Maker Pro
Maker Pro

pir false alarms

F

FIRETEK

Naw... The biggest bullshit artist by far is you, Bass. That's been
proven time and time again.


I know that like Olson, you're a BS artist with less field experience than
most here except perhaps the idiot Petem.
 
M

Matt Ion

Roland said:
IR radiation is naturally ocurring and its sources are everywhere. Now you
have introduced facts not in evidence to blame someone not posting to defend
his or her position.

My post below didn't say anything about the IR. I suggested that the occurrence
of the problem across multiple sensors suggests to me a wiring or brain fault.
Period.
You have followed the same schema in your post that you
have blamed on the installer as faulty and you have not solved the problem
either.

I didn't say the installer was "faulty", I said his troubleshooting was half-assed.
The circuits in a PIR detector are for the most part pyrolytic
element(s) with a delta t and delta T circuit. where t=temperature and
T=time. I have had courses in physics. I detect pure physics genius in your
post. I hope we can enjoy a through discussion from you on the vibrational
energy transfer and reaction of vibrationally excited molecules at surfaces.
Please preface your remarks with your CV and all of the academic credentials
you have garnered.

I detect an extreme lack of reading and compresension skills on your part. Go
back and re-read my post and tell me where I said anything about the physics of
infrared detection.
Or instead say it is nearly imposible to figure out who
or what is to blame from the very limited information available.

I'm not blaming the installer (who in this case is apparently NOT the ORIGINAL
installer either) for the problem, I'm saying he didn't diagnose it properly and
was likely more interested in simply selling the OP new hardware.

Believe it or not, this DOES happen.
customer is upset over a bill and doesn't want to pay it most likely, and
that is more the focus of his question.

Of course it is. The ensuing discussion is ostensibly about whether the bill
he's been handed is legitimate.

My take is, the installer who's billing him has failed to correctly diagnose the
problem and has merely treated the symptoms, and should not be paid for an
incomplete job.
He has not been cheated in any way I can detect from the information given.

He's been sold equipment he probably doesn't NEED, and he's being billed for
work that wasn't properly done (ie. determining and FIXING the problem).
Hey Jim, does this Matt guy do any real work in this industry?

In fact, the company I work for specializes more in CCTV, although we do do the
odd alarm.

Experience has nothing to do with common sense. Common sense says that this
installer has done a lousy job of troubleshooting, has apparently not found the
actual cause of the problem and is merely patching up the symptoms, and from
that may simply be interested in selling the OP new hardware (probably with a
healthy markup) as a "quick fix".
 
N

Nomen Nescio

Matt Ion said:
My take is, the installer who's billing him has failed to correctly
diagnose the problem and has merely treated the symptoms, and should not
be paid for an
incomplete job.

The installer's job is to make the false alarms stop, not to determine the
precise cause of those false alarms. In other words, replacing relatively
low-cost equipment like PIRs is often cheaper than making multiple service
visits to try and nail down the exact reason the substandard PIR went off.

If the customer is in a city that charges for false alarms, it's even more
important to get the problem fixed immediately. In this case, replacing
the sensors made the false alarms stop. Now, if he had installed three new
dual-tecs and the false alarms continued, I would expect the tech to make a
healthy adjustment in the bill, and spend more time figuring out what was
really going on.

The cost of the parts vs. the cost of troubleshooting labor is what counts.
I gather you work mostly on more expensive video components, where it makes
good economic sense to spend more time troubleshooting. With a PIR, weigh
the cost of the part against one additional service call, and it just makes
more sense to change the damn thing.

- badednov
 
M

Matt Ion

Nomen said:
Matt Ion said:




The installer's job is to make the false alarms stop, not to determine the
precise cause of those false alarms. In other words, replacing relatively
low-cost equipment like PIRs is often cheaper than making multiple service
visits to try and nail down the exact reason the substandard PIR went off.

And if the problem is in the wiring, or the brain, or as someone else
speculated, being caused by EMI, then simply swapping a PIR isn't only going to
be a temporary patch. He's now replaced one PIR, and the problem is occurring
in two other zones, once again causing false alarms.

By your thinking, the obvious solution is not to arm the system, thus stopping
the false alarms once and for all.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
"Then don't do that..."
 
M

Matt Ion

Roland said:

Alright, so the next time a customer complains that their MUX is beeping, and I
find the cause is a video-loss alarm caused by a camera being out, I guess the
fix is to just go into the MUX menu and disable the VL alarm.
 
J

Jim

Robert said:
Jiminex is categorically wrong. The detector doesn't *see* air temperature. When warm (or cool) air moves across in front of the
detector without touching it and without heating or moving a visible object, the detector is unaffected.

Well in response, I guess all I can say is that you're "dead" wrong.
Oppps! There I go again .... using the ole "D" word.


Jiminex is confused by the
difference between air movement in view of the detector and air *striking* the detector. The latter can easily trip many PIR
detectors.

I tell ya what. I'll give you a little task to perform, inbetween
treatments. Call up a manufacturer, as to speak to an engineer and ask
him if he'll guarentee you that a PIR wont trip if a rapid change in
temperature changes within it's FOV.
That is one of the reasons it is important to seal the wire entry hole in a PIR. But it is not a problem unless the air
current hits an object within the detector's field of view or the detector itself.


You're wrong Death Breath. Dead wrong. There's not a alarm tech out
there with any field experience (Unlike you) who hasn't had a problem
with rapid changing air temperature within it's FOV, causing a false
alarm on a PIR.
 
M

Matt Ion

Roland said:
That is not nearly the same thing. No one suggested disabling anything. The
customer ended up in a better condition not worse.

You don't know that. I don't know that. The OP doesn't know that, and neither
does his installer. He may have ended up with the problem fixed, or he may have
ended up with a band-aid and the problem will reappear tomorrow. From what I've
read, my bet is the latter. If the installer had done the job properly, there
would be no question.
A MUX? Unless you do prisons who the hell still uses a MUX for anything? Or
a switch for that matter. Your shop or the dumpster at your shop should be
waist deep in those things by now from pulling them out.

That would be lovely. I'd love to go into every customer's site and shitcan
their MUXes and VCRs and shelves full of tapes on the spot and drop in shiny new
DVRs, and even roundfile their analog cameras in exchange for nice hi-res IP
cameras while I'm at it.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to bankroll that little project myself, and
convincing most of them to do so is generally futile, especially the oil
companies where the individual site owners expect corporate to pay for it all,
and corporate has no intention of upgrading anything outside their own long-term
schedule.
At least your MUX post is a good example of one thing. And that is why all
that old crap is going away. Way too many points of failure, and ones that
you can only watch on an analog monitor at that.
The new stuff would send you an email and you'd know before you even got
there (or the customer noticed) what kind of failure you had (camera, power,
or network). I like it!

I *love* it. Half the problems can be fixed remotely from the comfort of my
nice big office chair.

Alas, making the change is not up to me.
 
K

ken5156

Hello
I have been reading the posts on this board for about a year now. I
have picked up some good tips thanks. My Question is why does everyone
have to fight with each other? Cant you all just answer the question
without fighting with each other? Well I hope I have not insulted
anyone by asking this question. Cant we all just get along?
 
J

Jim

ken5156 said:
Hello
I have been reading the posts on this board for about a year now. I
have picked up some good tips thanks. My Question is why does everyone
have to fight with each other? Cant you all just answer the question
without fighting with each other? Well I hope I have not insulted
anyone by asking this question. Cant we all just get along?


I'll bet you know all the words to Goombya.
 
J

Jim

Doug said:
I'm not so sure that anyone really wants to change it

Doug

The fact that everyone keeps picking at the scab that has infected this
Newsgroup, indicates that lots of people want to change it.
 
J

Jim

alarman said:
Is that the Brooklyn version of Cum-ba-ya?
js

Actually, I just looked it up and it's Kumbaya. Claimed to have been
written by Reverend Marvin Frey from ...... yep ...... New York
City!!!!! Originally titled "Come By Here". Or if you believe the
other story that it originated in South Carolina as "Come by Yuh" sung
in Creole dialect. Joan Baez recorded it and Peter Paul and Mary.

I just never saw it spelled before and always thought they were singing
Goombya, and was never interested enough to find out WHAT the hell they
were singing.
 
J

Jim

Mark said:
I was thinking more along the age thing

Some people are grandparents in their 40's.

Just went to a 50th class reunion.
I could hardly believe how old all those people were.
 
Top