New readers, look at this about RF intruders in wireless alarm systems
Dan Adkins
I might be incline to listen at least to some of what you have to say,
but you are so negative about wireless ALL the time from what I've read
on this newsgroup. Why? Did ITI, Linear, or Transcience fail to meet
your needs? Do you know that wireless is a fairly stable technology,
especially spread spectrum? Why on earth do you continue to try to
poison the waters on this newsgroup? I'm really curious. Thanks.
Dan
.@Pau|. . . i disregard all wrote:
> Radio Frequency (RF) intruders.
>
> The whole RF spectrum is divided and regulated by international
> committees who define the allowances on each frequency.
> The Wireless Alarm Systems have multi user "shared" frequencies
> assigned.
> Keeping in mind that only one operator can transmit on the same
> frequency at the same time, a protocol is laid-out to circumvent the
> shared frequency restrictions.
> Each user has to respect some transmission rules like:
> - Limit the transmit power;
> - Each transmission has to have an identifier;
> - transmit in a BURTS transmission mode,
> to mention the most essentials.
>
> Limited transmission power.
> By limiting the transmission power the signal reception range is
> reduced and by consequence the possible mutual interference on that
> frequency.
>
> Personal identifier (ID).
> As multiple users uses the same frequency and in order to retrieve
> only the information belonging to hiss personal system, each user
> identifies themselves during hiss transmission with a unique ID.
> Some transmitters uses ID rolling codes, the code changes each time in
> order to make sure that at repetition he has a unique ID.
> Realize that sometimes this rolling code may not be unique, the
> individual receivers have to keep trace of the temporary intruder ID
> in order to retrieve only hiss data.
> This requires multiple transmission/reception attempts before true
> validation of the corresponding ID and by consequence causes a
> reception DELAY.
>
> Burst transmission.
> Burst transmission is one way to circumvent mutual interference.
> Each transmitter sends hiss data information during a small period of
> time hoping that the frequency is unoccupied while he transmits.
> When two or more transmissions occur at the same time, interference
> is generated and the receivers are disturbed, they can't decode the
> data information.
> This is not a real problem, the transmission is repeated several time
> with the hope that at some time during the repetitions the frequency
> is free.
> This require multiple transmission/reception attempts before data is
> passing true, by consequence this causes a reception DELAY of the data
> involved.
>
>
> The whole burst transmission protocol has restrictions, the burst
> length and repetition rate, the number of possible systems and
> different types using the same frequency and more..
>
> Now, back to the header, intruders.
> As described above, the validity of data transmission of all
> transmissions using the shared frequency spectrum are depending on the
> respect of the burst transmission requirement/principle.
> If one, lets call them INTRUDER, uses a different protocol and
> transmits without the respect of the burst principles, the whole
> frequency utilization goes bingo.
> That's the case during Radio Frequency Interference (RFI).
>
> Hope this clarifies a little the wireless alarm system shared
> frequency operation fragility.
>
> NOTE: I don't mind if "so called professionals" explain it in a
> better and more detailed way.
> Critisime is easy, explain instead.
>
> Paul
>
--
=============================================
Adkins, Coggs, and Sloan; your first choice
for tomorrow's security solutions today!
William Allen Scheer
into a personal "holy war". He keeps insisting that there is some
"conspiracy of silence" regarding all manner of information & specifications
for wireless products.
He has an unusally overblown perception of his own level of intelligence,
education and experience - any of which would have allowed him to avoid his
silly "headphone problem", had he been using any of those particulars in the
first place.
He sees himself as the only person who is either aware (or who will admit)
that the "emperor has no clothes" (his opinion) when it comes to wireless
alarm systems. Any information contradicting his poorly reasoned screeds -
or even correcting any number of factual or technical errors on his part -
are seen as somehow tainted by "low level electrician knowledge", profit
motive or the like. There is literally NOTHING which can disabuse him of his
faulty notions. He is quite like a religious fanatic in this respect.
Have fun with him if you like, for as long as it lasts until you tire of
him. Just know that you are talking to an especially "thick" wall. He's a
shining example of why Belgium doesn't export much in the way of
electronics.
"Dan Adkins" wrote
Dan Adkins
William Allen Scheer wrote:
> Paul has blown up a personal bad experience with a wireless alarm product
> into a personal "holy war". He keeps insisting that there is some
> "conspiracy of silence" regarding all manner of information & specifications
> for wireless products.
>
> He has an unusally overblown perception of his own level of intelligence,
> education and experience - any of which would have allowed him to avoid his
> silly "headphone problem", had he been using any of those particulars in the
> first place.
>
> He sees himself as the only person who is either aware (or who will admit)
> that the "emperor has no clothes" (his opinion) when it comes to wireless
> alarm systems. Any information contradicting his poorly reasoned screeds -
> or even correcting any number of factual or technical errors on his part -
> are seen as somehow tainted by "low level electrician knowledge", profit
> motive or the like. There is literally NOTHING which can disabuse him of his
> faulty notions. He is quite like a religious fanatic in this respect.
>
> Have fun with him if you like, for as long as it lasts until you tire of
> him. Just know that you are talking to an especially "thick" wall. He's a
> shining example of why Belgium doesn't export much in the way of
> electronics.
>
>
William,
Thanks for the quick of it. I won't bother Paul too much for who has
time to waste? I take it that this "holy war" has been going on for
some time now?
Dan
Robert L. Bass
> wireless alarm system.
Hmm. Semi-pidgin English
> Solved now, i have a wired system.
> I like to inform users and future users of the wireless Radio
> Frequency Interference (RFI) inherent problem.
Marginal grammar.
> Where are the manufacturers spec's about it if theyre spread spectrum
> is that good?
Other than a couple of missing apostrophes, perfect grammar.
> A spread spectrum system needs to fulfill some basic requirements,
> frequency spread, receiver individual frequency tuning to avoid
> general saturation/RFI, and more.
Perfect grammar again.
> I have counter argued already several times to that illusionary
> spread spectrum argument, please force manufacturer to publish data
> spec's to show how good they are..
Back to semi-pidgin.
> For me they use small frequency shifts to counter reception path
> failures due to moving conductive objects in the receiver / sensor
> vicinity, its a nuisance at 900MHz to have object not always on the
> exact same place (a car for instance)
Minor punctuation errors, but sentence structure is that of an English
speaking writer.
> I don't poison anybody, pro's try to hide the inherent wireless RFI
> unreliability problem.
> Pro's have poison my post and mail, they attempt to block my internet
> access and still try to do so by poisoning (spamming) my provider with
> mail hoping he will not read my posts a realize the real objectives of
> it.. Wireless alarm unreliability.
Semi-pidgin.
> Wireless alarm systems are also sold in belgium without the indication
> about the possible muzzling of the wireless receiver by an external
> transmitter source causing RFI.
Near perfect.
> As a personal victim of RFI, i like to continuously inform NEW
> READERS about that problem by logical information means.
Weak.
> I have no financial interest in alarm systems and as such are free to
> inform owners and future owners the right way.
Semi-pidgin again.
Paul (or whatever your name is):
How about dropping the "I'm a Belgian" charade?
Dan Adkins
frequencies to transmit data, all for redundancy. Conventional systems
also use various methods to assure transmission reliability. I only use
wireless when I have to, and I am not afraid to do so--and I'm from the
old school "if you can run a wire, run it."
Dan Adkins
.@Pau|. . . i disregard all wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:20:36 -0400, Dan Adkins <drad...@tpromo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>William Allen Scheer wrote:
>>
>>>Paul has blown up a personal bad experience with a wireless alarm product
>>>into a personal "holy war". He keeps insisting that there is some
>>>"conspiracy of silence" regarding all manner of information & specifications
>>>for wireless products.
>>
>
> I was a victim of that problem.
>
> Where is that info you talk about?????
> Where are the manufacturers spec????
>
>
>>>He has an unusally overblown perception of his own level of intelligence,
>>>education and experience - any of which would have allowed him to avoid his
>>>silly "headphone problem", had he been using any of those particulars in the
>>>first place.
>>
>
> You have a week signal level, come up with YOUR extensive explanations
> on how wireless alarm systems work and WHY they are reliable.
>
>
>>>He sees himself as the only person who is either aware (or who will admit)
>>
>
> Wrong sire, a lot of professionals in this NG admit that RFI problem,
> they just disagree to the extend it has without any counter argument,
> without to be able to explain that RFI is detected, without any means
> of RFI avoidance.
>
> SNIP
>
>
>>Thanks for the quick of it. I won't bother Paul too much for who has
>>time to waste? I take it that this "holy war" has been going on for
>>some time now?
>>Dan
>
>
> Usual stuff,
>
> Ounce you have to com up with qualifying data.. Your Ostrich position
> is the outcome.
>
> Paul
Dan Adkins
old days, back when we had the old analog, wireless that did not
distinguish between transmitters, I was a lot like Paul. Today,
however, there is no reason for such negativity.
Dan
Robert L. Bass
> frequencies to transmit data, all for redundancy. Conventional systems
> also use various methods to assure transmission reliability. I only use
> wireless when I have to, and I am not afraid to do so--and I'm from the
> old school "if you can run a wire, run it."
100% correct, Dan. However, there's no way you're going to convince "Paul"
of anything. He doesn't post because he believes what he's saying. He's
just having fun pretending to be a dissatisfied wireless alarm user from
Belgium.
1. If you look carefully at his grammar it becomes apparent that English
is his primary language.
2. He has never provided any information on the system he claims was
defeated or even the make/model of headphones he claims were the problem.
3. He never acknowledges contraverting information provided but insists
that no such information is available.
This is a classic troll and most of the guys in this forum have fallen for
it. When you debate him you are actually playing into his game. Bear in
mind that he's not trying to prove he's right. That's not the point of
trolling. His only purpose is to keep the debate going and to piss off as
many people as possible. One way to accomplish that is to ignore all your
best arguments as though you've never presented them. Another is to accuse
you of being in a world-wide conspiracy to hide "The Truth."
He does not actually believe that there is a conspiracy. He does not
believe that RFI "muzzles" alarm systems. He doesn't really believe any of
the silly things he says. In all probability his original story of a failed
wireless alarm system is a complete fabrication.
Please don't take this as a flame or even a mild reproof. It's only offered
as information for your consideration. As long as you continue arguing with
"Paul" you are playing into his hands. His goal is the same as that of
Jiminex, Ashbury and Morgan -- to cause as much turmoil as possible. Once
you see that it becomes clear that the best and only recourse is to ignore
or filter him. I like to post an occasional tidbit to the threads but I
refuse to get into any prolonged discussion with him because I can see that
it's not going to change his mind. I've come to the conclusion after
watching his antics for a while that he's just playing the game --
trolling -- and no amount of evidence will matter. His purpose is not to
elicit information but to keep the threads going and to annoy everyone.
Side note: I don't have any objection to occasionally posting things which
annoy certain thugs. I only want you to consider whether debating with
"Paul" is of any use. If you believe that your argument will help others
who read the newsgroup, feel free to continue. I suspect that any
disinterested party who reads the threads will see through them as easily as
newbies see through the flames from Jake's 1001 weekly aliases.
BTW, I place the word, "Paul" in quotes because I doubt that's even his
name.
Regards,
Robert
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics, Inc
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
941-232-0791 Wireless
Nextel Private ID - 161*21755*1
http://www.bass-home.com
=============================>
Robert L. Bass
English. He uses the phony pidgin English as part of the role he plays. In
all likelihood he's an American.
Frank Olson
news:LfmcneEzrd7...@giganews.com...
> The point was not that his English is marginal. He has a fluent grasp of
> English. He uses the phony pidgin English as part of the role he plays.
In
> all likelihood he's an American.
And you're doing the same thing... misleading people into thinking you
still install and are "in the trade" when all you really are is a delusional
ex-con parts pusher...
RH.Campbell
is another possible reason.....
From where I sit, his behaviour appears to be typical of someone suffering
from one of a broad range of compulsive disorders. While I am certainly no
doctor and thus not qualified to give more than a personal opinion, I have
read a fair bit on the subject, and people with this type of obsessive
fixation on one point, oblivious to logic or reasoned arguments, often
suffer from one of these types of disorders. Another symptom of this
disorder can be a desire to "punish" anyone they see disagreeing with
them.....ie: Paul's e mail bombardments.......
If this is the case, I genuinely hope he seeks help. However, one of the
other things about this range of disorders, is people suffering from them
usually don't see themselves as "sick". But the end result here on the ng
....best to just ignore the posts....
Besides, people aren't stupid; as RLB intimates (whatever the reason Paul
does it), most can quickly see through this sort of stuff for what it
is.....
RHC
"Robert L. Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pZCcnXjxkuo...@giganews.com...
Al Colombo
Al
"RH.Campbell" <rhcam...@homemetal.com> wrote in message
news:Z0YMa.57713$x4o....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Alarmanex
<colo...@netscape.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: New readers, look at this about RF intruders in wireless
alarm
>systems
>From: "Al Colombo" <colo...@netscape.net>
>Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:11:29 -0400
>
>Do you use wireless much?
>
Hi Al, welcome back.
I think you'll find that the general consensus here, is that everyone uses it
if it's necessary, but favor hardwired if at all possible.
Jim
(Email upon request)
RH.Campbell
and where the customer absolutely must have point coverage. Personally, I
have only ever used the DSC wireless, and so far, everything has worked out
well. Batteries crap out regularily, but never an instance where the
wireless device has failed to check in properly. I do enable all the
possible alternatives for it reporting in to the main panel though to
eliminate the possibility of it "getting lost", because Paul does have a
point. RFI is a possibility, but to nowhere near the extent that he is
concerned about.
The alternative of "no coverage" at that point however, is often
unacceptable. Everything has it's tradeoffs, but modern wireless is no
compromise today IMO....(besides the obvious extra high costs....) And, as I
understand it, Ademco and ITI wireless is generally considered even better
than DSC wireless.
Plus the Paradox wireless is likely excellent as well (at least, if it's
anywhere as good as their panels....)
RHC
"Al Colombo" <colo...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:vg8o6cj...@corp.supernews.com...
Robert L. Bass
Hi Al,
Yes and no. I sell it but wireless is a small percentage of overall sales.
Most of my DIY clients opt to wire their homes. Probably between a third
and half of our clients are installing in new construction where wireless
sensors would serve no purpose. Among those doing retrofits to existing
homes most choose either an all wired or a hybrid system with mostly wired
and a few RF sensors for especially difficult locations.
I've had pretty good results (no major hassles that is) with Napco, Ademco
and ITI wireless. DSC has had a few more problems but those have been with
the mother board and sometimes with accessories -- not the wireless stuff.
Due to the added complexity of wireless there will always be a long-term
performance delta compared to wired systems of equal quality. But this
whole business of RFI "muzzling" alarm systems is rubbish. It *can* happen
but it rarely does.
William Allen Scheer
"RH.Campbell" wrote
> ... Everything has it's tradeoffs, but modern wireless is no
> compromise today IMO....(besides the obvious extra high costs....) And, as
I
> understand it, Ademco and ITI wireless is generally considered even better
> than DSC wireless.
QuickBridge and the entire line of compatible transmitters. This stuff is
SOLID ... and I have yet to replace a battery or verify a single false.
RH.Campbell
RHC
"William Allen Scheer" <dans...@ANTISPAMBLOCKREMOVEME.excite.com> wrote in
message news:vg8qamp...@corp.supernews.com...
William Allen Scheer
> Good to know...thanks...
Nomen Nescio
>Paul (or whatever your name is):
>
>How about dropping the "I'm a Belgian" charade?
There's an easy way for Paul to help prove he is from Belgium (which I also
doubt).
Paul, post one of your ridiculously lengthy messages in Flemish, or
whatever your native tongue is. Not just a couple sentences, either.
Let's see if you are any more coherent in your own language.
I don't speak Flemish, but I'll bet that at least one person here does, or
knows someone who does. If Paul's post is in pidgin Flemish, he'll be
exposed as a fraud, or, at least, as an idiot. (Oh wait, we already know
_that_.) If he refuses to post except in pidgin English, everyone will
continue to wonder why.
- badenov
Robert L. Bass
BTW, I thought Belgians spoke French -- not Flemish. Thanks for the
correction.
Now as I think about this ISTR that I said something about Paul's primary
language being French and he did not correct me. Hmm. Perhaps he also
didn't know this. :^)
Regards,
Robert
Nunya Bizness
months ago. Someone (who has access to ridiculously low international rates)
actually called his house, and spoke to him. I wish I could remember who that
person was....................
Subject: Re: New readers, look at this about RF intruders in wireless alarm sys
From: Nomen Nescio nob...@dizum.com
Date: 7/3/03 9:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <ab50a98d2724acb7...@dizum.com>
William Allen Scheer
and we can "talk"
If there is sufficient interest, I'd be happy to detail this suff in the
'group.
".@Pau|. . . i disregard all" wrote:
> Great, tell us how you did.
>
> Paul
>
Gary
The only difference is that he is not using is posts to advertise is crap
company.
"Frank Olson" <Use_the_e...@alt-security-alarms.com> wrote in message
news:yuXMa.348611$3C2.9...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
AlarmReview
>He's definitely from Belgium. Someone
>posted his personal information about 6
>months ago.
Here's one. After it was posted Paul stopped posting to that newgroup and
hasn't been seen there since.
Subject: Re: Nuisance of MOST pro's when it boilsdown to Wireless unreliability
Date: 2003-01-21 06:37:21 GMT
NOTICE:
The original post WAS NOT posted by Jim, so please do not reply to the message.
It was posted by Paul Rampelbergh of Belgium.
Paul has been attempting for some time to convince people that wireless alarm
systems can be routinely blocked by RFI. He used the example that his wireless
headphone caused his wireless alarm system to be useless. This is his opinion
that he has every right to express.
Now Paul, this is MY opinion:
1.You made an allegation regarding wireless alarm systems, however you provided
no proof to your claim.
2. You repeatedly refused to provide basic information on the system and
headphone so that others can attempt to simulate the problem.
3. You have made exaggerated claims about your engineering background, only to
have that proven false.
4. When someone disagreed with your claims, they reported that you flooded
their e-mail with message after message ion the subject and refused to stop.
5. You discover that many on alt.security.alarm had you filtered, you started
forging headers so that you could get around their filters.
6. You continually repost relies to your post so it looks like others are
responding when they are not.
7. You once before attempted to make a claims in post regarding flight
simulators only to have the manufacture refute you statements.
8. When you find yourself up against a wall regarding your rants, you move to
another NG, like this one, to attempt to get your message across
9. Since your reputation precedes you, you have resorted to forging headers to
make it seem that others are posting the information when it's you.
10. You are a certifiable mental case.
Now, here's the deal. I know it probably wouldn't mean anything to you, but if
there is any shred of competency in your brain, you would seriously consider
this. You stop posting this garbage about wireless and I'll not post what I've
found out about you. Just so you know I'm real, here's three bits of the
information:
1- At the age of 14, your school recommended that you receive a psychological
exam after you were accused of asking girls for a sample of their feces.
2- When you were applying for a position with the Communication Directorate,
your written test only had 8 correct answers out of 100, the lowest score ever
recorded. Even wannabe engineers scored at least 20 right. You made
challenges based on assumptions that had no basis in electronics.
3- You were twice arrested in France (1998) & (2001) for indecent acts You were
warned and released in the 1998 after you made a solicitation for sex to a
transvestite (ref: 98-454048-G-12), and ordered to pay a fine in the
2001 incident (ref: M01-000862-G-06) involving a male in a public restroom.
So Paul, which way do you want to go?
Do you continue your rants and raves, becoming the biggest nuisance in years,
or do you "debate" the issue like a rational individual using your own headers
without forgeries? Remember, the amount of information gathered on Paul
Rampelbergh, born 9/23/1971, who resides at 29 Heldenlaan 1970 Wezenbeek-Oppem
Belgium, Phone number 02) 7311850, Identity card # 77GR937488, Passport #
85236028341, could be the subject of much unwanted attention. FYI, your visa
to visit Singapore expires in May, seems you can't get a technical company to
sponsor your visit.
Security Review Group
The Security Review Group provides private independent security consulting and
is not affiliated with any selling, installing, servicing, or monitoring
company.
Robert L. Bass
> 1- At the age of 14, your school recommended that you receive
> a psychological exam after you were accused of asking girls for
> a sample of their feces.
Ahaaa! That settles it. He's really from Waco.
> 2- When you were applying for a position with the Communication
> Directorate, your written test only had 8 correct answers out of
> 100, the lowest score ever recorded. Even wannabe engineers
> scored at least 20 right. You made challenges based on assumptions
> that had no basis in electronics.
Hmm. Maybe he's from Vancouver.
> 3- You were twice arrested in France (1998) & (2001) for indecent
> acts You were warned and released in the 1998 after you made a
> solicitation for sex to a transvestite (ref: 98-454048-G-12), and
> ordered to pay a fine in the 2001 incident (ref: M01-000862-G-06)
> involving a male in a public restroom.
Long Island???
> So Paul, which way do you want to go?
Apparently both ways. :^)
Nomen Nescio
>exam after you were accused of asking girls for a sample of their feces.
>
>2- When you were applying for a position with the Communication Directorate,
>your written test only had 8 correct answers out of 100, the lowest score ever
>recorded. Even wannabe engineers scored at least 20 right. You made
>challenges based on assumptions that had no basis in electronics.
>
>3- You were twice arrested in France (1998) & (2001) for indecent acts You were
>warned and released in the 1998 after you made a solicitation for sex to a
>transvestite (ref: 98-454048-G-12), and ordered to pay a fine in the
>2001 incident (ref: M01-000862-G-06) involving a male in a public restroom.
>
>So Paul, which way do you want to go?
>Do you continue your rants and raves, becoming the biggest nuisance in years,
>or do you "debate" the issue like a rational individual using your own headers
>without forgeries? Remember, the amount of information gathered on Paul
>Rampelbergh, born 9/23/1971, who resides at 29 Heldenlaan 1970 Wezenbeek-Oppem
>Belgium, Phone number 02) 7311850, Identity card # 77GR937488, Passport #
>85236028341, could be the subject of much unwanted attention. FYI, your visa
>to visit Singapore expires in May, seems you can't get a technical company to
>sponsor your visit.
Well, there you go. Anyone who wishes to humor Paul can mail him a fecal
sample, preferably packed into his least-favorite wireless transmitter. I
would recommend sending him samples of both bullshit and horseshit, however
it is obvious that Paul already has large quantities of both.
Jim Rojas
Check it out...
Jim Rojas
".@Pau|. . . i disregard all" <ma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0at4gvokdb2ufnpd6...@4ax.com...
Jim Rojas
Jim Rojas
Check it out...
Jim Rojas
"Gary" <em...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:be4m4a$1bac3$1...@ID-173090.news.dfncis.de...
Nunya Bizness
Date: 7/4/03 3:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <lu9agvscnf780r2ep...@4ax.com>
Someone named tjf...@aol.comTURPER (Nunya Bizness) Proclaimed on 04
Jul 2003 06:47:48 GMT,
>He's definitely from Belgium. Someone posted his personal information about 6
>months ago. Someone (who has access to ridiculously low international rates)
>actually called his house, and spoke to him. I wish I could remember who that
>person was....................
>I do remember a post about a "squeaky voice" :)
<
My......my...........my memory is failing..... can't remember if it was a
mouse, or a rusty faucet.......
either way I heard it was annoying.
"OMG I've been Turped!!!!!!!!!"
Allan B. Colombo
Robert, when I use to do the Work Bench Reviews in my former life with
SDM, I would often have two or three alarm systems cooking in my
Chicagoland townhouse using a Salco door monitoring system and a bankd
of transistor relays that I designed. Some of these were wireless, as I
did a test on the first unofficial spread spectrum system at that time
(late 80s), which was the Vision 2000 by Visonic (although Sentrol
bought it then turned it back over to them). It was not really spread
spectrum for instead of 114 frequencies, they were using only 5, but the
technology was robust and NEVER failed in even the most difficult apps.
The only time I found any trouble with other types of wireless was when
I lived in Chicago near two airports. Every now and then a transmitter
experienced problems, but that was rare, and it was in the early 90s. I
believe my now and then problem was caused by over saturation due to so
much RF traffic in the area. I don't call that RFI, only saturation and
the receiver's inability to identity a valid signal. I lived with it
daily and it was so rare that it was hardly worth mentioning, but I did.
Thanks for the come back.
Al
--
=====================================
- Professionals in the security
market are welcome to utlilize
the Safety & Security listings
service on www.safetysecurity.com.
- End users are welcome to use it
to find worthy professionals in
their locale.
- Contact us at saf...@tpromo.com
Allan B. Colombo
.@Pau|. . . i disregard all wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 13:30:35 -0400, "Robert L. Bass"
> <rober...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>But this
>>whole business of RFI "muzzling" alarm systems is rubbish. It *can* happen
>>but it rarely does.
>
>
> and the day it happen, you dont know that you system fails to detect
> ANY alarm.
>
> Paul
Not so, Paul. These systems are supervised. When something like this
takes place, the main cpu is designed to tell the monitoring station as
well as the client at home. I can tell that you have never had one of
these modern systems. You need to install or have one installed for you
so you can truly live with it for a time.
Al Colombo
Alarminex
writes:
>Subject: Re: New readers, look at this about RF intruders in wireless
alarm
>From: "Allan B. Colombo" <a...@tpromo.com>
>Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 22:39:25 -0400
>
>
>Robert, when I use to do the Work Bench Reviews in my former life with
>SDM, I would often have two or three alarm systems cooking in my
>Chicagoland townhouse using a Salco door monitoring system and a bankd
>of transistor relays that I designed. Some of these were wireless, as I
>did a test on the first unofficial spread spectrum system at that time
>(late 80s), which was the Vision 2000 by Visonic (although Sentrol
>bought it then turned it back over to them). It was not really spread
>spectrum for instead of 114 frequencies, they were using only 5, but the
>technology was robust and NEVER failed in even the most difficult apps.
>
>The only time I found any trouble with other types of wireless was when
>I lived in Chicago near two airports. Every now and then a transmitter
>experienced problems, but that was rare, and it was in the early 90s. I
>believe my now and then problem was caused by over saturation due to so
>much RF traffic in the area. I don't call that RFI, only saturation and
>the receiver's inability to identity a valid signal. I lived with it
>daily and it was so rare that it was hardly worth mentioning, but I did.
>
>Thanks for the come back.
>
>Al
Then could you say that the point of your story is, that you were notified when
the system didn't work. And you never found a time when a door or window
transmitter didn't work ( ie. didn't show an open or cause an alarm condition
when armed and opened) ?
This seems to be the point that Wireless Willy keeps harping on. In spite of
the fact that he's been told many times that systems provide warning signals,
within a few minutes of interference and will report to central ...... and
additionally, that no one has customers calling to say that their transmitters
are not responding to opens
........... Willy keeps ignoring what he is being told. He pretends that there
can't be a sensing circuit that can tell when a frequency band is saturated to
a point that it cannot decode a signal from a transmitter and that it takes
hours before the system will notify. He doesn't know the difference between
supervised transmitters and RFI detection. As a matter of fact ..... you ought
to hear his description of what an end of line resistor is for. You'd get
hysterical laughing.
>
>
Jim
(Email accepted only upon request.)
Al Colombo
I'm blue in the face and he still plays that old broken record. :-)
Al
"Alarminex" <alar...@aol.comQzap> wrote in message
news:20030804122041...@mb-m16.aol.com...
Alarminex
writes:
>Subject: Re: New readers, look at this about RF intruders in wireless
alarm
>From: "Al Colombo" <a...@tpromo.com>
>Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:50:13 -0400
>
>Indeed, I was warned. That is something I've told him over and over until
>I'm blue in the face and he still plays that old broken record. :-)
>
>Al
Now that would be a sight to see. Blue faced Al Columbo dancing to the ole
broken record.......
*************ZINE WRITERS GONE WILD*********
EEEEEEEEEhaaaaaaaaa! Wet speedo contest!
Petem
"Paul" <slam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aq63jvgvmqbkuk1kk...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 22:41:08 -0400, "Allan B. Colombo"
> <a...@tpromo.com> wrote:
>
> Not true, Al. The supervision system is:
> - not present in ALL new equipments / brands, so what happen
> in those systems with RFI detection? Is there any?
> - its designed to detect.. in fact what does it detect specifically
> beside sensor deep failure according to you (brand, type)?
you are right Paul not all system have rfi detection....but the one lacking
the fonction are not installed by professionnal..
> I'm not a test bench of products you are unable to test yourself,
> lacking data and test specifications.
I do test wireless alarm system as part of my job all the time..
I don't have a test bench I have a better setup..I install them in real life
situation and in hundreds of house...(my company have more the 180000
costumer)
now if there would be so much bad stuff with professionally installed
wireless alarm system don't you think that we would read somewhere about it?
now find me a few case (except your case cause its not a professional
system) and I will start to wonder a bit...
don't come to me with same scrap as you have ...