Re: store system w 4-8 cameras ?

["Norm Mugford" <1alarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree Bob....Some municipalities in Florida, especially
in your area, read more of the NEC than is necessary.
They go overboard, and make decisions that have nothing
to do with reality.

By the way, get a "life"......
you wrote:
"Welcome to like in south Florida."

Norm Mugford

"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:iKPUg.47112$vX5.15093@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Roland Moore" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:IKGUg.25360$DU3.18069@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> UL listing on DVRs? None of what you posted on UL DVRs ever crossed my
> mind.
>> I can't quite figure under what conditions a local inspector would have
>> cause to be sniffing a DVR for its UL certification versus plain old
>> computer UL sticker.
>
> And you know what, as long as they see a sticker they are probably
> satisfied.
>
> I haven't met one that would know the difference
>> anyway.
>
> Welcome to like in south Florida.
>
>>It is not like a fire system inspection for a CO where you have to
>> call them out and give them all the cut sheets in advance. If you have an
>> inspection environment that is that brutal where you have to do submitals
>> for DVRs I feel sorry for you.
>
> No submittals. The attorney general, here in Florida, now running for
> governor, made it illegal, after 9-11 for any municipality to require
> anything on security that would be made public record. However, we do need
> to pull an installation permit and get 2 inspections. One rough and one
> final. At the final, they naturally look at the equipment. NEC requires
> that
> all conductors and equipment "shall" be approved for its intended use.
> They
> are rejecting cameras as well. For those that use them, there goes the
> $29.95  camera off the internet. Depending on where the wire is run, the
> rating on the wire must also meet the approval for its location, ie;
> plenum
> wire in a plenum ceiling, riser rated wire in a riser etc.
>
> I tried to check on this UL deal from one
>> manufaturer at the low end. General Solutions freely admitted their DVR
>> units weren't UL, but assured me that theirs would soon carry the UL
>> sticker.
>
> The fact that they are getting it approved tells you something. If it
> wasn't
> being required or they didn't get questioned on it, why would they spend
> the
> money? As expensive as it is, I am sure it is not out of the goodness of
> their heart. It isn't cheap to get something listed and then maintain the
> listing. I am sure it will show up in the price tag of the unit after it
> is
> listed.
>
>> I didn't ask him, but what is the number they put on the UL sticker
>> for a DVR anyway?  I never bothered to look at one to see.
>
> I don't know if this helps or not but  the number right under the UL
> listed
> sticker, on the one I have in the office, is:   6   03064 80348   0
>
>
> At the high end
>> there are COTS systems that are never intended to be complete box
> solutions
>> so there is no UL there. Even ones that are purpose built  like Intellex
>> have an archive manager program to off load video to non DVR UL
>> locations.
>> Bosch has an iSCSI drive array from NexSan and now Promise I think that
>> couldn't be part of the UL listing for the box itself. I am going to
>> continue to work my way up the food chain price wise and see what stories
> I
>> get handed from the manufacturers on this UL thing.
>> This is most interesting. Thanks for the post.
>
> It could be nothing more than in areas, that have tough inspection regs,
> are
> giving them and the dealers heartburn. The only thing is that the NEC
> requires listings and these inspectors sit on the toilet digesting
> everything in their bible. They may not know what they are looking at,
> which
> is sometimes the real problem, but they sure do know the code. They do
> have,
> through the code, the ability to make their own judgement calls in
> specific
> situations, waiving the code requirements, but try to get them to do it.
>
>> "Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:358Ug.25255$8s6.13416@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > "J. @netscape.net>" <jsloud2001<removeme> wrote in message
>> > news:rpkth21kb8eu3j20atphufske4bp4n7pq3@xxxxxxxxxx
>> >> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:41:57 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>I guess home built DVR's are sort of like kit cars or
>> >> homemade airplanes.  Maybe they'll work okay, but most people want a
>> >> purpose built machine and a warranty/ service plan from a reputable
>> >> company.  How does someone get a loaner or an advance replacement on a
>> >> homebuilt DVR?
>> >
>> > Whether the homebuilts are able to do the job or not, as with burg
> and/or
>> > fire systems, the local inspectors are hitting us with UL listings on
> the
>> > DVR's. Where does the listing come from, on one of the homebuilts? The
>> > listing on the orginal machine, if it has one, goes away once it has
> been
>> > rebuilt to suit. Just using listed parts does not cut it. The listing
>> > is
>> > based on the assembly. What does that do for a defendants case, even if
>> > the
>> > homebuilt is able to somehow produce a watermarked piece of evidence,
>> > other
>> > than leaving a large hole for the defendants attorney to walk through?
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>


I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html