Adi Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 Like it. If we carry on this way our postings will be full of smilies, animations and images, we'll need a degree in the alternative language to decipher it I really can't be ar**** with it anymore.
Guest Posted October 26, 2004 Posted October 26, 2004 Like it. If we carry on this way our postings will be full of smilies, animations and images, we'll need a degree in the alternative language to decipher it 29396[/snapback] Maybe in millions of years someone will be trying to decipher them in a hieroglyphics stlyee! "I'm not sure what these beings looked like but they had a penchant for running dogs and some small boxes with flashing lights"
Nova-Security Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 Jef, you have started somtinh here So is there a conculsion ? I will personal be installing like we have always, until NSI give my a observation or say otherwise for pointing a PIR at the window. How many people in here use the ceiling brackets that come with detector to mount them on a ceiling ? now that is a big NO NO www.nova-security.co.uk www.nsiapproved.co.uk No PMs please unless i know you or you are using this board with your proper name.
Guest Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 PIR Only works with CAPS though OK ? 29391[/snapback] Any chance you could do the same with that ruddy d-o-g. I didn't want it running round the screen!
Guest Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 ahem.. Have you ever tried to put your hand next to the lamp? And what does the PIR sense? It is not the light but the _ _ _ _ . That's why you shouldn't make PIR's to face the windows.
Guest Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 Hi Jef,It's more of a guideline than a rule. In general the problem comes from direct sunlight or car headlights shining through the window and hitting the PIR rather than the window itself. The ideal "recommended" position would normally be with the PIR mounted internally on an outside wall facing into the room, so that the zones terminate on furniture or internal walls. Of course this is not always possible and there are certainly many installations that do have PIRs facing windows without any problems. A north facing window with a garden outside will be less of a problem than a south facing window with a busy road junction outside. If there is a chance that sunlight or car headlights could hit the PIR and there is nowhere else to site it then a dual-tech will be a better option. Of course if a window is particularly drafty then that could also lead to false alarms if a PIR is pointing at it. For conservatories I would generally recommend using a dual-tech, and again if possible face it towards the building in a position where white light cannot hit it. As for your existing installations, if they are not causing any problems I certainly wouldn't worry too much about changing them. But for future installations if you can avoid windows in the coverage area then it could only be a good thing. Hope this helps. Mark 29170[/snapback] And I agree with this writer except it IS rule here in coldpole..
CompostCORNER Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 So this is the origin of the P.I.R. (PIR) image? Hmmm lol Anyways. Back to topic. As stated earlier, PIR's facing inwards and not facing windows reduce the chances of falses although you can still install them facing windows and still be false free. It is indeed a guideline although I have seen so many times, installers fitting them facing windows pure and simply from a time saving aspect rather than a false alarm prevention aspect. Points of entry have to be taken into consideration so that if someone actually enters the room, they actually walk across the view of the PIR. Radiators, solid fuel fires, refrigerators and even letterboxes can be cause for concern. How many sites have you been to where the PIR is sited in such a way that upon entering a room, the potential intruder is actually moving along the beams or zones of the PIR rather than across. We all know that PIR's work to theoir optimum capacity when a potential subject walks across it's field of view rather than towards it. Would you risk installing a PIR facing a window if it meant that the PIR would have increased capacity to detect an intruder by being in a position where the said intruder walks across the beams or zones? At the end of the day, this is what we are all paid our reasonable salaries for. To be able to weigh up the pros and the cons and achieve a solution that best benefits the consumer whilst giving them optimum protection. A PIR is only as good as the position the engineer installs it in. And my boss wouldn't be very pleased if one of my installs falses because I just threw in the P.I.R.s. Tony
Service Engineer Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 Yeah there doin my head in, shall I delete the feature..? A detector in my opinion should always cover the most vulnerable points of entry. What happens when Mrs Smith`s £300+ royal daulton which is proudly displayed in the lounge bay window doesnt get detected when the window is put through and the thief grabs it and escapes without problems because your proffesionally installed alarm system isnt covering that bay area...? Failure to perform...? So lets hope a few of you have descent insurance..? ........................................................ Dave Partridge (Romec Service Engineer)
CompostCORNER Posted October 27, 2004 Posted October 27, 2004 Yeah. Delete the feature mate. Oh, secondly, please keep the 'failure to perform' to a minimum because my woman has been nagging like hell about it to me. I wouldn't mind but it's not like I'm under-achieving in the trousers department. lol
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.