Connect with us

Monitoring formats

Discussion in 'Security Alarms' started by Blythe Noe, May 27, 2004.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Blythe Noe

    Blythe Noe Guest

    For years we have used the single digit code "1" for fire; "2" for
    holdup; "3" for burglary; "8" low battery; and "9" for test. Even
    though this has and is working OK, I know that there are better
    formats. Using Napco Gem 3200/9600, what do you consider a better
    format? Thank you.
     
  2. Jim Rojas

    Jim Rojas Guest

    SIA or ContactID.

    Jim Rojas
     
  3. rocko

    rocko Guest

    I have had some trouble with SIA punching through noise in rural areas. NO
    problem with contact ID
     
  4. Blythe Noe

    Blythe Noe Guest

    Thanks to all for the info.: One last question - So contact ID is
    better - but why? Other than letting monitoring know which device,
    what is the advantage to us or to customer?
     
  5. G. Morgan

    G. Morgan Guest

    Someone named (Blythe Noe) Proclaimed on 29 May 2004
    21:17:47 -0700,

    -DTMF tones are faster
    -Error correction
    -Ease of programming (no more adding in event codes)
    -less chance of "undefined signals" being received at the CS
    -Amount of useful data delivered


    4/2 format
    <acct><ac>

    Where acct = 4 digit sub. ID
    ac= alarm code (whatever table you set up with your CS)





    Contact ID Message Content
    <ACCT><MT><QXYZ><GG><CCC><S>


    where ACCT = 4 Digit Subscriber ID
    MT = 2 Digit Hex Message Type (fixed at 18 for Contact ID)
    Q = Event Qualifier 1 = New Event or Opening
    3 = New Restore or Closing
    6 = Previously reported off-normal event
    XYZ = 3 Digit Hex Event Code
    GG = 2 Digit Hex Group #
    CCC = 3 Digit Hex Sensor or User #
    S = 1 Digit Hex Checksum

    ADEMCO has pre-defined those event codes between 100 & 700 as follows:
    100 - 199 Alarms
    200 - 299 Supervisory
    300 - 399 Troubles
    400 - 499 Open/Close/Remote Access
    500 - 599 Bypasses/Disables
    600 - 699 Test/Miscellaneous
    _____________________________________________________________
    | ROBERT BASS IS A LIAR, CHEAT, AND FRAUD ^^^^^^^^\ |
    | ROBERT BASS IS A LIAR, CHEAT, AND FRAUD | | |
    | ROBERT BASS IS A LIAR, CHEAT, AND FRAUD |_ __ | |
    | ROBERT BASS IS A LIAR, CHEAT, AND FRAUD (.(. ) | |
    | ROBERT BASS IS A LIAR, CHEAT, AN (_ ) |
    | \\ /___/' / |
    | _\\_ \ | |
    | (( ) /====| |
    | \ <.__._- \ |
    |___________________________________________ <//___. ||
     
  6. Frank Olson

    Frank Olson Guest


    What's this supposed to be a picture of?? It must not formatting correctly on
    my server.
     
  7. G. Morgan

    G. Morgan Guest

  8. Bob La Londe

    Bob La Londe Guest

    CID Hands down. It is faster and reduces costs on long distance if using a
    toll free line. I did experience problems with CID on FBII XL-31 panels
    that would never listen for a confirmation tone formt he CS. That is a
    problem with the FBII panel and not with the CID format. I have also had
    problems with CID on very poor quality phone lines, and with one crappy long
    distance provider who over utilized their bandwidth causing distortion.
    That LD provider shall remain nameless, but their initials are MCI.

    Otherwise it is by far the superior way to go. CID is a standardized
    reporting format that most reputable CSs already have all set up in their
    computers. You just give them a list of zones and tell them it is CID
    format. A lot less manual record keeping is required.

    CID is also directly compatible with no problems with Telular's Telguard
    cellular backup communicators.
     
  9. Mark Leuck

    Mark Leuck Guest

    Contact ID, SIA is fine although some central stations MAY have problems
    with Napco's ability to send multiple SIA signals within the same string.

    Sending 4/2 on those panels in my opinion is dumb
     
  10. Mark Leuck

    Mark Leuck Guest

    If you make any mistake programming pulse format the central station gets
    the wrong and usually undefined signal, this is greatly reduced with CID or
    SIA although with Napco's implementation its still possible since you can
    still incorrectly misprogram the reporting of a zone (ie: fire instead of
    burg).
     
  11. Mark Leuck

    Mark Leuck Guest

    I could be wrong but I "think" most central stations do have computers
     
  12. Mark Leuck

    Mark Leuck Guest

    That would be a monitoring station I would avoid like the plague
     
  13. Mark Leuck

    Mark Leuck Guest

    I know those type of setups and I still would avoid them
     
  14. alarman

    alarman Guest

    thesatguy wrote
    Yeah, I have installed systems that go to those too. The guard "monitors"
    the receiver, answers the phone, issues day passes to visitors, and deals
    with the traffic in and out. Anyone can walk right into the shack. I did it
    just to see. I walked right up to the receiver. The one that monitors
    "security" for over a hundred five million dollar homes. The guard said, "be
    with you in a minute."

    The people that live in this prestigious area think their "monitoring"
    station is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
    js
     
  15. Bob La Londe

    Bob La Londe Guest

    What about those old design FBII panels. CID can be a real mass of
    confusion.
     
  16. Mark Leuck

    Mark Leuck Guest

    True, it's far better to design it into the board in the first place instead
    of adding it later like FBI and the old Caddx stuff
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-