Re: Alarm Stays On

[G. Morgan <sealteam6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

clare@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:40:36 -0500, G. Morgan
><sealteam6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>clare@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>>Being obtuse again, eh??
>>>The unit was replaced. Always possible the first one was defective and
>>>the new one reversed, no??
>>
>>The sensor was replaced, not the control panel.  That is what
>>needs to be upgraded.
>>
>>Over 30 years, that thing has served it's purpose and was obsolete
>>20 years ago!
>
>
>  I was not talking about the control panel - which appears to be
>working just fine, according to the OP's testing.  Not saying
>replacing it might not be a good idea - but I doubt (not saying I know
>it definitely is not) it is the panel at fault.
>
>My thought right now is that he has possibly not removed the jumpers
>on the integrated EOL resister pack on the new SENSOR.
>
>That "dynosaur" panel is pretty simple, and pretty reliable. If the
>resistance is other than 2.2K ohms or zero (within tolerances) the
>panel "faults" and if the resistance is 2.2 K it alarms, and if it is
>zero it says "all's well". Basically a voltage devider circuit with a
>couple of comparators. If the resistance is too high, the voltage
>across the "reference" resistor goes too low. If the resistance of the
>string is too low, the voltage across the "reference" resistor goes
>high. Either condition trips the comparator
> If he has ANY jumpers installed the resistance will not be 2.2 K when
>the contacts open. And with the sensor removed and jumpered, the
>system will work just fine - as his does.
>
>I believe I made one error on my last post. I believe I said if he had
>the sensor jumpered to 2.2K the panel would see 4.4K ohms with the
>contacts open. In this setup, it would see 1.1K ohms with the contact
>opened, because the resistors would be in PARALLEL, not series.
>


Bwahahahahaha!!!

Why did you remove my x-post?