1. Home
  2. CCTV, Alarms and other Physical Security
  3. Sole Path ???

Sole Path ???

I received a phone call and an e-mail the other day from one of the reps for Telular. He was all excited that they have a communicator suitable for sole communication for commercial fire. I listened to him and read some of the info he e-mailed to me and it just doesn't add up.

It looks like a GSM communicator sending two signals instead of one. Big whoop. Its still a single communication path. Now if it incorporated a GSM and a CDMA communicator with a trouble output if either fails to test I might buy into it, but it sure doesn't look that way when giving it the quick once over. Instead they seem to indicate the the NFPA standard was changed???

Really? All these years that we have been required to provide two communication paths, and now NFPA says we only need one? Is this true? What am I missing?

Esplain it to me Rucy.

Reply to
Bob La Londe
Loading thread data ...

Bob,

I am most familiar with the 2002 & 2007 editions of the code as most locations I deal with have not adopted the 2010 version of NFPA yet and so the following refers to these versions of the code. If I understand NFPA 72, chapter 9 it does not mandate two communications paths for all methods of signal transmission. This chapter breaks down into sections dealing with different transmission technologies. Now, when systems use DACTs, then yes the code specifies that that primary method must be a phone line and the secondary path can be a phone line or several other alternates methods ( one of which is cellular phone, which Tellular models are designed to fulfill). However, other sections that deal with other technologies do not mandate multiple paths. For instance, in the Chicagoland area many municipalities have direct connect (reverse polarity) connections. Signals over one set of conductors. AES radios are taking the place of these hard-wired connections but, again, they are a single radio transmitter using a private network. The Tellular TG-7fs literature seems to indicate that it is using standard cellular networks, so there must be some change in the code to allow for this.

Regards,

Bill

Reply to
jewellfish

Way it was described to me Tellular sends a fault to central if its servers do not see a check in after so many minutes from unit so it is supervised . that plus UL has lowered the requirements realizing dual paths really mean nothing in digital age if one phone line goes down all will. on most telco systems these days

Reply to
nick markowitz

Nick,

The TG-7FS is polled by the Telular Comm center servers every couple of minutes.. If it fails to check-in for more than 5 minutes a communications trouble will be sent to the central station... The TG-7FS has far more supervision than a standard phone line(s)....

Regards, Russ

Way it was described to me Tellular sends a fault to central if its servers do not see a check in after so many minutes from unit so it is supervised . that plus UL has lowered the requirements realizing dual paths really mean nothing in digital age if one phone line goes down all will. on most telco systems these days

Reply to
Russell Brill

Interesting. However, just a couple days ago I replaced a TG-7 (not fire). It was checking in just like it was supposed to, but the panel was showing a line fail. The unit was failing to connect to the panel or recognize the signals or call attempts from the panel. Ping the unit from the on-line interface with Telular got a response and no troubles showed, but it would not communicate signals from the panel. In this case the supervision would have failed where I not the paranoid sort that always programs the panel to send its own autotests and monitor the line. It got an Uplink 2550 in its place because that is what I had in the truck. Wish I had kept the unit to play with, but the customer asked for it. I think they plan to play with the SIM card.

Sorry, unless they can show the TG-7FS is an inherently superior communicator rather than just a differently packaged (red metal can or whatever) and priced (to cover their product liability insurance) unit then I'm not going to recommend sole path. I do very much like cellular as secondary or even primary for fire, and I wouldn't have a problem with installing two separate units using two different carriers.

Reply to
Bob La Londe

Hi Bob,

You can use the TG-7FS without another radio by programming your fire panel to send a test signal every 24 hrs... You'll have the 5 minute window of supervision for the transmitter, and a daily test for the panel/communicator... Your CS should look for a CID code E355 (loss of Radio) and a Fail-to-Test from a Sole Path account... No cost worries about the daily test signal, if you elect to use the 5 minute supervision setting, Telular charges a flat monthly rate...

I think your customers will be fine with both the dialer test and 5 min. supervision feature, and you'll keep the monitoring cost down because they won't need two phone lines or a second radio...

Just my 1/2 cent :-) Russ

Reply to
Russell Brill

ews.eternal-september.org...

..

Of course all this assumes that the local AHJ is operating with and accepting NFPA 72 (2010)

Reply to
jewellfish

Sounds like BS to me.

I don't do commercial fire ..... and I can see your point if using two telco lines ..... but if you've got one telco line and one cellular back up. which is the better way to go ..... if one technology goes down the other can still transmit a fire signal.

If you've only got one technology and it goes down and the only way you know is due to a lack of supervisory signal, there's no way to monitor the premise for fire between the time you lose supervision and the time it's repaired. Unless your're going to roll the trucks when you lose supervisory signal.

Sounds like the same flawed logic that was the demise of Derived Channel telephone line monitoring.

Reply to
Jim

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.