Installing Resistors and the Concrete Home Saga

[Aegis]

Real pro's...or ADT. UL and Manufacturers specifications are they way it's
done. That's why its called an "End-Of-Line" resistor, not a
"Loop-Out-and-Back-Put-It-In-The-Box" resistor, or "ITB". I guess when you
expose everything anyway...I see your point. Nevermind.

Jack

lol If you loop back to the panel with your wires and put the resister
there, it IS at the End-Of-Line still. Fully complies with UL and Man.
Specs.

 

[Aegis]

Rodney,


I have never ran into such a scenario either, but do you agree that it is a
possibility that it can happen ? Do you agree that the "4 wire quad "
connection is "not exactly" the same as the two wire connection (hence my
original post) ?

The alarm systems is for the benefits of the customers, not to benefit the
installer in ease of servicing. If you are whinning about having to put a
single end of line resistor at the device, wait till you have to do a UL/ULC
installation where you actually have to install two resistors at the device
and enable DEOL feature on the control panel. I am not saying that everybody
should use EOL resistor at the end of line for their install, what I am
trying to say is, if you are going to use EOL resistor, put it at the
device, or don't use EOL at all.

EOL not ITD (in the device).

If you loop the line back to the panel, and put the resistor(s) there, you
ARE putting it at the End-Of-Line!!! That's WHY it DOES still comply with UL
and Man. Specs.!!

 

[Jackcsg]

Bullshit. It doesn't comply with Grade "AA" UL. The device is the end of
line, not the control panel, especially run in the same jacket. If you put
everything in pipe, you might get away with it with UL, but why guess you
might get lucky.

Jack

 

[Aegis]

Bullshit. It doesn't comply with Grade "AA" UL. The device is the end of
line, not the control panel, especially run in the same jacket. If you put
everything in pipe, you might get away with it with UL, but why guess you
might get lucky.

Jack

Show me the UL spec that says you have to have the EOL at the device...
Everywhere I've read says it has to be at the END OF LINE. Nothing prohibits
the extension of the end-of-line past the last device and into the panel or
other protected (tampered) enclosure.

We have no problems whatsoever with our UL inspections when we do this.

UL DOES prohibit you from having the feed and return in the same jacket
though; has to be 2 separate wires for UL.

 

[Jackcsg]

UL DOES prohibit you from having the feed and return in the same jacket

though; has to be 2 separate wires for UL.

Seems you've answered the question. It doesn't matter, it's really more a
business practice than anything. One I don't allow it, others do it. The
systems I use know the three states of a loop, some smaller panels don't.

Jack

 

[Blythe Noe]

The technique, known as a "4-wire supervised loop," is commonly used. I
explain it in my Alarm and Home Automation FAQ at
http://www.bass-home.com/gotofaq.cfm?pg=eol_resistor. There are several
methods of wiring an EOL resistor. None are complicated. None are 100%
foolproof.
,snip>

Using this 4-wire loop is certainly OK, but for the life of me, I
can't see any advantage. What can you do with the 4 that you can't do
with 2? In the course of a years' time, we may have the need to check
the loop 2 or 3 times. And of these 2 or 3 times, it usually ends up
not haveing anything to do with a resistor. Just curious . . thanks.
Blythe

 

[fly in the ointment]

Just a few comments, interspersed below:

RodneyBritt wrote

I have done a significant number of commercial installations, Banks etc
included. I have used the four conductor method and had end of line inside the
panel. Never had a problem.

This reads like you're using a single 4 cond. cable, containing both the
feed and return wires. Is that correct?

I have also done many bank installs as a subcontractor, but cannot remember
ever having the system inspected by UL, or anyone else for that matter.

The advantages of having spare conductors
shouldn't need any clarification.

Well, are they spares, or returns for the eol?

As per using the same jacket? I don't on
commercial installs and do on residential installations.

Above you said " I have done a significant number of commercial
installations, Banks etc included. I have used the four conductor method
and had end of line inside the panel. Never had a problem."

Presumably, "the four conductor method" as you say, is the one being
discussed in this thread; the one where both feed and return wires are
contained in the same jacket. Are you now saying that you use 2 cables in
commercial installations?

Here in Telluride the
homes are very very expensive and the last thing anybody wants is to tamper
with the finished product .

What do you mean? Once installed, no future repairs are desired?

Case and Point, The door jams out here are very
pricey. The owners nor their represenatives want the contact removed once
installed.

Why not? The fact that the door jambs are expensive should reinforce the
proper installation practice of making the contacts removable, and their
connections easily accessible without causing damage to the frame.

Having the EOLR inside the panel and as end of line
supervision.....as one put it extended does nothing to remove the value of the
alarm installation itself. The scenario of staping two conductors and then the
other two has never crossed my path in my entire life. However, I have had to
replace hundreds of panels over the years, replace resistors, modify zoning
to fit new owners and etc etc.

I don't dispute that spare conductors are a good idea. I also don't happen
to believe that eol resistors are practical in most residential
installations. I do use them in screens, and in certain other applications.
I have also used the 4 conductor method myself. You need to know however,
that putting the eol at the device will be more secure than using the same 4
cond. cable for both feed and return.

I don't agree with the voices of dissent. U.L
inspections have never failed my installations based on this principle..

What installations have you done with the 4 conductor feed and return method
(1 cable) which were UL inspected?

So, I
guess there are those that can't see the benefits...but then again not all are
equally experienced.

The only benefit is convenience for the installer. The fact that you
believe this method is better does not mean that you are more experienced
than others, but rather that you have an opinion not shared by other, more
experienced installers.

js

 

[fly in the ointment]

RodneyBritt wrote

The standard used to investigate bank burglar alarm equipment is UL365,
Known as the "Mercantile and Bank Burglar Alarm System Units" . The standard
used for the installation and service of bank alarm systems is UL681,
"Installation and Classification of Burglar and Holdup Alarm Systems.

Do some research on the criteria.

Well OK, but my questions were not about standards, they were pertaining to
YOUR use of a single cable to feed/return with eol in the panel. You
originally seemed OK with the single cable, but now are saying you use 2
cables for commercial.

As per wiring up commercial installations
with the four conductor method? I used two separate wires when required by the
aforementioned ULGuidelines.
Sure.

The example that I first used was based on a
residential installation. If you revisit the original posters question you
will note that it was a residence and "not" a commercial installation.

Yes, I know. I've followed the thread with interest. What I'm saying is
that you're backpeddaling. That you are, once again, full of shit.

I also
believe it was a DIY r...... As per having a EOLR in Residential? I see it as
a valuable component to both residential and commercial installations.

OK. Once again, about these questions:

What do you mean? Once installed, no future repairs are desired?

Why not? The fact that the door jambs are expensive should reinforce the
proper installation practice of making the contacts removable, and their
connections easily accessible without causing damage to the frame.


What installations have you done with the 4 conductor feed and return method
1 cable) which were UL inspected?

The only benefit is convenience for the installer. The fact that you
believe this method is better does not mean that you are more experienced
than others, but rather that you have an opinion not shared by other, more
experienced installers.

js

 

[fly in the ointment]

RodneyBritt wrote

Of course repairs are made when they have to be. These homes are sold and
resold every four to five years. They don't care about future repairs......they
being GC's. My contacts aren't visible to the naked eye. They are covered and
fauxed or whatever it takes to conceal them. General contractors don't want
them to be visible period. I have had GC's paint smoke detectors up here and
it really pisses them off when they end up buying new ones without a

credit.

So you are not able to remove the contacts for service/replacement? Not
visible to the naked eye? I conceal mine too, but what, you recess and fill
with putty? WTF? Sure it's possible, but stupid.

Fly continues


Whats your point?

Well, I'll repeat it. Read it SLOWLY this time:

The fact that you believe this method is better does not mean that you are
more experienced than others, but rather that you have an opinion not shared
by other, more experienced installers.

Many share and don't share my opinion on this issue. So
what.
I am more experienced then some and not as experienced as others. There is
always going to be a difference of opinion and those opinions are based on many
different points of view. A individual's perspective is most likely dependent
upon whats important to him.

I'm not saying that your method is wrong; The fact remains that the eol at
the device is electrically more secure than returning it to the can in the
same cable. This it my point. Whether you agree or disagree doesn't
matter.

A installer that is paid by the job and sells that paper to a third party is
most likely not concerned with future repairs. Whereas a installer that is in
the industry for the long term and owns the company may spend the extra time in
doing a better job.

Define better job; you mean concealing contacts so thy can't be removed
later w/o damage? Yeah, I used to do that shit too...on my first few
installs. Now I know better.

Your response of your full of ***** can be viewed in many different ways.

Not really. What it means is that I think you make it up as you go along.

 

[Aegis]

Using this 4-wire loop is certainly OK, but for the life of me, I

can't see any advantage. What can you do with the 4 that you can't do
with 2? In the course of a years' time, we may have the need to check
the loop 2 or 3 times. And of these 2 or 3 times, it usually ends up
not haveing anything to do with a resistor. Just curious . . thanks.
Blythe

At the original install, no advantage. But if you ever have to change out
the panel (one with different value EOLR's), you could change out the
resistors without having to go to all the EOL devices.

Also in troubleshooting, you know the resistor didn't somehow come out of
the terminal strip inside the device. Plus you can trouble shoot the loop
from both ends while standing in one place.

 

[Aegis]

RodneyBritt wrote

This reads like you're using a single 4 cond. cable, containing both the
feed and return wires. Is that correct?

I have also done many bank installs as a subcontractor, but cannot remember
ever having the system inspected by UL, or anyone else for that matter.

Not ALL banks have to be UL inspected. Only if they specified UL when they
bought the system. Saves TREMENDOUSLY on their insurance to have it though.
Jewelers too (some can't even get insurance unless they have a UL system).
When we have subs do work, it is never on UL systems because it's considered
too sensitive for us to rely on the sub... it's not an insult to subs, just
a liability issue.

RodneyBritt continues:

Why not? The fact that the door jambs are expensive should reinforce the
proper installation practice of making the contacts removable, and their
connections easily accessible without causing damage to the frame.

Ever gone back to a nice home that has been redecorated and painted and they
painted over the contact? You can cut the paint and pull the contact to see
if the resistor has come loose, but you could leave marks too. I put a hole
in a wall accidentally once... The repaint cost me over $500 because of some
moronic 'designer' paint and the fact that their painter couldn't blend the
patch (had to repaint the whole wall section). With the 4-conductor method,
you haven't compromised security/supervision in any way, but you can check
the resistor at the panel.

RodneyBritt continues:
I don't dispute that spare conductors are a good idea. I also don't happen
to believe that eol resistors are practical in most residential
installations. I do use them in screens, and in certain other applications.
I have also used the 4 conductor method myself. You need to know however,

We always use EOLR's. (period)

that putting the eol at the device will be more secure than using the same 4
cond. cable for both feed and return.

Show me how or why that is true.

What installations have you done with the 4 conductor feed and return method
(1 cable) which were UL inspected?

Feed and return in one jacket isn't UL approved.

all

The only benefit is convenience for the installer. The fact that you
believe this method is better does not mean that you are more experienced
than others, but rather that you have an opinion not shared by other, more
experienced installers.

The benefit isn't to the installer, but to the service tech who follows.

 

[pudding]

Nice drawing. And who do you know that will wire two completely different
routes of cable to the same detector. I would say that if you did that for
every device, you can forget about being competitive for price in the
industry.
In fact you probably wouldnt get a look in for most jobs. The reality is
that most people would use the same cable and this makes it completely
uneffective.

 

[A.J.]

Quoting myself again :-

" Do you agree that the "4 wire quad " connection is "not exactly" the same
as the two wire connection (hence my original post) ?"


And I quote Rodney :-

"I don't agree with the voices of dissent. U.L inspections have never
failed my installations based on this principle.."


And he never response to this question posted by Jack Steven :-

"What installations have you done with the 4 conductor feed and return
method (1 cable) which were UL inspected?"

 

[Jackcsg]

That's a good company policy. Do every install differently...it will build
character with your service department. Lay some bread crumbs your
back-tracking again...

Jack

 

[Jackcsg]

Your right, but Rodney's point, initially, started out with one four
conductor wire in the same jacket. That does not meet the UL requirement.
Anyone who runs and alternate path just to keep the resistors in the box for
convenience is just simply unrealistic.

Jack

 

[petem]

Some of the seasoned tech's get it. Service issues aren't really considered
by many in the construction trade. Service loops aren't a issue with the paper
pushers, or the general contractors, etc.
I dare say that those that install and service their own alarm systems are more
sensitive to services issues.

Service is what i do for a living....

(i do install from time to time when the job is too big for the instaler
......integration of alarm access and cctv is not a job every one can do,at
least around here)

and i really dont think that having the eolr wired back at the panel is that
usefull,in fact i think that the more stuff you put on a loop the more it
will create trouble..

i am sure that at least a few times you had issue with the lenght of the
wiring being to long,i did and i didnt had a wire back at the panel...(i
have some client that there plant is more then 1 miles long...one is
manufacturing some metal wire for elevator and such,in the process of making
it ,it pass by about 10 machine...and the wire have to be straight from the
start to the end....)

one other thing, like i posted before...

in case someone can have access to the wire bundle he/she/it can disable the
whole protection without going at the detector wich is for me the one reason
i dont very like that....

regards
Petem

 

[Jackcsg]

Absolutely correct.


I've done it on occasion during prewires but only when the property was
fairly high end. I also like to run a "Class A" similar circuit for my
keypads and zone expanders. That way if there's a single cut through the
data buss the system will still work.

I've done the same thing in my residential days. Seams drywalling hasn't
quite been perfected yet, especially when it comes to pulling wires through
before hanging it. That's a good practice.

Jack

 

[Aegis]

in case someone can have access to the wire bundle he/she/it can disable the
whole protection without going at the detector wich is for me the one reason
i dont very like that....

This is the part I don't understand. Whether the resistor is at the last
device or extended back to the panel, if you access the wire bundle, you'll
still get an alarm or trouble signal. Unless they access the wire bundle AT
the panel and someone forgot to tamper the box...

 

[Aegis]

That's "inefective," but I agree.

I disagree... Even if your feed and return are in the same jacket, what
makes it ineffective? If you cut it, I'll know... Just like if there was
only a feed in that jacket...

 

[petem]

This is the part I don't understand. Whether the resistor is at the last
device or extended back to the panel, if you access the wire bundle, you'll
still get an alarm or trouble signal. Unless they access the wire bundle AT
the panel and someone forgot to tamper the box...

carefull here...

Most of the time the whole bunh of wire coming from an alarm panel will all
be together on some lenght....
then some part will split to go to different parts of the house....

this is not in the panel,so no alarm,no tamper,no trouble

so lets say i do have access to that bundle...(hole in a wall,access to
attic,whatever)
i grab one cable going to a contact then expose the 4 wire conductor,i can
with a voltmeter(not an ohms meter cause it would cause an alarm) see what
wire is the return path of the other one...lets say red and green is the
wire conected to the zone and black yellow to the eolr in the panel...

black is connected to red and yellow to green, if i short the black to the
red then short the yellow and green the door contact that is in serie with
one of the wire will be bypassed...cause the path to the resistor is
continuous..no open can be seen by the panel,

the only way to precent this is to use panel with double eolr, one in the
panel the other at the device....but that defeat the primary reason that
some one here stated using that metod....eolr replacement in case of panel
replacement....and the device consealed....

i know that i have done info on how to bypass an alarm system here..sorry...
but this had to be explained...