charlie6

Hello Galaxy Guy, I think some allow their software to be downloaded and then licenced to the user whilst others are only on a sale basis (could be wrong..).

Might as well leave it here Spike, nothing wrong with a double input of this sort. Fair 50mm gap..a good suitable all-rounder.

Should find what you're looking for with Spike. Failing that, you could fit a standard door contact and add your own 100 ohm resistors. Have you considered this route ?

I reckon Arf is still here. got that feeling.

Where is he now ?

OK then, you can call me Arf Lite, or anything else for that matter. There shouldn't be anything in 'the regs' regarding eol's since resistors are still provided with panels (not all of them of course !!).

Mr Happy, Arf is my nickname on this site and I've got a bus pass..never use it though..can't find any buses in my part of the world..horse and cart maybe, but very few buses.. I agree with you, at least there was a chance of finding the high value resistor. Is there anything in the regs that says we can't use a straight forward contact with our own (the panel) resistors ?

The manufacturers rely on professionals like yourself Datafussion to sell their products, without you..no sale..Isn't it time that these problems were put back in their court. I reckon a bit, or a lot, of complaining is overdue.

Why not take a look at the suppliers sites, they usually contain the info you need, Security Warehouse has excellent info and back up (not that the others haven't..don't want to get into trouble !!) You could also try a standard contact and use the resistors supplied with the panel, unless there is some sort of regulation that forbids this of course. I like the 'bit of silicon' idea.

"....charlie, cmon mate there has been loads of posts showing that 2 way systems can communicate in both directions. Either answer the question on gear asked about or ill close the thread cos its going nowhere..." There are two operative sentiments here, the first is "..loads of posts showing that 2 way systems can communicate.." The operative word in this case is 'showing' rather than submitting to the request in my first post for 'solid evidence' (not in context). The second is "...answer the question on gear..." and this has indeed been answered on numerous occasions. There remain quite a few posts in this topic to which I believe I have the right to reply, however, may I thank each and every contributor (one in particular was very near, very near, a positive reply). I bow to your superior knowledge and suggest that you do indeed close this thread. In parting from this thread I may add that I have seen the relevant schematics, block diagrams and so forth and can confirm that I know the answer, and have known so, since my first post. Thankyou for your time.

How are you Vince ? Thanks for the information, it is very interesting and well laid out. Thankyou for that. Unfortunately I am unable to accept as proof positive your comment "...It shows clearly that there are in existence two way and one way devices..." although the advert would suggest otherwise. One further point...the original post is clear insofar that the 'boffin' as he is referred to is obviously aware of the controversy and not "...It could be that the boffin is unaware of devices that talk to each other and depending on the system talk to the control panel too..." else, it would not have been worth his while deliberating on the subject.

Hello Alyeti, I'm afraid I have some bad news for you... I never ever change my story...No story change insofar that neither myself nor the lecturer were 'asking'. For my own part in posting I was 'Requesting', for the lecturer's part he was 'Stating'.

Hi Mr Happy, How do you know Wickford, are you from that area, Yes, but he was forced to move away.

"...Electronic s boffin should think about it himself as he would know how and what circuits do to component level.." Thanks again for your reply Al-Yeti, What you have unknowingly achieved here is complete agreement with the 'electronics boffin' as you refer to him, since he has made the statement based on 'what circuits do to component level' as you put it. This is obvious from my original post.

Al-Yeti "...Whoever asking is talking rubbish.." Thanks for the reply, in response to your question ... I am asking.. I am asking a perfectly legitimate question in my original post. Hi Mr Happy, your quite right I do have an uncle called Arfur.

Al-Yeti "..What you mean "irrefutable proof then."? Thanks for that, the dictionary definition is basically 'Absolute, cannot be challenged'

Mr Happy "..."two way" define what you & your "electronic's boffin" expects under the term,"" Thanks for the reply. First and foremost, it might be advantageous to remove the 'you' from your reply since the 'you' refers to myself. For my own part I did not define 'two way' in the original post (although it was used as a heading)..the lecturer did indeed refer to 'two way' and goes further to expect absolutely nothing 'under the term' since he maintains that 'two way' does not exist with regard to the control panel and transmitting device.

I could never lower myself to speak to anyone on this forum like that.

Technology moves on I suppose, but I doubt if any self respecting company would just go ahead and change a perfectly working id system. Don't know much about the biscuits..if they are numbered or whatever, can't they be sorted according to the panels or systems they are supposed to work with ?

"....all this stuff here in the forums is just chit chat and opinions?..." So no irrefutable proof then. "....You do realise professional advice is paid for..." But you just said it's chit chat and opinions. "...OP why are you being evasive?..." I can't for the life of me think of one reason for being evasive, nor can I point to any post where I am being deliberately evasive, Why would I do so, I have stated the views of a lecturer in electronics and look to yourself and fellow professionals for concrete evidence to the contrary, I have no intention of starting a war here, if no one can offer irrefutable proof then we'll drop the subject... but check out some of the evasive and sometimes personal replies Norman, viz; "....i can only assume whoever is asking the question over and over again is somewhere on the autistic spectrum..."

I don't want to prove anything, I have asked for professional advice from the site experts who have thousands of posts to their credit. I am certainly not going to buy a dongle... I'll wait until I receive a civil answer..

If I thought I was being 'smutty' I would never have posted the question.

So, can anyone offer 'irrefutable proof' ?

Fair comment, leave out my use of the term 'standard' then, if that makes a difference to the original post. Here it is again:- "....I need some irrefutable proof from the experts on this one since a local electronics boffin appears to doubt the integrity of the term 'two way' when related to wireless detection. The claim, basically, is that the panel does not 'talk to' detectors, but rather it interrogates it's own received signals from detectors, but does not actually interrogate the detectors themselves only the received signals..." He doubts the integrity of the term 'two way' and I am just seeking the opinion of professionals in the field of security.

"....so how is that 2 way?.." I didn't say it was. On the contrary, these are not my remarks they are the comments of the electronics lecturer outlined in the original post, where he maintains that there is not two way occuring in a standard wireless system, anything I insert thereafter is not my opinion but rather a portion of his original comment..I am merely seeking the advice of this site's experts. The question is in the opening post.