lawandorder Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 Mr Lawandorder I have no issue with DIY`ers offering advice it`s upto the O/P to decide which course of action he wants to take And I have no issue with proffesionals offering advice as long as it is substantiated by logical reasoned argument and not simply supported by "Nope" which isn't very helpful and simply suggests that you cannot actually provide a reasoned argument. I do agree that a faulty battery can cause all sorts of probelms, including tamper faults, but your assertion that it is the only thing that can cause a tamper fault (100%) is flawed and misleading in my humble opinion. I also resent the inferrence that I am a DIYer, I worked full time in the alarm industry for in excess of 20 years and still do the odd bit of subbying which equates to 26 years experince approximately.
Guest anguscanplay Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 And I have no issue with proffesionals offering advice as long as it is substantiated by logical reasoned argument and not simply supported by "Nope" which isn't very helpful and simply suggests that you cannot actually provide a reasoned argument. I do agree that a faulty battery can cause all sorts of probelms, including tamper faults, but your assertion that it is the only thing that can cause a tamper fault (100%) is flawed and misleading in my humble opinion. isn`t what I said now is it? I also resent the inferrence that I am a DIYer, I worked full time in the alarm industry for in excess of 20 years and still do the odd bit of subbying which equates to 26 years experince approximately. please don`t take our reticance to discuss the inner workings of systems as anything other than what it is - the minumum amount of informantion that can be given without compramising others security as we`ve said all along in this thread it could be 1 - the battery 2 - a fault on cable 3 - a loose lid on a device but its unlikely to be the switch on the external box because the external sounder wasnt triggered
antinode Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 Have to agree with angus here. You tend to find most panels fire the bell trigger on a bell tamper (bell tamper ring) as certain SAB's won't trigger themselves on bell tamper, relying on the panel to do it for them. Trade Member
lawandorder Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 1 My apologies Angus, you didn't say it was 100% you said more like 100%. I do accept that it is important to prevent potential compromise but I also think it's important to refrain from giving misleading information and whilst I fully accept that a permanently open tamper switch on an external sounder will cause it to sound an intermittent one will not always. I only say this because it only takes 500ms to trigger the panel and you would not neccasarily hear a sounder in that time. Your inference that the test I did on a 9448 tonight is any different is also flawed (in my opinion), I admit I did not go up a ladder and simulate a tamper fault but removing the -r from the panel is electrically the same as far as the panel is concerned and I can assure you that the external did not sound though I would expect it to if the panel were set. Again I would stress that this is pretty obvious really, if the external relied on the panel to sound in the event of a bell tamper how could it sound if the cable were cut? Also as I'm sure you're aware many older external sounders used universal SAB modules and with some of these there were two microswitches which were physically in tandem. One directly switched the sounder and the other removed the return which could be either a neg or pos depending on the panel being used. To be honest and as you have rightly pointed out we are speculating and ultimately as with all intermittent faults it needs testing properly.
lawandorder Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 Have to agree with angus here. You tend to find most panels fire the bell trigger on a bell tamper (bell tamper ring) as certain SAB's won't trigger themselves on bell tamper, relying on the panel to do it for them. Well I can honestly say that very few of the panels I have worked on will trigger the bell output in reponse to a bell tamper although some can be programmed to. The 9448 most certainly doesn't as I have just proved. It is true that some SAB's don't trigger themselves on bell tamper, it depends on whether the microswitch is wired in series with the - supply or the -r, either way the panel will trigger. Most of the ready assemled boxes I have fitted do trigger themselves (Elmdene, Pyronix, Texecom, ADE, Guartec, CQR) but some of the universal sab mods could be wired in many configurations. Also many cheap panels have all the tamper inputs wired in series on the PCB anyway so if the bell tamper caused a bell output so would any other tamper, this would have been a clear breach of BS4737 which was in force during 9448 production.
Cubit Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 Well I can honestly say that very few of the panels I have worked on will trigger the bell output in reponse to a bell tamper although some can be programmed to.The 9448 most certainly doesn't as I have just proved. But did you carry out the procedures correctly? Makes a world of difference to the result.
lawandorder Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 But did you carry out the procedures correctly? Makes a world of difference to the result. I think so though I am open to correction. I opened the panel and defeated the panel tamper then silenced and reset the alarm. I then removed the s- so as not to disturb the neighbors (I live in a very quiet village). I checked the s- and it was at + potential, I then removed the -r from the panel at which point the internal activated. I disconnected the speaker cos it was deafening me them measured s-, it was still at positive potential. Given the differening opinions on this thread I thought I had better eliminate the possibility of a faulty panel so I pulled the PA link and the s- went negative. I appreciate that this is not quite the same as physically removing the bell cover but electrically it is identical as far as the panel is concerned. (subject to correction)
james.wilson Posted July 6, 2008 Posted July 6, 2008 I think this is starting to run its course. Points already made so please no more. Unless its in relation to the O/P James securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount.
lawandorder Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 I think this is starting to run its course. Points already made so please no more.Unless its in relation to the O/P James With respect I think the current argument is relevant to the OP, on one hand he is being told that his problem cannot be related to the external sounder because if it was then the external sounder would operate. I beleive that this information is misleading to the OP and I have tried, unsuccesfully it would appear, to prove that with this particular panel the fact that the external sounder did not activate is not neccasarily an indication that the fault is not related to the sounder. (do we actually know that the OPs sounder works)??? Errr, that would be a no then. The debate is healthy, it is not offensive and I am certainly learning a lot!
james.wilson Posted July 7, 2008 Posted July 7, 2008 Lawandorder. You have made your point, so have others, what im saying is thats all thats needed. Im glad your learning and debate is healty but i feel this has run its course unless we have new postings directly related to the OP. securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.