Napco MA3000 - Dialer Test on both Lines?
Allan Waghalter
required by NFPA, on both phone lines. No problem sending test on telco 1,
just don't know how to make it test on telco 2. On our commercial fire
alarms, each line calls into a different account number and different
receiver for each line. We get no test on the second line.
Thanks,
Allan
Frank Olson
Can you program openings and closings to dial on the second line? If
so, set up an auto-arm-auto-disarm window for the same time every day.
This should satisfy your "test" transmission requirements.
Allan Waghalter
with tech support Monday and let you know what I find.
"Frank Olson" <Use_the_e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in message
news:0Wxug.194795$Mn5.53258@pd7tw3no...
Allan Waghalter
line of the two connected to it to dial out on. You cannot dictate which of
these is to be used for a test. You can, however, program the system to
send a test to a second phone number by programming the test to be sent to 1
and 3. This will test the second central station line, but not the second
phone line connected to the panel. The panel automatically reports a
problem with either phone should one have failed or has a problem.
"Allan Waghalter" <awagh...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:bKxug.68411$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Robert L Bass
Allan,
You could set up a programmable Napco relay to interrupt phone line 1 from
the panel, then run the test report.
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
941-866-1100 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
Frank Olson
>>Does anyone know how to get the MA3000 to send a daily test signal, as
>>required by NFPA, on both phone lines. No problem sending test on telco
>>1, just don't know how to make it test on telco 2. On our commercial fire
>>alarms, each line calls into a different account number and different
>>receiver for each line. We get no test on the second line.
>
>
> Allan,
>
> You could set up a programmable Napco relay to interrupt phone line 1 from
> the panel, then run the test report.
>
I think the bigger issue here is that the Napco equipment must meet all
the UL requirements to be listed. If UL requires test signals generated
from "line 2", then Napco is obligated to provide this to maintain their
UL listing. Besides, the "daily test" can't be duplicated. All the ULC
communicators I work with have provision for only one daily test report,
and that's typically on the primary line.
Doug L
between the two lines.
Doug
--
"Frank Olson" <Use_the_e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in message
news:kOjvg.210380$Mn5.23468@pd7tw3no...
Frank Olson
> I think the NFPA 72 requirement is that the system alternates its daily test
> between the two lines.
>
> Doug
>
My copy of NFPA 71 doesn't mention that. It only states that "each DACT
shall automatically initiate and complete a test signal transmission
sequence to its associated DACR at least once every 24 hours." AFAIK
that remains the only requirement other than the one that states that
failure of a telephone line shall be annunciated locally and transmitted
to the DACR within 4 minutes on the second (backup) line.
Frank Olson
> The CF5530 two line module for the Napco MA3000 selects the best working
> line of the two connected to it to dial out on. You cannot dictate which of
> these is to be used for a test. You can, however, program the system to
> send a test to a second phone number by programming the test to be sent to 1
> and 3. This will test the second central station line, but not the second
> phone line connected to the panel. The panel automatically reports a
> problem with either phone should one have failed or has a problem.
Allan:
Unless the AHJ wants something "out of the ordinary", UL's requirements
mirror NFPA 71. I've just checked the latest edition and there's no
actual requirement for performing a 24 hour test transmission on the
back-up line. Check my response to DougL.
Mark Leuck
"Robert L Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LNudnadbGdKDFCDZ...@comcast.com...
> > Does anyone know how to get the MA3000 to send a daily test signal, as
> > required by NFPA, on both phone lines. No problem sending test on telco
> > 1, just don't know how to make it test on telco 2. On our commercial
fire
> > alarms, each line calls into a different account number and different
> > receiver for each line. We get no test on the second line.
>
> Allan,
>
> You could set up a programmable Napco relay to interrupt phone line 1 from
> the panel, then run the test report.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
Installing a device that could compromise the phone connection isn't the
smartest thing to do
Frank Olson
> Installing a device that could compromise the phone connection isn't the
> smartest thing to do
It sure took you long enough to spot yet another great piece of "advice"
from someone that's obviously never installed a UL listed fire alarm
communicator and is unfamiliar with the code requirements. And he sells
full blown fire alarm systems... to DIYer's... scary.
Nomen Nescio
>My copy of NFPA 71 doesn't mention that. It only states that "each DACT
>shall automatically initiate and complete a test signal transmission
>sequence to its associated DACR at least once every 24 hours." AFAIK
>that remains the only requirement other than the one that states that
>failure of a telephone line shall be annunciated locally and transmitted
>to the DACR within 4 minutes on the second (backup) line.
God damn Canadians! :-) Stick to your Canadian standards!
First of all, NFPA 71 no longer exists. It hasn't for a lot of years now.
The National Fire Alarm Code (in the US) is NFPA 72.
Refer to 8.5.3.2.1.4 in the 2002 edition, and you will find the following:
(B) The following requirements shall apply to all combinations [of
transmission channels] listed in 8.5.3.2.1.4(A):
(1) Both channels shall be supervised in a manner approved for the means of
transmission employed,
(2) Both channels shall be tested at intervals not exceeding 24 hours.
Exception No. 2: Where two telephone lines (numbers) are used, it shall
be permitted to test each telephone line (number) at alternating 24-hour
intervals.
(3) The failure of either channel shall send a trouble signal on the other
channel within 4 minutes.
I believe that requirement was added at some point, perhaps after this
Napco panel received its UL listing. In which case, this requirement is
not retroactive for existing systems. However, a newly installed system
would have to comply, and if the panel is incapable of doing so, I would
say it cannot be used on a new install.
- badenov
Doug L
effective June 1998
NFPA 72-1996 Section 4-5.3.2.1.6.2
NFPA 72-1999 Section 5-5.3.2.1.6.2
state that both channels shall be tested at intervals not exceeding 24 hours
with an exception that if two lines (numbers) are used it shall be permitted
to test each line (number) at alternating 24-hour intervals
Unless the requirement has been removed in later editions, I believe you
will find that it is required for the 24 hour test to alternate between the
two lines or test both lines every 24 hours.
Doug
--
"Frank Olson" <Use_the_e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in message
news:Ejrvg.207985$iF6.2094@pd7tw2no...
Robert L Bass
Done right the phone connection isn't compromised. Not tested at all, the
phone connection might in fact be compromised and you wouldn't even know
about it.
Then again, you wouldn't be able to judge what is smart.
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Frank Olson
> Done right the phone connection isn't compromised. Not tested at all, the
> phone connection might in fact be compromised and you wouldn't even know
> about it.
>
> Then again, you wouldn't be able to judge what is smart.
>
And with this comment I know they must have removed the wrong lobe.
G. Morgan
>
> Done right the phone connection isn't compromised. Not tested at all, the
> phone connection might in fact be compromised and you wouldn't even know
> about it.
That has got to be the most dangerous and fuckwitted advice you have
ever offered.
> Then again, you wouldn't be able to judge what is smart.
He called you out.
-G
Mark Leuck
> > Installing a device that could compromise the phone connection
> > isn't the smartest thing to do...
>
> Done right the phone connection isn't compromised.
Perhaps you could now explain how this is done
> Not tested at all, the
> phone connection might in fact be compromised and you wouldn't even know
> about it.
The customer would have to manually test the second line, while it isn't the
best thing to do it's far better than a jury-rigged relay. `Try explaining
your relay testing system sometime to a fire marshall and see what he thinks
as he tags the system
Frank Olson
Robert's the only person I know that would defend his own mistake to the
last (and hurl insults at the individual that happens to point it out).
Robert L Bass
>
> Perhaps you could now explain how this is done
When I have the energy to do so I'll post a small jpg.
>> Not tested at all, the
>> phone connection might in fact be compromised and you wouldn't even know
>> about it.
>
> The customer would have to manually test the second
> line...
One of the reasons systems are often required to do automatic tests is that
customers simply do not test anything on a regular basis.
> while it isn't the best thing to do...
Not even close.
> it's far better than a jury-rigged relay.
I think you mean jerry rigged. However, there's nothing unusual about the
technique.
> `Try explaining your relay testing system sometime
> to a fire marshall and see what he thinks as he tags
> the system
Actually, I have done that several times but only while the systems were
being approved.
Allan Waghalter
force the panel to communicate via the second phone line!
Allan
"Frank Olson" <Use_the_e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in message
news:2k_vg.214727$Mn5.14486@pd7tw3no...
G. Morgan
Allan Waghalter wrote:
> It may not be exactly Kosher, but it is very creative and original and does
> force the panel to communicate via the second phone line!
And what is the first signal to be sent? It would be a line fault on
#1....
How do you explain to the occupants that the system goes into trouble
every 24 hours due to your design?
Not only is it unKosher, it's downright dangerous and possibly illegal.
-G
Robert L Bass
> creative and original and does force the
> panel to communicate via the second phone
> line!
>
> Allan
Thanks, Allan. Also, the AHJ is the arbiter of what is or is not an
acceptable practice. On installations where I've used the technique it has
invariably been approved. One key to proper implementation is to configure
the relay so that is cannot disable either phone line during an actual alarm
condition. With the MA3000 this is easily done using programmable relays
though the same thing can be accomplished with less flexible, heavier duty
panels from other makers.
Mark Leuck
> It may not be exactly Kosher, but it is very creative and original and
does
> force the panel to communicate via the second phone line!
> Allan
The problem is while it may be creative and original it isn't a very smart
thing to do in my opinion and creates a possible problem later on
Frank Olson
> Thanks, Allan. Also, the AHJ is the arbiter of what is or is not an
> acceptable practice. On installations where I've used the technique it has
> invariably been approved. One key to proper implementation is to configure
> the relay so that is cannot disable either phone line during an actual alarm
> condition. With the MA3000 this is easily done using programmable relays
> though the same thing can be accomplished with less flexible, heavier duty
> panels from other makers.
>
Name *one* AHJ that's approved this technique.
Frank Olson
It also violates NFPA 72, (including the old NFPA 71), UL, and ULC. No
AHJ would approve this. Another "goof" brought to you by the same
individual that says he can program a Napco LCD keypad to read
"Attention Burglar! Go Ahead, make my day!" but has never explained how.
Doug L
relay output not listed or approved for the purpose to interrupt the primary
communication channel of a commercial fire alarm. If the MA3000 doesn't
support the requirement of the code and it hasn't been grandfathered in,
then the only sane thing to do is to replace the panel or if the customer
balks at the cost, then you should walk away and let someone else jeopardize
their business for the sake of the $60 or whatever you charge a month for
commercial fire.
Doug L
--
"Allan Waghalter" <awagh...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:4K5wg.128249$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Robert L Bass
> consider installing or using a relay output
Who said anything about using something not listed? Perhaps if you took the
trouble to learn the panel and the listed hardware which Napco offers you'd
be a little slower to attack.
Hmm. Nah, no chance of that.
> ... If the MA3000 doesn't support the requirement
> of the code and it hasn't been grandfathered in...
The MA3000 does indeed support the requirement. It would help if you knew
the panel (clearly you don't).
Doug L
and I know your suggestion is a violation, pure and simple, its also pure
bullshit on your part that you have used this technique on Commercial Fire
and had an inspector sign off on it, after all since you know the panel so
well and state that it does support the requirement, why would you need to
bodge it in this manner, so stop bullshitting and trying to make yourself
look important.
I also know that if you knew the panel as well as you would have everyone
believe, then you would have told Alan the correct way to generate the
required test on the secondary communication channel, the fact that you
suggested some Heath Robinson affair on a commercial fire panel is a clear
indication that you don't know the panel either, no doubt after making your
ludicrous suggestion you have since boned up on the panel.
Show me the listing that specifies that the purpose of the relay outputs is
to interrupt the primary communication channel in order to generate a
transmission on the secondary channel.
On another subject, I hope the chemo goes well for you.
Doug
--
"Robert L Bass" <robe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uZKdnQNJdqwDKlzZ...@comcast.com...
Robert L Bass
And yet you immediately attacked. This simply shows your intention is not
to share information but only to flame.
> I do know the code and I know your suggestion
> is a violation, pure and simple...
Code requires that the hardware used be listed for the purpose. You don't
know the panel. I do. You've never worked with it. I have installed many
of them and serviced them for years. In short, you spoke (and continue to
do so) without knowledge or understanding. Feel free to continue flaming
away.
> its also pure bullshit on your part that you
> have used this technique on Commercial Fire
> and had an inspector sign off on it...
You've never seen any of my installations and you have no idea what the
panel is capable of. You ought to know (though there is room for doubt
about that) that the code says the AHJ (inspector) determines what is or is
not compliant.
> after all since you know the panel so well and state that it does support
> the
> requirement, why would you need to bodge it in this manner...
You call it a bodge only because you don't know the method or the hardware.
In fact, the technique uses listed devices and programming. Your problem
isn't with what I do or how I do it. You post only because of personal
animosity. This is nothing new. You've done it before and I expect nothing
honest or reasonable out of you.
> so stop bullshitting and trying to make yourself look important...
Important? I only shared a technique that works and has passed muster with
inspectors. The topic (in case you've forgotten) is about testing both
phone lines on a Napco MA3000. It's not about your personal hatred. It's a
shame that no thread can exist on this newsgroup without being filled with
the kind of trash you spew.
> I also know that if you knew the panel as well
> as you would have everyone believe, then you
> would have told Alan the correct way to generate
> the required test on the secondary communication
> channel...
I already did. He seemed to understand it right away. What I didn't do is
create an image for him. I'm not spending a lot of time at my desk these
days because I'm recovering from cancer surgery. When I get around to it
I'll send him an image if he wants it though.
> On another subject, I hope the chemo goes well for you.
I plan to beat the cancer. I've overcome adversity before. This one just
hurts a lot more. Unlike some who post here, I wouldn't wish this on
anyone. Fortunately, I have a very strong family and close network of
friends helping me and pulling for me every step of the way. I hope you
never have to go through this stuff.
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Doug L
relay output to interrupt the primary phone line to a commercial fire alarm
in order to generate a required transmission on the secondary channel meets
code or even if its a good idea, it doesn't and it isn't - end of story.
So you can wax lyrical till the cows come home about knowledge of the panel,
your installations, imaginary attacks on you, flames, hatred, spewing trash,
animosity or anything else you want, the simple fact is that once again
you've shown a pitiful lack of knowledge on code issues and as is your way
you attempt to defect that by introducing red herrings and accusing others
of flaming and hatred, while at the same time flaming away yourself, to what
purpose? to try and twist the thread away from your faux pas.
Doug L
--
"Robert L Bass" <robe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Ps-dnQuiqoYrrV_Z...@comcast.com...
Robert L Bass
> whether your suggestion of using a relay output to interrupt the primary
> phone line to a commercial fire alarm in order to generate a required
> transmission on the secondary channel
The subject (which you're tried to change) is how to test the second phone
line on a Napco MA3000. In case you're having trouble remembering, I
suggest you read the subject line of the post. It is necessary and good to
automatically phone lines. I assume we can agree on that much. There is a
method, using listed hardware from Napco, to accomplish the task. The
method does not use foreign or unlisted hardware. Furthermore, it has been
approved by every AHJ who has seen it done.
> it doesn't and it isn't - end of story...
Uh, no. That's just your opinion and it's clearly based more on your
personal animus toward me than on your knowledge (or rather your lack
thereof) of Napco.
> So you can wax lyrical till the cows come
> home about knowledge of the panel...
I don't recall any lyrics. Can you hum a few bars?
> --- snip flame ---
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Frank Olson
>>I don't know the panel, hence the use of
>>the word " If "...
>
>
> And yet you immediately attacked. This simply shows your intention is not
> to share information but only to flame.
Nope. You're wrong. What you suggested was both against code and
installation practise. It seems to me that there are several *UL
listed* controls out there whose listing has been compromised by one
Robert L. Bass and his "methods".
>
>
>>I do know the code and I know your suggestion
>>is a violation, pure and simple...
>
>
> Code requires that the hardware used be listed for the purpose. You don't
> know the panel. I do. You've never worked with it. I have installed many
> of them and serviced them for years. In short, you spoke (and continue to
> do so) without knowledge or understanding. Feel free to continue flaming
> away.
Read NFPA and tell me where it states that an acceptable method of
testing both phone lines involves compromising one to test the other.
>
>
>>its also pure bullshit on your part that you
>>have used this technique on Commercial Fire
>>and had an inspector sign off on it...
>
>
> You've never seen any of my installations and you have no idea what the
> panel is capable of. You ought to know (though there is room for doubt
> about that) that the code says the AHJ (inspector) determines what is or is
> not compliant.
Name one AHJ you've worked with that has determined your method complies
with NFPA or UL.
>
>
>>after all since you know the panel so well and state that it does support
>>the
>>requirement, why would you need to bodge it in this manner...
>
>
> You call it a bodge only because you don't know the method or the hardware.
> In fact, the technique uses listed devices and programming.
Oh?? Show me the "listing" for the devices... and the programming...
> Your problem
> isn't with what I do or how I do it. You post only because of personal
> animosity. This is nothing new. You've done it before and I expect nothing
> honest or reasonable out of you.
You are such an ass, Robert. As I mentioned before, you'll defend your
mistake to the last (and hurl insults at anyone that points it out)...
>
>
>>so stop bullshitting and trying to make yourself look important...
>
>
> Important? I only shared a technique that works and has passed muster with
> inspectors.
Name one.
> The topic (in case you've forgotten) is about testing both
> phone lines on a Napco MA3000. It's not about your personal hatred. It's a
> shame that no thread can exist on this newsgroup without being filled with
> the kind of trash you spew.
And it's ludicrous in the extreme that you are giving advice on a
subject you have no clue about *to a licensed installer*.
>
>
>>I also know that if you knew the panel as well
>>as you would have everyone believe, then you
>>would have told Alan the correct way to generate
>>the required test on the secondary communication
>>channel...
>
>
> I already did. He seemed to understand it right away. What I didn't do is
> create an image for him. I'm not spending a lot of time at my desk these
> days because I'm recovering from cancer surgery. When I get around to it
> I'll send him an image if he wants it though.
Your method is both unapproved and strictly against NFPA. It involves
compromising a telephone line with a relay that (listed or not) is
clearly beyond your ability to understand. You still haven't provided
the name of even *one* AHJ that has approved "your method". I doubt he
would be "on record" for doing so, and a "verbal approval" is about as
valuable as a three dollar bill (CDN or US funds).
>
>
>>On another subject, I hope the chemo goes well for you.
>
>
> I plan to beat the cancer. I've overcome adversity before. This one just
> hurts a lot more. Unlike some who post here, I wouldn't wish this on
> anyone.
Where has *anyone* here ever wished such a thing on you?
> Fortunately, I have a very strong family and close network of
> friends helping me and pulling for me every step of the way. I hope you
> never have to go through this stuff.
I finally understand your sudden need to sell your house and move in
with "the folks".
Nomen Nescio
>The subject (which you're tried to change) is how to test the second phone
>line on a Napco MA3000. In case you're having trouble remembering, I
>suggest you read the subject line of the post. It is necessary and good to
>automatically phone lines. I assume we can agree on that much. There is a
>method, using listed hardware from Napco, to accomplish the task. The
>method does not use foreign or unlisted hardware. Furthermore, it has been
>approved by every AHJ who has seen it done.
I openly admit I don't know anything about this particular panel, so maybe
I am missing something. Let's go through this step by step.
As I understand it, you want to use a programmable relay to interrupt the
primary phone line at a predetermined time. The phone line monitor detects
the "bad" primary phone line and sends a phone line trouble report using
the secondary phone line.
This means a good test signal consists of a phone line trouble report.
When the relay resets, the primary phone line is used to send a phone line
restore.
Therefore, a good test sequence consists of a phone line trouble (sent
using the secondary phone line) followed by a phone line restore (sent
using the primary phone line).
However, if the secondary phone line is bad, the dialer will make multiple
dialing attempts using that phone line. When the relay resets, the dialer
will send the trouble and restore sequence using the primary phone line.
The signals will be delayed, but will look the same: trouble, then
restore.
I'm assuming the panel will eventually report the trouble, even if the
dialer shuts down after eight dialing attempts. If the trouble signal is
simply lost when the dialer shuts down, the system will still send a phone
line restore when that relay resets. This means a failure to communicate
over the secondary phone line will be indicated...by a phone line restore
signal without the accompanying trouble signal. That's not good, and I see
no way to set up the central station automation system to treat this as a
trouble signal without causing all phone line restores to show up as
troubles.
In addition, since your relay intentionally creates a phone line trouble,
the panel's trouble buzzer will sound every day during this phone line
test. That should be a big hit with the subscribers.
I am not surprised that an AHJ approved something like this. AHJs approve
stupid things sometimes, because their level of technical expertise is not
all that high.
So, as I understand your plan, it's not only a bad design, it fails to
achieve the desired result.
- badenov
Group-Moderator
>
>> On another subject, I hope the chemo goes well for you.
>
> I plan to beat the cancer. I've overcome adversity before. This one just
> hurts a lot more. Unlike some who post here, I wouldn't wish this on
> anyone. Fortunately, I have a very strong family and close network of
> friends helping me and pulling for me every step of the way. I hope you
> never have to go through this stuff.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
>
> =============================>
> Bass Home Electronics
> 4883 Fallcrest Circle
> Sarasota · Florida · 34233
> 941-866-1100 Sales & Tech Support
> =============================>
That's funny you wouldn't wish this on anyone. I guess you fogot how many
times you told Jiminex, Mike and others that you wish a tiny blood vessel
would break in their heads. Guess it came back to HAUNT you. It did not take
long either.
Robert L Bass
> particular panel, so maybe I am missing something.
Ok. Two programmable relays are set to interrupt a 24-hour test zone and
to short phone line 1 at the designated time. This causes the panel to
report the 24-hour zone as a silent alarm, but the code/zone is configured
at the c-station to be viewed as a test signal. A third relay can be
triggered by "general trouble" and run in series with the phone shorting
relay so that line 1 will not short out if the panel is currently
experiencing a trouble condition.
Here's an interesting thing about the MA3000 when used with the 2-line
dialer board. If either line develops a trouble condition during a
reportable event the panel will only display and attempt to report the
trouble after finishing the original report. What happened with this
sequence was the panel would report the 24-hour zone and the line would
immediately restore.
The MA3000, unlike most commercial fire alarmcontrol panels, is also an
extremely flexible burglar alarm / automation system. Because I liked
tinkering with Napco panels I learned a few things they could do that even
Napco tech didn't always know about. I've installed a lot of them, even
used one as a 2-line dialer when taking over a system in a church / daycare
site.
> As I understand it, you want to use a programmable relay
> to interrupt the primary phone line at a predetermined
> time. The phone line monitor detects the "bad" primary
> phone line and sends a phone line trouble report using
> the secondary phone line.
Not quite right. The panel wasn't actually sending a phone line trouble
signal. It was simply reporting a 24-hour zone when triggered by another
programmable relay.
> This means a good test signal consists of a phone line
> trouble report.
Nope. I wouldn't do that for two reasons. First, you wouldn't want to
defeat th4e abaility of the panel to report a true phone trouble condition.
Doing so would cause the C-station to view such a trouble as a test -- not
good. Second, as you mention, that would create a daily trouble alarm on
premises -- also not good.
> I am not surprised that an AHJ approved something like
> this. AHJs approve stupid things sometimes, because
> their level of technical expertise is not all that high.
Carl Earn of W Hartford, Ct fire dept. (NBFAA Fire Marshal of the Year some
years ago) was one of the AHJ's who routinely examined my systems. I used
this on several installations in W Hartford when we took over and replaced
panels after the WHPD ceased running an in-house C-station receiver.
> So, as I understand your plan...
Actually, you didn't understand it but had it been as you surmised it would
indeed have been a bad idea. Perhaps if you had asked for more details
first...
Nah, that's not SOP in ASA. :^)
rh.campbell
post which indicated that you have cancer. I am truly sorry to hear
that Bob and I wish you all the best. My prayers will be with you for a
speedy recovery.
My ISP (Sympatico) has decided to withdraw support for newsgroups and
has thrown us all over to a commercial newsreader who demands a
ridiculous amount to post through them. So I am using Google groups to
do so, as awkward as it is.
I had pretty much decided anyway that this group has largely become a
waste of time for me. I really don't think there is anything more I can
contribute, so I have decided to bow out. I want to thank all the
regulars here who have assisted me over the last 8 years on the group
and I wish you all continued success in your various business ventures,
even the few that I have had strong disagreements with. When I go to
Florida next winter, I hope to see both Jim and you personally at that
time.
Best wishes to you all.
R.H.Campbell
Home Security Metal Products
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
www.homemetal.com
Nomen Nescio
>Ok. Two programmable relays are set to interrupt a 24-hour test zone and
>to short phone line 1 at the designated time. This causes the panel to
>report the 24-hour zone as a silent alarm, but the code/zone is configured
>at the c-station to be viewed as a test signal. A third relay can be
>triggered by "general trouble" and run in series with the phone shorting
>relay so that line 1 will not short out if the panel is currently
>experiencing a trouble condition.
That doesn't work so well either.
When the relay shorts phone line 1, the panel doesn't know that line 1 is
inoperative, therefore it will dial unsuccessfully on line 1 until the
panel's programming forces it to switch to line 2. But suppose line 2 is
bad? The panel will attempt to dial out on both lines, I'm guessing eight
attempts per line. When the relay times out and line 1 restores, your test
signal will arrive on schedule -- via line 1. The failure on line 2 is not
detected.
Now, you could fix this by programming the relay activation time to be
longer than the maximum number of dialing attempts. However, since you are
shorting the phone line, that would trip the line fault monitor, resulting
in more dialing attempts, and eventually, a phone line trouble and restore.
More importantly, if line 2 really is inoperative and you short out line 1,
the fire alarm system will be unable to report an alarm for however long it
takes to run through the maximum dialing attempts on both phone lines.
Fifteen minutes or so?
I could be mistaken about this, but connecting your auxiliary relay to
short out the phone line probably violates FCC Part 68, since that relay is
not approved terminal equipment. I suspect, but have not checked, that
equipment that places a dead short across tip and ring is also forbidden.
Anything I've overlooked or misunderstood?
- badenov
Frank Olson
>>I openly admit I don't know anything about this
>>particular panel, so maybe I am missing something.
>>Let's go through this step by step...
>
>
> Ok. Two programmable relays are set to interrupt a 24-hour test zone and
> to short phone line 1 at the designated time. This causes the panel to
> report the 24-hour zone as a silent alarm, but the code/zone is configured
> at the c-station to be viewed as a test signal. A third relay can be
> triggered by "general trouble" and run in series with the phone shorting
> relay so that line 1 will not short out if the panel is currently
> experiencing a trouble condition.
Suddenly there are *three* relays involved in this "solution" (which
actually isn't one because it's against NFPA and code and no self
respecting installer would do such a thing). NFPA states that the
communicator is the first device on the incoming telephone line. You're
now placing a *relay* (no... make that *two* relays) between the
incoming phone line and the communicator. And you *say* an AHJ actually
approved this??
>
> Here's an interesting thing about the MA3000 when used with the 2-line
> dialer board. If either line develops a trouble condition during a
> reportable event the panel will only display and attempt to report the
> trouble after finishing the original report. What happened with this
> sequence was the panel would report the 24-hour zone and the line would
> immediately restore.
Don't care about the "sequence". What you've proposed here is against code.
>
> The MA3000, unlike most commercial fire alarmcontrol panels, is also an
> extremely flexible burglar alarm / automation system. Because I liked
> tinkering with Napco panels I learned a few things they could do that even
> Napco tech didn't always know about. I've installed a lot of them, even
> used one as a 2-line dialer when taking over a system in a church / daycare
> site.
Uh-huh... sure...
>
>
>>As I understand it, you want to use a programmable relay
>>to interrupt the primary phone line at a predetermined
>>time. The phone line monitor detects the "bad" primary
>>phone line and sends a phone line trouble report using
>>the secondary phone line.
>
>
> Not quite right. The panel wasn't actually sending a phone line trouble
> signal. It was simply reporting a 24-hour zone when triggered by another
> programmable relay.
How would you prevent it from calling out the predetermined "test"
signal on line 1 when the second relay's now engaged to "restore" the
first interruption to the panel?? The way I see this is that you've
just defeated your purpose.
>
>
>>This means a good test signal consists of a phone line
>>trouble report.
>
>
> Nope. I wouldn't do that for two reasons. First, you wouldn't want to
> defeat th4e abaility of the panel to report a true phone trouble condition.
> Doing so would cause the C-station to view such a trouble as a test -- not
> good. Second, as you mention, that would create a daily trouble alarm on
> premises -- also not good.
So, when the panel actually goes *into* trouble the second relay engages
probably interrupting the panel's first attempt at communication...
Interesting...
>
>
>>I am not surprised that an AHJ approved something like
>>this. AHJs approve stupid things sometimes, because
>>their level of technical expertise is not all that high.
>
>
> Carl Earn of W Hartford, Ct fire dept. (NBFAA Fire Marshal of the Year some
> years ago) was one of the AHJ's who routinely examined my systems. I used
> this on several installations in W Hartford when we took over and replaced
> panels after the WHPD ceased running an in-house C-station receiver.
And I take it you also have his letter (or stamp) of approval on the
installations you did which utilized this shoddy method of yours. Why
not simply allow the old panel to continue functioning as it would no
doubt have been "grandfathered"?... Ahhh... I see... another way for
you to generate "business"... ;-)
>
>
>>So, as I understand your plan...
>
>
> Actually, you didn't understand it but had it been as you surmised it would
> indeed have been a bad idea. Perhaps if you had asked for more details
> first...
No need. What you proposed is utterly preposterous. Typical of you,
though... How about explaining to us in detail how you get a Napco 32
character LCD keypad to display: "Attention Burglar!" on the first line
and "Go Ahead! Make my day!" on the second??
>
> Nah, that's not SOP in ASA. :^)
Your SOP is to continue to defend *bad advice* 'till the bitter end...
Frank Olson
Sorry to hear you're bowing out, Bob. It's been a slice. Take care and
stay in touch!
Robert L Bass
Thanks much for the kind words, not to mention all the helpful posts you've
made over the past 8 years. I expect to make a full recovery though at
present things are difficult. Angela and I have decided not to go down to
Brazil this September. We'll probably male the trip in late October or
early November. After that we'll be here in Sarasota all Winter and we look
forward to your visit.
I'm sorry you've decided to drop ASA though I can certainly understand why.
Stay in touch.
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
941-866-1100 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
"rh.campbell" <rh.ca...@homemetal.com> wrote in message
news:1153629120.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Robert L Bass
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:11913eecccf6d359...@dizum.com...
> Bass said:
>
>>Ok. Two programmable relays are set to interrupt a 24-hour test zone and
>>to short phone line 1 at the designated time. This causes the panel to
>>report the 24-hour zone as a silent alarm, but the code/zone is configured
>>at the c-station to be viewed as a test signal. A third relay can be
>>triggered by "general trouble" and run in series with the phone shorting
>>relay so that line 1 will not short out if the panel is currently
>>experiencing a trouble condition.
>
> That doesn't work so well either.
>
> When the relay shorts phone line 1, the panel
> doesn't know that line 1 is inoperative, therefore
> it will dial unsuccessfully on line 1 until the
> panel's programming forces it to switch to line 2.
Actually, the panel tries line 1 for a dial tone (well, actually it looks
for line voltage) only once before switching to line 2.
> But suppose line 2 is bad?
Have you forgotten what I said earlier about running a third relay to preven
shorting line 1 if there is a pre-existing trouble condition?
> More importantly, if line 2 really is
> inoperative and you short out line 1...
See above. It really helps if you know the panel before evaluating someone
else's methods.
> I could be mistaken about this...
> but connecting your auxiliary relay to
> short out the phone line probably violates
> FCC Part 68, since that relay is not approved
> terminal equipment...
The panel itself is FCC type accepted. The regs don't prohibit momentary
application of a relay though if it were a problem a simple change from
shorting to opening the circuit would eliminate any problems. I've chosen
to short the line for a few seconds though the same can be accomplished by
opening it.
> Anything I've overlooked or misunderstood?
In all honesty I've not checked whether FCC would have a problem though I
also doubt they've ever checked a single fire alarm installation. :^) You
do bring up a valid point though.
Mark Leuck
> > I openly admit I don't know anything about this
> > particular panel, so maybe I am missing something.
> > Let's go through this step by step...
>
> Ok. Two programmable relays are set to interrupt a 24-hour test zone and
> to short phone line 1 at the designated time. This causes the panel to
> report the 24-hour zone as a silent alarm, but the code/zone is configured
> at the c-station to be viewed as a test signal. A third relay can be
> triggered by "general trouble" and run in series with the phone shorting
> relay so that line 1 will not short out if the panel is currently
> experiencing a trouble condition.
So now one relay (as you mentioned in your original response) turns into 3,
thats 2 additional devices that can fail which makes it an even dumber thing
to do.
Robo
"Rube Goldburg" <robbe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0LGdnYfFr49odl_Z...@comcast.com...
> Ok. Two programmable relays are set to interrupt a 24-hour test zone and
> to short phone line 1 at the designated time. This causes the panel to
> report the 24-hour zone as a silent alarm, but the code/zone is configured
> at the c-station to be viewed as a test signal.
assuming [ you know what that means] that there is a "spare" zone on the
panel.
Seeing as you ar not qualified to actuyally do this I find it interesting
that you would suggest this to some unsuspecting diyer just to get them to
buy parts.
And if the building burns down and the diyer is in court and the attorney
ask why would you install a system that doesn't have the capability to send
test signal on both lines as required by code? And you changed the SIA or
CID codes at the Central Station to pull the wool over the AHJ eyes and get
your system passed when it obviously doesn't meet code? Where did a diyer
come up with this rube goldberg design? Where will bass be? Obviosly no
licensed fire alarm installer would do something like this. This must be
why FL is changing the regs to stop unlicensed parts clerks from giving
advise on system design.
>A third relay can be triggered by "general trouble" and run in series with
>the phone shorting relay so that line 1 will not short out if the panel is
>currently experiencing a trouble condition.
>
> Here's an interesting thing about the MA3000 when used with the 2-line
> dialer board. If either line develops a trouble condition during a
> reportable event the panel will only display and attempt to report the
> trouble after finishing the original report. What happened with this
> sequence was the panel would report the 24-hour zone and the line would
> immediately restore.
notice how when shown the error of his ways he starts adding more relays and
changing his rube goldburg design. This is a classic bassanova. By the end
of this thread bass MAY actually have this figured out, with hints and ideas
to point him in the right direction from people who actually do this for a
living and then will pretend this was his idea all along. and the only
reason we doubted him in the first place was because some unknown persons
supposedly don't like DIY. How long before this turns up on one of his
sites as another gem of knowledge from the brain of the robber bAss.
Petem
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
11913eecccf6d359...@dizum.com...
> I suspect, but have not checked, that
> equipment that places a dead short across tip and ring is also forbidden.
>
> Anything I've overlooked or misunderstood?
>
> - badenov
>
I just saw that thread and have read the whole of it before posting and you
posted what I saw at first with this really crazy scenario..
Shorting a Telco line is not a good idea..after a few week of this type of
action the Telco will call the customer and ask why every night there is a
short for a few minute on the line and will ask it to be fix,every time a
line is shorted log is created at the Telco co...
This is typical Bass fabulation ,could it be the cancer treatment?
Robert L Bass
> panel.
These were systems which I installed so there was no assumption involved. I
didn't suggest that this is a universal fix, only a method I've used several
times.
> Seeing as you ar not qualified to actuyally do
> this...
"Seeing as" I installed security systems for over 20 years and held a CT
contractor's license I guess I was qualified at the time. I no longer
install for a living but I can certainly instruct DIYers.
> I find it interesting that you would suggest
> this to some unsuspecting diyer just to get them to buy parts.
I find it interesting that you consider a discussion between myself and
professional installer considering ways to solve a problem an attempt to
sell anything at all.
> And if the building burns down and the
> diyer is in court and the attorney ask why
> would you install a system that doesn't
> have the capability to send test signal on
> both lines as required by code?...
For the sake of clarity (something you like to avoid) these were not
installed by DIYers. They were professionally installed commercial fire
alarm systems which were inspected and approved by the AHJ -- as required by
code.
> And you changed the SIA or CID codes at
> the Central Station...
Uh, no. You obviously don't understand the system or how it was used.
Napco allows the installer to select the zone type for each zone's CID
signal. Spare zones can be used to generate test signals or any other type
of signals at will. This has no affect on the way fire zones report.
> to pull the wool over the AHJ eyes and get...
Yeah, sure.
> ...Where did a diyer come up with this rube
> goldberg design?...
Perhaps if you tried to follow the thread instead of jumping in without
understanding you'd be able to contribute something of value to the thread.
Robert L Bass
> a few week of this type of action the Telco
> will call the customer and ask why every night
> there is a short for a few minute on the line and
> log is created at the Telco co...
After a few weeks the telco will do what? Yeah, sure. :^)
Frank Olson
> The regs don't prohibit momentary
> application of a relay though if it were a problem a simple change from
> shorting to opening the circuit would eliminate any problems.
Your "dead" wrong there "Pardner" (and your customer wouldn't be far
behind). "The Regs" prohibit the connection of any device ahead of the
communicator. Read NFPA 72. Show me where it states you can do this.
> I've chosen
> to short the line for a few seconds though the same can be accomplished by
> opening it.
Either way, it's illegal. No AHJ would sign off on this and no
professional installer would get involved in something that's clearly a
violation of code and NFPA.
Nomen Nescio
>> But suppose line 2 is bad?
>
>Have you forgotten what I said earlier about running a third relay to preven
>shorting line 1 if there is a pre-existing trouble condition?
>
>> More importantly, if line 2 really is
>> inoperative and you short out line 1...
>
>See above. It really helps if you know the panel before evaluating someone
>else's methods.
Oh, I didn't forget. However, it appears that you do not understand why
the code was changed to require transmission of test signals over both
lines, instead of just depending on the telephone line monitors.
Commercial fire alarm communicators have always required two phone lines
and telephone line monitors. This has been a requirement since they were
first introduced in the early 1980s. Back in those days, when the phone
company disconnected a phone number, it often meant someone physically
disconnected wires at the telco central office. That would trip the phone
line monitor in the fire alarm panel, annunciate the trouble, and transmit
a trouble signal over the other phone line.
Today, telephone numbers are often disconnected via software, rather than
by disconnecting wires. This means the phone line still has voltage on it,
but cannot draw dial tone. The phone line monitor doesn't detect this
problem.
So, consider a fire alarm panel set up as you propose. Somehow, line 2
gets turned off, but without loss of voltage. Perhaps the customer
cancelled a phone number he did not recognize, or perhaps the phone company
turned off the wrong line. Test time arrives, and your relay shorts out
line 1. Since the panel hasn't detected a phone line trouble, your trouble
relay does not prevent this from happening.
The panel tries to dial out on line 1 and fails. The panel then tries to
dial out on line 2 and fails. The panel alternates between these two lines
until the maximum number of dialing attempts is reached, or until your
phone line shorting relay times out and releases line 1.
During the time line 1 is intentionally shorted, the fire alarm panel will
be unable to transmit an alarm signal. That could be fifteen minutes or
so, figuring eight dialing attempts per line.
On the other hand, if you program the phone line shorting relay to restore
in a minute or two, then the test signal will be transmitted over the
primary phone line when that relay releases. The control panel will not
perceive this as a trouble condition. It will just think it had to make a
few extra dialing attempts. The problem on line 2 goes undetected.
Sorry, but this just doesn't fly. Either the system is temporarily
disabled, or the phone line trouble goes undetected.
- badenov
Robert L Bass
Having been installing and servicing alarms since before the 1980's, I'm
well aware of the above. I explained how I accomplished the job several
years ago -- prior to any changes -- using the panel which the OP described.
> So, consider a fire alarm panel set up as you propose...
Nope. You need to consider the thread in context. The discussion was about
a Napco MA3000. The panel doesn't have an intrinsic function to test both
lines. If the OP is doing a new installation, he'll likely need to use a
different product.
> Somehow, line 2 gets turned off, but without
> loss of voltage...
If the client is using Verizon, it's even worse than that. They not only
leave voltage but also dial tone on disconnected lines. Calls to 911 will
go through (not our issue) but calls to a C-station receiver will be met
with a message suggesting the client call Verizon to get the service turned
on.
> Perhaps the customer cancelled a phone number
> he did not recognize, or perhaps the phone company
> turned off the wrong line...
Either way, it happens all the time.
> Test time arrives, and your relay shorts out
> line 1. Since the panel hasn't detected a phone
> line trouble, your trouble relay does not prevent
> this from happening.
You really need to read what I said more carefully. Shorting or opening
line 1 is not done to cause a line trouble report. It is done to ensure
that the signal from a 24-hour zone is sent via line 2.
> The panel tries to dial out on line 1 and fails.
Actually, the panel picks up line 1, finds no dial tome and goes to line 2.
> The panel then tries to dial out on line 2
> and fails...
If line 2 is bad, yes. This will disclose to the customer that line 2 is
bad because the panel will then go into trouble. If the C-station is
expecting the test within a certain time period they will also notify the
installer. That is the reason for testing an alarm system -- to discover if
something is wrong *before* there's a fire.
> The panel alternates between these two lines
> until the maximum number of dialing attempts
> is reached, or until your phone line shorting
> relay times out and releases line 1.
If it is programmed to function that way, yes. BTW, Napco can be programmed
to only send tests via a specific phone number or via both. Nice panel.
You can program the number of tries, too.
However, once the system goes into a trouble mode, if a third relay is in
use as detailed earlier, the system will allow all succeeding calls to pass
on line 1. I mentioned that as an option though I haven't actually employed
it.
> During the time line 1 is intentionally shorted,
> the fire alarm panel will be unable to transmit
> an alarm signal...
Properly configured, that will be about 30 seconds. However, if the third
relay (or even a fourth) is set up to defeat the line short/cut, an alarm
event will go out immediately. There are dozens of ways to modify this *if*
you knw the panel.
Doug L
subsequently turn this thread into source of amusement as you add more
relays and bodges to your harebrained idea in a desperate attempt to
convince the group that you know what you are talking about.
Doug wrote
"...If the MA3000 doesn't support the requirement of the code and it hasn't
been grandfathered in, then the only sane thing to do is to replace the
panel..."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.security.alarms/msg/a3a5877536e02fdf?dmode=source&hl=en
To which RLB replied
"...The MA3000 does indeed support the requirement. It would help if you
knew
the panel (clearly you don't)...."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.security.alarms/msg/d1abaf6ab75fc931?dmode=source&hl=en
And now as you flounder around trying to find a way out of the corner you
have boxed yourself into you reverse your position completely. What a hoot.
Doug
--
"Robert L Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RuKdnV02SqTddl7Z...@comcast.com...
> Nope. You need to consider the thread in context. The discussion was
> about a Napco MA3000. The panel doesn't have an intrinsic function to
> test both lines. If the OP is doing a new installation, he'll likely need
> to use a different product.
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
Doug L
requirements of the code and there would be no need to use a slew of relays
to short or interupt line 1 or any other ill conceived idea in order to
send a send a test signal on line 2, you really need to make up your mind or
are you trying to buy time until Napco tech support opens tommorrow morning.
Doug L
--
"Robert L Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RuKdnV02SqTddl7Z...@comcast.com...
> .... BTW, Napco can be programmed to only send tests via a specific phone
> number or via both... You can program the number of tries, too.
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
>
>
Nomen Nescio
>Nope. You need to consider the thread in context. The discussion was about
>a Napco MA3000. The panel doesn't have an intrinsic function to test both
>lines. If the OP is doing a new installation, he'll likely need to use a
>different product.
I'm glad you agree that this panel does not meet the requirements of the
current edition of NFPA 72, with or without the addition of one, two, or
three extra relays.
>> Test time arrives, and your relay shorts out
>> line 1. Since the panel hasn't detected a phone
>> line trouble, your trouble relay does not prevent
>> this from happening.
>
>You really need to read what I said more carefully. Shorting or opening
>line 1 is not done to cause a line trouble report. It is done to ensure
>that the signal from a 24-hour zone is sent via line 2.
It's you who needs to read more closely. Especially the part where I said,
"Since the panel hasn't detected a phone line trouble." My point is that
if line 2 is bad (voltage present, but no dial tone), the panel's phone
line monitor will not detect a problem, and when test time rolls around,
your setup will disable line 1 as well. Not a good plan.
I think I'll finish with a couple of quotes from NFPA 72, 2002 edition:
"4.3.1 Equipment. Equipment constructed and installed in conformity with
this Code shall be listed for the purpose for which it is used. Fire alarm
system components shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
installation instructions."
Contrary to popular belief, the code does not say, "Install it any way you
want, so long as the AHJ signs off on it." If that were the case, there
would be no need for a code at all. The AHJ's job is to enforce the code,
not make up his own, and to interpret issues not addressed by the code. He
does not have the authority to disregard a code requirement.
Section 1.5 addresses the issue of equivalency:
"1.5.1 Nothing in this Code shall prevent the use of systems, methods,
devices, or appliances of equivalent or superior quality, strength, fire
resistance, effectiveness, durability, and safety over those prescribed by
this Code."
"1.5.2 Technical documentation shall be submitted to the authority having
jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency."
So, unless Napco approves your phone line testing system, section 4.3.1
prohibits its use, since these components are not installed in accordance
with the manufacturer's installation instructions.
If you want an AHJ to approve your design, section 1.5 requires you to
submit technical documentation to demonstrate that your design is
"equivalent or superior" to the requirements of the code. Clearly, it
isn't. Therefore, it's not eligible for an equivalency determination.
- badenov
Petem
"Robert L Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
2OadnV-JbpJ6AF7Z...@comcast.com...
>> Shorting a Telco line is not a good idea..after
>> a few week of this type of action the Telco
>> will call the customer and ask why every night
>> there is a short for a few minute on the line and
>> will ask it to be fix, every time a line is shorted
>> log is created at the Telco co...
>
> After a few weeks the telco will do what? Yeah, sure. :^)
Go ahead bAss and play with the Telco...I am sure they will be more then
please to teach you a few thing...
Doug L
Doug L
--
"Petem" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10Wwg.194$Hq5.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
Frank Olson
While the above provides definitive proof of what Mark and a number of
others have been saying all along, why do I get the feeling that it's
still not over? What is this?? I feel like I'm in the middle of "Scary
Movie Six and Two-Thirds, Revenge of the Bass".
Frank Olson
> This is typical Bass fabulation ,could it be the cancer treatment?
>
>
I believe I mentioned thinking that that they'd removed the "wrong
lobe"... :-)
Petem
cause the more you know,the more you realize that you don't know much...
"Doug L" <vss...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
V8Wwg.14953$6w.3352@fed1read11...
Petem
message de news: Q1Ywg.220875$iF6.7639@pd7tw2no...
Na.....Impossible..he would have needed at least 2 lobe to remove one...
Frank Olson
> These were systems which I installed so there was no assumption involved. I
> didn't suggest that this is a universal fix, only a method I've used several
> times.
It's a good thing you're no longer installing for a living (or running
an alarm installation company). Sooner or later the customers whose
systems you've compromised using your "method" will finally discover
what an imbecile you really are. I just hope that no one gets hurt in
the meantime. It would be a real shame to have *that* on your conscience.
>
>
>>Seeing as you ar not qualified to actuyally do
>>this...
>
>
> "Seeing as" I installed security systems for over 20 years and held a CT
> contractor's license I guess I was qualified at the time. I no longer
> install for a living but I can certainly instruct DIYers.
And how many systems did you install *before* you got your license??
You frequently tell us that you opened your business in 1979, yet
weren't licensed until 1983, and you couldn't pull permits until 1989
(when you finally got your contractor's license). As for "instructing
DIYers"... If this thread is an example of the kinds of things you
teach, I'd make darn sure you have a good insurance policy.
> I find it interesting that you consider a discussion between myself and
> professional installer considering ways to solve a problem an attempt to
> sell anything at all.
Your methods are shoddy, against code, and dangerous. I wouldn't
consider anything you've said in this thread as even remotely resembling
a valid solution to Allan's problem.
> For the sake of clarity (something you like to avoid) these were not
> installed by DIYers. They were professionally installed commercial fire
> alarm systems which were inspected and approved by the AHJ -- as required by
> code.
Sure they are, Bass. Why not post the "approval". You did get it in
writing didn't you??
> Perhaps if you tried to follow the thread instead of jumping in without
> understanding you'd be able to contribute something of value to the thread.
>
Heh... What did you "contribute" to the thread again??