| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
PIR interfering with wireless network
We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?
-- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com If you're cross-eyed and have dyslexia, can you read all right? |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:20:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote: We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking? --- If its PIR it shouln't. PIR is Passive Infra Red, and it's body heat which triggers the sensor, not anthing the device transmits. http://www.glolab.com./pirparts/pirmanual.PDF Maybe the wiring is affecting the strength of the RF field areound where she sits. JF |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:18:14 -0000, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:20:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking? --- If its PIR it shouln't. PIR is Passive Infra Red, and it's body heat which triggers the sensor, not anthing the device transmits. http://www.glolab.com./pirparts/pirmanual.PDF I'm not sure if it's PIR or not. Aren't a lot of them nowadays multifunction? Maybe the wiring is affecting the strength of the RF field areound where she sits. The wiring? It shouldn't have that strong a field from its wiring surely? The effect is as such: within about 2-3 metres the network is unusable. The next 2-3 metres it works most of the time. After that it's almost perfect. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Financial Retirement Plan: If you had purchased $1000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now be worth $49.00. With Enron, you would have had $16.50 left of the original $1,000.00. With WorldCom, you would have had less than $5.00 left. But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of Beer one year ago, drank all the beer, then turned in the cans for the aluminium recycling refund, you would have had $214.00. Based on the above, current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle. |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Jan 31, 4:20 am, "Peter Hucker" wrote:
We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking? You can now get ones that use microwave detection as well as PIR, they are called "Dual PIR" sensors: http://www.ness.com.au/ViewProduct.a...Number=100-210 10.5GHz for the microwave A normal PIR sensor would not cause any issues like this as they are passive. You can simply swap a Dual PIR for a normal PIR no probems. Sensors only need a 4 conductor cable, two for power (12V), two for the contact. Dave. |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:29:33 -0000, David L. Jones wrote:
On Jan 31, 4:20 am, "Peter Hucker" wrote: We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking? You can now get ones that use microwave detection as well as PIR, they are called "Dual PIR" sensors: http://www.ness.com.au/ViewProduct.a...Number=100-210 10.5GHz for the microwave A normal PIR sensor would not cause any issues like this as they are passive. You can simply swap a Dual PIR for a normal PIR no probems. Good point, I'll just tell them to put in a passive in any rooms with problems if I can prove it's that. We've always had detectors though and never had problems, so maybe it's faulty? Or the new ones are on a different band. If it's using 2.4GHz, in my opinion it's wrong. Using the same band as wireless networks in an office is just plain stupid. Sensors only need a 4 conductor cable, two for power (12V), two for the contact. Odd that they left a bit of approx 10 core cable then (and that was the only thing they were fitting at the time). Unless it uses a different core for each type of detection? -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com A very shy guy goes into a bar and sees a beautiful woman sitting at the bar. After an hour of gathering up his courage, he finally goes over to her and asks, tentatively, "Um, would you mind if I chatted with you for a while?" To which she responds by yelling, at the top of her lungs, "No, I won't sleep with you tonight!" Everyone in the bar is now staring at them. Naturally, the guy is hopelessly and completely embarrassed and he slinks back to his table. After a few minutes, the woman walks over to him and apologizes. She smiles at him and says, "I'm sorry if I embarrassed you. You see, I'm a graduate student in psychology and I'm studying how people respond to embarrassing situations." To which he responds, at the top of his lungs, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN, $200?" |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:44:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:18:14 -0000, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:20:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking? --- If its PIR it shouln't. PIR is Passive Infra Red, and it's body heat which triggers the sensor, not anthing the device transmits. http://www.glolab.com./pirparts/pirmanual.PDF I'm not sure if it's PIR or not. Aren't a lot of them nowadays multifunction? --- Dunno; you were the one who tagged it as PIR. --- Maybe the wiring is affecting the strength of the RF field areound where she sits. The wiring? It shouldn't have that strong a field from its wiring surely? --- I didn't say the wiring was responsible for generating the field, I said it might have an _effect_ on the [already existing] field. JF |
PIR interfering with wireless network
Ok, I have been reading this thread with great amusement. :-)
A couple of things to clear up. A PIR motion detector is a Passive Infrared detector that detects movement in a space based upon focused infrared temperature changes thru a Fresnel Lens of an object in front of the detector. It cannot detect thru walls or glass. A "Dual-Tech" Motion Detector uses two(dual) technologies to detect motion or movement in a space. It uses a PIR sensor and a Microwave sensor. The microwave sends out pulses of microwave energy into the space if the return signals change due to a person/object moving in the space (or outside the space because it can see thru walls) and there is a temperature change that has been detected by the PIR at the same time there is an alarm. This is less false alarm prone than the simple PIR. All that being said the simple way to prove or disprove that the detector is causing the problem is get the security tech to power down the panel and see what happens. My guess is that something else other than the detector is causing the problem and it is just a coincidence that it happened at the same time of the install. It would be my guess that one of the following is the cause. 1) The transceiver was moved from its original position and the range in this area was modified. 2) Some metal object has been moved/placed at a point that is deflecting the signal. 3) A fluorescent light bulb/ballast is failing and giving off massive amount of RFI causing the interference. 4) Sun Spots are reaching a peak in your area. 5) The earth magnetic field has been modified in ways that cannot be fully explained. i.e. Government Plot!!! 5) All of the above. 6) Other I have used the KISS method in the above description to ease the pain. Some error in wording may be found. Whoops!!! Sorry for any confusion. Hope that helps you to find your problem. Wireless is never perfect. Good luck and have a nice day. Les "John Fields" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:44:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:18:14 -0000, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:20:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking? --- If its PIR it shouln't. PIR is Passive Infra Red, and it's body heat which triggers the sensor, not anthing the device transmits. http://www.glolab.com./pirparts/pirmanual.PDF I'm not sure if it's PIR or not. Aren't a lot of them nowadays multifunction? --- Dunno; you were the one who tagged it as PIR. --- Maybe the wiring is affecting the strength of the RF field areound where she sits. The wiring? It shouldn't have that strong a field from its wiring surely? --- I didn't say the wiring was responsible for generating the field, I said it might have an _effect_ on the [already existing] field. JF |
PIR interfering with wireless network
I covered it with a biscuit tin lid today, and the problem immediately vanished. I happend to spot a workman installing more of them and told him to remove it. He said therew as absolutely no way it could be causing that problem, but I persuaded him to remove it while a continuous ping was on the screen of a wireless laptop. It could clearly be seen that as soon as he unplugged it, everything worked, and when he put it back, packets disappeared. He told me it used microwaves, but couldn't tell me the frequency (although he thought it was meant to be substantially higher than 2.4GHz). All of the detectors throughout the building look identical, but only this one appeared to cause problems. Perhaps it was faulty and was oscillating at half the correct frequency?
The whole of the new corridor still hates higher numbered channels for no apparent reason. Channel 1 works perfectly, channel 6 works with older laptops but not new ones(?!) and channel 11 works with nothing. There is only that one transmitter in range there, so who knows what's going on! On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:56:24 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Ok, I have been reading this thread with great amusement. :-) A couple of things to clear up. A PIR motion detector is a Passive Infrared detector that detects movement in a space based upon focused infrared temperature changes thru a Fresnel Lens of an object in front of the detector. It cannot detect thru walls or glass. A "Dual-Tech" Motion Detector uses two(dual) technologies to detect motion or movement in a space. It uses a PIR sensor and a Microwave sensor. The microwave sends out pulses of microwave energy into the space if the return signals change due to a person/object moving in the space (or outside the space because it can see thru walls) and there is a temperature change that has been detected by the PIR at the same time there is an alarm. This is less false alarm prone than the simple PIR. All that being said the simple way to prove or disprove that the detector is causing the problem is get the security tech to power down the panel and see what happens. My guess is that something else other than the detector is causing the problem and it is just a coincidence that it happened at the same time of the install. It would be my guess that one of the following is the cause. 1) The transceiver was moved from its original position and the range in this area was modified. 2) Some metal object has been moved/placed at a point that is deflecting the signal. 3) A fluorescent light bulb/ballast is failing and giving off massive amount of RFI causing the interference. 4) Sun Spots are reaching a peak in your area. 5) The earth magnetic field has been modified in ways that cannot be fully explained. i.e. Government Plot!!! 5) All of the above. 6) Other I have used the KISS method in the above description to ease the pain. Some error in wording may be found. Whoops!!! Sorry for any confusion. Hope that helps you to find your problem. Wireless is never perfect. Good luck and have a nice day. Les "John Fields" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:44:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:18:14 -0000, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:20:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking? --- If its PIR it shouln't. PIR is Passive Infra Red, and it's body heat which triggers the sensor, not anthing the device transmits. http://www.glolab.com./pirparts/pirmanual.PDF I'm not sure if it's PIR or not. Aren't a lot of them nowadays multifunction? --- Dunno; you were the one who tagged it as PIR. --- Maybe the wiring is affecting the strength of the RF field areound where she sits. The wiring? It shouldn't have that strong a field from its wiring surely? --- I didn't say the wiring was responsible for generating the field, I said it might have an _effect_ on the [already existing] field. JF -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com What comes after 69? Mouthwash. |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:07:06 -0000, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:44:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:18:14 -0000, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:20:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking? --- If its PIR it shouln't. PIR is Passive Infra Red, and it's body heat which triggers the sensor, not anthing the device transmits. http://www.glolab.com./pirparts/pirmanual.PDF I'm not sure if it's PIR or not. Aren't a lot of them nowadays multifunction? --- Dunno; you were the one who tagged it as PIR. Force of habit, as that's all they used to be. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com During her annual checkup, the well-constructed miss was asked to disrobe and climb onto the examining table. "Doctor," she replied shyly, "I just can't undress in front of you." "All right," said the physician, "I'll flick off the lights. You undress and tell me when you're through." In a few moments, her voice rang out in the darkness: "Doctor, I've undressed. What shall I do with my clothes?" "Put them on the chair, on top of mine." |
PIR interfering with wireless network
Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have never
thought of that one. It would be interesting to do one or both of the following. Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model. Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model. Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for the better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the install a high end PIR only unit. On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London. Some days you just never know what is going to happen next. I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were. Good luck. Les "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I covered it with a biscuit tin lid today, and the problem immediately vanished. I happend to spot a workman installing more of them and told him to remove it. He said therew as absolutely no way it could be causing that problem, but I persuaded him to remove it while a continuous ping was on the screen of a wireless laptop. It could clearly be seen that as soon as he unplugged it, everything worked, and when he put it back, packets disappeared. He told me it used microwaves, but couldn't tell me the frequency (although he thought it was meant to be substantially higher than 2.4GHz). All of the detectors throughout the building look identical, but only this one appeared to cause problems. Perhaps it was faulty and was oscillating at half the correct frequency? The whole of the new corridor still hates higher numbered channels for no apparent reason. Channel 1 works perfectly, channel 6 works with older laptops but not new ones(?!) and channel 11 works with nothing. There is only that one transmitter in range there, so who knows what's going on! On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:56:24 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Ok, I have been reading this thread with great amusement. :-) A couple of things to clear up. A PIR motion detector is a Passive Infrared detector that detects movement in a space based upon focused infrared temperature changes thru a Fresnel Lens of an object in front of the detector. It cannot detect thru walls or glass. A "Dual-Tech" Motion Detector uses two(dual) technologies to detect motion or movement in a space. It uses a PIR sensor and a Microwave sensor. The microwave sends out pulses of microwave energy into the space if the return signals change due to a person/object moving in the space (or outside the space because it can see thru walls) and there is a temperature change that has been detected by the PIR at the same time there is an alarm. This is less false alarm prone than the simple PIR. All that being said the simple way to prove or disprove that the detector is causing the problem is get the security tech to power down the panel and see what happens. My guess is that something else other than the detector is causing the problem and it is just a coincidence that it happened at the same time of the install. It would be my guess that one of the following is the cause. 1) The transceiver was moved from its original position and the range in this area was modified. 2) Some metal object has been moved/placed at a point that is deflecting the signal. 3) A fluorescent light bulb/ballast is failing and giving off massive amount of RFI causing the interference. 4) Sun Spots are reaching a peak in your area. 5) The earth magnetic field has been modified in ways that cannot be fully explained. i.e. Government Plot!!! 5) All of the above. 6) Other I have used the KISS method in the above description to ease the pain. Some error in wording may be found. Whoops!!! Sorry for any confusion. Hope that helps you to find your problem. Wireless is never perfect. Good luck and have a nice day. Les "John Fields" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:44:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:18:14 -0000, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:20:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking? --- If its PIR it shouln't. PIR is Passive Infra Red, and it's body heat which triggers the sensor, not anthing the device transmits. http://www.glolab.com./pirparts/pirmanual.PDF I'm not sure if it's PIR or not. Aren't a lot of them nowadays multifunction? --- Dunno; you were the one who tagged it as PIR. --- Maybe the wiring is affecting the strength of the RF field areound where she sits. The wiring? It shouldn't have that strong a field from its wiring surely? --- I didn't say the wiring was responsible for generating the field, I said it might have an _effect_ on the [already existing] field. JF -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com What comes after 69? Mouthwash. |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:41:59 -0500, "ABLE1"
wrote: Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have never thought of that one. It would be interesting to do one or both of the following. Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model. Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model. Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for the better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the install a high end PIR only unit. On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London. Some days you just never know what is going to happen next. I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were. Good luck. Les --- This is USENET, not email. Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post. JF |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:41:59 -0000, ABLE1 wrote:
Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have never thought of that one. I can't take credit for it. It was suggested in this thread (or in the same thread in some other groups). It would be interesting to do one or both of the following. Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model. They replaced it with an identical model, and the problem went away. I suspected it might as they had put one in every office and only one office showed problems. The installer was bewildered and had never seen such a thing before. Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model. Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for the better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the install a high end PIR only unit. On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London. Some days you just never know what is going to happen next. I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were. Good luck. Les "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I covered it with a biscuit tin lid today, and the problem immediately vanished. I happend to spot a workman installing more of them and told him to remove it. He said therew as absolutely no way it could be causing that problem, but I persuaded him to remove it while a continuous ping was on the screen of a wireless laptop. It could clearly be seen that as soon as he unplugged it, everything worked, and when he put it back, packets disappeared. He told me it used microwaves, but couldn't tell me the frequency (although he thought it was meant to be substantially higher than 2.4GHz). All of the detectors throughout the building look identical, but only this one appeared to cause problems. Perhaps it was faulty and was oscillating at half the correct frequency? The whole of the new corridor still hates higher numbered channels for no apparent reason. Channel 1 works perfectly, channel 6 works with older laptops but not new ones(?!) and channel 11 works with nothing. There is only that one transmitter in range there, so who knows what's going on! On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:56:24 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Ok, I have been reading this thread with great amusement. :-) A couple of things to clear up. A PIR motion detector is a Passive Infrared detector that detects movement in a space based upon focused infrared temperature changes thru a Fresnel Lens of an object in front of the detector. It cannot detect thru walls or glass. A "Dual-Tech" Motion Detector uses two(dual) technologies to detect motion or movement in a space. It uses a PIR sensor and a Microwave sensor. The microwave sends out pulses of microwave energy into the space if the return signals change due to a person/object moving in the space (or outside the space because it can see thru walls) and there is a temperature change that has been detected by the PIR at the same time there is an alarm. This is less false alarm prone than the simple PIR. All that being said the simple way to prove or disprove that the detector is causing the problem is get the security tech to power down the panel and see what happens. My guess is that something else other than the detector is causing the problem and it is just a coincidence that it happened at the same time of the install. It would be my guess that one of the following is the cause. 1) The transceiver was moved from its original position and the range in this area was modified. 2) Some metal object has been moved/placed at a point that is deflecting the signal. 3) A fluorescent light bulb/ballast is failing and giving off massive amount of RFI causing the interference. 4) Sun Spots are reaching a peak in your area. 5) The earth magnetic field has been modified in ways that cannot be fully explained. i.e. Government Plot!!! 5) All of the above. 6) Other I have used the KISS method in the above description to ease the pain. Some error in wording may be found. Whoops!!! Sorry for any confusion. Hope that helps you to find your problem. Wireless is never perfect. Good luck and have a nice day. Les "John Fields" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:44:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:18:14 -0000, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:20:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking? --- If its PIR it shouln't. PIR is Passive Infra Red, and it's body heat which triggers the sensor, not anthing the device transmits. http://www.glolab.com./pirparts/pirmanual.PDF I'm not sure if it's PIR or not. Aren't a lot of them nowadays multifunction? --- Dunno; you were the one who tagged it as PIR. --- Maybe the wiring is affecting the strength of the RF field areound where she sits. The wiring? It shouldn't have that strong a field from its wiring surely? --- I didn't say the wiring was responsible for generating the field, I said it might have an _effect_ on the [already existing] field. JF -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com What comes after 69? Mouthwash. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you drive". |
PIR interfering with wireless network
"Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:41:59 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have never thought of that one. I can't take credit for it. It was suggested in this thread (or in the same thread in some other groups). It would be interesting to do one or both of the following. Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model. They replaced it with an identical model, and the problem went away. I suspected it might as they had put one in every office and only one office showed problems. The installer was bewildered and had never seen such a thing before. Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model. Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for the better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the install a high end PIR only unit. On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London. Some days you just never know what is going to happen next. I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were. Good luck. Les "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I covered it with a biscuit tin lid today, and the problem immediately vanished. I happend to spot a workman installing more of them and told him to remove it. He said therew as absolutely no way it could be causing that problem, but I persuaded him to remove it while a continuous ping was on the screen of a wireless laptop. It could clearly be seen that as soon as he unplugged it, everything worked, and when he put it back, packets disappeared. He told me it used microwaves, but couldn't tell me the frequency (although he thought it was meant to be substantially higher than 2.4GHz). All of the detectors throughout the building look identical, but only this one appeared to cause problems. Perhaps it was faulty and was oscillating at half the correct frequency? The whole of the new corridor still hates higher numbered channels for no apparent reason. Channel 1 works perfectly, channel 6 works with older laptops but not new ones(?!) and channel 11 works with nothing. There is only that one transmitter in range there, so who knows what's going on! On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:56:24 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Ok, I have been reading this thread with great amusement. :-) A couple of things to clear up. A PIR motion detector is a Passive Infrared detector that detects movement in a space based upon focused infrared temperature changes thru a Fresnel Lens of an object in front of the detector. It cannot detect thru walls or glass. A "Dual-Tech" Motion Detector uses two(dual) technologies to detect motion or movement in a space. It uses a PIR sensor and a Microwave sensor. The microwave sends out pulses of microwave energy into the space if the return signals change due to a person/object moving in the space (or outside the space because it can see thru walls) and there is a temperature change that has been detected by the PIR at the same time there is an alarm. This is less false alarm prone than the simple PIR. All that being said the simple way to prove or disprove that the detector is causing the problem is get the security tech to power down the panel and see what happens. My guess is that something else other than the detector is causing the problem and it is just a coincidence that it happened at the same time of the install. It would be my guess that one of the following is the cause. 1) The transceiver was moved from its original position and the range in this area was modified. 2) Some metal object has been moved/placed at a point that is deflecting the signal. 3) A fluorescent light bulb/ballast is failing and giving off massive amount of RFI causing the interference. 4) Sun Spots are reaching a peak in your area. 5) The earth magnetic field has been modified in ways that cannot be fully explained. i.e. Government Plot!!! 5) All of the above. 6) Other I have used the KISS method in the above description to ease the pain. Some error in wording may be found. Whoops!!! Sorry for any confusion. Hope that helps you to find your problem. Wireless is never perfect. Good luck and have a nice day. Les "John Fields" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:44:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:18:14 -0000, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:20:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking? --- If its PIR it shouln't. PIR is Passive Infra Red, and it's body heat which triggers the sensor, not anthing the device transmits. http://www.glolab.com./pirparts/pirmanual.PDF I'm not sure if it's PIR or not. Aren't a lot of them nowadays multifunction? --- Dunno; you were the one who tagged it as PIR. --- Maybe the wiring is affecting the strength of the RF field areound where she sits. The wiring? It shouldn't have that strong a field from its wiring surely? --- I didn't say the wiring was responsible for generating the field, I said it might have an _effect_ on the [already existing] field. JF -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com What comes after 69? Mouthwash. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you drive". Good Show!!! |
PIR interfering with wireless network
I cannot locate whsat you've written.
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:41:59 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have never thought of that one. I can't take credit for it. It was suggested in this thread (or in the same thread in some other groups). It would be interesting to do one or both of the following. Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model. They replaced it with an identical model, and the problem went away. I suspected it might as they had put one in every office and only one office showed problems. The installer was bewildered and had never seen such a thing before. Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model. Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for the better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the install a high end PIR only unit. On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London. Some days you just never know what is going to happen next. I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were. Good luck. Les "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I covered it with a biscuit tin lid today, and the problem immediately vanished. I happend to spot a workman installing more of them and told him to remove it. He said therew as absolutely no way it could be causing that problem, but I persuaded him to remove it while a continuous ping was on the screen of a wireless laptop. It could clearly be seen that as soon as he unplugged it, everything worked, and when he put it back, packets disappeared. He told me it used microwaves, but couldn't tell me the frequency (although he thought it was meant to be substantially higher than 2.4GHz). All of the detectors throughout the building look identical, but only this one appeared to cause problems. Perhaps it was faulty and was oscillating at half the correct frequency? The whole of the new corridor still hates higher numbered channels for no apparent reason. Channel 1 works perfectly, channel 6 works with older laptops but not new ones(?!) and channel 11 works with nothing. There is only that one transmitter in range there, so who knows what's going on! On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:56:24 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Ok, I have been reading this thread with great amusement. :-) A couple of things to clear up. A PIR motion detector is a Passive Infrared detector that detects movement in a space based upon focused infrared temperature changes thru a Fresnel Lens of an object in front of the detector. It cannot detect thru walls or glass. A "Dual-Tech" Motion Detector uses two(dual) technologies to detect motion or movement in a space. It uses a PIR sensor and a Microwave sensor. The microwave sends out pulses of microwave energy into the space if the return signals change due to a person/object moving in the space (or outside the space because it can see thru walls) and there is a temperature change that has been detected by the PIR at the same time there is an alarm. This is less false alarm prone than the simple PIR. All that being said the simple way to prove or disprove that the detector is causing the problem is get the security tech to power down the panel and see what happens. My guess is that something else other than the detector is causing the problem and it is just a coincidence that it happened at the same time of the install. It would be my guess that one of the following is the cause. 1) The transceiver was moved from its original position and the range in this area was modified. 2) Some metal object has been moved/placed at a point that is deflecting the signal. 3) A fluorescent light bulb/ballast is failing and giving off massive amount of RFI causing the interference. 4) Sun Spots are reaching a peak in your area. 5) The earth magnetic field has been modified in ways that cannot be fully explained. i.e. Government Plot!!! 5) All of the above. 6) Other I have used the KISS method in the above description to ease the pain. Some error in wording may be found. Whoops!!! Sorry for any confusion. Hope that helps you to find your problem. Wireless is never perfect. Good luck and have a nice day. Les "John Fields" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:44:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:18:14 -0000, John Fields wrote: I'm not sure if it's PIR or not. Aren't a lot of them nowadays multifunction? --- Dunno; you were the one who tagged it as PIR. --- The wiring? It shouldn't have that strong a field from its wiring surely? --- I didn't say the wiring was responsible for generating the field, I said it might have an _effect_ on the [already existing] field. JF -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com What comes after 69? Mouthwash. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you drive". Good Show!!! -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells size extra large condoms. He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?" She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone does? |
PIR interfering with wireless network
"Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I cannot locate whsat you've written. That is because I have followed USENET protocol and bottom posted as I was instructed to do so in such a nice way. Have a good day. On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:41:59 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have never thought of that one. I can't take credit for it. It was suggested in this thread (or in the same thread in some other groups). It would be interesting to do one or both of the following. Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model. They replaced it with an identical model, and the problem went away. I suspected it might as they had put one in every office and only one office showed problems. The installer was bewildered and had never seen such a thing before. Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model. Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for the better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the install a high end PIR only unit. On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London. Some days you just never know what is going to happen next. I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were. Good luck. Les "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I covered it with a biscuit tin lid today, and the problem immediately vanished. I happend to spot a workman installing more of them and told him to remove it. He said therew as absolutely no way it could be causing that problem, but I persuaded him to remove it while a continuous ping was on the screen of a wireless laptop. It could clearly be seen that as soon as he unplugged it, everything worked, and when he put it back, packets disappeared. He told me it used microwaves, but couldn't tell me the frequency (although he thought it was meant to be substantially higher than 2.4GHz). All of the detectors throughout the building look identical, but only this one appeared to cause problems. Perhaps it was faulty and was oscillating at half the correct frequency? The whole of the new corridor still hates higher numbered channels for no apparent reason. Channel 1 works perfectly, channel 6 works with older laptops but not new ones(?!) and channel 11 works with nothing. There is only that one transmitter in range there, so who knows what's going on! On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:56:24 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Ok, I have been reading this thread with great amusement. :-) A couple of things to clear up. A PIR motion detector is a Passive Infrared detector that detects movement in a space based upon focused infrared temperature changes thru a Fresnel Lens of an object in front of the detector. It cannot detect thru walls or glass. A "Dual-Tech" Motion Detector uses two(dual) technologies to detect motion or movement in a space. It uses a PIR sensor and a Microwave sensor. The microwave sends out pulses of microwave energy into the space if the return signals change due to a person/object moving in the space (or outside the space because it can see thru walls) and there is a temperature change that has been detected by the PIR at the same time there is an alarm. This is less false alarm prone than the simple PIR. All that being said the simple way to prove or disprove that the detector is causing the problem is get the security tech to power down the panel and see what happens. My guess is that something else other than the detector is causing the problem and it is just a coincidence that it happened at the same time of the install. It would be my guess that one of the following is the cause. 1) The transceiver was moved from its original position and the range in this area was modified. 2) Some metal object has been moved/placed at a point that is deflecting the signal. 3) A fluorescent light bulb/ballast is failing and giving off massive amount of RFI causing the interference. 4) Sun Spots are reaching a peak in your area. 5) The earth magnetic field has been modified in ways that cannot be fully explained. i.e. Government Plot!!! 5) All of the above. 6) Other I have used the KISS method in the above description to ease the pain. Some error in wording may be found. Whoops!!! Sorry for any confusion. Hope that helps you to find your problem. Wireless is never perfect. Good luck and have a nice day. Les "John Fields" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:44:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:18:14 -0000, John Fields wrote: I'm not sure if it's PIR or not. Aren't a lot of them nowadays multifunction? --- Dunno; you were the one who tagged it as PIR. --- The wiring? It shouldn't have that strong a field from its wiring surely? --- I didn't say the wiring was responsible for generating the field, I said it might have an _effect_ on the [already existing] field. JF -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com What comes after 69? Mouthwash. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you drive". Good Show!!! -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells size extra large condoms. He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?" She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone does? |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:24:14 -0000, ABLE1 wrote:
"Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I cannot locate whsat you've written. That is because I have followed USENET protocol and bottom posted as I was instructed to do so in such a nice way. Have a good day. I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater. I didn't see your reply as it was after my sig. You didn't follow the sig seperator snip guideline :-P On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:41:59 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have never thought of that one. I can't take credit for it. It was suggested in this thread (or in the same thread in some other groups). It would be interesting to do one or both of the following. Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model. They replaced it with an identical model, and the problem went away. I suspected it might as they had put one in every office and only one office showed problems. The installer was bewildered and had never seen such a thing before. Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model. Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for the better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the install a high end PIR only unit. On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London. Some days you just never know what is going to happen next. I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were. Good luck. Les "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I covered it with a biscuit tin lid today, and the problem immediately vanished. I happend to spot a workman installing more of them and told him to remove it. He said therew as absolutely no way it could be causing that problem, but I persuaded him to remove it while a continuous ping was on the screen of a wireless laptop. It could clearly be seen that as soon as he unplugged it, everything worked, and when he put it back, packets disappeared. He told me it used microwaves, but couldn't tell me the frequency (although he thought it was meant to be substantially higher than 2.4GHz). All of the detectors throughout the building look identical, but only this one appeared to cause problems. Perhaps it was faulty and was oscillating at half the correct frequency? The whole of the new corridor still hates higher numbered channels for no apparent reason. Channel 1 works perfectly, channel 6 works with older laptops but not new ones(?!) and channel 11 works with nothing. There is only that one transmitter in range there, so who knows what's going on! On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:56:24 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Ok, I have been reading this thread with great amusement. :-) A couple of things to clear up. A PIR motion detector is a Passive Infrared detector that detects movement in a space based upon focused infrared temperature changes thru a Fresnel Lens of an object in front of the detector. It cannot detect thru walls or glass. A "Dual-Tech" Motion Detector uses two(dual) technologies to detect motion or movement in a space. It uses a PIR sensor and a Microwave sensor. The microwave sends out pulses of microwave energy into the space if the return signals change due to a person/object moving in the space (or outside the space because it can see thru walls) and there is a temperature change that has been detected by the PIR at the same time there is an alarm. This is less false alarm prone than the simple PIR. All that being said the simple way to prove or disprove that the detector is causing the problem is get the security tech to power down the panel and see what happens. My guess is that something else other than the detector is causing the problem and it is just a coincidence that it happened at the same time of the install. It would be my guess that one of the following is the cause. 1) The transceiver was moved from its original position and the range in this area was modified. 2) Some metal object has been moved/placed at a point that is deflecting the signal. 3) A fluorescent light bulb/ballast is failing and giving off massive amount of RFI causing the interference. 4) Sun Spots are reaching a peak in your area. 5) The earth magnetic field has been modified in ways that cannot be fully explained. i.e. Government Plot!!! 5) All of the above. 6) Other I have used the KISS method in the above description to ease the pain. Some error in wording may be found. Whoops!!! Sorry for any confusion. Hope that helps you to find your problem. Wireless is never perfect. Good luck and have a nice day. Les "John Fields" wrote in message ... -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com What comes after 69? Mouthwash. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you drive". Good Show!!! -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells size extra large condoms. He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?" She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone does? -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo? |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:41:59 -0500, "ABLE1" wrote: Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have never thought of that one. It would be interesting to do one or both of the following. Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model. Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model. Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for the better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the install a high end PIR only unit. On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London. Some days you just never know what is going to happen next. I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were. Good luck. Les --- This is USENET, not email. Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post. JF Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell. Email discussions often end with a few topics within them, then top posting just gets confusing. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com In the UK, 90% of things are prohibited. The other 10% are compulsory. |
PIR interfering with wireless network
"Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:24:14 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I cannot locate whsat you've written. That is because I have followed USENET protocol and bottom posted as I was instructed to do so in such a nice way. Have a good day. I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater. I didn't see your reply as it was after my sig. You didn't follow the sig seperator snip guideline :-P Just breaking all the rules..................................... one at a time .......... On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:41:59 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have never thought of that one. I can't take credit for it. It was suggested in this thread (or in the same thread in some other groups). It would be interesting to do one or both of the following. Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model. They replaced it with an identical model, and the problem went away. I suspected it might as they had put one in every office and only one office showed problems. The installer was bewildered and had never seen such a thing before. Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model. Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for the better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the install a high end PIR only unit. On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London. Some days you just never know what is going to happen next. I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were. Good luck. Les "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I covered it with a biscuit tin lid today, and the problem immediately vanished. I happend to spot a workman installing more of them and told him to remove it. He said therew as absolutely no way it could be causing that problem, but I persuaded him to remove it while a continuous ping was on the screen of a wireless laptop. It could clearly be seen that as soon as he unplugged it, everything worked, and when he put it back, packets disappeared. He told me it used microwaves, but couldn't tell me the frequency (although he thought it was meant to be substantially higher than 2.4GHz). All of the detectors throughout the building look identical, but only this one appeared to cause problems. Perhaps it was faulty and was oscillating at half the correct frequency? The whole of the new corridor still hates higher numbered channels for no apparent reason. Channel 1 works perfectly, channel 6 works with older laptops but not new ones(?!) and channel 11 works with nothing. There is only that one transmitter in range there, so who knows what's going on! On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:56:24 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Ok, I have been reading this thread with great amusement. :-) A couple of things to clear up. A PIR motion detector is a Passive Infrared detector that detects movement in a space based upon focused infrared temperature changes thru a Fresnel Lens of an object in front of the detector. It cannot detect thru walls or glass. A "Dual-Tech" Motion Detector uses two(dual) technologies to detect motion or movement in a space. It uses a PIR sensor and a Microwave sensor. The microwave sends out pulses of microwave energy into the space if the return signals change due to a person/object moving in the space (or outside the space because it can see thru walls) and there is a temperature change that has been detected by the PIR at the same time there is an alarm. This is less false alarm prone than the simple PIR. All that being said the simple way to prove or disprove that the detector is causing the problem is get the security tech to power down the panel and see what happens. My guess is that something else other than the detector is causing the problem and it is just a coincidence that it happened at the same time of the install. It would be my guess that one of the following is the cause. 1) The transceiver was moved from its original position and the range in this area was modified. 2) Some metal object has been moved/placed at a point that is deflecting the signal. 3) A fluorescent light bulb/ballast is failing and giving off massive amount of RFI causing the interference. 4) Sun Spots are reaching a peak in your area. 5) The earth magnetic field has been modified in ways that cannot be fully explained. i.e. Government Plot!!! 5) All of the above. 6) Other I have used the KISS method in the above description to ease the pain. Some error in wording may be found. Whoops!!! Sorry for any confusion. Hope that helps you to find your problem. Wireless is never perfect. Good luck and have a nice day. Les "John Fields" wrote in message ... -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com What comes after 69? Mouthwash. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you drive". Good Show!!! -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells size extra large condoms. He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?" She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone does? -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo? |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:25:48 -0000, ABLE1 wrote:
"Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:24:14 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I cannot locate whsat you've written. That is because I have followed USENET protocol and bottom posted as I was instructed to do so in such a nice way. Have a good day. I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater. I didn't see your reply as it was after my sig. You didn't follow the sig seperator snip guideline :-P Just breaking all the rules..................................... one at a time .......... Why limit yourself? On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:41:59 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have never thought of that one. I can't take credit for it. It was suggested in this thread (or in the same thread in some other groups). It would be interesting to do one or both of the following. Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model. They replaced it with an identical model, and the problem went away. I suspected it might as they had put one in every office and only one office showed problems. The installer was bewildered and had never seen such a thing before. Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model. Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for the better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the install a high end PIR only unit. On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London. Some days you just never know what is going to happen next. I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were. Good luck. Les "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you drive". Good Show!!! -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells size extra large condoms. He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?" She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone does? -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo? -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a dustcart reversing. |
PIR interfering with wireless network
"Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:25:48 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:24:14 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I cannot locate whsat you've written. That is because I have followed USENET protocol and bottom posted as I was instructed to do so in such a nice way. Have a good day. I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater. I didn't see your reply as it was after my sig. You didn't follow the sig seperator snip guideline :-P Just breaking all the rules..................................... one at a time .......... Making it last longer gives more satisfaction. So many rules too little time. Why limit yourself? On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:41:59 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: Very interesting!!!! Golly good show on the biscuit tin. Would have never thought of that one. I can't take credit for it. It was suggested in this thread (or in the same thread in some other groups). It would be interesting to do one or both of the following. Replace the offensive unit first with another of the same model. They replaced it with an identical model, and the problem went away. I suspected it might as they had put one in every office and only one office showed problems. The installer was bewildered and had never seen such a thing before. Replace the offensive unit with another manufactures dual tech model. Do your same evaluation on each and see if there is a difference for the better or for the worse. As a back up plan have someone authorize the install a high end PIR only unit. On a lighter note this could be the reason for the snow in London. Some days you just never know what is going to happen next. I certainly hope that someone is not jerking a chain as it were. Good luck. Les "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Two fish are in a tank. One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you drive". Good Show!!! -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells size extra large condoms. He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?" She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone does? -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo? -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a dustcart reversing. |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 01:27:43 -0000, ABLE1 wrote:
"Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:25:48 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:24:14 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... I cannot locate whsat you've written. That is because I have followed USENET protocol and bottom posted as I was instructed to do so in such a nice way. Have a good day. Replying in silly places won't work with me. Opera colour codes things. I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater. I didn't see your reply as it was after my sig. You didn't follow the sig seperator snip guideline :-P Just breaking all the rules..................................... one at a time .......... Making it last longer gives more satisfaction. So many rules too little time. Why limit yourself? On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:17:51 -0000, ABLE1 wrote: "Peter Hucker" wrote in message ... Good Show!!! -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com A woman walks into a drugstore and asks the pharmacist if he sells size extra large condoms. He replies, "Yes we do. Would you like to buy some?" She responds, "No, but do you mind if I wait around here until someone does? -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo? -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a dustcart reversing. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Excuse me, are you reading that paper you're sitting on? |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote: On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields wrote: --- This is USENET, not email. Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post. JF Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell. Email discussions often end with a few topics within them, then top posting just gets confusing. --- 'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before seems to be the convention. This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing. JF |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields
wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields wrote: --- This is USENET, not email. Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post. JF Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell. Email discussions often end with a few topics within them, then top posting just gets confusing. --- 'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before seems to be the convention. This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing. --- I almost forgot about this part: "I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater." So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"? JF |
PIR interfering with wireless network
|
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:47:19 -0600, krw wrote:
In article , says... On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields wrote: --- This is USENET, not email. Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post. JF Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell. Email discussions often end with a few topics within them, then top posting just gets confusing. --- 'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before seems to be the convention. This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing. --- I almost forgot about this part: "I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater." So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"? Of course that PHucker supports confusion, though there is no "neatness" in unlimited line lengths. He basically doesn't care what his readers have to go through. *He* is more impotent. --- Interestingly, reading his posts results in no "penalty" but, replying to them does in that that invokes his unlimited line length message in the "from" frame. It's easy to fix by just mousing over to where you want the text to break and clicking. After that, the rest of the text shows up properly parsed, but without the sequence indicator showing up. It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time it's "Why bother?" JF |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:45:16 -0600, John Fields
wrote: On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:47:19 -0600, krw wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields wrote: --- This is USENET, not email. Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post. JF Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell. Email discussions often end with a few topics within them, then top posting just gets confusing. --- 'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before seems to be the convention. This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing. --- I almost forgot about this part: "I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater." So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"? Of course that PHucker supports confusion, though there is no "neatness" in unlimited line lengths. He basically doesn't care what his readers have to go through. *He* is more impotent. --- Interestingly, reading his posts results in no "penalty" but, replying to them does in that that invokes his unlimited line length message in the "from" frame. That depends on the newsreader and the way it's set up. In any case *his* settings are wrong, though he insists on continuing, like a spoiled child. It's easy to fix by just mousing over to where you want the text to break and clicking. Easier to ignore his crap. After that, the rest of the text shows up properly parsed, but without the sequence indicator showing up. It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time it's "Why bother?" Exactly. Why bother with those who don't care about standards or their readers. |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote: He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a dustcart reversing. --- leaving you alone again, naturally? JF |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:11:42 -0000, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields wrote: --- This is USENET, not email. Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post. JF Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell. Email discussions often end with a few topics within them, then top posting just gets confusing. --- 'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before seems to be the convention. This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing. No, in email you can end up discussing a few different things, 5 conversations at once. In-line posting is the only way this makes sense. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com A New York man was forced to take a day off from work to appear for a minor traffic summons. He grew increasingly restless as he waited hour after endless hour for his case to be heard. When his name was called late in the afternoon, he stood before the judge, only to hear that court would be adjourned for the next day and he would have to return the next day. "What for?" he snapped at the judge. His honor, equally irked by a tedious day and sharp query roared, "Twenty dollars contempt of court. That's why!" Then, noticing the man checking his wallet, the judge relented. "That's all right. You don't have to pay now." The young man replied, "I'm just seeing if I have enough for two more words." |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:16:38 -0000, John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields wrote: --- This is USENET, not email. Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post. JF Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell. Email discussions often end with a few topics within them, then top posting just gets confusing. --- 'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before seems to be the convention. This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing. --- I almost forgot about this part: "I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater." So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"? Alternately posting top and bottom is more confusing than all at the top. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com "These stretch pants come with a warranty of one year or 500,000 calories... whichever comes first." |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:47:19 -0600, krw wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields wrote: --- This is USENET, not email. Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post. JF Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell. Email discussions often end with a few topics within them, then top posting just gets confusing. --- 'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before seems to be the convention. This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing. --- I almost forgot about this part: "I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater." So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"? Of course that PHucker supports confusion, though there is no "neatness" in unlimited line lengths. He basically doesn't care what his readers have to go through. *He* is more impotent. --- Interestingly, reading his posts results in no "penalty" but, replying to them does in that that invokes his unlimited line length message in the "from" frame. It's easy to fix by just mousing over to where you want the text to break and clicking. After that, the rest of the text shows up properly parsed, but without the sequence indicator showing up. It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time it's "Why bother?" Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com Yesterday scientists in the USA revealed that beer contains small traces of female hormones. To prove their theory they fed 100 men 12 pints of beer and observed that 100% of them started talking nonsense and couldn't drive. |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a dustcart reversing. --- leaving you alone again, naturally? What? -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com __,='`````'=/__ '// (o) \(o) \ `' _,-, //| ,_) (`\ ,-'`_,-\ ,-~~~\ `'===' /-, \==```` \__ / `----' `\ \ \/ ,-` , \ ,.-\ \ / , \,-`\`_,-`\_,..--'\ ,` ,/, ,, ) \--`````\ ( `\`---'` `-,-'`_, \ \_,.--'` `. `--. _,-'`_,-` | \ [`-.___ `_,-'`------( / (`` _,-\ \ --`````````|--` -`_,-`\,-` , | `_,' , /\ / ` \/\,-/ `/ \/`\_/V\_/ ( ._. ) ( .__. ) | | | | \,---_| |_---./ ooOO(_) (_)OOoo |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:13:39 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote: On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:11:42 -0000, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields wrote: --- This is USENET, not email. Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post. JF Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell. Email discussions often end with a few topics within them, then top posting just gets confusing. --- 'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before seems to be the convention. This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing. No, in email you can end up discussing a few different things, 5 conversations at once. In-line posting is the only way this makes sense. --- Perhaps, but that's beside the point, which is that top posting on USENET is a bad thing. The way to fix it is to arrange the ordering of the posts from top to bottom, reply at the bottom (or inline, if required) and then ask that the pattern be followed. JF |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:00 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote: On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:16:38 -0000, John Fields wrote: On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:11:42 -0600, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields wrote: --- This is USENET, not email. Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post. JF Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell. Email discussions often end with a few topics within them, then top posting just gets confusing. --- 'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before seems to be the convention. This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing. --- I almost forgot about this part: "I usually bottom post aswell, unless the thread has already been top posted, in which case I continue at the top to make it neater." So you support confusion for the sake of "neatness"? Alternately posting top and bottom is more confusing than all at the top. --- Then fix the post by arranging it properly, reply to it either inline or bottom, and ask that the recipient follow suit. JF |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:41:57 -0000, John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:13:39 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:11:42 -0000, John Fields wrote: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:37:40 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:22:11 -0000, John Fields wrote: --- This is USENET, not email. Please bottom post or, when appropriate, inline post. JF Why do you say "not email"? It annoys me when people top post in email aswell. Email discussions often end with a few topics within them, then top posting just gets confusing. --- 'Email' as in private email when the communicators know what went before seems to be the convention. This isn't private email and, since the discussion can twist and turn in time and readers can join the thread at any time, reducing the confusion by in-line or bottom posting is a good thing. No, in email you can end up discussing a few different things, 5 conversations at once. In-line posting is the only way this makes sense. --- Perhaps, but that's beside the point, which is that top posting on USENET is a bad thing. The way to fix it is to arrange the ordering of the posts from top to bottom, reply at the bottom (or inline, if required) and then ask that the pattern be followed. I agree with you that we should all post at the bottom. But I'm not going to take mny time to rearrange someone else's mistake. It's not THAT big a deal. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com ! M / \ { } { } { } # # :_____: || || |!___!| | ___ | |/###\| !{###}! ||###|| ||!!!|| /111\/|!!!|\/111\ | !|@@@|! | | !|@@@|! | |---O-!\###/!-O---| |_____! --- !_____| {|-----! - !-----|} q! ! ||| ! !p ( | |\ /| | ) /\ q | -- | |_| | -- | p /\ / \ { | | } / \ | | : ( || | \ / | || ) : | | | | : \------- / W \ -------/ : | | | |!!/ ! || /\ /\ || ! \!!| | | _^^ ( || || || || ) ^^_ | -/ \ || \\ // || / \- // ! || \\ // || ! \\ _-/||___-------| || \\ // || |-------___||\-_ / || \ || --- || / || \ o|| ||______------|||___ ___|||------______|| ||o \ |__-- ____________/ ! ! \____________ --__| / \ |____---| ! \ U / ! |---____| / \| | _______ ! ! ! ! _______ | |/ \ _____---| |--=| | | |=--| |---_____ / "" |\|----| |----|/| "" /||! ! ! !||\ _/Y ||! ! ! !|| Y\_ __/ ||!____! !____!|| \__ / ||||####||####||| \ | \| |||| |||| |/ | | / ==== ==== \ | \___---' \!!/ \!!/ '---___/ [$$$$] [$$$$] #### #### ###### ###### ############### |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:24 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote: On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields wrote: It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time it's "Why bother?" Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself. --- Since yours is the source of the problem, why not fix yours? JF |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote: On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields wrote: On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a dustcart reversing. --- leaving you alone again, naturally? What? Huh? JF |
PIR interfering with wireless network
|
PIR interfering with wireless network
|
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:48:55 -0000, John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:24 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields wrote: It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time it's "Why bother?" Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself. --- Since yours is the source of the problem, why not fix yours? What causes the problem is irrelevant. You may aswell say the invention of the motor vehicle cause Mr Bloggs to die yesterday, so let's all go sue Henry Ford. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com They say confuscious does his crosswords with a pen. |
PIR interfering with wireless network
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:52:46 -0000, John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields wrote: On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote: He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a dustcart reversing. --- leaving you alone again, naturally? What? Huh? I did not follow your response to my sig. -- http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com A nice, calm and respectable lady went into the pharmacy, right up to the pharmacist, looked straight into his eyes, and said, I would like to buy some cyanide.The pharmacist asked, Why in the world do you need cyanide? The lady replied, I need it to poison my husband. The pharmacists eyes got big and he exclaimed, Lord have mercy! I cant give you cyanide to kill your husband! Thats against the law! Ill lose my license! Theyll throw both of us in jail! All kinds of bad things will happen. Absolutely not! You CANNOT have any cyanide! The lady reached into her purse and pulled out a picture of her husband in bed with the pharmacists wife. The pharmacist looked at the picture and replied, Well now. Thats different. You didnt tell me you had a prescription. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter