Re: pir false alarms

[Matt Ion <soundy106@xxxxxxxxx>]

Roland Moore wrote:
> IR radiation is naturally ocurring and its sources are everywhere. Now you
> have introduced facts not in evidence to blame someone not posting to defend
> his or her position.

My post below didn't say anything about the IR.  I suggested that the occurrence
of the problem across multiple sensors suggests to me a wiring or brain fault.
Period.

 > You have followed the same schema in your post that you
> have blamed on the installer as faulty and you have not solved the problem
> either.

I didn't say the installer was "faulty", I said his troubleshooting was half-assed.

> The circuits in a PIR detector are for the most part  pyrolytic
> element(s) with a delta t and delta T circuit. where t=temperature and
> T=time. I have had courses in physics. I detect pure physics genius in your
> post. I hope we can enjoy a through discussion from you on the vibrational
> energy transfer and reaction of vibrationally excited molecules at surfaces.
> Please preface your remarks with your CV and all of the academic credentials
> you have garnered.

I detect an extreme lack of reading and compresension skills on your part.  Go
back and re-read my post and tell me where I said anything about the physics of
infrared detection.

> Or instead say it is nearly imposible to figure out who
> or what is to blame from the very limited information available.

I'm not blaming the installer (who in this case is apparently NOT the ORIGINAL
installer either) for the problem, I'm saying he didn't diagnose it properly and
was likely more interested in simply selling the OP new hardware.

Believe it or not, this DOES happen.

> customer is upset over a bill and doesn't want to pay it most likely, and
> that is more the focus of his question.

Of course it is.  The ensuing discussion is ostensibly about whether the bill
he's been handed is legitimate.

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.

> He has not been cheated in any way I can detect from the information given.

He's been sold equipment he probably doesn't NEED, and he's being billed for
work that wasn't properly done (ie. determining and FIXING the problem).

> Hey Jim, does this Matt guy do any real work in this industry?

In fact, the company I work for specializes more in CCTV, although we do do the
odd alarm.

Experience has nothing to do with common sense.  Common sense says that this
installer has done a lousy job of troubleshooting, has apparently not found the
actual cause of the problem and is merely patching up the symptoms, and from
that may simply be interested in selling the OP new hardware (probably with a
healthy markup) as a "quick fix".

>
> "Matt Ion" <soundy106@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:b4f9h.355932$R63.301753@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>Jim wrote: Pyrolytic
>>
>>>joble_5@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>we have an alarm for 2,5 years now. It is a Rokonet system. The PIR
>>>>detector's used are Pyronix Magnum Ultra.
>>>>
>>>>It worked fine for more than 2 years, but last summer we had false
>>>>alarms almost once per week. Always on the same sensor. Sensor was
>>>>replaced by the installer, but next night there was again a false
>>>>alarm.
>>>>
>>>>The Pir is now replaced by a dual detector, and this detector seems to
>>>>work well.
>>>>
>>>>The next week we had false alarms with both the two other PIR's. So
>>>>they are also replaces by dual's.
>>>>
>>>>Now it has worked fine for 3 months. But the installer sends us a bill
>>>>for the replacement of the first detector. And i think another bill for
>>>>the two others will follow. Together this is the 25% of the price of
>>>>the system! I do not think this is normal after 2,5 years. (The
>>>>warranty of the system is 1 year, but on the pyronix site i read the
>>>>pir detectors come with 5 years of warranty)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I want to argue with the installer but first i want to learn more about
>>>>the problem. So i have some questions:
>>>>
>>>>Is it possible that a fly triggers the pir?
>>>>Can this problem be due to bad adjustment of the pir or the use of the
>>>>wrong lenses?
>>>>Can the reason be in the rokonet system instead of in the PIR's?
>>>>Any other ideas???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance...
>>>
>>>
>>>A couple of things that haven't been mentioned yet.
>>>
>>>Strong radio frequency signals can sometime cause sensors to trip. Do
>>>you have any RF souces in your home or do some neighbors?  Taxi cabs,
>>>police cars etc can sometimes cause problems.
>>
>>This was along the lines of my first thought: if the original sensor was
>>swapped out, even with an identical one, and the problem repeated within
>>the same day, then the problem is clearly not with the sensor itself -
>>there's either a wiring fault, or the "brain" of the alarm is failing.
>>
>>I didn't think of RFI, but that would certainly explain the problem
>>occuring in other sensors/zones.  One test I would have performed as well
>>would have been to leave the first offending line with NO sensor on it for
>>a couple days to see if that line triggers again (which of course, would
>>determine or rule a wiring or brain fault).
>>
>>
>>>See if you can figure out when ( time of the year) (time of the day)
>>>false alarms occured. If you've changed window coverings, sometimes the
>>>angle of the sun at certain times of the year can shine directly into
>>>motion detectors ..... reflect off of objects in a room ..... heat up
>>>glass which can rapidly cool ....... or if you've changed houshold
>>>heating system or moved objects that now allow hot air to flow past the
>>>PIR's.
>>
>>Seconded as well.  Unfortunately the OP doesn't mention the relative
>>positions of the three sensors to each other - are they in different
>>rooms, on different floors, etc.?  Is this a home, an office area, a
>>warehouse?  More details like this would help the "remote
>>troubleshooting".
>>
>>
>>>Obviously, dual technology sensors will help reduce these things from
>>>affecting sensors.
>>
>>There is that as well.
>>
>>Bottom line, from what we're told here, it sounds like the "installer"
>>that put in the new sensors really didn't do very thorough
>>troubleshooting - the failure on the other sensors after replacing the
>>first should have been an indication right away that something else was
>>wrong.  Who knows, maybe the chance to sell the OP his new "fancy" sensors
>>was incentive not to dig too deeply into the real cause of the problem.
>>
>>I hate to agree with Bass here, but I wouldn't pay the installer either -
>>he hasn't solved the problem, he's just sold the OP snake oil.
>
>
>