Cordless Door Bell
 

Hi

I've just got one of those cordless doorbells, but all is not beer and
skittles.

Sometimes it would just decide to ring all by itself - so it was actually
playing 'knock down ginger'.

Now, after some heavy rain - it don't not work at all.

Are they just a waste of space, or should I get the WD40 out?

Dave

David Lang formulated on Wednesday :
Hi

I've just got one of those cordless doorbells, but all is not beer and
skittles.

Sometimes it would just decide to ring all by itself - so it was actually
playing 'knock down ginger'.

Now, after some heavy rain - it don't not work at all.

Are they just a waste of space, or should I get the WD40 out?

They are of variable quality. The more expensive ones have much better
range and have better weather sealing.

Have you tried changing the code of bell and button from the basic
settings? A close neighbour might have the same system also set on the
default code.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.org

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:34:13 GMT, "David Lang"
wrote:

Sometimes it would just decide to ring all by itself - so it was actually
playing 'knock down ginger'.

The (either) Focus or B&Q one I got a few years back was poor - it did
not work when the washing machine was on!

Are they just a waste of space, or should I get the WD40 out?

However, the 100+M one I got from Wickes a month ago works fine -
although they don't seem to stock "bells" on their own (at least in
the Wolvo store), so if you want to have one button and two bells (one
up and one down) you have to buy two full packs - but they do work
compared to the old ones.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington ALL HTML e-mail rejected -
- http://w3.z-add.co.uk/ -

In article ,
David Lang wrote:
Hi

I've just got one of those cordless doorbells, but all is not beer and
skittles.

Sometimes it would just decide to ring all by itself - so it was actually
playing 'knock down ginger'.

Heh. We had a cheap(sih) one from B&Q - I think it was about 15-20 quid and
had a clock built in for no obvious reason. This was very unreliable. It
wouldn't work at all when someone was using a DECT phone nearby and would
sometimes trigger for no obvious reason. I jumped on it one night when it
went off and took great pleasure in smashing the thing.

I reluctantly replaced it with another wireless one - this time the most
expensive one that I could find in stock locally - a friedland EVO 200 or
something like that. Has been excellent and totally problem free. And is
has CD quality (well, they claim that :)) saxiphone tones ;-)

Are they just a waste of space, or should I get the WD40 out?

In my limited experience, you get what you pay for.

Darren

David Lang wrote:
I've just got one of those cordless doorbells, but all is not beer and
skittles.

Sometimes it would just decide to ring all by itself - so it was
actually playing 'knock down ginger'.

Now, after some heavy rain - it don't not work at all.

Are they just a waste of space, or should I get the WD40 out?

We got one from QVC (yeah I know) and it worked fine but we have a
pretty exposed front door and water got into the push button,so from
then on the "bell" didn't work even drying the push button unit out did
not seem to get the "bell" working again.
Since then we have done without a bell but the living room looks
directly on to the front porch so we can easily hear/see someone at the
front door and "missing" someone ay the door because we are upstairs
hasn't been a problem (in 4 years)

--
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

"dmc" wrote in message ...
In article ,
David Lang wrote:
Hi

I've just got one of those cordless doorbells, but all is not beer and
skittles.

Sometimes it would just decide to ring all by itself - so it was actually
playing 'knock down ginger'.

Heh. We had a cheap(sih) one from B&Q - I think it was about 15-20 quid
and
had a clock built in for no obvious reason. This was very unreliable. It
wouldn't work at all when someone was using a DECT phone nearby and would
sometimes trigger for no obvious reason. I jumped on it one night when it
went off and took great pleasure in smashing the thing.

I reluctantly replaced it with another wireless one - this time the most
expensive one that I could find in stock locally - a friedland EVO 200 or
something like that. Has been excellent and totally problem free. And is
has CD quality (well, they claim that :)) saxiphone tones ;-)

Are they just a waste of space, or should I get the WD40 out?

In my limited experience, you get what you pay for.

Darren

Friedland bells also carry a three year guarantee - so if you buy one keep
your receipt safely.
Nick.

dmc wrote:

I reluctantly replaced it with another wireless one - this time the most
expensive one that I could find in stock locally - a friedland EVO 200 or
something like that. Has been excellent and totally problem free. And is
has CD quality (well, they claim that :)) saxiphone tones ;-)

I got 3 of these Friedland wireless bells, and would only give them 8/10.
The batteries run out quite quickly
(I use rechargeables, and they last about a fortnight).
It only rings once, when the bell-push is pressed;
and the sound is not very loud.

You can change the frequency in use,
so I don't think there would be any problem with interference.
(We didn't have any, anyway, and we use cordless phones.)

They are well-made, and quite neat.
We use the system that extends a traditional bell,
so the ordinary bell rings too.
(I thought the plastic bell-push was a bit tacky.)


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
...
dmc wrote:

I reluctantly replaced it with another wireless one - this time the most
expensive one that I could find in stock locally - a friedland EVO 200
or
something like that. Has been excellent and totally problem free. And is
has CD quality (well, they claim that :)) saxiphone tones ;-)

I got 3 of these Friedland wireless bells, and would only give them 8/10.
The batteries run out quite quickly
(I use rechargeables, and they last about a fortnight).
It only rings once, when the bell-push is pressed;
and the sound is not very loud.

You can change the frequency in use,
so I don't think there would be any problem with interference.
(We didn't have any, anyway, and we use cordless phones.)

They are well-made, and quite neat.
We use the system that extends a traditional bell,
so the ordinary bell rings too.
(I thought the plastic bell-push was a bit tacky.)

8

Some of the Friedland bells use AA cells and some use LR14.
My bell uses a pair of LR14s and I've just replaced them: the old ones had
lasted 10 months.
Nick.

In article ,
Timothy Murphy wrote:

I got 3 of these Friedland wireless bells, and would only give them 8/10.
The batteries run out quite quickly
(I use rechargeables, and they last about a fortnight).

eh??? Mine has AAs (I think) in the bell and a small button cell in the
bellpush. Was put up in jan and is working fine on orig batteries at the mo.

Maybe I just don't have many visitors :)

It only rings once, when the bell-push is pressed;

True

and the sound is not very loud.

Ours seems fairly loud - so much so that we don't bother with the extra
plug in bell that came with it.

They are well-made, and quite neat.
We use the system that extends a traditional bell,
so the ordinary bell rings too.
(I thought the plastic bell-push was a bit tacky.)

True. It is a bit plasticy

Darren

I have a mains operated door bell, plugs into any socket and it is
brilliant. the door push has a small battery in it. The bloody battery
operated hard wired one I had previously was useless, for ever
replacing batteries and fiddling about with it to get it to work.
Now I can even here if somebody is at the door from the garden.

Kevin

Timothy Murphy was thinking very hard :
I got 3 of these Friedland wireless bells, and would only give them 8/10.
The batteries run out quite quickly
(I use rechargeables, and they last about a fortnight).
It only rings once, when the bell-push is pressed;
and the sound is not very loud.

That is the wrong type of use for rechargeable batteries. They are best
used for something which will quite quickly discharge them. The primary
cells (none rechargeable batteries) in bells, remote controls and
similar should last for many months or even years if you use good
quality ones. Our cordless bell has been installed about four years and
is still on the original set of batteries.

The voltage of rechageable batteries is also different (1.2v versus
1.5v), which might help explain the poor volume you are experiencing.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.org

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I got 3 of these Friedland wireless bells, and would only give them 8/10.
The batteries run out quite quickly
(I use rechargeables, and they last about a fortnight).
It only rings once, when the bell-push is pressed;
and the sound is not very loud.

That is the wrong type of use for rechargeable batteries. They are best
used for something which will quite quickly discharge them. The primary
cells (none rechargeable batteries) in bells, remote controls and
similar should last for many months or even years if you use good
quality ones. Our cordless bell has been installed about four years and
is still on the original set of batteries.

I know this theory about the limits of rechargeable batteries,
but I use them all the time, in everything (except smoke alarms).
I find they work perfectly well in devices that claim otherwise,
eg TV remote controls and wireless computer mice.

But I'll try "real" batteries in my Friedland wireless bells
and see how they do.

I should have mentioned that the Friedland wireless bells
have one very useful feature -
a little light (LCD) flashes if the battery is low.



--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

I got 3 of these Friedland wireless bells, and would only give them 8/10.
The batteries run out quite quickly
(I use rechargeables, and they last about a fortnight).
It only rings once, when the bell-push is pressed;
and the sound is not very loud.

That is the wrong type of use for rechargeable batteries. They are best
used for something which will quite quickly discharge them. The primary
cells (none rechargeable batteries) in bells, remote controls and
similar should last for many months or even years if you use good
quality ones. Our cordless bell has been installed about four years and
is still on the original set of batteries.

I know this theory about the limits of rechargeable batteries,
but I use them all the time, in everything (except smoke alarms).
I find they work perfectly well in devices that claim otherwise,
eg TV remote controls and wireless computer mice.

NiMH cells are especially poor for this service.
They will often be essentially dead at 6 months.
NiCd is significantly better, usually having power at 12 months. (IME)

Timothy Murphy wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:

I know this theory about the limits of rechargeable batteries,
but I use them all the time, in everything (except smoke alarms).
I find they work perfectly well in devices that claim otherwise,
eg TV remote controls and wireless computer mice.

NiMH cells are especially poor for this service.
They will often be essentially dead at 6 months.
NiCd is significantly better, usually having power at 12 months. (IME)

What exactly does "essentially dead" mean?
Do you mean that the battery is no longer rechargeable?

Sorry, no.
I mean that it will have essentially no power left, due to self-discharge.

If you mean that a single charge lasts for 6 months
then I would be more than happy with that.

Not quite - a freshly charged NiMH battery, left for 6 months will have
essentially no usable power left, if it's been stored at room temperature.

Ian Stirling wrote:

I know this theory about the limits of rechargeable batteries,
but I use them all the time, in everything (except smoke alarms).
I find they work perfectly well in devices that claim otherwise,
eg TV remote controls and wireless computer mice.

NiMH cells are especially poor for this service.
They will often be essentially dead at 6 months.
NiCd is significantly better, usually having power at 12 months. (IME)

What exactly does "essentially dead" mean?
Do you mean that the battery is no longer rechargeable?

If it is recharged once a fortnight
that would mean you could only recharge it 13 times.
That is certainly not my experience.
From my experience an NiMH battery can be recharged
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times before it "dies".
Eg I'm currently using a 4 year old laptop
with a battery that has been recharged at least daily,
and it has lost about half its capacity.

If you mean that a single charge lasts for 6 months
then I would be more than happy with that.


--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail (80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland