Pyronix Veritec P2 PIR/Presure

[Guest Jlo]

Hi,

Anyone had any experience in using Pyronix Veritec P2 PIR and preasure sensor. The preasure sensor uses one zone of the alarm and PIR uses another zone so complies with ACPO confirmed technology.

Is the preasure sensing reliable? Does it only work to sudden presure change or to even slowly opening a door.

Sounds like a great idea. Just interested in other people's views.

Kind Regards

James

[Guest Jlo]

Hi,

Just found another detector from Optex called the SEQUAD which has 2 pir's in one housing but the PIR's do not overlap (one looks in front and the other loods to the sides) and are on seperate zones so again it says one detecter can detect the criminal and then confirm it.

Anyone used this bit of kit. Sounds very good.

James

[BUSTER]

NACOSS inspectors have been told to mark down systems fitted with the sequad

[Guest Jlo]

Thanks Buster,

Yes I found an article about this on the internet. Does this apply to the Veritec P2 Pir/presure sensor as this is in the same housing as well.

James

[norman]

Generally they frown upon any confirmation in the same housing.

(they should have defined 'some distance apart' a little clearer!!

[xx badwolf xx]

Hi

We are an NSI approved firm and our installations are inspected. During the last inspection our inspector visited a site that had a veritech fitted. The site passed the inspection and the inspector made no comment regarding the detector.

During our last managers meeting one of the items discussed was confirmation detectors and my engineering manager belives this detector is a good alround unit and one of the best tested.

On the sales side we find that our customer's like to know more about the technology of products installed, we have also found that our competitors are not fully conversant with the air pressure side of the product and therefore do not promote this product.

We belive that this is down to a lack of information available regarding the technacal knowlage of the product.

Increased information on the technology would bring a greater understanding of the product throughout the security industry.

regards

Mark

[Guest MKAlarms]

There are a couple of potential problems to be aware of with the Vertiech:

1. An air pressure change anyware in the building can cause a "pressure alarm", so Pyronix recommend all of the pressure relays are connected on the same zone (ie detectors in series) - otherwise you get "false confirmed alarms", the PIR sensors however each have to be on a separate zone (ie starred to the panel). This can make wiring them up a bit confusing.

2. The main problem though is that opening the front door will cause a change in air pressure, so unless you are using shunt locks the pressure zone should be configured as entry/exit. Of course under DD243 confirmation has to be disabled once entry starts!! so if you use these it practically guarantees you can't get a confirmed alarm even with a genuine intruder!!!

Also watch out for drafty windows and chimneys - they can cause problems in windy weather.

As for the SeQuad I have heard that the NSI and Optex could be going to court over whether or not it complies. The argument is over the phrase that says two detectors must be "far enough apart" but doesn't define what that it is. Optex claim a couple of cm is enough but NSI say that risks false alarms from light, insects, drafts etc. Personally I'm going to wait until the dust settles before using any more of these. If you do want to try them you might want to get Optex to confirm they would compensate you if you end up having to take them all out.

MikeR

[Guest luckybob]

GardTec offer a solution to the Veritec problem of linking all the pressure zones together and making them EE.

They have a zone attribute called "secondary".

When this attribute is allocated to a zone, in this instance all of the zones that have pressure senors on them. The panel will react like this

With the system set, if a "secondary" zone type is triggered it will NOT cause an alarm condition, but it will start a timer within the panel that runs alongside the confirmation timer.

Should no other activations take place then the panel returns to normal state and the only evidence of this is a log entry.

Should any other "Secondary" zone trigger during the timed period then the panel will restart the timer. (This means that if 2 or more pressure sensors were triggered there would not be a false alarm confirmed or unconfirmed!)

But and here is the key, if a genuine intrusion were to take place and the pressure sensor were to trigger and be followed, within the timed period, by a normal alarm zone, then the panel would give a confirmed alarm signal!

This allows you to wire you systems as you like to and removes the potential for false alarms from these type of detectors without lowering the level of security if you have designed your system properly!

It is also usefull as an alternative to putting a system on soak test as an alarm would only occur if the detector on test and another detector were to alarm.

i hope thats clear as it is a super feature if you want to use technology that has its limitations shall we say!

Oh and it fully complies to DD and BS!

[Paul Giles]

We agree re the Sequad, we were using a lot of them and even had one false alarm on both zones causing a confirmed, they do not like any reflective surfaces or glass.

Optex use the same crappy rx40 quad in these units but will go to the fx50SQ lens if the NSI battle comes out in there favour so i would wait till then.

Better going for the two detector route (different technologies of course)

Paul

[Guest Gimmick]

These detectors are going to constantly cause a stir in the industry because of the "some distance apart" quote in the DD243 guidelines. I am aware of inspectors that will happily accept this style of design, because the detection 'components' are separate and theoretically some distance apart. Others however have quoted discussions in recently BSIA meetings where this "distance" relates to metres rather than millimetres. This would then mean that the Pyronix detector did not comply. It's complely ambiguous in the guidelines, and will always be a source for arguement. My personal opinion: stick to two different detectors because that way the coverage patterns are slightly different, reducing the potential for false alarms as a whole.

With respect to the Optex SeQuad (or what ever it is called), I have to take my hat off to that design because I see no problems with conformance (although it is not something we would do, for the reasons stated above). The rule about "some distance apart" only applies to detectors that have overlapping coverage patterns, and requires them to have different detection technologies. If the two sensors have the same technology, they cannot have overlapping coverage patterns. This is the case for the Optex as the datasheet clearly shows. The secondary PIR only covers the outer reaches of the pattern, not overlapping with the inner zones monitored by the primary PIR. I see no conformance issues here.

Unfortunately !! (there always is), since the outer zones are simply a single "zone" on the quad detection circuitry you do run the risk of this not being activated especially if an intruder is moving fast enough (or slow enough) to be outside the detection speed "bandwidth". This is why PIR detectors have a number of detection zones on a lens or mirror, ensuring a trigger from a moving intruder. With the single outer detection zone of the secondary PIR, you might miss something and not get a confirmed alarm. This might be why inspectors are showing concern.

Regards,

Gimmick.