Re: PIR Motion Detectors

["Roland Moore" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I guess that is a common misconception that the police have some ideas about
how alarm systems work. Truly they don't and have no real reason to know.
I am curious how this staff member emptied the safe. A safe has a UL rating
for fire only or burg and fire. Usually a TL or TTL etc for burg. Check the
label next time you see a safe for that rating label. A TTL-30 on an older
safe would be for high value items, recent UL nomenclature for ratings have
changed a bit. You don't mention how the safe was defeated. I am thinking
outside the box here. A motion detector by itself or by setting a feature
and timer inside the alarm panel can sense and report a "block" by the
simple inadvertant stacking of boxes etc or "hair spray" for that matter,
and this is a feature even on the lowest end of the price spectrum. I have
seen all sorts of coating spread on lenses of cameras and motion detectors
but even with minium attention the alarm self generated trouble reports were
dispatched on properly and the problem corrected. A motion detector by
itself is not adequate protection for a high value safe. That type of safe
is generally protected on all 6 sides by different types of sensors that are
a real pain to install. Real safe contacts are a super pain to install and
are unlike typical door position switches. Once properly installed I will
give you all the magnets you care to have and all the time you think you'll
need to try and defeat it. Unfortunately you'll only get one shot becuase it
will trip the second you get any magnet anywhere near it (or the circuit
won't set if disarmed), notwithstanding the capacitance alarm and motion
detector. Trust me capacitance alarms are sensitive enough to detect a rat
pissing on cotton. We haven't even mention vibration sensors and vault sound
alarms.
I suspect that for the incident you mention the safe was emptied during
regular hours and "discovered" the following day. I have seen that ruse too
of empty safe and no out of window O/C in everything from small gas stations
and dry cleaners to big grocery and department stores. In those similar
cases the difference was in every case the police didn't buy the alarm
didn't go off (a.k.a. the dog ate my homework excuse) and staff members all
went to jail save one who got fired after paying back the money (she
deposited the stolen money in her cousin's bank account the day after the
"burglary" - yes, that was a gas station attendant).

"SantaUK" <santa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E8qdnZUKhc8olo3YnZ2dnUVZ8tGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>I think you could have thought out of the box with this one, I doubt the OP
>is talking about when the system is armed (surely!).  Several years ago,
>the Police believed that a member of staff in a store had sprayed the
>detectors in the office during the day with some form of coating that
>masked the detectors.  Then had fitted magnets to the contacts.  Locked up
>the store at the end of the day, and then came back in the middle of the
>night and emptied the safe of £13,000.  Obvioulsy the alarm log showed that
>no one had unset the alarm and there were no activations.  They never quite
>got to the bottom of that one.
>
> --
> Regards
>
>
> M Millar
>
> "Roland Moore" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:lWRPg.23680$LH2.6932@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Hair Spray? How old are you? Let's assume it did work for a moment.
>> Explain how you would deploy the hairspray without the can, your hand and
>> the rest of your carcass being attached to the hairspray can entering the
>> protected area? And the second part of the dual tech is going to love
>> that metal can.
>> For the record it is an x,y graph with delta temp and delta time for the
>> first part and doppler rf microware for the secord. The circuits of the
>> pyrolytic element adjust sensitivity to the ambient temperature. If you
>> try to defeat an alarm system from the detector level with your technique
>> (or most any other) you'll have a long time in prison to get your degree
>> in physics so this will all make sense.
>>
>> "meyers95" <meyersryanw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1158605981.894272.205460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Does anyone know if it is possible to circumvent a motion detector with
>>> hairspray?  I am assuming this would work with a dual technology motion
>>> as well because it takes both technologies to trip.  Please let me
>>> know.  Thanks
>>>
>>
>>
>
>