I've been asked to fit an alarm for a customer.
They currently have a wired one that is 20 years old, so needs replacing
as it is falling apart, especially the door sensors.

Fitting a wireless one would be far easier for me, but are they reliable
enough?

If not/so, then could someone recommend an alarm for a bungalow, 3
doors, plus maybe 2 movement sensors in the conservatory and garage?

Thanks
Alan.

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

In article ,
A.Lee wrote:
I've been asked to fit an alarm for a customer.
They currently have a wired one that is 20 years old, so needs replacing
as it is falling apart, especially the door sensors.

Most sensors are standard and can be replaced?

Fitting a wireless one would be far easier for me, but are they reliable
enough?

If not/so, then could someone recommend an alarm for a bungalow, 3
doors, plus maybe 2 movement sensors in the conservatory and garage?

If the wiring is good and suitable, surely it would be easy to replace
like with like?

By the nature of things. wireless is never going to be as reliable as
wired - unless the wiring is so badly done it could suffer damage.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On May 15, 9:45*am, (A.Lee) wrote:
I've been asked to fit an alarm for a customer.
They currently have a wired one that is 20 years old, so needs replacing
as it is falling apart, especially the door sensors.

Fitting a wireless one would be far easier for me, but are they reliable
enough?

If not/so, then could someone recommend an alarm for a bungalow, 3
doors, plus maybe 2 movement sensors in the conservatory and garage?

Thanks
Alan.

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

If the existing wiring is sound and the sensors, panel and sounder are
in the right places its a simple swap out job. Lots of similar models
on the market now so ask at your local electrical wholesale suppliers
which are readily available rather than getting a hard to source model.

cynic wrote:

On May 15, 9:45 am, (A.Lee) wrote:
I've been asked to fit an alarm for a customer.
They currently have a wired one that is 20 years old, so needs replacing
as it is falling apart, especially the door sensors.

Fitting a wireless one would be far easier for me, but are they reliable
enough?

If the existing wiring is sound and the sensors, panel and sounder are
in the right places its a simple swap out job. Lots of similar models
on the market now so ask at your local electrical wholesale suppliers
which are readily available rather than getting a hard to source model.

No, complete rewire, so best done while doing that.
The old one is unreliable, with numerous wires going all over that
cannot be traced, so I dont really want to work on it to try and fix it
when new alarms are £100ish.
Alan.

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

In article ,
A.Lee wrote:
If the existing wiring is sound and the sensors, panel and sounder are
in the right places its a simple swap out job. Lots of similar models
on the market now so ask at your local electrical wholesale suppliers
which are readily available rather than getting a hard to source model.

No, complete rewire, so best done while doing that.
The old one is unreliable, with numerous wires going all over that
cannot be traced, so I dont really want to work on it to try and fix it
when new alarms are £100ish.

I'd point out the likely problems with wireless sensors (battery costs and
the need for regular replacements) to the owner and let him decide.

It's not difficult to trace wires with the correct equipment. Just needs a
methodical approach.

--
*Preserve wildlife - Go pickle a squirrel*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A.Lee wrote:
I've been asked to fit an alarm for a customer.
They currently have a wired one that is 20 years old, so needs
replacing as it is falling apart, especially the door sensors.

Fitting a wireless one would be far easier for me, but are they
reliable enough?

If not/so, then could someone recommend an alarm for a bungalow, 3
doors, plus maybe 2 movement sensors in the conservatory and garage?


It's a bungalow, what is the loft access like? If it is reasonable then do
away with the door sensors (unless they want the alarm to chime when a door
is opened) and just use PIRs everywhere.

--
Adam

In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:
It's a bungalow, what is the loft access like? If it is reasonable then
do away with the door sensors (unless they want the alarm to chime when
a door is opened) and just use PIRs everywhere.

Not usual to have one the final exit/entrance these days?

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15/05/2011 11:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I'd point out the likely problems with wireless sensors (battery costs and
the need for regular replacements) to the owner and let him decide.


I have a wireless system.
The magnetic sensors take two CR2023 cells (around 10p each if you by in
bulk from eBay) and PIR's take one PP3 (about 70p).

In both types of sensor the batteries last over 2 years. They signal the
control unit when the battery gets low so you get an alert message.

The siren uses solar-charged lead/acid cells, so my running cost for 5
mag sensors + 5 PIRs is under £4 a year. That would rise if you wanted
mag sensors on every window.
It was an absolute doddle to install, and being wireless it's easy to
protect the shed and a detached garage too.

--
Reentrant

On Sun, 15 May 2011 11:34:46 +0100, A.Lee wrote:

If the existing wiring is sound and the sensors, panel and sounder
are
in the right places its a simple swap out job.

No, complete rewire, so best done while doing that.

I think the statement "existing wiring" was refering only to the
alarm wiring not a what I think you are saying a complete mains
rewire.

The old one is unreliable, with numerous wires going all over that
cannot be traced, so I dont really want to work on it to try and fix it
when new alarms are £100ish.

A tone cable tracer will make working out what cables go where a
doddle. Hang the sender unit on the remote end and then see which one
it is at the panel, label, move sender to another cable end repeat. A
new panel and sensors would be far more reliable than wireless IMHO
but then I don't trust wireless for "critical" applications without a
hot spare backup...

Not sure I trust something that could be jammed with a lowish power
RF noise generator.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
(A.Lee) writes:
I've been asked to fit an alarm for a customer.
They currently have a wired one that is 20 years old, so needs replacing
as it is falling apart, especially the door sensors.

Fitting a wireless one would be far easier for me, but are they reliable
enough?

What are you protecting it against?
A clueless stoned druggie looking for something to sell quick,
or a professional thief targeting something specific?

Wired systems can be more secure against the latter and they tend
to be better, with a wider range of options, but there's an overlap
and the best wireless systems will be better than a low end wired
system.

Wireless systems should be regarded as non-extendible and non-
repairable, as the chances of finding compatible parts a few years
on will be very low. Conversely, additional and replacement wired
sensors will always be available, and you will likely be able to
add new sensors at a later date which haven't been invented yet.

If not/so, then could someone recommend an alarm for a bungalow, 3
doors, plus maybe 2 movement sensors in the conservatory and garage?

Both conservatory and garage can be liable to false triggering from
PIR sensors, due to significant sources of heat causing movement of
hot air - conservatory from the sun, and garage from a parked car
with hot exhaust/engine. In these cases, a dual tech sensor (PIR
and microwave) may be necessary, although in a conservatory, careful
adjustment of microwave power will be needed to avoid sensitivity
from outside the glass.

You probably want a PIR somewhere in the body of the house, such as
the main room or hallway, as door sensors are only perimeter detection
and don't cover the volume of the house accessed via other routes such
as broken window access.

I suggest that, particularly if you are not familiar with designing
sensor layouts, you initially leave the external sounder disconnected.
Wait for at least a month or more of no false alarms before connecting
it up, and all false alarms in this period are explained and the cause
fixed. Otherwise, the good will of the neighbours will be lost before
the alarm is working, and they'll take no notice of a real alarm later.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 15/05/2011 09:45, A.Lee wrote:
I've been asked to fit an alarm for a customer.
They currently have a wired one that is 20 years old, so needs replacing
as it is falling apart, especially the door sensors.

Fitting a wireless one would be far easier for me, but are they reliable
enough?

If not/so, then could someone recommend an alarm for a bungalow, 3
doors, plus maybe 2 movement sensors in the conservatory and garage?

Thanks
Alan.

I've fitted a couple of Yale wireless ones lately without any problems.

However, with alarms - and PIR lights, I always get the customer to buy
them. That way any warranty on the actual unit isn't with me.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

8

Both conservatory and garage can be liable to false triggering from
PIR sensors, due to significant sources of heat causing movement of
hot air - conservatory from the sun, and garage from a parked car
with hot exhaust/engine. In these cases, a dual tech sensor (PIR
and microwave) may be necessary, although in a conservatory, careful
adjustment of microwave power will be needed to avoid sensitivity
from outside the glass.

The PIR half wont work through the glass so it shouldn't matter.

You probably want a PIR somewhere in the body of the house, such as
the main room or hallway, as door sensors are only perimeter detection
and don't cover the volume of the house accessed via other routes such
as broken window access.

When I worked at Chubb many many years ago we virtually never fitted stuff
to external doors, it was always on the internal doors and safes. The
exception being the exit route and shop windows where we fitted the lead
strips or break glass detectors.
the theory was that you wanted to catch burglars in the property not scare
them away.
I think CCTV to catch them and a perimeter alarm to scare them is probably
the best these days.

In message , "dennis@home"
wrote

the theory was that you wanted to catch burglars in the property not
scare them away.

Isn't the aim to deter burglars from a domestic property hence the
prominently displayed external bell box.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
Alan writes:
In message , "dennis@home"
wrote

the theory was that you wanted to catch burglars in the property not
scare them away.

Isn't the aim to deter burglars from a domestic property hence the
prominently displayed external bell box.

Yes - that's the first aim.
Burglar alarms don't 'catch' burglars. Police used to temporarily
supply silent alert systems where they wanted to catch someone, but
if you aren't the police, you don't want to encounter a burglar,
you just want them to scarper empty handed as fast as possible.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
"dennis@home" writes:


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

8

Both conservatory and garage can be liable to false triggering from
PIR sensors, due to significant sources of heat causing movement of
hot air - conservatory from the sun, and garage from a parked car
with hot exhaust/engine. In these cases, a dual tech sensor (PIR
and microwave) may be necessary, although in a conservatory, careful
adjustment of microwave power will be needed to avoid sensitivity
from outside the glass.

The PIR half wont work through the glass so it shouldn't matter.

If someone walks past outside and is picked up by the microwave
whilst there's heat movement inside, you get a false alarm.

If someone walks past outside and is picked up by the microwave
whilst there's no heat movement inside, and the dual-tech has
anti-masking (most do), it will generate a masked alarm (which
depending on model will generate either a movement or a tamper
signal), and you also get a false alarm.

On the other hand, if you set it up correctly, then it will work
well.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alan writes:
In message , "dennis@home"
wrote

the theory was that you wanted to catch burglars in the property not
scare them away.

Isn't the aim to deter burglars from a domestic property hence the
prominently displayed external bell box.

Yes - that's the first aim.
Burglar alarms don't 'catch' burglars. Police used to temporarily
supply silent alert systems where they wanted to catch someone, but
if you aren't the police, you don't want to encounter a burglar,
you just want them to scarper empty handed as fast as possible.

I think the real reason it was done the way it was was because if you alarm
a locked door (i.e. the periphery) the alarm will never go off because the
bugler will find a weaker spot. The sensors were always fitted to internal
doors that were likely to be used by a burglar.

Now PIRs are so cheap you don't need to protect the periphery at all.

On Mon, 16 May 2011 21:24:56 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
Alan writes:
In message , "dennis@home"
wrote

the theory was that you wanted to catch burglars in the property not
scare them away.

Isn't the aim to deter burglars from a domestic property hence the
prominently displayed external bell box.

Yes - that's the first aim.
Burglar alarms don't 'catch' burglars. Police used to temporarily
supply silent alert systems where they wanted to catch someone, but
if you aren't the police, you don't want to encounter a burglar,
you just want them to scarper empty handed as fast as possible.

Even CCTV isn't really the answer. The resultant images usually merely
portray some thick-looking yoof wearing a 'hoodie'. The only possible
people who could recognise the individual are likely to be parents or
accomplices, who aren't exactly likely to 'turn them in', innit :-)

What's really needed is some sort of 'system' to _catch_ people
_before_ they do damage breaking in, rather than after.

Discuss.

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine :
What's really needed is some sort of 'system' to _catch_ people
_before_ they do damage breaking in, rather than after.

Discuss.

Seriously? What are you going to do when you've caught them?

--
Mike Barnes

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...

Even CCTV isn't really the answer. The resultant images usually merely
portray some thick-looking yoof wearing a 'hoodie'. The only possible
people who could recognise the individual are likely to be parents or
accomplices, who aren't exactly likely to 'turn them in', innit :-)

What's really needed is some sort of 'system' to _catch_ people
_before_ they do damage breaking in, rather than after.


There doesn't appear to be a law to allow arrest before they commit a crime.
I suppose that once we all get head inserts and the thought police can
really read minds there will be such a law.


BTW CCTV is still in the dark ages, no HD unless you go IP cameras.
The detail is far better on HD IP cameras than the normal ones.
There is still the problem of finding them after the event.
Maybe we could use smart water with a radioactive marker.
Then you could have police checkpoints to arrest the survivors.
Discuss.

--
Frank Erskine

In article ,
"dennis@home" writes:


"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alan writes:
In message , "dennis@home"
wrote

the theory was that you wanted to catch burglars in the property not
scare them away.

Isn't the aim to deter burglars from a domestic property hence the
prominently displayed external bell box.

Yes - that's the first aim.
Burglar alarms don't 'catch' burglars. Police used to temporarily
supply silent alert systems where they wanted to catch someone, but
if you aren't the police, you don't want to encounter a burglar,
you just want them to scarper empty handed as fast as possible.

I think the real reason it was done the way it was was because if you alarm
a locked door (i.e. the periphery) the alarm will never go off because the
bugler will find a weaker spot. The sensors were always fitted to internal
doors that were likely to be used by a burglar.

Now PIRs are so cheap you don't need to protect the periphery at all.

All external doors are always protected.
They are the most common form of burglary entry/exit.
This also enables alerting when attempting to set the
alarm that an external door isn't closed (sometimes
it includes a check that the door isn't only closed,
but also locked, although that's unlikely to be added
in a domestic installation).

If you don't protect the perimeter, the alarm can't
trigger until the burglar is inside, which is already
later than you want.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On May 17, 12:04*am, Frank Erskine
wrote:

Even CCTV isn't really the answer. The resultant images usually merely
portray some thick-looking yoof wearing a 'hoodie'. The only possible
people who could recognise the individual are likely to be parents or
accomplices, who aren't exactly likely to 'turn them in', innit :-)

On the contrary - may miscreants are well known to the local police
and whilst CCTV footage may not be admissable as evidence in court it
is often sufficient grounds for further investigation of the person
where they may end up finding the right evidence - your goods.

Mathew

Mathew Newton wrote:
On May 17, 12:04 am, Frank Erskine
wrote:

Even CCTV isn't really the answer. The resultant images usually merely
portray some thick-looking yoof wearing a 'hoodie'. The only possible
people who could recognise the individual are likely to be parents or
accomplices, who aren't exactly likely to 'turn them in', innit :-)

On the contrary - may miscreants are well known to the local police
and whilst CCTV footage may not be admissable as evidence in court it
is often sufficient grounds for further investigation of the person
where they may end up finding the right evidence - your goods.


This is extremely true.

Round here, neighbourhood watch reports and surveillance may not be
admissible evidence, but the majority of reports of vehicle numbers 'are
of interest to the police' and more than a few arrests have been made..


From our local co-ordinator

"Well done to the alert citizen who spotted the X-reg yellow Transit
pinching the cement mixer and tools in XXXXXXXXX (and to our cops for
turning out promptly and persisting until they found the thieves). Two
other NWatchers had spotted the same vehicle earlier but their
suspicions and registration details were not enough to justify
reporting. But goes to show that if you think it looks suspicious, it
probably is!"

The key thing about this, is that three people saw the perps 'behaving
oddly' but the coup de grace was seeing them actually nicking, getting
the details to the police and then catching them in possession of the goods.

And that is a real problem. The goods and the hard evidence are usually
gone within hours..

The police know who they are, know where they live. But that wont stand
up in court. BUT reports that 'Trotter and Son' were beebling around
area X, followed by a crime in area X, can sometimes result in the
people being 'interviewed' while still being in possession.

Mathew

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
I think the real reason it was done the way it was was because if you
alarm a locked door (i.e. the periphery) the alarm will never go off
because the bugler will find a weaker spot. The sensors were always
fitted to internal doors that were likely to be used by a burglar.

Now PIRs are so cheap you don't need to protect the periphery at all.

All external doors are always protected.
They are the most common form of burglary entry/exit.
This also enables alerting when attempting to set the
alarm that an external door isn't closed (sometimes
it includes a check that the door isn't only closed,
but also locked, although that's unlikely to be added
in a domestic installation).

If you don't protect the perimeter, the alarm can't
trigger until the burglar is inside, which is already
later than you want.

My thoughts too. When DIYing where time isn't a problem it is perfectly
possible to fit sensors to doors and windows that don't show at all. Wired
ones that is - dunno about wireless types. All my ground floor external
doors and windows are so protected.

--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
(A.Lee) writes:
I've been asked to fit an alarm for a customer.
They currently have a wired one that is 20 years old, so needs replacing
as it is falling apart, especially the door sensors.

Fitting a wireless one would be far easier for me, but are they reliable
enough?

What are you protecting it against?
A clueless stoned druggie looking for something to sell quick,



Thanks for the replies.
I went to my electrcal dealer yesterday, and got one of these:
http://www.security.honeywell.com/uk.../ac/291426.htm
l

Recommended by them, the main box can be fitted anywhere, you then only
have the keypad(s) on show, there'll be 2 of those, front and back
doors.
The sensors and bell boxes are all sold separately, as well as the
window/door detectors, which I dont think will be bought.
Sensors are fitted (generally) at the wall/ceiling join, so no problem
with decoration to fit them afterwards, or move position.

The house certainly needs an alarm, as the recently fitted front door
can be forced open in 10 seconds (guess how I found that out!).

Thanks
Alan.


--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.