On Thursday, 28 September 2017 22:01:28 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 28 September 2017 16:26:02 UTC+1, wrote:
On 28/09/2017 12:01, Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-28, wrote:
On 28/09/2017 04:06, Bill Wright wrote:
On 27/09/2017 17:30, Huge wrote:
On 2017-09-27, wrote:

[40 lines snipped]

The existing PIRs are wired, but aren't "animal proof"

None of them are.

It isn't possible.

Bill
Honeywell seem to think it is:

They're wrong.


"Is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?", to quote a Monty
Python sketch ;-)
Thanks for your opinion, but I'm happy to assume that Honeywell and
other manufacturers know their products and would not make claims that
could be easily demonstrated to be false, if they were.

now that's amusing

Not with a claim thats so trivial to prove as that one.

If their PIRs cant distinguish between pets and humans
of more than crawling baby size, there would be hordes
sayin that on amazon alone, and there arent.

QED, their PIRs will do what they say.

Promotional claims usually feature a list of conditions, which often don't fit typical use, often use weasel words and phrases like 'upto' or 'in tests' which the mfr designed specifically to avoid the issues etc. Fools take such claims at face value.

Re PIRs specifically, it's not possible to design a PIR detector that won't detect a bat landing on it. Yes you can tell the difference between a cat and a human at say 5 yards, but when the human is 15 yards away and the cat 1 yard, it can't. It's basic physics.


NT