Re: Alarmforce's Equipment

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Jun 22, 9:57?am, "Bob La Londe" <nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Crash Gordon" <webmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:467b4792$0$10308$815e3792@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > yep the old junk
>
> I had a ton of headaches with the "newer" 10-15 year old stuff.  Constant
> battery issues, interference from othe sources blocking transmitters, and
> its a pain to change the batteries.
>
> While I recognixze that Inovonics and ITI have some pretty darn good
> wireless, I have to say I've had absolutely the least trouble with Napco
> wireless in normal uses.  I've got some huge houses running with a single
> centrally located receiver that have worked flawlessly for the life of the
> transmitter batteries for about 5 years now.  Then they only indicate low
> battery and don't go flaky.
>

I've had the same experience. As I've mentioned before, I always do a
preliminary transmitter/receiver placement survey first, to make sure
all locataion are giving me a 6 or higher signal strength. I do this
because on a few of my first installs, after a period of time, when
going back on a call, I'd noticed that some of the previously higher
readings had dropped. Probably just from things that had changed on
the job. So now, if I start at a 6, there's not much that could bring
it below the minimum of 3.

I just added 6 more transmitters to a 64 transmitter job the other
day. Been installed about 5 years now with only low battery troubles.
I do have two receivers though.

When Napco first came out with their wireless, I was speaking with one
of their engineers. He said that they'd really done their homework on
the wireless before releasing it. He said they'd used ITI as their
guide. I can truthfully say that except for a few transmitters with
bad reed switches and a couple of "battery eaters" I don't have any
problems with their wireless.