EOL's

Thanks Doug, you're on the money. Al

73's, Russ!!

Not sure where it came from, other than in my day, we used it all the time, but I'll bet it has something to do with a bad card in poker :-)

Al

This is to answer a number of questions or comments in one post.

The truth be told, it would not have matter if I would have placed the "responsible comments requested" line in or not. The thread would have reached the same this same point in time anyhow. I was just hoping otherwise.

===================================================

This is a normal commercial structure office environment built in maybe the

70's and the switch is on the Entry/Exit door which is used constantly through out the day.

===================================================

Earlier I may have mis-spoken when I said that "I thought the resistor was at 10% tolerance" After some thinking in my minds eye it would have been better to say either a 5% or 2% would be more likely.

I also stated that the value changed some 56.7% higher. Well outside the normal tolerance expected. And that nothing looked unusual about the resistors condition.

I still don't have an answer only assumptions. But that's ok. I had my lunch and now on to other things. :-)

Les

My thinking was that if you open the door and the panel says it's not open, even if the resistor were 5 times higher than normal, the panel would have to show an open, unless 1) the switch contacts were stuck together, which can happen when it is a mag reed and it sits for prolonged periods without being used, or 2) the EOL is on the positive side of the switch in the circuit and even a single strand of wire is touching earth ground on the positive side of the switch.

The latter situation would essentially route the supervisory current directly from the negative side of the initiating circuit (panel ground) through the earth ground connection through the EOL and on to the positive side of the initiating circuit, thus completing the circuit.

Just a thought. But the resistor alone in this case should not have caused the panel to indicate a closed circuit when the door was in an open state, that is if I understand your situation correctly. I think there's another issue here and not just the EOL, what do you think?

If a strand of wire were out of place, and if the EOL were on the wrong side ot the switch, this scenario could occur. Now, once you began working on the door switch and EOL, you could possibly move the single strand of wire away from the metal door frame so the earth ground connection disappeared. You do have the EOL at the door switch and not inside the can, right?

I'd check to see if the EOL is on the positive or negative side of the resistor. If you find that it's on the negative side, then the scenario I just outlined would be invalid. On the other hand, if you do find the EOL is on the wrong side of the circuit, I'd move it to the negative side.where most manufacturers most often show it, unless it's a dual-EOL initiating circuit.

Al

Obviously more than you, Al. I spent 24 years actually doing this for a living while you spent your time asking professionals (you know, guys like me) to write about it. You then incorporate the things those of us who know how to install write into articles in SDM.

Clearly you missed class the day they explained how resistors function.

I thought that was the janitor's location.

I really don't care where you went to school or what you did before you started writing articles for SDM. You're wrong about resistor tolerance. Deal with it and move on.

My statement was factual, plain and simple. You surmised how they work and you were wrong. I know how they work. Get over it. You're only making yourself look foolish trying to argue this.

Wrong again, Al. I simply explained the facts. That you happened to be wrong was incidental.

Wrong again, Al. You asked me to write the story and I said I would try to find time. I called and left a message saying I could not do so because I had to leave due to a family emergency.

I know you like to come across as more knowledgeable than you are, Al. That's no problem as long as you don't mind being corrected when you post errors (apparently you *do* mind -- oh, well). However, the part I snipped was a blatant lie on your part. You made up that "conversation". It never happened. I would have been glad to write your article for you at the time but unfortunately I could not. I tried to notify you. Whether you got the message in time or not I don't know but the comments you have made here are simply lies.

No, Al. I tried to explain politely why you are wrong. If you consider that belittling, you've got a problem.

Speaking of journalistic integrity (or lack thereof), that is

*not* what I said. I said that the temperature required to cause such a significant change in the resistor's value would be enough to ignite the house. I did not say that high temps and humidity can't affect carbon film resistors. I did however point out that the resistors are sealed make humidity a non-issue.

Not with the temperatures in a homes environment (unless you plan to install the thing in the oven).

Actually, when you offered advice as to the cause without understanding you did a disservice to everyone who reads this newsgroup.

Uh-huh. If that had happened there would have been much more damage to the system than a changed resistor value. A lightning hit that created that much heat would have blown the sensor to Waco. Have you ever noticed how fragile magnetic contacts are compared to a resistor?

Stand wherever you like. You're still wrong about resistor tolerance. It does not mean what you said and switching to a closer tolerance resistor would not protect against a recurrence.

That is not what I said. Stop trying to twist my statement into something you can challenge. It makes you appear olsonic. I merely corrected your error when you insisted that the resistor tolerance indicates a propensity of the resistor to change over time. It means nothing of the sort.

I also explained another fact of which you seem blissfully unaware. Heat and current sufficient to significantly alter the resistor's value would be enough to start a fire. The presence of that much heat would be very apparent -- melted insulation, vaporized of frozen magnetic contacts, etc.

That day was yesterday. Feel free to continue waiting for its arrival.

In that case your thinking would be wrong, Al. If the resistor is 5 times what the panel requires and the panel is programmed to expect an EOL resistor, the zone will show open.

No matter how the circuit was connected, if the resistor was 5x normal or only 50% higher than normal as in the OP's post, the panel should show a faulted zone.

You really are a sad little man, just as all of these folks have been saying.

Al

You are a sad little man, Robert.

Ha, no one at SDM would ever have asked you to write a story for them, least of all myself. Don't flatter yourself, you were only asked to do a short sidebar and you know it. From what I've read here in this thread, you don't have the technical know how. You did not do the sidebar because you don't have the knowledge to do it. If you had 24 years of experience before I got into the business in 1974, it sure doesn't show by your pie-in-the-sky statement about EOLs never changing their value. That is one of the most silly things I have ever heard.

Right, and pigs fly for sure. Those who have known me for a long time know this story well. I rule the day I ever asked you to do that sidebar because ever since then you have dogged my every movement in this news group. Everything these fellows say about you is evidently true.

Tell you what, I challenge you to find ONE person who has ever written ANY story for me and I put my name on it. Go ahead Robert, find someone and present them to this news group. You won't be able to do that. You may find plenty of people I've quoted, you may find one or two that I have given a chance to gain exposure by writing a short sidebar, but you will not find one person who ever wrote a story for me and I put my name on it as if I wrote it. I always give people who help me credit for what they do.

Now, you can chat with Ron Nelson at SDM and I'm sure he'll tell you that I managed his work, reviewed and edited his stories for many years, you can talk with Brad Shipp and he'll be able to tell you the same, or Jim Kelly, and each of them had their byline on what they wrote. No, you will not find anyone who has ever written a story for me and SDM, or now SSI put my name on it. That is the most silly thing I have ever heard. You should stand back and listen to yourself.

You are a sad little man, Robert and I'm not going to waste any more of my time bantering back and forth with you. You can say what you will.

Al

Wise policy, Al. You can not win an argument with a fool. js

Taking prose lessons from the fellow with the donuts, are you?

Virtually everything you have written for years has been a collection of things others in the trade wrote for you. That's your stock method. Everyone knows it. There's nothing wrong with that, Al. It's called "reporting" but it does not make you an expert -- only a reporter.

You're the one who came to me asking for help. Saying you were only doing so to give me "exposure" in a magazine that is only read by competitors is less than honest, Al.

And yet you needed my help. Interesting.

Again you're misquoting me. Since I've pointed this out several times already I can only assume you are doing so deliberately. What was that you were saying about journalistic integrity?

You're the one who said it. Rear my post. That is clearly not what I said.

Perhaps in your mind they do.

Correction: Those who have heard you repeat the same lie more than once might believe it. That doesn't change the fact that it's a lie.

I think you mean "rue the day." Rue is a word meaning regret. Malapropism is another word with which you should familiarize yourself. :^)

But I digress. You asked for my assistance because you needed help. I told you I'd do it if I could find the time. Unfortunately, circumstances did not permit. Don't make the mistake of assuming that had anything to do with my diminishing respect for you as an author or as a human being. You have been the author of that, unlike most of the things in your column.

No, Al. I have mostly ignored your posts. Most of the threads you start begin with, "I'm doing an article on [whatever]. Would anyone here like to write about their experiences with [whatever]. Those posts, wherein you solicit others to do the work, are of no interest to me so I usually ignore them.

Sometimes you post good advice. When you do there's nothing to comment on. Other times (like in this thread) you make incorrect statements. When I feel inclined to do so I correct you. To date you've never acknowledged a mistake, though you've certainly made some. That, along with the personal insults you post in response to disagreement, is indicative of a very weak ego. Perhaps you're not so sure of your credentials as you'd like folks to believe. What kind of engineering degree was it you claim to have achieved? An "engineer's assistant?" Is that anything like a dental assistant -- someone who hands tools to the professional but is not allowed to use them?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. None of these fellows has ever met me, except for one.

Most of your articles are nothing more than quotes of what others have said or written for you. I'm in Brazil for Carnaval at the moment and my collection of SDM isn't with me. If I think of it when I get home I'll be delighted to accommodate you.

Heh, heh, heh. One or two? :^)

I never said you didn't. It is you who have tried to mischaracterize the level of help you seek from industry professionals.

Never met Jim Kelly. The fact that you worked with them at a magazine doesn't make you any better or worse. Nice job of name dropping, though.

The move to SSI was IMO a mistake. SDM, while obviously an industry advertising-funded trade rag, has always been head and shoulders better than SSI.

Um, USENET is a text medium. Do you hear the messages here?

Actually, I'm quite happy and (while nowhere near your girth) most folks would not consider me little. :^)

You said the same thing several messages ago. Yet here you are.

Looks like Robert is up to his old stunts again so here is my 2 cents worth with 25+ years of residential and commercail low voltage alarm and high voltage 120 to 480 volts 3 phase work with resistors.Plus working as a broadcast engineer at a 5000watt AM station.

I have seen the 2.2 k resistors on FBII equiptment go low around 1500 ohms on 12 different ocasions due to power surges and enviromental conditions and I have seen circuits with end line resistors get tricked in metal buildings when the positive makes ground even with the resistor in proper place the door was able to be opened and no reaction from the panel. Saw this happen with the old class A type loops with Holmes Direct Wire equiptment which is why we never put the switches in the posistive loop and in the olden days we ran the ground side of the alarm circuit loop thru a copper water pipe in a building to detect circuit tampering. or accidental circuit grounds.which was a requirement for UL burg systems back then. As far as resistors going high have only seen this 3 times and again enviromental problems caused it when the resistors material deteriorated. All electronic components eventually dry up and go bad thats why they say 10 years on most items made these days.Yes I have a 45 + year old radios down stairs which still fire on but they are the exception not the rule. The resistors made today are much higher quality than old days but they can and do drift under the right conditions. even the 5% tollarance ones.

Googled it and came up with someone being called a 'joker'. Later morphed into card, I guess.

| | Googled it and came up with someone being called a 'joker'. | Later morphed into card, I guess. | | |