Where to mount the 'panel' or control box ?

[Frank Olson]

I have no doubt there are honest, hard working, competent people within the
authorized dealer programs. The problem is there are way too many greedy
crooks like Milford who will say anything to land the sale,

Hmmmm.... sounds suspiciously like you... Didn't you do the same thing in
CHA when trying to talk a customer out of purchasing a Visonic PowerMax and
opt to go with a Napco panel you provided convenient links to *your site* to
instead???

install
sub-minimal "protection" and give miserable service to boot.

I sincerely doubt you even know what "Milford" installs... I understand
Mark does though. Perhaps you should ask him before making these unfounded,
baseless accusations...

The problem
arises so frequently because many companies like P1, Monitronix

Heh.... "Monitronix"?? You don't even know how to spell the name of the
company you're trying to defame...

I once had the displeasure of meeting

<snip another Bass Fable>

 

[Mark Leuck]

Sorry but all the new stuff does, I've listened to it countless times, be
nice if GE allowed one to turn that off

 

[Mark Leuck]

I don't know what panels you're talking about but Napco generally is about 20
seconds for the first signal. About another 8 to10 seconds( depending upon the
code being sent) for the second and successive signals. But ........... so
what? Doesn't the first signal initiate the CS process?

I've timed Caddx, Ademco and DSC, haven't done Napco but it doesn't dial any
faster than the others, and multiple signals are maybe another 2 seconds
instead of 8 or 10.

The first signal does initiate the CS process but a faster format comes in
handy with cancels etc and less chance of a problem calling the premise in
an alarm, while I couldn't tell you how many times thats really happened its
a possibility, the less time online the better in my opinion regardless of
how fast the CS handles the call.

With out any significant difference between the two, the only advantage I can
see is that Contact ID is for the installers who've never worked with 4/2, and
screw it up. Contact ID is newer and slightly faster, but not enough to make it
the holy grail of formats. If I remember right, the old Adcor High speed still
holds the record.

I never said it was the holy grail of formats, in many ways it is limited,
for example SIA can send multiple signals in the same stream whereas CID
can't in fact Napco and Silent Knight do that which is pretty neat in my
opinion.

SIA can also send more information such as which keypad sent a panic, I'd
almost say SIA is the holy grail except it has some telco bandwith problems
sometimes

To central stations, I can see that CID is a distinct advantage because it
reduces their over all busy line problems, during storms and other busy times
and it reduces errors that (less experienced) installers make using 4/2.

Every installer makes errors even with CID or SIA, easy to do in fact with
Napco if you don't set the reporting type correctly with the zone type, for
Caddx, Ademco and ITI you don't have to worry much about that. but I've seen
enough mistakes made with 4/2 to never go back to it.

I agree with the busy line problems although we have MLR-2000's with 60+
line cards so thats not a big problem, would be with smaller central
stations tho.

This falls into the same category that I put the Napco programing process. Most
installers who don't use Napco, cite the difficulty in programing as the
reason. Once you master it, you can program any panel and additionally can
utilize the many functions that Napco has and most others don't. Although, I
see that some of the others are starting to approach Napco's versitility.

I have several Napco panels and I know how to program the things going back
to the old Magnum 1000 series and I still don't care for the process and
from what I've seen its a nice panel (1632/3200/9600 series) but offers no
added features over any other panel. I can do more scheduling or output
programming with Ademco. And its very limited in CID or SIA reporting as I'm
sure you've found out with setting it up to report waterflow, it can't do
it. Also the download software is total garbage be it the DOS or Windows
version

Pricing unfortunately, as always, will prove to be the deciding factor for the
most popular panel.

In many ways yes and some no, I can only tell you what I've seen in a
central station and out in the field and Napco is a blip on the screen as
far as installs and with the introduction of the K keypads Napco appears to
know they have to do something about the ease of programming issue

 

[Mark Leuck]

So then there's no significant difference, ( 8 seconds) as you always seem to
be indicating. And you also never seem to allow for instances when 4/2 format
*has* to be used or is more convenient for CS to use.

Thats assuming you only send one signal, you'd have to extend that if you
use restorals, recent closings, cancels etc and it all adds up and if I
remember it was more than 8 seconds.

I have seen instances where 4/2 is more convenient for ME to use, for
instance old Caddx 8600E panels, its more of a pain to do SIA or CID than
just program the damn thing 4/2. Can't think of any other reason unless
someone has a wierd telco in the area and I haven't seen that yet that
affects both CID and SIA

And you don't actually know *what* format I use.

Do tell then, I'm going by what I remember which isn't much in this case, if
its the standard 4/2 then double the time it takes for a signal especially
on multiples

 

[Mark Leuck]

Here's one

A building complex with three buildings, each with their own alarm panel. All
using the same account number.

That is a nightmare for the CS, no reason in hell 3 accounts can't be issued
for that, I've seen something like that before usually because the customer
doesn't want to pay the installer for 3 accounts

Here's one for CS

Having a choice between 4/2 and CID on a system with a control panel hooked to
tel line and a long range radio. Do you think it might be advatageous to reduce
operator error, to have the panel report in CID and the radio report in

4/2?

No because its a smart idea to have a different account number for the radio
regardless of the format each uses. In many cases you have no choice but to
have a panel send CID and the backup 4/2 because of a particular backup, for
instance an Alarmnet 7845C sends CID fine if connected to a compatible
Ademco panel but 4/2 Express if connected to anything else (which in my
opinion is dumb).

 

[Mark Leuck]

Granted it's an economy measure but born at a time when there was no other
choice but 4/2 format. As the panels have been changed through the years, 4/2
was retained. However, it's no nightmare for the CS at all.

31..... Main building front door
32..... Main building back door
33......Main building shop motion
7E.... AC loss
7F.... Low bat..


41.... Large garage entry door
42.....Large garage overhead door #1
43.... Large garage overhead door #2
44 ....Large garage motion #1
8E..... AC loss
8F......Low bat

51 .... Small garage .....etc etc etc

9F AC

Lets see, the police are supposed to know which is the large garage and the
small garage, sometimes that doesn't happen
but Its not the format thats the problem its the fact you have 3 buildings
many times with slightly different addresses (different suite numbers etc),
again no reason why 3 accounts can't be used and in many cases a CS doesn't
have to bill for those three accounts

I've personally seen worse examples than that

The radio does have a seperate account number but is linked with the lead
account number so it all shows up on the same screen. Not dumb at all

It can be to some central station operators who aren't aware that signals
from the 516 area code are actually an Alarmnet unit and signals coming from
770 are from Uplink, many central stations have caller ID that also appear
in automation.

And most current automation software allows linking account activity anyway,
I could possibly see doing this 10 or 15 years ago but not now, no point to
it

. Why
should an operator have to handle two seperate alarms when it can all show up
on the same screen?

They don't actually handle 2 alarms they handle the first one that comes in
be it the standard account or the cellular account

To help differentiate radio from digital signals, if they
show up in two different formats, it helps the operator to identify the

source.

And many operators see 2 different forms of signals coming from 2 phone
numbers so they may also think its someone else sending on that account.
Again with modern automation there is no reason not to have 2 different
linked accounts for the 2 devices

And, I was under the impression that Alarmnet did the same with their radio's
too.

It depends on if the central station has the radio receiver at the site or
deals with Alarmnet's central station in New York, the most common is using
Alarmnet's central station, thats also a must if you use Alarmnet's cellular
products.

 

[Mark Leuck]

Jeez Mark, when you pull in the driveway, theres a main bulding, a big garage
and a small garage. The buliding with the alarm has a strobe on it with a one
hour time out.

Sounds good but sometimes the police get it wrong even when given the
correct information and you can run into dispatch errors from the CS

Again, no reason not to use 4/2 format and keep it simple.

Then we go back to the speed and accuracy issue

What does that have to do with the kind of format that's being sent.? If the
operators see something different that don't have to go to another screen to
see what's going on. If it's 4/2 being recieved with CID ............ then it's
the radio account. Done!

Is it? 2 different phone numbers and 2 different signals, also Alarmnet and
Uplink and TelGard transmit from quite a few numbers so you can't just say
xxx-xxx-xxxx is a TelGard number.

Even if the signals are valid how will you really know someone from another
part of New York isn't sending on one of your accounts? Or from Atlanta?

If it works for you great but again I've seen different results

Easy! Reduces possibility of error! A central station
policy! They operate better doing it this way becuse they've learned by
experience that it reduces error. It works and and doesn't have to be your way
to be right.

Much easier to have 2 different accounts, then even less of a possibility of
errors

If you don't mind me asking how many accounts does your central station
handle?

Maybe you ought to come to the big city and get some experience.
Jeezzz you're thick as shit.


IT WORKS BETTER THIS WAY IF THE CENTRAL STATION THINKS IT DOES, FOR CHRIST
SAKE!

Then thats up to the central station, all I'm saying is it is my opinion
that it is a bad idea

Your wrong. Take a back seat. They don't like to do it that way. Their way
works better for them. Your way doesn't. Your way sucks because you don't do it
their way.

Who's "they"? If it works for "them" by all means do it, you asked for
examples and I gave it to you and contrary to what you think mine doesn't
"suck" wheras I can think of several ways yours does

How's that back at ya!

From a rational discussion to the usual blather, too bad

 

[Mark Leuck]

You tell me what is rational about ......... in opposition to what I've worked
out with my central station and my client, as a working model for a particular
application .... you .........coming up with lame examples ...........of police
sometimes making mistakes, with operators sometimes making mistakes, with codes
being sent by other alarm panels, with police not being able to identify which
building is which, as excuses to accept YOUR idea that CID with seperate
account numbers is better in this case.

IT ISN'T!

It apparently isn't in your case, I'm just stating I'm against it and gave
my reasons, if you've worked it out with your central station and both are
comfortable with it fine, I'm not telling you not to do it

If the police can make a mistake identifying which bulding is which with 4/2
single account number information, they can make a mistake with CID and
seperate account numbers. The police don't have a CLUE what central station is
using.

That has NOTHING to do with what format a panel is using, I'm talking about
the police possibly not getting the correct building especially if they are
slightly different addresses or suite numbers

And if the information on the CS screen is conveyed to 911 dispatch,
they'll know which building it is, regardless what code or format. If the info
isn't conveyed by the central, the police wont know. The operator can make a
mistake in either case (4/2 or CID seperate acct no's) . If the screen says
....large garage and they provide that to 911 dispatch and 911 dispatch doesn't
convey that to the patrol, when they get there the strobe will give them a
fantastic clue.

There is no debate.

Maybe not in your mind

If you think there is, you've got to have some problem in making decisions .....
any decision, ............ if you let little shit like thatget in your way and
divert your attention from completing a job. The possiblity of any one of those
things you mentioned, happening is equally possible, regardless which format or
seperate account numbers are used. It's not important enough to stop the
process that's been in effect for over 15 years. It would not be afforded by
the client. It is something that has grown from an installation that was done
back in a time when 4/2 format was all there was. There is still one control
panel in the main building that will not send CID. I'm not going to pay for two
more account numbers and not be reimbursed by the client. He's not going to
understand why it can't stay the way it is. Jeeeez .......... It's the right
way to do it ......... already! No debate necessary. You do it your way. I'll
do it mine. My way is best. If you don't think so .......... that's your
problem but I'm not going to ********** DEBATE ********** the issue with you,
or anyone.

Did I tell you not to do it or something? I stated I'm against it and gave
my reasons and you are obviously for it and you gave your reasons

Did I tell you not to use 4/2 format? no however I choose to and gave my
reasons.

Jim

(Email accepted only upon request.)

Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints...

I think you might instead try chewing a little harder

 

[Frank Olson]

I think you might instead try chewing a little harder

(Ducking under my desk)

No... the problem is he's been "gumming" them... He should really take the
teeth out of the glass and stick 'em in his mouth...

Yeeee-haawwww! The "grasshopper" finally get's one over on "the Master"...

Jim, ya know I'm just kiddin', right?? Jim?? )

 

[Mark Leuck]

Mark there doesn't seem to be a subject, decision or matter that you wont
"split hairs" over. And then you call it a debate. If you do that in real life
you've got to have some miserable life you live. I can't imagine what it's like
to not just go ahead and make a decision and go ahead and do it. If you've got
all the information that you can gather, just do it. Jeeeez ............ get a
freakin life.

I'm not splitting anything, you think one way and I think another and if you
think I have these kinds of debates in the real world you are sadly mistaken
(although I do tend to ramble, just ask Tom who also rambles)

Most things aren't worth debating .......... just do it. The
consequences for procrastinating or thinking things out until the last possible
thing has been thought of, are much worse than making a mistake. Mistakes can
be corrected. Doing nothing or things untimely, only makes a situation more
complicated.

Who's procrastinating? on what? This is a harmless discussion about account
numbers and reporting formats and buildings yet you somehow think I have a
miserable life and procrastinate just because I gave you my opinion

How odd

It's gotta be tough bein you.

Whew!

And like Jacksg you have no idea what I am really like, ever notice I don't
say the same things back to you? I don't know anything about you either
except you like 4/2 format and take a lot of stuff here a bit too seriously

I know nothing about your personality, personal life, how well you install,
how your business is going, what kind of car you drive etc etc.