Napco MA3000 - Dialer Test on both Lines?

Thanks, Allan. Also, the AHJ is the arbiter of what is or is not an acceptable practice. On installations where I've used the technique it has invariably been approved. One key to proper implementation is to configure the relay so that is cannot disable either phone line during an actual alarm condition. With the MA3000 this is easily done using programmable relays though the same thing can be accomplished with less flexible, heavier duty panels from other makers.

The problem is while it may be creative and original it isn't a very smart thing to do in my opinion and creates a possible problem later on

Name *one* AHJ that's approved this technique.

It also violates NFPA 72, (including the old NFPA 71), UL, and ULC. No AHJ would approve this. Another "goof" brought to you by the same individual that says he can program a Napco LCD keypad to read "Attention Burglar! Go Ahead, make my day!" but has never explained how.

Its not creative, its sheer stupidity to even consider installing or using a relay output not listed or approved for the purpose to interrupt the primary communication channel of a commercial fire alarm. If the MA3000 doesn't support the requirement of the code and it hasn't been grandfathered in, then the only sane thing to do is to replace the panel or if the customer balks at the cost, then you should walk away and let someone else jeopardize their business for the sake of the $60 or whatever you charge a month for commercial fire.

Doug L

Who said anything about using something not listed? Perhaps if you took the trouble to learn the panel and the listed hardware which Napco offers you'd be a little slower to attack.

Hmm. Nah, no chance of that.

The MA3000 does indeed support the requirement. It would help if you knew the panel (clearly you don't).

I don't know the panel, hence the use of the word " If ". I do know the code and I know your suggestion is a violation, pure and simple, its also pure bullshit on your part that you have used this technique on Commercial Fire and had an inspector sign off on it, after all since you know the panel so well and state that it does support the requirement, why would you need to bodge it in this manner, so stop bullshitting and trying to make yourself look important.

I also know that if you knew the panel as well as you would have everyone believe, then you would have told Alan the correct way to generate the required test on the secondary communication channel, the fact that you suggested some Heath Robinson affair on a commercial fire panel is a clear indication that you don't know the panel either, no doubt after making your ludicrous suggestion you have since boned up on the panel.

Show me the listing that specifies that the purpose of the relay outputs is to interrupt the primary communication channel in order to generate a transmission on the secondary channel.

On another subject, I hope the chemo goes well for you.

Doug

And yet you immediately attacked. This simply shows your intention is not to share information but only to flame.

Code requires that the hardware used be listed for the purpose. You don't know the panel. I do. You've never worked with it. I have installed many of them and serviced them for years. In short, you spoke (and continue to do so) without knowledge or understanding. Feel free to continue flaming away.

You've never seen any of my installations and you have no idea what the panel is capable of. You ought to know (though there is room for doubt about that) that the code says the AHJ (inspector) determines what is or is not compliant.

You call it a bodge only because you don't know the method or the hardware. In fact, the technique uses listed devices and programming. Your problem isn't with what I do or how I do it. You post only because of personal animosity. This is nothing new. You've done it before and I expect nothing honest or reasonable out of you.

Important? I only shared a technique that works and has passed muster with inspectors. The topic (in case you've forgotten) is about testing both phone lines on a Napco MA3000. It's not about your personal hatred. It's a shame that no thread can exist on this newsgroup without being filled with the kind of trash you spew.

I already did. He seemed to understand it right away. What I didn't do is create an image for him. I'm not spending a lot of time at my desk these days because I'm recovering from cancer surgery. When I get around to it I'll send him an image if he wants it though.

I plan to beat the cancer. I've overcome adversity before. This one just hurts a lot more. Unlike some who post here, I wouldn't wish this on anyone. Fortunately, I have a very strong family and close network of friends helping me and pulling for me every step of the way. I hope you never have to go through this stuff.

The issue, in case you've forgotten is whether your suggestion of using a relay output to interrupt the primary phone line to a commercial fire alarm in order to generate a required transmission on the secondary channel meets code or even if its a good idea, it doesn't and it isn't - end of story.

So you can wax lyrical till the cows come home about knowledge of the panel, your installations, imaginary attacks on you, flames, hatred, spewing trash, animosity or anything else you want, the simple fact is that once again you've shown a pitiful lack of knowledge on code issues and as is your way you attempt to defect that by introducing red herrings and accusing others of flaming and hatred, while at the same time flaming away yourself, to what purpose? to try and twist the thread away from your faux pas.

Doug L

The subject (which you're tried to change) is how to test the second phone line on a Napco MA3000. In case you're having trouble remembering, I suggest you read the subject line of the post. It is necessary and good to automatically phone lines. I assume we can agree on that much. There is a method, using listed hardware from Napco, to accomplish the task. The method does not use foreign or unlisted hardware. Furthermore, it has been approved by every AHJ who has seen it done.

Uh, no. That's just your opinion and it's clearly based more on your personal animus toward me than on your knowledge (or rather your lack thereof) of Napco.

I don't recall any lyrics. Can you hum a few bars?

Nope. You're wrong. What you suggested was both against code and installation practise. It seems to me that there are several *UL listed* controls out there whose listing has been compromised by one Robert L. Bass and his "methods".

Read NFPA and tell me where it states that an acceptable method of testing both phone lines involves compromising one to test the other.

Name one AHJ you've worked with that has determined your method complies with NFPA or UL.

Oh?? Show me the "listing" for the devices... and the programming...

You are such an ass, Robert. As I mentioned before, you'll defend your mistake to the last (and hurl insults at anyone that points it out)...

Name one.

And it's ludicrous in the extreme that you are giving advice on a subject you have no clue about *to a licensed installer*.

Your method is both unapproved and strictly against NFPA. It involves compromising a telephone line with a relay that (listed or not) is clearly beyond your ability to understand. You still haven't provided the name of even *one* AHJ that has approved "your method". I doubt he would be "on record" for doing so, and a "verbal approval" is about as valuable as a three dollar bill (CDN or US funds).

Where has *anyone* here ever wished such a thing on you?

I finally understand your sudden need to sell your house and move in with "the folks".

I openly admit I don't know anything about this particular panel, so maybe I am missing something. Let's go through this step by step.

As I understand it, you want to use a programmable relay to interrupt the primary phone line at a predetermined time. The phone line monitor detects the "bad" primary phone line and sends a phone line trouble report using the secondary phone line.

This means a good test signal consists of a phone line trouble report.

When the relay resets, the primary phone line is used to send a phone line restore.

Therefore, a good test sequence consists of a phone line trouble (sent using the secondary phone line) followed by a phone line restore (sent using the primary phone line).

However, if the secondary phone line is bad, the dialer will make multiple dialing attempts using that phone line. When the relay resets, the dialer will send the trouble and restore sequence using the primary phone line. The signals will be delayed, but will look the same: trouble, then restore.

I'm assuming the panel will eventually report the trouble, even if the dialer shuts down after eight dialing attempts. If the trouble signal is simply lost when the dialer shuts down, the system will still send a phone line restore when that relay resets. This means a failure to communicate over the secondary phone line will be indicated...by a phone line restore signal without the accompanying trouble signal. That's not good, and I see no way to set up the central station automation system to treat this as a trouble signal without causing all phone line restores to show up as troubles.

In addition, since your relay intentionally creates a phone line trouble, the panel's trouble buzzer will sound every day during this phone line test. That should be a big hit with the subscribers.

I am not surprised that an AHJ approved something like this. AHJs approve stupid things sometimes, because their level of technical expertise is not all that high.

So, as I understand your plan, it's not only a bad design, it fails to achieve the desired result.

- badenov

That's funny you wouldn't wish this on anyone. I guess you fogot how many times you told Jiminex, Mike and others that you wish a tiny blood vessel would break in their heads. Guess it came back to HAUNT you. It did not take long either.

Ok. Two programmable relays are set to interrupt a 24-hour test zone and to short phone line 1 at the designated time. This causes the panel to report the 24-hour zone as a silent alarm, but the code/zone is configured at the c-station to be viewed as a test signal. A third relay can be triggered by "general trouble" and run in series with the phone shorting relay so that line 1 will not short out if the panel is currently experiencing a trouble condition.

Here's an interesting thing about the MA3000 when used with the 2-line dialer board. If either line develops a trouble condition during a reportable event the panel will only display and attempt to report the trouble after finishing the original report. What happened with this sequence was the panel would report the 24-hour zone and the line would immediately restore.

The MA3000, unlike most commercial fire alarmcontrol panels, is also an extremely flexible burglar alarm / automation system. Because I liked tinkering with Napco panels I learned a few things they could do that even Napco tech didn't always know about. I've installed a lot of them, even used one as a 2-line dialer when taking over a system in a church / daycare site.

Not quite right. The panel wasn't actually sending a phone line trouble signal. It was simply reporting a 24-hour zone when triggered by another programmable relay.

Nope. I wouldn't do that for two reasons. First, you wouldn't want to defeat th4e abaility of the panel to report a true phone trouble condition. Doing so would cause the C-station to view such a trouble as a test -- not good. Second, as you mention, that would create a daily trouble alarm on premises -- also not good.

Carl Earn of W Hartford, Ct fire dept. (NBFAA Fire Marshal of the Year some years ago) was one of the AHJ's who routinely examined my systems. I used this on several installations in W Hartford when we took over and replaced panels after the WHPD ceased running an in-house C-station receiver.

Actually, you didn't understand it but had it been as you surmised it would indeed have been a bad idea. Perhaps if you had asked for more details first...

Nah, that's not SOP in ASA. :^)

I came back in to this group after a long absence, and just saw the post which indicated that you have cancer. I am truly sorry to hear that Bob and I wish you all the best. My prayers will be with you for a speedy recovery.

My ISP (Sympatico) has decided to withdraw support for newsgroups and has thrown us all over to a commercial newsreader who demands a ridiculous amount to post through them. So I am using Google groups to do so, as awkward as it is.

I had pretty much decided anyway that this group has largely become a waste of time for me. I really don't think there is anything more I can contribute, so I have decided to bow out. I want to thank all the regulars here who have assisted me over the last 8 years on the group and I wish you all continued success in your various business ventures, even the few that I have had strong disagreements with. When I go to Florida next winter, I hope to see both Jim and you personally at that time.

Best wishes to you all.

R.H.Campbell Home Security Metal Products Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

That doesn't work so well either.

When the relay shorts phone line 1, the panel doesn't know that line 1 is inoperative, therefore it will dial unsuccessfully on line 1 until the panel's programming forces it to switch to line 2. But suppose line 2 is bad? The panel will attempt to dial out on both lines, I'm guessing eight attempts per line. When the relay times out and line 1 restores, your test signal will arrive on schedule -- via line 1. The failure on line 2 is not detected.

Now, you could fix this by programming the relay activation time to be longer than the maximum number of dialing attempts. However, since you are shorting the phone line, that would trip the line fault monitor, resulting in more dialing attempts, and eventually, a phone line trouble and restore.

More importantly, if line 2 really is inoperative and you short out line 1, the fire alarm system will be unable to report an alarm for however long it takes to run through the maximum dialing attempts on both phone lines. Fifteen minutes or so?

I could be mistaken about this, but connecting your auxiliary relay to short out the phone line probably violates FCC Part 68, since that relay is not approved terminal equipment. I suspect, but have not checked, that equipment that places a dead short across tip and ring is also forbidden.

Anything I've overlooked or misunderstood?

- badenov

Suddenly there are *three* relays involved in this "solution" (which actually isn't one because it's against NFPA and code and no self respecting installer would do such a thing). NFPA states that the communicator is the first device on the incoming telephone line. You're now placing a *relay* (no... make that *two* relays) between the incoming phone line and the communicator. And you *say* an AHJ actually approved this??

Don't care about the "sequence". What you've proposed here is against code.

Uh-huh... sure...

How would you prevent it from calling out the predetermined "test" signal on line 1 when the second relay's now engaged to "restore" the first interruption to the panel?? The way I see this is that you've just defeated your purpose.

So, when the panel actually goes *into* trouble the second relay engages probably interrupting the panel's first attempt at communication... Interesting...

And I take it you also have his letter (or stamp) of approval on the installations you did which utilized this shoddy method of yours. Why not simply allow the old panel to continue functioning as it would no doubt have been "grandfathered"?... Ahhh... I see... another way for you to generate "business"... ;-)

No need. What you proposed is utterly preposterous. Typical of you, though... How about explaining to us in detail how you get a Napco 32 character LCD keypad to display: "Attention Burglar!" on the first line and "Go Ahead! Make my day!" on the second??

Your SOP is to continue to defend *bad advice* 'till the bitter end...

Sorry to hear you're bowing out, Bob. It's been a slice. Take care and stay in touch!

Bob,

Thanks much for the kind words, not to mention all the helpful posts you've made over the past 8 years. I expect to make a full recovery though at present things are difficult. Angela and I have decided not to go down to Brazil this September. We'll probably male the trip in late October or early November. After that we'll be here in Sarasota all Winter and we look forward to your visit.

I'm sorry you've decided to drop ASA though I can certainly understand why. Stay in touch.