[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Sole Path ???



On Feb 8, 1:35=A0pm, "Russell Brill" <russwbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Bob La Londe" <onebike...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:iirs8o$lv9$1@n=
ews.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Russell Brill" <russwbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:d86dnWuJf4e7U83QnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Nick,
>
> >> The TG-7FS is polled by the Telular Comm center servers every couple o=
f
> >> minutes.. If it fails to check-in for more than 5 minutes a
> >> communications
> >> trouble will be sent to the central station... The TG-7FS has far more
> >> supervision than a standard phone line(s)....
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Russ
>
> > Interesting. =A0However, just a couple days ago I replaced a TG-7 (not
> > fire).
> > It was checking in just like it was supposed to, but the panel was show=
ing
> > a
> > line fail. =A0The unit was failing to connect to the panel or recognize=
 the
> > signals or call attempts from the panel. =A0Ping the unit from the on-l=
ine
> > interface with Telular got a response and no troubles showed, but it wo=
uld
> > not communicate signals from the panel. =A0In this case the supervision
> > would
> > have failed where I not the paranoid sort that always programs the pane=
l
> > to
> > send its own autotests and monitor the line. =A0It got an Uplink 2550 i=
n its
> > place because that is what I had in the truck. =A0Wish I had kept the u=
nit
> > to
> > play with, but the customer asked for it. =A0I think they plan to play =
with
> > the SIM card.
>
> > Sorry, unless they can show the TG-7FS is an inherently superior
> > communicator rather than just a differently packaged (red metal can or
> > whatever) and priced (to cover their product liability insurance) unit
> > then
> > I'm not going to recommend sole path. =A0I do very much like cellular a=
s
> > secondary or even primary for fire, and I wouldn't have a problem with
> > installing two separate units using two different carriers.
>
> > --
> > Sincerely,
> > Robert (Bob) J La Londe III
>
> > The Security Consultant
> > P.O. Box 5720
> > Yuma, Az 85366
>
> > Licensed Communications Contractor
> > Serving Yuma Since 1994
> > Commercial & Residential
> > ROC103044 & ROC103047
>
> > (928) 782-9765 Voice
> > (928) 782-7873 Fax
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> You can use the TG-7FS without another radio by programming your fire pan=
el
> to send a test signal every 24 hrs... You'll have the 5 minute window of
> supervision for the transmitter, and a daily test for the
> panel/communicator... Your CS should look for a CID code E355 (loss of
> Radio) and a Fail-to-Test from a Sole Path account... No cost worries abo=
ut
> the daily test signal, if you elect to use the 5 minute supervision setti=
ng,
> Telular charges a flat monthly rate...
>
> I think your customers will be fine with both the dialer test and 5 min.
> supervision feature, and you'll keep the monitoring cost down because the=
y
> won't need two phone lines or a second radio...
>
> Just my 1/2 cent :-)
> Russ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> "nick markowitz" <nmarkow...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>news:63cb8e2e-c077-412f-b6a8-c1ee9657a80b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=
..
> >> On Feb 7, 5:53 pm, jewellfish <jewellf...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 7, 2:18 pm, "Bob La Londe" <n...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >>> > I received a phone call and an e-mail the other day from one of the
> >>> > reps for
> >>> > Telular. He was all excited that they have a communicator suitable =
for
> >>> > sole
> >>> > communication for commercial fire. I listened to him and read some =
of
> >>> > the
> >>> > info he e-mailed to me and it just doesn't add up.
>
> >>> > It looks like a GSM communicator sending two signals instead of one=
.
> >>> > Big
> >>> > whoop. Its still a single communication path. Now if it incorporate=
d a
> >>> > GSM
> >>> > and a CDMA communicator with a trouble output if either fails to te=
st
> >>> > I
> >>> > might buy into it, but it sure doesn't look that way when giving it
> >>> > the
> >>> > quick once over. Instead they seem to indicate the the NFPA standar=
d
> >>> > was
> >>> > changed???
>
> >>> > Really? All these years that we have been required to provide two
> >>> > communication paths, and now NFPA says we only need one? Is this tr=
ue?
> >>> > What am I missing?
>
> >>> > Esplain it to me Rucy.
>
> >>> Bob,
>
> >>> I am most familiar with the 2002 & 2007 editions of the code as most
> >>> locations I deal with have not adopted the 2010 version of NFPA yet
> >>> and so the following refers to these versions of the code. If I
> >>> understand NFPA 72, chapter 9 it does not mandate two communications
> >>> paths for all methods of signal transmission. This chapter breaks
> >>> down into sections dealing with different transmission technologies.
> >>> Now, when systems use DACTs, then yes the code specifies that that
> >>> primary method must be a phone line and the secondary path can be a
> >>> phone line or several other alternates methods ( one of which is
> >>> cellular phone, which Tellular models are designed to fulfill).
> >>> However, other sections that deal with other technologies do not
> >>> mandate multiple paths. For instance, in the Chicagoland area many
> >>> municipalities have direct connect (reverse polarity) connections.
> >>> Signals over one set of conductors. AES radios are taking the place
> >>> of these hard-wired connections but, again, they are a single radio
> >>> transmitter using a private network. The Tellular TG-7fs literature
> >>> seems to indicate that it is using standard cellular networks, so
> >>> there must be some change in the code to allow for this.
>
> >>> Regards,
>
> >>> Bill
> >> Way it was described to me
> >> Tellular sends a fault to central if its servers do not see a check in
> >> after so many minutes from unit so it is supervised .
> >> that plus UL has lowered the requirements =A0realizing dual paths real=
ly
> >> mean nothing in digital age if one phone line goes down all will. on
> >> most telco systems these days

Of course all this assumes that the local AHJ is operating with and
accepting NFPA 72 (2010)


alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home