Re: SIA, Contact ID, 4/2, 3/1

[Bob La Londe <alarm_wizard@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Oct 15, 12:32 pm, Bob La Londe <alarm_wiz...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Oct 15, 12:10 pm, "JohnO" <johno@@&%heathkit##.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hey guys, it's been about three years since I was here pestering you for
> > basic info about alarm systems, and our training course needs an update, so
> > I'm back again. (Good to see you all still picking on each other.... ;-) )
>
> > The course I'm working on is based on CompTIA's new DHTI+ certification. One
> > of the certification domains covers security and surveillance systems, and
> > one of the sub-domains reads:
>
> > Monitoring Formats
> >         -SIA and Contact ID
> >         -4/2 and 3/2
>
> > I've done a basic google search of this group, and the web, and I haven't
> > found quite what I need. Or let's put it this way...I have an idea what
> > these terms mean, but can't find info that helps me understand them well
> > enough to explain it to someone else. Does someone know of a site or article
> > somewhere that describes these monitor data formats in basic terms? Your
> > discussions here in the NG tend towards the pro/con at a professional tech
> > discussion level, naturally, and I can't follow along with some of that.
>
> > Thanks!
>
> > -John O
> > Heathkit Ed Systems
>
> I'll let Mark Leuck answer about SIA, but I can tell you about 4X2 3X2
> and CID.
>
> There is an old telephone calling method where you turn a little dial
> and as the dial rotates back into place it momentarily breaks the
> contact between the telephone and the telephone line.  If it does it
> nine times in a row without a pause then the phone has dialed the
> number nine.  ten a zero, three a three etc etc...  Alarm panels took
> advanatge of this format to send numbers to an alarm central station.
> Its as reliable as your phone line's ability to rotary dial.  I have
> been told there are some telephone exchanges out there that no longer
> support rotary dialing, but I have not personally worked on any except
> private branch exchanges where that is the case.
>
> In pulse format the panel is set to send a 3 or 4 digit string of
> pulses for the account number and then a 1 or 2 digit string of pulses
> for the alarm signal.  The receiver sends a recongnition signal and
> its done.
>
> CID works basically the same way except it sends individual tones just
> like a touch tone telephone.  CID has an extended charachter set as it
> supports 16 digits instead of the ten digits of a rotary format.  This
> gives the ability to assign more account numbers and more zones and
> more information strings.  Because CID just sends a momentary tone
> insead of a string of pulses seperated by a pause for each digit in
> can send the information much faster.  This has two benefits.  It can
> be more cost effective from a time connected standpoint.  It can also
> allow for more information to be sent.  In most CID format reporting
> it sends the account number, a report type, and an identifier such as
> a zone number or user number and sometimes partituion information.
> Some panels like the P800/1 by Napco send an abbreviated CID format,
> and some like the FBII XL4 allow you to redefine the CID types.
>
> One possible disadvantage to CID is that it can get distorted beyond
> the ability to recognize the individual tones by over utilized long
> distance carriers.  Basically their service sounds like two tin cans
> on a string.  It is echoey and distorted.  This is often caused by
> over compressing the voice data to force it over limited bandwidth.
> The human ear can discern variations in sound and often voice users
> don't complain because they can get the message, but the hardware is
> looking for clean clear tones.
>
> Also, some manufacturers and some older models of panels don't
> implement CID well.  I have experienced that the FBII XL3 and XL31
> seem to have problems in CID mode and send the signals over and over
> again.  I have also experience random lockups during testing with some
> FireLite panels sending CID.
>
> In general I prefer to send CID because:
>
> 1. It costs me less money.
> 2. Sends more precise information
> 3. Because the types of signals received are predefined it reduces the
> likelihood of programming screwups by technicians.
>
> However:
> Whenever I have a problem with funky communications problems I switch
> to pulse format and see if the problem goes away.
>
> I hope this is a good basic laymans description of how it works so
> that you can wrap your mind around it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

P.S.  Most pulse format panels are capable of reporting upto sixteen
digits in pulse format also, but I always tended to use lower digits
when possible to reduce reporting time.