Re: store system w 4-8 cameras ?

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Norm Mugford" <1alarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:RXSUg.25878$8s6.25392@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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."

That is just coffee in the keyboard!

> "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
>
>