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

[Jim <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:52:47 AM UTC-4, RTS wrote:
> "Jim"  wrote in message
>
> news:659f6d6d-55b8-4c45-81c8-8f3ba3ec854e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 2:26:05 PM UTC-4, Bob La Londe wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> >
>
> I've used Visonic for so many years I've forgotten how long it's been. Gotta
>
> be back to at least the early 80's. Lot's of people don't like them because
>
> (I think it was) the "Fox" model that was really sensitive and were said to
>
> have a lot of false trips. I never had a problem with them though. I've
>
> always had good luck with them. Still have some of the SRN 2000 (I Think)
>
> working all these years. That's the one that has about 25 different lenses.
>
> And I think they still make it.
>
>
>
> Now I mostly use the dual/tec Duo 200e and 220 (look down) models which are
>
> not pet immune but I ordered extra pet immune lenses for the K940's which
>
> work in the 200 and 220 if needed. If I have to use more then one motion
>
> detector in close proximity I use a dual tec Duo 200 or 220 and a K940 so I
>
> don't have RF interference problems. That's worked so far.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What I've learned  over the years,   with motion detectors  the golden rule
>
> is  "PLACEMENT"   consider all the factors in the field of view...
>
>
>
> RTS


Exactly!