Re: Do "Pet Immunity" Motion Detectors Really Work?

["Bob La Londe" <none@xxxxxxxxxx>]

And yet the old C&K / Intellisense DT-500 still works pretty good after all
these years.  I don't care for them in small to tiny environments, but I
trust them much more than many of the cheaper pet "resistant" motion sensors
available today.

P.S.  I've had decent luck with the Napco Gemini PIRPET wireless motion.
Then, they cost more than the DT-500.

Bob La Londe
Top Posting Scum



<1990smovies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f4741aa1-e09d-4c85-9633-b65bcf87df0d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Skipping all 16 years into the future, pet immunity detectors have become
> so much more reliable. For instance, Pyronix and Visonic (all the major
> brands) have developed new pet tolerant PIR sensors that are essentially
> so reliable, and use extremely reliable chipsets as the ones you were
> talking about were from the 90s, and since then they have come a looooong
> way. They don't even have relays in them anymore! (not the noisy ones
> anyway)
> You can buy dual tech sensors and they only cost between £10 and £20 for a
> decent quality system.
>
> Harry
>
> On Wednesday, November 25, 1998 8:00:00 AM UTC, leef wrote:
>> Our neighbor had an Ademco system installed by ADT.  While the rep who
>> sold the system said that it would be set upwith pet immunity sensors,
>> the technician who actually installed the system said that pet immunity
>> did not really work very elll - he used regular motion sensors and in
>> fact put one sensor upside down so that it would not detect motion near
>> the floor.
>>
>> My neighbors have one small dog.
>>
>> We have two cats, and are about to get a pet-immunity system from our
>> local CMS (not ADT), using Radionics equipment.  Can we expect the same
>> thing?  Is pet immunity just a gimmic?
>>
>> Thanks for your consistently excellent advice - this is certainly a good
>> forum with great "regulars" participating!
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> --
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> leef@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> If you autoreply, please trim the FAT first!