DIYbanter - View Single Post

Jim

(Roger Hayter) Wrote in message:
jim k wrote:

(Roger Hayter) Wrote in message:
jim k wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
jim k wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
jim k wrote:
With a Yale wireless system?

Tell us more ....

You bought a system that can only take wireless sensors? Silly boy.

I presume that would be (at the least) the accepted definition
of a "wireless system"...

You think wrong, then.

Bwahahahahaha
Time to shine Dave :-)

Time to learn to read and understand Jim. It's never too late.

For me no, shame your funked up ramblings make no sense.

"Wireless alarms systems with wired sensors" ffs dave :-D

is it the presence of power & maybe phone "wires" of a wireless
alarm system you're relying on getting you out of your amusing
little diy corner? :-D

you are woddles aicmfp

In my house is an ethernet network and a wi-fi network connected
(ultimately) to the same router. Is this a clue?

Ho ho wodge!

Do you have a Yale wireless alarm system?have you added wired
detectors to it? Tell us more....

I believe the OP's wireless system requires 240v.... for those of
a pedantic nature that does not mean it's not a wireless alarm
system :-)

If the Yale Wireless System can't also use wired switches then it is a
very badly designed system. A bit of research confirms that.

Hehe. A wireless system also needs capability to handle wired
detectors? Really? Why?

I would
not want a system which could only work with wireless devices.

Irrelevant.

Hybrid
systems do exist.

No **** sherlock!

But (with possibly another bit of research needed by those who
clearly do not have a clue despite arguing at length otherwise)
the system discussed in this thread clearly *is not one of
them*.

Thanks for confirming & putting dive out of his misery.

--
Jim K

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/