Radio

[IAS]

The gal actually sets, it omits everything else.

As for the hour, Why an hour, recycle the timers.

not "real life" then is it? same as how do you "know" the gals going to operate when "all" the circuits are live if you can only test it on the "special" test, you can`t, you have to trust the tech.

I have headache now thinking about the risk.

[breff]

You can with the Prem, assign the 2 zones you want to test the engineer alarm attribute, set with engineer code and only those 2 zones(or however many you want to set) will cause an alarm

[Guest Oxo]

What Paul, IAS is missing is the panel is in a FULL SET STATE when doing this particular test. It is the oposite of "omiting" by the user. You are selecting not omiting, bet you have never done ward settings on a TS900/TS2000-2500.

[arfur mo]

set, trigger a device, unset - set trigger another device anything else just isnt a test at all is it?

agreed 110% Paul,

has to be said a bit trickier to test the confirmed operation on a bigger system, when the place is rocking with people, so i like the idea for that limited option, at least you can prove the panel is talking to the monitoring kit., would better show say the wrong 'pull up' resistor used for instance.

also, all detectors should be tested to go into full alarm, not just walk tested. a zone for what ever reason gets 'stuck' in test mode due to a softwar glitch, will cause a correct local signal in walk test, but nothing on a real alarm activation, rare maybe but being blaise could get you roundly sued.

tbh, its why i don't hold with relying on remote maintenance counting as a bi 'visit', fine for looking in between at alarm condition, perhaps ideal when closed for zone readings, or ahead at the log prior to attending fora problem, but you simply can't beat a proper hands on visit - and scrounging a choccy biscuit/cup of Ovaltine .

Regs

Arfur Mo

[IAS]

What Paul, IAS is missing is the panel is in a FULL SET STATE when doing this particular test. It is the oposite of "omiting" by the user. You are selecting not omiting, bet you have never done ward settings on a TS900/TS2000-2500.

what Paul, oxo is missing is your not testing it as the customer uses it so your test is just as false as "throwing an output"

learn to trust the tech James, trust the tech

TS900? isn`t that the new Dr Who dog?

[james.wilson]

paul (ias)

i can see where your coming from.

i do trust the tech but i have had a few panels that will work when you flick the output but due to either a panel crash (in this case a castle 2700) it wouldnt send intruders when fully set.

i have also had programming errors found on final commision that would prevent a confirm on real set. galaxy full test showed this up. flicking outputs wouldnt.

That is one of the reasons im so pro extended formats. you cant slip up disconnecting a wire or programming an output wrong as there are no outputs involved. even the path to the comms device is monitored.

I do trust the tech mostly but only when its tested in a compliant way.

i have seen issues that flicking or even inverting the dip switch on old blu stus that a full test wouldnt miss.

however i also agree that the only way to be 100% is to test 2 circuits at a time but that is pretty impossible

[IAS]

paul (ias)

i can see where your coming from.

i do trust the tech but i have had a few panels that will work when you flick the output but due to either a panel crash (in this case a castle 2700) it wouldnt send intruders when fully set.

i have also had programming errors found on final commision that would prevent a confirm on real set. galaxy full test showed this up. flicking outputs wouldnt.

That is one of the reasons im so pro extended formats. you cant slip up disconnecting a wire or programming an output wrong as there are no outputs involved. even the path to the comms device is monitored.

I do trust the tech mostly but only when its tested in a compliant way.

i have seen issues that flicking or even inverting the dip switch on old blu stus that a full test wouldnt miss.

however i also agree that the only way to be 100% is to test 2 circuits at a time but that is pretty impossible

no fun omitting circuits, have to agree. It`s all a bit abstract really.

[arfur mo]

perhaps the old days (ok, before you start, that will be just mine then ) where you could isolate a zone by wedging the open relay with a bit of fag box had some advantages over todays modern tech .

regs

Arfur Mo

[james.wilson]

No i dont think so really

[arfur mo]

paul (ias)

i can see where your coming from.

i do trust the tech but i have had a few panels that will work when you flick the output but due to either a panel crash (in this case a castle 2700) it wouldnt send intruders when fully set.

i have also had programming errors found on final commision that would prevent a confirm on real set. galaxy full test showed this up. flicking outputs wouldnt.

That is one of the reasons im so pro extended formats. you cant slip up disconnecting a wire or programming an output wrong as there are no outputs involved. even the path to the comms device is monitored.

I do trust the tech mostly but only when its tested in a compliant way.

i have seen issues that flicking or even inverting the dip switch on old blu stus that a full test wouldnt miss.

however i also agree that the only way to be 100% is to test 2 circuits at a time but that is pretty impossible

i'd think you need to be more alert to this issue when as with your STU, you use a panel of a different make to the Tx.

for instance earlier systems using digi's, SD1's etc. you had to fit resistors to pull up the input, so when the panel tripped and sent it Low the switching was more defined or you got iffy transmission reliability.

was better security wise to fit a pull low resistor actually in the Tx, holdig the input high from the panel, so if the cable got cut it would still send the signalm assuming the line was active.

regs

Arfur Mo