sixwheeledbeast

If a jobs worth doing...

Mini maglocks on the doors.

System can't show armed state to unauthorised users. Texe has a Foyer option for the communal stuff, put zones in Area A, switch Foyer on, done.

The wards on a TS are a bit weird if you have never used them before, but yes there is only ABC and Full 0. Texecom would be a straight controls swap (both EOL and DP) if you use them but you'd need a 168 to do that amount of Areas.

It's not like a Galaxy where you disable the tampers by leaving engineer message on the screen. "Engineer on site" would tell the user someone had entered the engineer menu as you needed the user to clear the message on the early ones. As Monty says you can leave it in View Circuits all day long. TS900 are pretty solid panels.

I have known customers to only respond to confirmed...

Plenty of muppets to go round but how about some skilled engineers?

If I understand the OP correctly it's probably not the best way to tackle the issue. The customer will already have keypads and will likely wish to use part set or other features. Also we are talking about a couple of isolated secure rooms potentially nowhere near the alarm controls. integrating that is a lot of work for less potentially less functionality. I don't know the Castle well but if anything going that route I would expect the other way of having the secure rooms controlled by the intruder would make more sense. If it where Texecom for example I would consider using door strike but it's depends what the customer needs, reporting logs etc.

Hi there have been many threads regarding this subject over in the trade side. http://www.thesecurityinstaller.co.uk/community/topic/40034-forum-trade-application/

Some numpty wired a sound bomb in the speaker terminals? Found that one a few times. Loudspeakers are generally not too loud. It could also be the alarm is programmed incorrectly and is full alarming on entry, the volume pot will do nothing for that.

Heitel is analogue or IP only. Won't take proprietary Analogue HD formats.

I'd get that sorted before making your bed. You'll make nothing if you end up providing endless free callouts because you have been supplied with tat.

I suggest you contact a local engineer but expect many to recommend it is replaced especially if it has been unmaintained for so long. For someone that has worked on one it may take 20 minutes or so to get working. That doesn't mean it won't throw an "NVM Checksum Error" message at 2am, down the line.

I have known plenty of Karizma's to have NVM issues. It's likely the panel has lost all it's programming and will need reconfiguring. Personally I would have looked at replacing the whole system before considering replacing the bell box. They are an iD system so may need some thought as to your replacement if you wanted to keep the wiring.

Doubt spark has left 350 in the job. The obvious answer would be materials plus your daily rate, but I have a feeling you are after more of a figure then advice?

I don't agree, aspire to learn more. What doesn't make sense? You did ask the question after all.

It's the data format used. For example on a binary level, with clock and data every time the clock is high it reads the state of the data line. This allows a binary "message" to be send via two wires. Wiegand uses one wire to send only lows (zero) and one line to send highs (one). This is normally all done with 5V and 0V in this stuff.

No. The tamper must not connected to the panel correctly.

When was it last serviced and battery replaced? Fuse blown?

What is the reason for this? Problem with Reissuing or multiple fobs? Have you explained the security implications of this?

If you don't know when it was last serviced the least you can do is have it checked over it may not be functional anyway.

Maybe you messed up and set a service timer instead?

Sounds like a service timer. Did you find out when it was last serviced?

Have you proved that using a dnslookup tool on the device?

P2P should work, no tricks needed. EE have been known for blocking ports but this would normally be outbound to stop you hosting services like port 80. If I understand correctly your EE side is the client? Also if I follow correctly you seem to have no issues from the client using the WAN IP? This ruling out blocked ports. Set the secondary DNS to itself? Just set NVR DNS1/2 to a trusted external DNS provider. I recall a thread a while back of something similar with new Hik units? I remember having a inkling it could be a Double NAT issue due to ISP (CGN) especially knowing the companies mentioned (EE, Sky VM etc) You would need to traceroute your DNS to diagnose that. I think this is what the guy from EE is trying to explain in simple terms.