How To Finally Send Alarms Using A Standard Modem
homerj
a Kiwi after all ).
But isn't SIA 2000 (SIA DC-04) what this is all about ? i.e. this is the
standard that is intended to move alarms reporting into the modern age by
supporting things like digital comms, real modems and the like ? See it at
... http://www.siaonline.org/page.asp?c=stds_dc_04
SIA 2000 is already supported by industry standard receivers such as the
Silent Knight 9800 and Radionics D6600.
Hmm, this is looking good enough to part with NZ$200 + to get a copy. The
least I can do to thank Mark Visbal of SIA for finally telling me all about
it.
Does this stack up, or am I just spouting more "absolute nonsense" (Tee Hee)
... ?
Cheers -- John.
m..leuck
"homerj" <andot...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:cVFM8.1736$iR2.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Feel free to shoot me down if I've screwed up the theory on this. ( I'm
just
> a Kiwi after all ).
>
> But isn't SIA 2000 (SIA DC-04) what this is all about ? i.e. this is the
> standard that is intended to move alarms reporting into the modern age by
> supporting things like digital comms, real modems and the like ? See it at
> ... http://www.siaonline.org/page.asp?c=stds_dc_04
No I think it is just to standardize formats and move away from 4/2.
Remember that no matter what you still deal with legacy devices and they
consist of old panels with modem emulators running at 100-300 baud. The only
panel I've seen so far with a real modem is the ITI Advent.
> SIA 2000 is already supported by industry standard receivers such as the
> Silent Knight 9800 and Radionics D6600.
The 6600 just mentions supporting SIA DCS, doesn't say 03 or 04, spec sheet
says SIA-8 or SIA-20 which I think is not SIA 2000 (?)
Robert L. Bass
the SIA 2000 standards is to establish procedures for 2-way data
transmission (control & configuration as well as reporting) between the CS
and the monitored system.
Moving away from 4x2 is a given. Newer systems will likely continue to
support the old format but more and more installers are taking advantage of
the "smart" formats. There will always be a few old timers who don't
understand and / or refuse to learn the new technology. But the industry is
(very) slowly moving away from pulse formats as the standard.
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
The Online DIY Alarm Store
http://www.Bass-Home.com
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota, FL 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
rober...@comcast.net
=============================>
"m..leuck" <m.l....@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:K4MM8.24868$pw3.927@sccrnsc03...
homerj
> > Silent Knight 9800 and Radionics D6600.
>
> The 6600 just mentions supporting SIA DCS, doesn't say 03 or 04, spec
sheet
> says SIA-8 or SIA-20 which I think is not SIA 2000 (?)
>
Mark, I stand corrected. The Radionics D6600 datasheet I looked at said the
following ...
"Digital formats are continually being added with ITI,
SIA 2000, Silent Knight FSK, Varitech FSK, C&K FSK,
Robofon, Sériée DTMF and Sériée FSK coming soon."
From : http://www.radionicsinc.com/communications/d6600brochure8x11.pdf
The Silent Knight 9800 datasheet doesn't have the "coming soon" qualifier,
so I assume it's a done thing with their receiver.
See : http://www.silentknight.com/pdffiles/Commpdf/9800/9800spec.pdf
Either way, my concern before going any further with this newer format, was
that there would be receivers that supported it in the market place in the
not too distant future. The above suggests that this will be the case.
homerj
your posts re XML recently ;-)
( Wow, isn't it amazing how well mannered my two posts have been today )
"Robert L. Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EYMM8.42446$Qg.36...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Robert L. Bass
the project progresses. That's no big deal, BTW. Anyone can sign up. If
you want the link, let me know.
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
The Online DIY Alarm Store
http://www.Bass-Home.com
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota, FL 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
rober...@comcast.net
=============================>
"homerj" <andot...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:G4%M8.2088$iR2.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...
m..leuck
> "m..leuck" <m.l....@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:K4MM8.24868$pw3.927@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > > SIA 2000 is already supported by industry standard receivers such as
the
> > > Silent Knight 9800 and Radionics D6600.
> >
> > The 6600 just mentions supporting SIA DCS, doesn't say 03 or 04, spec
> sheet
> > says SIA-8 or SIA-20 which I think is not SIA 2000 (?)
> >
>
> Mark, I stand corrected. The Radionics D6600 datasheet I looked at said
the
> following ...
>
> "Digital formats are continually being added with ITI,
> SIA 2000, Silent Knight FSK, Varitech FSK, C&K FSK,
> Robofon, Sériée DTMF and Sériée FSK coming soon."
I just went by the installation manual, it will be interesting to see if
those formats really get added
>
> From : http://www.radionicsinc.com/communications/d6600brochure8x11.pdf
>
> The Silent Knight 9800 datasheet doesn't have the "coming soon" qualifier,
> so I assume it's a done thing with their receiver.
Installation manual says "pending approval" so I assume it is there although
we don't use that receiver, the ITI CS5000 is a modified version but it
doesn't show any support for it unless it goes by a different SIA name
> See : http://www.silentknight.com/pdffiles/Commpdf/9800/9800spec.pdf
>
> Either way, my concern before going any further with this newer format,
was
> that there would be receivers that supported it in the market place in the
> not too distant future. The above suggests that this will be the case.
Thats okay, so far I know of no panels that use it either :)
homerj
>
> "> >
> > Either way, my concern before going any further with this newer format,
> was
> > that there would be receivers that supported it in the market place in
the
> > not too distant future. The above suggests that this will be the case.
>
> Thats okay, so far I know of no panels that use it either :)
>
Off into the twilight zone with this SIA 2000 thing it is then ... I'll keep
you posted ... nothing like a good challenge to keep the neurons healthy :-)
homerj
The problem with SIA 2000 appears to be that alarm receiver
manufacturers ( e.g. Radionics to name one ) appear in no hurry to
implement it.
I can understand this if few ( any ? ) panels are planning to use it,
but it's a Catch 22 situation. If there are no receivers capable of
accepting it then no one's going to bother to put it into their
panels. And around it goes.
Anyway, I've signed up to the project group updates today, but would
be interested to know if any of the previous ones you've seen :
1. Discussed a likely time frame for SIA 2000 implementation by
receiver manufacturers, or perhaps it's just being left to market
forces ? If they leave it much longer dial-up modems as we know them
will be obsolete, although at least the concept covers much more than
just dial-up.
2. Discussed any specific modem formats (i.e. speeds/protocols)
I've seen the minutes of some of the project meetings before and they
often cover details that do not, or are not required to, make it into
the final standard. Thanks for the suggestion.
Cheers -- John.
"Robert L. Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<zQ4N8.174849$%y.172...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
Robert L. Bass
>
> The problem with SIA 2000 appears to be that alarm
> receiver manufacturers ( e.g. Radionics to name one)
> appear in no hurry to implement it.
>
> to use it, but it's a Catch 22 situation. If there are no
> receivers capable of accepting it then no one's going
> to bother to put it into their panels. And around it goes.
What usually happens is that one of the more innovative manufacturers
decides independently to be the "first on the block" to support the newest
format (or any other feature). After that the other leading makers follow.
Then the smaller companies figure out how to do it. Five years later Ademco
adds the feature. :^)
> Anyway, I've signed up to the project group updates
> today, but would be interested to know if any of the
> previous ones you've seen :
>
> 1. Discussed a likely time frame for SIA 2000
> implementation by receiver manufacturers...
Not that I noticed. I give the stuff a cursory read and only pay attention
when something looks interesting.
> or perhaps it's just being left to market forces?
That's the way it usually goes. SIA doesn't dictate anything to
manufacturers. Each one decides when and if they want to implement each of
the standard formats ("standard" in the sense that they've been accepted by
SIA, ANSI, etc.) Some make a committment of resources to further the
development but achieving an implementation date is difficult enough with
existing standards, let alone with something that's still on the back
burner.
> If they leave it much longer dial-up modems as we
> know them will be obsolete, although at least the
> concept covers much more than just dial-up.
Why do you say that, Homer? I suspect we'll have dial-up modems around for
a very long time. Don't forgety that, although som of us have broad band
connections (Cable, ADSL, etc.), most of the world is still only connected
to telco pairs.
> 2. Discussed any specific modem formats (i.e. speeds/protocols)
>
> I've seen the minutes of some of the project meetings before
> and they often cover details that do not, or are not required
> to, make it into the final standard. Thanks for the suggestion.
That's pretty much universal. You can't agree on a standard without first
discussing and then dismissing lots of stuff that doesn't fit the design.
homerj
> homerj wrote:
> >
>
> > If they leave it much longer dial-up modems as we
> > know them will be obsolete, although at least the
> > concept covers much more than just dial-up.
>
> Why do you say that, Homer? I suspect we'll have dial-up modems around for
> a very long time. Don't forgety that, although som of us have broad band
> connections (Cable, ADSL, etc.), most of the world is still only connected
> to telco pairs.
>
Just me exaggerating to make a point ;-)
m..leuck
> Robert,
>
> The problem with SIA 2000 appears to be that alarm receiver
> manufacturers ( e.g. Radionics to name one ) appear in no hurry to
> implement it.
Keep in mind Radionics pushes its own Modem II format, my guess is you will
see SurGard implement it long before Radionics
> I can understand this if few ( any ? ) panels are planning to use it,
> but it's a Catch 22 situation. If there are no receivers capable of
> accepting it then no one's going to bother to put it into their
> panels. And around it goes.
Naa, I'm sure it isn't that hard or costly to implement it hence they can do
it and wait for the panels to catch up, same I'm sure happened to the
original SIA
m..leuck
yet :)
"homerj" <andot...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1b75d280.02061...@posting.google.com...
homerj
pre-historic and are all but waiting to be excavated ;-)
"m..leuck" <m.l....@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:XkQN8.26962$6m5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
homerj
Excellent, there's hope for my experiment yet. And based on your track
record you've been more right than someone else I can think of :-)
m..leuck
"homerj" <andot...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:7PYN8.3051$iR2.3...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Randy Mass
Sorry to turn this thread back to the subject line, but
I've successfully come up with a simple way to send Contact
ID signals to a CS Receiver.
I seems to work fine with my Surgard Receivers, but can't
guarantee it to work with anything else as it doesn't adhere
to CID standards.
What it will do:
Dial specified receiver phone number.
Wait for any Handshake tone (not just CID Handshake).
Wait for a Kiss Off (or any Tone)
The Modem will then report "OK"
If it doesn't get an answer it will report "NO DIALTONE"
or "BUSY" if the line is busy.
This is an intelligent enough response from the modem
to determine if the signal got through in most cases.
Anyone interested, just drop me a line, as I don't want
to post this. The potential for evil probably outweighs
the good to post this info in a public forum.
Jacob Ashbury
"Randy Mass" <rm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20020614.223520...@hotmail.com...
A word of caution- the 'anyone' may need a limitation.
There are those among us that post bypass codes and installer codes not only
in this NG but in other NGs, such as CHA, and make all this material freely
available to anyone that wonders through a web-site.
Robert L. Bass
from me for the purpose of developing add-on products or software. One such
client bought a Napco Gemini P9600 and a GEM-DEVELOPER kit from me a while
back and built a nice HA software app called Homeseer. It has become a
popular product amongst HA enthusiasts.
I am currently arranging to offer an add-on software package which works
with Homeseer and certain other HA products. Hopefully the new product will
be available for sale on my web site (URL below) in a week or so. I have an
interest in developing code to generate Contact ID (or SIA2K if anyone ever
gets it going right) signals to our contract central monitoring station.
This would represent an improvement over what most of the PC-based HA apps
can do. If you would like to share ideas with me, I'd very much like to
hear from you.
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
The Online DIY Alarm Store
http://www.Bass-Home.com
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota, FL 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
rober...@comcast.net
=============================>
m..leuck
"Jacob Ashbury" <ch...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aeeiv2$sjq$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
Jacob Ashbury
was having problems and needed your expertise?
You aren't going to plagiarize this like you did the wire-tie are you?
Jake-
"Robert L. Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:opAO8.255512$%o.210...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
homerj
Sneaky-Work-Around category) coming up.
Speaking of Modem Gods, has anyone heard from Ian(T) of Arrowhead NZ / Crow
Group (Israel) lately ?
Surprised that there was never any answer on whether SIA DC-03 was really
sent to that receiver in Oz. Guess it can't have been ?
"Jacob Ashbury" <ch...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aeeiv2$sjq$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
homerj
You've approached the requirement from a completely different angle. And who
said it was Kiwis that thought outside the square ? And B4 you lot get
started, it was NOT me !!! Go back through the last thread on modems to see
who started that scrap !!!
Anyway, if you want to send the details to my email address, I'd certainly
be interested in having a look.
It's also good to see that you've qualified your method RIGHT FROM THE START
with "but can't guarantee it to work with anything else as it doesn't adhere
to CID standards". Some in this NG could learn a thing or two from such
genuine technical honesty.
P.S. Surprised to see the word "Gentlemen". Are you sure you're posting to
the correct NG ;-)
"Randy Mass" <rm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20020614.223520...@hotmail.com...
homerj
(TeeHee)
"m..leuck" <m.l....@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:kZAO8.49964$6m5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
homerj
I think we have a potential winner for the Modem God award. This solution
borders on sheer genius for it's simplicity and elegance.
It will also likely be of use for the receiver test application(s) you had
in mind.
Well done Randy. See my separate email to you today.
Cheers -- John.
"m..leuck" <m.l....@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:kZAO8.49964$6m5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...