(NEW) READERS BEWARE!

[Another Anonymous]

Your friendly warning about "Paul" and "RFI"

READERS BEWARE!

There is a certain individual trolling this group who claims that wireless alarm
systems are unreliable due to RFI (Radio Frequency Interference). This person
goes by the many names of "Paul" among others. Whether it be "[email protected]" ,
"Paul I don't read" , "-", "G. Morgan", "P aul" , "[email protected]" or "the so called
pros [email protected]". With newer systems of today, this is most untrue. Todays
wireless systems have proven to be just as reliable as hardwired systems with
the only inconvenience of changing batteries every 3 to 5 years. In an
environment where it may be next to impossible to install wiring for an alarm
system, wireless systems are the way to go. Take me for example. I have a modern
wireless system for more than 2 years now in a highly populated city area and
RFI has never been a problem. I perform weekly to monthly tests on each device
being read by this system and never had a failure. I haven't even had to replace
any batteries (yet) and some of the wireless devices are located outdoors with
frigid winter temperatures. So readers, if you are planning to purchase a
wireless system in the near future, don't hesitate to ask one of the real pros
of this group. Any and all of us would be most happy to lead you in the right
direction in suggestions for make & model. For a completely wireless system, let
me suggest the Ademco Lynx system. A complete self-contained unit with all the
features of the budget hard wired system. And for half wired, half wireless,
there are many types of panels on the market to fit your need with expansion
boards you may possibly be able to add-on to your existing system. Thank you for
your time.

AA.

 

[G. Morgan]

Whether it be "[email protected]" ,
"Paul I don't read" , "-", "G. Morgan", "P aul" , "[email protected]" or "the so called
pros [email protected]".

Excuuuuuuusssseeeee me! I've been accused of a lot of things in this
newsgroup. I've been called a lot of names in this newsgroup. But
sir, you have crossed the line! I am not Paul! The regulars in here
know who I am, in fact one has my boss on speed-dial.

Damn man.

-Graham Morgan < *not* Paul Rumblefart >




SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0

No results found in alt.security.alarms

 

[Another Anonymous]

bwahahah!
Gotcha!


| Someone named "Another Anonymous" <[email protected]> Proclaimed
| on Wed, 12 May 2004 03:22:40 GMT,
|
| > Whether it be "[email protected]" ,
| >"Paul I don't read" , "-", "G. Morgan", "P aul" , "[email protected]" or "the so
called
| >pros [email protected]".
|
|
|
| Excuuuuuuusssseeeee me! I've been accused of a lot of things in this
| newsgroup. I've been called a lot of names in this newsgroup. But
| sir, you have crossed the line! I am not Paul! The regulars in here
| know who I am, in fact one has my boss on speed-dial.
|
| Damn man.
|
| -Graham Morgan < *not* Paul Rumblefart >
|
|
|
|
| SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
|
| No results found in alt.security.alarms

 

[G. Morgan]

bwahahah!
Gotcha!

heh, heh, heh






SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0

No results found in alt.security.alarms

 

[Matt Duncan]

Your friendly warning about "Paul" and "RFI"

READERS BEWARE!

There is a certain individual trolling this group who claims that wireless alarm
systems are unreliable due to RFI (Radio Frequency Interference). This person
goes by the many names of "Paul" among others. Whether it be "[email protected]" ,
"Paul I don't read" , "-", "G. Morgan", "P aul" , "[email protected]" or "the so called
pros [email protected]". >

I would have to disagree with your statements. If the "wireless"
equipment is so wonderfull, why is it that the stickers on the back of
the devices say they must be able to be interfered with per the
F.C.C.? Also, if they can't be defeted, why are panels coming out
with "anti-jaming" alarms?

More importantly, a hardwired system is always in communication with
the panel, not true of wireless. Also, durning arming, the wireless
equipment is not "tested", it is just checked for "signal presence".
The signal could be present but the device not working correctly and
you would know none the wiser... Any electronic engineer could easily
defeat a wireless system.

Please don't get me wrong, there are specific places and applications
for wireless equipment, but using it exclusively not only creates
insane service trips down the road, it also has a higher threat of
being defeated; a risk I don't like to put my customers into in order
for me to "save a buck".

 

[Another Anonymous]

I never said wireless was better or worse than hardwired. Yes, if it were
possible in my place of residence, I would've chosen hardwired but many
restrictions prevented this. At 1st, I was leery of getting a wireless system
but I had to have something and now that I have it, I feel it works "just as
good" as a hard wired system. That FCC statement is on 90% of all electronic
equipment, wired and wireless. My monitor, which is hardwired to my computer,
has that same statement inscribed on the rear panel of it for instance. Older
wireless alarms were more prone to RFI and were easily defeated. RF Jamming
prevents this which was all the more reason to purchase my wireless alarm
system.
I didn't do this to save a buck or 2. My wireless system was quite a bit more
expensive than the nice wired systems I looked at, but with my restrictions
(wife saying I'm not allowed to tear up our walls haha). Not to add I live in a
bi-level house... well... wiring this joint for an alarm would've been very
difficult. All I'm saying in my note about wireless systems is that in difficult
situations, and the newer better equipment on the market, wireless is not a bad
way to go. I've fully tested my system, had it installed for more than 2 yrs
now, still have not had to replace any batteries, and have not had a single
problem with it.

| > Your friendly warning about "Paul" and "RFI"
| >
| > READERS BEWARE!
| >
| > There is a certain individual trolling this group who claims that wireless
alarm
| > systems are unreliable due to RFI (Radio Frequency Interference). This
person
| > goes by the many names of "Paul" among others. Whether it be "[email protected]"
,
| > "Paul I don't read" , "-", "G. Morgan", "P aul" , "[email protected]" or "the so
called
| > pros [email protected]". >
|
| I would have to disagree with your statements. If the "wireless"
| equipment is so wonderfull, why is it that the stickers on the back of
| the devices say they must be able to be interfered with per the
| F.C.C.? Also, if they can't be defeted, why are panels coming out
| with "anti-jaming" alarms?
|
| More importantly, a hardwired system is always in communication with
| the panel, not true of wireless. Also, durning arming, the wireless
| equipment is not "tested", it is just checked for "signal presence".
| The signal could be present but the device not working correctly and
| you would know none the wiser... Any electronic engineer could easily
| defeat a wireless system.
|
| Please don't get me wrong, there are specific places and applications
| for wireless equipment, but using it exclusively not only creates
| insane service trips down the road, it also has a higher threat of
| being defeated; a risk I don't like to put my customers into in order
| for me to "save a buck".

 

[-]

Also, durning arming, the wireless
equipment is not "tested", it is just checked for "signal presence".
The signal could be present but the device not working correctly and
you would know none the wiser... Any electronic engineer could easily
defeat a wireless system.

Matt, the additional problem with wireless is that you "don't need to
be an engineer", a lot of transmitters present on the wireless alarm
system frequencies (wireless door openers, -light dimmers, -alarm
sensors, -thermometers, and a lot of other equipment already generate
problems to each other, know as Radio Frequency Interferences (RFI).

Most of the time, due to the imbedded (not controlled by a
bidirectional communication) repeat command of those equipments, they
expect that at some period in time the frequency is free and that hiss
transmission reaches the receiver but still without condition backup
control (mono-directional signals).
This occur often in normal operation, the selection of the right
sensor source associated with that equipment is done by an ID signal
who is different from the other devises using the SRD (Short Range
Device) frequencies.

This "permanent and normal RFI" generated do not directly disturb,
however as long as it uses the required "burst" transmission.

Its different when an other type of transmission sources are present
at the wireless alarm system frequency.. Then the system is dead on
alarm giving and warning.


Pro's pretend that an RFI detection system (not supported by the
manufacturer) is present in SOME modern equipments due to the use of
incoming sensor present fail feature at the receiver level.
This signal present imbedded feature is provided to facilitate the
first installation of sensor location setup (some have a signal
strength indication too for one sensor at the time operation).
Of course it may eventually detect RFI, external RFI is similar and
disable the reception of sensor signals...
However as explained above, "RFI is present PERMANENTLY" in normal
operation due to the unidirectional and asynchrony nature of the
signal transmitters.
It's out of control of the alarm system and the normal RFI duration
depend on surrounding transmissions beside the sensors (wireless
distant temperature sensors+++ as mentioned above).
If an attempt is made to use permanently that sensor location setup,
it impose that the lack of reception delay is setup to a huge
timespan, mostly more than 8 hours to avoid "False Alarms".
USELESS for voluntary RFI generated by an intruder.

NO specialized RFI generating transmitter types are required!
It is produced by RF Transmitters operating:
- ON the wireless frequency
- Saturating the receiver
- Intermodulation
- Harmonics
- Falling in the receiver bandpass
- On the IF frequency
- and more...
In essence the problems caused by interferences (RFI) is the fact that
by no way two (or more) systems can use simultaneously the same
frequency..

Paul

 

[sarrons]

Yep. I agree with you too. Key up a 2 watt police radio and watch your
system go in trouble. Plus they are so easy to defeat. Gimme five
minutes, I will get into that place like no problem. Wire supervision
all the way.

 

[sarrons]

If you paid more money for a wirelss system then a wired system, you
got ripped off.

 

[Julian Vivaldi]

THAN not then
Did the educational system rip you off?

 

[Bossman]

More importantly, a hardwired system is always in communication with
the panel, not true of wireless.

Actually the opposite is true on most standard installations. Most
hardwired systems are not supervised. The panel has no idea whether
there is a functioning device on the other end or just a closed loop,
even with end-of-line supervision, which really isn't supervision of
the devices, just the circuit. The panel is perfectly happy with
resistors across each zone terminal. Wireless systems, on the other
hand, pole the enrolled wireless devices on a regular basis, usually
several times per day.

Also, durning arming, the wirelessequipment is not "tested", it is just
checked for "signal presence".
The signal could be present but the device not working correctly and
you would know none the wiser... Any electronic engineer could easily
defeat a wireless system.

This is even easier with a hardwired system, especially with no EOL
supervision. Hardwired panels have no idea whether a magnetic contact
will show open when the magnet is removed, and have no way of knowing
whether or not a motion will trip. At least with wireless, you do know
the device is there and is at least capable of sending its
transmission. Whether or not it will trip is another question, but no
more so than with hardwired devices.

Please don't get me wrong, there are specific places and applications
for wireless equipment, but using it exclusively not only creates
insane service trips down the road, it also has a higher threat of
being defeated;

I agree with most of this, and only use wireless when I must (or when
it is specifically requested).

a risk I don't like to put my customers into in order for me to "save a buck".

Wireless is not cheaper, it is simply easier and faster to install.
You can put in more systems and, theoretically, make more money, but
on a job by job basis, they are not normally cheaper than hardwired.

Bossman

 

[Spike]

Great post, Bossman, I had never thought about HW loops quite like that. All
we can do is hope that spamming zealot Paul actually takes the time to read
it.
Not holding my breath here though, the guy's a diode... communication only
seems to go one way, out.