Alarm Co Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 is it wrong when servicing to totaly remove alarm pair from alarm panel to take resistance readings?? i do this when servicing but have been told by other eng's thats it is wrong as it may cause a fault eg:- dry joint on rear of terminal block from constant use what are youre veiws
Guest anguscanplay Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 is it wrong when servicing to totaly remove alarm pair from alarm panel to take resistance readings??i do this when servicing but have been told by other eng's thats it is wrong as it may cause a fault eg:- dry joint on rear of terminal block from constant use what are youre veiws nice topic yes it`s wrong IMO, we argued with the inspector it then becomes a new connection and needs to go on soak test - our procedure is only to remove and test if false alarming not during service take the voltage readings across the curcuit instead
antinode Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 Not necessary in my opinion and likely causes more problems than it prevents. Besides, you don't go checking all the circuit resistances on a 60 zone commercial do you? If you don't do them all and you miss a genuinely faulty device/cable it's been a waste of time. On service, aside from all the usual checks, I will take voltage and some current readings and compare them with the originals. It doesn't take long and could point out a dodgy tamper return, faulty charging circuit or faulty PIR... Trade Member
jnealon Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 There was an article about this in the security installer magazine a couple of years ago. The guy who wrote the article was Lynskey and his view was to leave them in www.realsecurity.ie
Tel Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 The guy who wrote the article was Lynskey was it me or where mikes column morr of an advert for euthanasia?
jnealon Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 I always liked reading his articles/rants. He was originally of the opinion that you should remove the wires to take readings but by the end of the article he had changed his mind www.realsecurity.ie
arfur mo Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 i agree a very good subject, because of the time i have spent in this trade, going right the way back to fully battery operated systems and brass 'kerry springs' used for door contacts which had to be cleaned with emery cloth (you young pups have not lived ), i'll offer the following, as i'm sure not everyone knows why it was done -: 'end of line' battery systems. on pm's the traditional routine proceedure was to remove the 'end of line' batteries (usually located in the gents toilet or inhouses with the alarm panel). and short the pair OF WIRES. go to panel and measure the resistance on the lowest ohms range (back towards the batteries) and also between the cables and a good earth point on the highest range (earths would help show any signs of water ingress of chaffed cables), with all protection closed obviously. at the controls leave the ends open, return to the battery location and remove the temporary short. test between the wires for shorts on meters highest ohms range. reconnect existing (or fresh) batteries. return to the panel, put meter on current (milli-amps) to check for any 'rots' (any intermittent caused the meter needle to fluctuate, so a steady needle = steady circuit). finally reconnect to panel then remove the circuit 'return' at the panel reconnect the zone and test all devices. 'feed and return' systems. the term was for systems which had the 'feed voltage' usually 12 volts sent out from the panel which then 'returned' so you had 2 double pole loops, some 'hi-breds' had mains panels but used zone eol batteries but won't bore you with that. this cut down the work tramping from battery to panel, but the tests were much the same, just had to be careful with the current test on small circuits, or you welded the contct reeds togetehr reliability of todays panels and kit, and the demise of the joys that lace wiring under hardboard, tube & batten frames, pressure pads and foiled windows gave us i can understand those who take the view 'if it ain't broke - don't fix it', but it just go's against the grain with me, especially on works i did not personally perform. and yes, i agree you can bust terminal strips, even cause dry joints on them and also weaken cables, but your meant to be skilled professionals and if you don't check them, then the guy before you may have well have created the fault which has yet to materialise as an alarm signal at 2am or wose a 'loop out'. when i worked as a service engineer like many companies i had a defined patch. when i started on the patch all those jobs on it got ruthlessly dismembered and then reinstated by me over the following year, even the brand new one's. i had the view false alarms were embarrassing as i should have prevented it, so simply were not tolerated. if a 'go back' or 'bouncer i'd take that as a personal affront to my professional ability. you lot no doubt think i'm totally balmy - your of course totally right, but the result was i had the quietest area with the best customer relationship of any engineer, and when i started up many of the clients came with me and are still with me today. don't misunderstand me, and i'm not saying your wrong - honest! just my view preventative maintenance means preventing ie pro-active, it is not convenience (lazy/scared) maintenance in my book it's your call though guys, and my call for the rusty Ovaltine can regs alan If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!!
Tel Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 I always liked reading his articles/rants. He was originally of the opinion that you should remove the wires to take readings but by the end of the article he had changed his mind with whipping a leg out of double poled circuit you could often see that high resistance where coming & show the cleint before it fasle alarmed or ripped the circuit apart, worked for me now downside can you trust every member of staff to take 'em out with out breaking the termial or leaving 'em loose
Tel Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 just my view preventative maintenance means preventing ie pro-active, it is not convenience (lazy/scared) maintenance in my book OMG almost starting to like ya
arfur mo Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 OMG almost starting to like ya we are both men of vast experience (as engineers of course ;) ) - so i say don't knock the real thing regs alan If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.