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

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Leuck wrote:
> "Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:NMqSi.884$uE4.355@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> "Michael" wrote:
>>> One thing I have thought about it is, that using the latest higher
>>> speed transmission format has it's own problem. How long does it
>>> take
>>> two modern modems to negotiate a connection? 5-10 seconds? It seems
>>> (from what I've noticed over the years), that the faster the
>>> overall
>>> transmission speed, the longer it takes to actually negotiate the
>>> connection and sync the signals...
>> There's a reason for that.  If you're using a multi-format receiver,
>> it sends each possible handshake tone, waits a second or two, tries
>> again (or not) and then sends the next one, repeating until the
>> communicator hears a tone it likes and begins transmitting.  I used a
>> number of different receivers over the years.  The last ones were O/H
>> QuickAlert II.  Because we used almost exclusively Ademco CID once it
>> became available, I had O/H make us a set of custom chips.  Our
>> receivers would first try Contact ID, then pulse, etc.  This shaved a
>> few seconds off the connect time for newer systems.
>
> Ancient technology, SurGard's MLR-2000 and System III remember the last
> working format then gives it as the first handshake the next time the panel
> calls
>
> "custom chips"? LOL!

He obviously doesn't eat at McDonald's.


>
>> BTW, I said "receivers" as in two of them.  We were small.  We only
>> needed one 4-line receiver and another for backup.
>
> How cheap, a backup receiver but no backup central station tsk tsk


Of course he had a "backup".  If the "primary" central went down, he'd
unplug the receiver on his nightstand and "hot foot transfer" it to the
garage telephone outlet.