Re: Help with 7 Circuit Project?

["Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7p-dnVaFO-RwN0PfRVn-tg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> ...When thunder triggers glass breaks it usually trips several of them.
>>
>> Don't know about you, but the glass breaks I use don't get tripped from
>> thunder.  Edmonton (Alberta) is also the "thunder & lightning" capital of
>> the Prairies.
>
> Ordinarily I ignore this poster due to his abusive behavior but the above
> needs to be answered for the benefit of other readers.  First of all, Mr.
> Olson is not an installer nor even an experienced DIYer.

You don't know anything about me, yet you make these "representations"...
Intersting... And you say I'm "abusive".  Prove I don't install.  Tell us
all, please...  where do I work??  What's the name of the so-called
"distributor" you keep saying I'm a counter clerk at??

> Second, he resides in Vancouver, BC -- rather a long commute from
> Edmonton, Alberta.

I did say I started in the trade in Edmonton though, didn't I??  Seems to me
you did ask me that question once...  Remember??

> Third, there is NO acoustic glass break on the market that doesn't
> occasionally false from thunder.  I've been installing glass break
> detectors for more than 20 years and I can assure the readers Mr. Olson is
> dead wrong.

Fourth.  You started "in the trade" in 1983.  You left it in 1996 when you
opened your online store.  Where's "twenty years"??

As for your statement about glass breaks, there are occasional falses...
None of the units I installed ever falsed from "thunder" though.


>
>>> Have the glass break zones start a timer.
>>
>> Zone "anding", timers...
>> --- snip snide comments intended to incite flames ---
>
> Zone ANDing is one of the requirements of the current SIA standard for
> false alarm reduction.  I suspect the gentleman on the standards committee
> would disagree with Mr. Olson as do I.  However, the concept I explained
> in this thread could more accurately be called zone "NANDing" since it
> requires that one and only one acoustic glass break within a given group
> of detectors (say for example, all those facing the same direction) be
> triggered to generate an alarm.

You see??  I'm glad you explained this more fully.  You keep forgetting your
participating in a forum of non-alarm types.  You frequently make "blanket
statements" with little or no explanation, rarely offer any details, and
occasionally forget your audiences level of understanding.


>
>>> If any glass break zone is tripped wait 10 seconds
>>> before triggering an alarm.  If a second glass break
>>> activates within that time frame, take no action.
>>
>> And I suppose these glass breaks are in different
>> rooms...
>
> Acoustic glass breaks can typically cover up to 50' (25' radius) so yes,
> they are usually installed in separate rooms.  If you had actually
> installed any of them you would know that.

Uh-huh...  And if you had actually installed any yourself, you'ld know that
window treatments such as draperies, blinds, and shutters may require
installing the detectors a little closer together than the 25' radius you
mention.  On ceiling mounted units, you may also run into problems with
finishes like oak beams and heavy wainscotting.  I'm really glad we've had
this opportunity to share our knowledge, Robert!!


>
>> with windows facing in different directions...
>
> That is not essential but it can actually work to one's advantage using
> this technique.  When windows in more than one room face the same
> direction, my method is enhanced because thunder will be more likely to
> trip several zones at once.  Since most homes have more than one room on
> each side, that is usually the case.

Perhaps using a better quality detector (that employs dual technolgy for
instance) would reduce the level of false alarms you appear to suffer from.


>
>> Good plan...  But what if they're not??  What if the room is large enough
>> to require two glass
>> breaks??
>
> If the room is longer than 50 feet on a side it might need two glass
> breaks.

Not necessarily so.  The room could be substantially smaller than 50 feet on
a side and still require multiple detectors.  It's best to try and locate
the units properly.  Make sure you purchase the manufacturer's tester (or
borrow one from a friendly local dealer).  I personally recommend you power
the unit with a 12 volt battery and try different locations in the room
before mounting the sensor permanently.  I also recommend never "maxing" out
the "flex" component of the better C&K Intellisense units (in fact I always
mount them in locations where the adjustment doesn't exceed 1/4).  That will
greatly reduce (if not eliminate) the chances of a "false" from thunder.


> In that case, a simple modification to the rule will allow one to "OR" the
> two glass break zones within that room.

Check!!  Like I mentioned earlier, I'm glad you've taken the opportunity of
responding to my post.  I felt your information required some "enhancement"
to accurately represent the facts.  You could have done all this without the
bald-faced lies about me though.


>
>> What if the perp smashes a window that's close
>> to or actually in an area where the coverage patterns happen to overlap??
>
> Quality acoustic glass breaks properly installed will not respond to
> breakage in an adjacent room.

Did I say that??  Excuse me if I didn't, but I was referring to glass breaks
installed in the same room.

>  It is extremely rare to need more than one in a single room.

Not as "rare" as you might think...  Have you actually ever installed one??
:-))

> However, if two or more were in a single room they can be zone ORed using
> a simple mod to the rule.

Or you could use a better quality detector!!  ;-)


>
>> So he smashes the glass and continues to break the broken bits out of the
>> frame.
>
> That's another misconception about glass breaks borne of inexperience.

Nope.  Some of us use the Sentrol ShatterPro.  They happen to look nice
flush mounted in the ceiling.  Of course, I understand your aversion to
"flush mounting" anything...  You did say that once didn't you??

> The good ones generally don't respond to secondary breakage once the
> window has been smashed.

Heh...  The "good ones"...  :-))

> That has to do with the design of the glass break detector.

Really??  I thought it had to do with the room's acoustics...

> Once the "skin" of the room has been broken, the additional noise
> generated by clearing the shards won't include sufficient low frequency
> sound to generate a secondary trip.

My customers don't usually wrap their rooms in "skin".  I'm fascinated...
Tell me more...  :-))

> Granted, if someone wanted to install the old Sentrol "ShatterBox" units
> or IEI junk from the 70's, that would be a problem.  But those falsed when
> nothing at all was happening.

Ewww...  You mentioned the "IEI" word...  :-))