installed in accordance
> with the manufacturer's installation instructions.
>
> If you want an AHJ to approve your design, section 1.5 requires you to
> submit technical documentation to demonstrate that your design is
> "equivalent or superior" to the requirements of the code.  Clearly, it
> isn't.  Therefore, it's not eligible for an equivalency determination.
>
> - badenov
>


While the above provides definitive proof of what Mark and a number of
others have been saying all along, why do I get the feeling that it's
still not over?  What is this??  I feel like I'm in the middle of "Scary
Movie Six and Two-Thirds, Revenge of the Bass".