j.paul Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 the idea of using pir's in 2 corners (not opposing corners) is that a pir is more sensative passing across its field than approaching/exiting away. so a much larger movement is required to get both pirs to trip. now overlapping the pirs would not be NSI DT254 but then its not monitored system either.regs arfur_mo Sorry if this is of topic, but I think you mean DD243, and it isn't a NSI policy its a draft BS document. There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
arfur mo Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Sorry if this is of topic, but I think you mean DD243, thanks j.paul' its been a long day - but this systems not going 'registered' (i have assumed), so could be treated as BS.4737 Part 1 Bells only. in this case, if any standard was to be complied with, it could even be 38FF but i'm dreaming again so now to address your "it isn't a NSI policy its a draft BS document" remark, do not the NSI Inspectorate base their policies and subsequent site inspections in part at least, on a registered companies 'complience' with said BS.4737 draft documents, or what other standard is in force - if we are to be piccy that is? i was just trying to spoil the fun of the 'lets jump on arfur_mo' brigade and pointing out that it would not comply - as if i did not know it , and keeping the post short as possible - well that worked well did'nt it if we put every thing down to the letter every time it is then patronising to the recipient, so by mking a general remark it keeps the post a bit shorter (and some would love that of me ) and the recipient can always ask for further clarification - ok m8 phew! now i'm of to bed regs arfur_mo If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!!
j.paul Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 thanks j.paul'its been a long day - but this systems not going 'registered' (i have assumed), so could be treated as BS.4737 Part 1 Bells only. in this case, if any standard was to be complied with, it could even be 38FF but i'm dreaming again so now to address your "it isn't a NSI policy its a draft BS document" remark, do not the NSI Inspectorate base their policies and subsequent site inspections in part at least, on a registered companies 'complience' with said BS.4737 draft documents, or what other standard is in force - if we are to be piccy that is? i was just trying to spoil the fun of the 'lets jump on arfur_mo' brigade and pointing out that it would not comply - as if i did not know it , and keeping the post short as possible - well that worked well did'nt it if we put every thing down to the letter every time it is then patronising to the recipient, so by mking a general remark it keeps the post a bit shorter (and some would love that of me ) and the recipient can always ask for further clarification - ok m8 phew! now i'm of to bed regs arfur_mo Wasn't having a go mate, but as this is a topic about "Squirrels" I will save the anwsers to the above till someone starts a new topic There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
thelockdude Posted March 30, 2006 Author Posted March 30, 2006 The system is going to be monitored. I assume NSI DT254, 38FF, and BS.4737 are UK codes and/or standards. We have different codes here in the US, and the systems I install do meet our local codes. (As far as I know, the squirrels are pretty much international). Dan
bellman Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 I have a site here in Sheffield that's plagued with them. I got that fed up with going back to repair chewed cables that I ended up sleeving them with aluminium conduit. They still had a good chew at that but at least it's holding out for now. Perhaps we should petition the cable manufacturers to impregnate the outer sleaving of the cable with a suitable poison Regards Bellman Service Engineer and all round nice bloke ) The views above are mine and NOT those of my employer.
arfur mo Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 Perhaps we should petition the cable manufacturers to impregnate the outer sleaving of the cable with a suitable poison Regards Bellman hi bellman, i'd try some anti-climb paint, i used it in the eaves and it keeps them off of CCTv cables. as for cable idea, how about that stuff you put on kiddies fingers to stop them chewing their nails, at least you won't have the animal rites mob blowing up your car last year ruddy squirels bit through the air ring on my pool, at 4am (i think it was revenge for the paint or washing their paws to get it off). the pools the type thats only got the top ring thats keeps the sides up, and its 12 feet across x some 4 feet high. i guess 800 - 1000 letres of water. i woke up to what i thought was rain falling, then wooosh! patio had 18" of water up the sliding doors. potted plants, kids toys floating past me - very wierd to look at. i have now fitted one of the those animal detterent detectors If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!!
antinode Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 I have a site here in Sheffield that's plagued with them.I got that fed up with going back to repair chewed cables that I ended up sleeving them with aluminium conduit. They still had a good chew at that but at least it's holding out for now. Perhaps we should petition the cable manufacturers to impregnate the outer sleaving of the cable with a suitable poison Regards Bellman I'd like to see the little gets chew through some 20mm galv conduit. Trade Member
bellman Posted March 30, 2006 Posted March 30, 2006 at least you won't have the animal rites mob blowing up your car I better not mention using shotguns as deterrents then anyway, It's the companies car not mine Regards Bellman Service Engineer and all round nice bloke ) The views above are mine and NOT those of my employer.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.