Actually, the panel tries line 1 for a dial tone (well, actually it looks for line voltage) only once before switching to line 2.
Have you forgotten what I said earlier about running a third relay to preven shorting line 1 if there is a pre-existing trouble condition?
See above. It really helps if you know the panel before evaluating someone else's methods.
The panel itself is FCC type accepted. The regs don't prohibit momentary application of a relay though if it were a problem a simple change from shorting to opening the circuit would eliminate any problems. I've chosen to short the line for a few seconds though the same can be accomplished by opening it.
In all honesty I've not checked whether FCC would have a problem though I also doubt they've ever checked a single fire alarm installation. :^) You do bring up a valid point though.
So now one relay (as you mentioned in your original response) turns into 3, thats 2 additional devices that can fail which makes it an even dumber thing to do.
assuming [ you know what that means] that there is a "spare" zone on the panel.
Seeing as you ar not qualified to actuyally do this I find it interesting that you would suggest this to some unsuspecting diyer just to get them to buy parts. And if the building burns down and the diyer is in court and the attorney ask why would you install a system that doesn't have the capability to send test signal on both lines as required by code? And you changed the SIA or CID codes at the Central Station to pull the wool over the AHJ eyes and get your system passed when it obviously doesn't meet code? Where did a diyer come up with this rube goldberg design? Where will bass be? Obviosly no licensed fire alarm installer would do something like this. This must be why FL is changing the regs to stop unlicensed parts clerks from giving advise on system design.
notice how when shown the error of his ways he starts adding more relays and changing his rube goldburg design. This is a classic bassanova. By the end of this thread bass MAY actually have this figured out, with hints and ideas to point him in the right direction from people who actually do this for a living and then will pretend this was his idea all along. and the only reason we doubted him in the first place was because some unknown persons supposedly don't like DIY. How long before this turns up on one of his sites as another gem of knowledge from the brain of the robber bAss.
"Nomen Nescio" a écrit dans le message de news: snipped-for-privacy@dizum.com...
I just saw that thread and have read the whole of it before posting and you posted what I saw at first with this really crazy scenario..
Shorting a Telco line is not a good idea..after a few week of this type of action the Telco will call the customer and ask why every night there is a short for a few minute on the line and will ask it to be fix,every time a line is shorted log is created at the Telco co...
This is typical Bass fabulation ,could it be the cancer treatment?
These were systems which I installed so there was no assumption involved. I didn't suggest that this is a universal fix, only a method I've used several times.
"Seeing as" I installed security systems for over 20 years and held a CT contractor's license I guess I was qualified at the time. I no longer install for a living but I can certainly instruct DIYers.
I find it interesting that you consider a discussion between myself and professional installer considering ways to solve a problem an attempt to sell anything at all.
For the sake of clarity (something you like to avoid) these were not installed by DIYers. They were professionally installed commercial fire alarm systems which were inspected and approved by the AHJ -- as required by code.
Uh, no. You obviously don't understand the system or how it was used. Napco allows the installer to select the zone type for each zone's CID signal. Spare zones can be used to generate test signals or any other type of signals at will. This has no affect on the way fire zones report.
Yeah, sure.
Perhaps if you tried to follow the thread instead of jumping in without understanding you'd be able to contribute something of value to the thread.
Your "dead" wrong there "Pardner" (and your customer wouldn't be far behind). "The Regs" prohibit the connection of any device ahead of the communicator. Read NFPA 72. Show me where it states you can do this.
Either way, it's illegal. No AHJ would sign off on this and no professional installer would get involved in something that's clearly a violation of code and NFPA.
Oh, I didn't forget. However, it appears that you do not understand why the code was changed to require transmission of test signals over both lines, instead of just depending on the telephone line monitors.
Commercial fire alarm communicators have always required two phone lines and telephone line monitors. This has been a requirement since they were first introduced in the early 1980s. Back in those days, when the phone company disconnected a phone number, it often meant someone physically disconnected wires at the telco central office. That would trip the phone line monitor in the fire alarm panel, annunciate the trouble, and transmit a trouble signal over the other phone line.
Today, telephone numbers are often disconnected via software, rather than by disconnecting wires. This means the phone line still has voltage on it, but cannot draw dial tone. The phone line monitor doesn't detect this problem.
So, consider a fire alarm panel set up as you propose. Somehow, line 2 gets turned off, but without loss of voltage. Perhaps the customer cancelled a phone number he did not recognize, or perhaps the phone company turned off the wrong line. Test time arrives, and your relay shorts out line 1. Since the panel hasn't detected a phone line trouble, your trouble relay does not prevent this from happening.
The panel tries to dial out on line 1 and fails. The panel then tries to dial out on line 2 and fails. The panel alternates between these two lines until the maximum number of dialing attempts is reached, or until your phone line shorting relay times out and releases line 1.
During the time line 1 is intentionally shorted, the fire alarm panel will be unable to transmit an alarm signal. That could be fifteen minutes or so, figuring eight dialing attempts per line.
On the other hand, if you program the phone line shorting relay to restore in a minute or two, then the test signal will be transmitted over the primary phone line when that relay releases. The control panel will not perceive this as a trouble condition. It will just think it had to make a few extra dialing attempts. The problem on line 2 goes undetected.
Sorry, but this just doesn't fly. Either the system is temporarily disabled, or the phone line trouble goes undetected.
Having been installing and servicing alarms since before the 1980's, I'm well aware of the above. I explained how I accomplished the job several years ago -- prior to any changes -- using the panel which the OP described.
Nope. You need to consider the thread in context. The discussion was about a Napco MA3000. The panel doesn't have an intrinsic function to test both lines. If the OP is doing a new installation, he'll likely need to use a different product.
If the client is using Verizon, it's even worse than that. They not only leave voltage but also dial tone on disconnected lines. Calls to 911 will go through (not our issue) but calls to a C-station receiver will be met with a message suggesting the client call Verizon to get the service turned on.
Either way, it happens all the time.
You really need to read what I said more carefully. Shorting or opening line 1 is not done to cause a line trouble report. It is done to ensure that the signal from a 24-hour zone is sent via line 2.
Actually, the panel picks up line 1, finds no dial tome and goes to line 2.
If line 2 is bad, yes. This will disclose to the customer that line 2 is bad because the panel will then go into trouble. If the C-station is expecting the test within a certain time period they will also notify the installer. That is the reason for testing an alarm system -- to discover if something is wrong *before* there's a fire.
If it is programmed to function that way, yes. BTW, Napco can be programmed to only send tests via a specific phone number or via both. Nice panel. You can program the number of tries, too.
However, once the system goes into a trouble mode, if a third relay is in use as detailed earlier, the system will allow all succeeding calls to pass on line 1. I mentioned that as an option though I haven't actually employed it.
Properly configured, that will be about 30 seconds. However, if the third relay (or even a fourth) is set up to defeat the line short/cut, an alarm event will go out immediately. There are dozens of ways to modify this *if* you knw the panel.
That's what I said two days ago before you decided to attack my motives and subsequently turn this thread into source of amusement as you add more relays and bodges to your harebrained idea in a desperate attempt to convince the group that you know what you are talking about.
Doug wrote
"...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..."
formatting link
To which RLB replied
"...The MA3000 does indeed support the requirement. It would help if you knew the panel (clearly you don't)...."
formatting link
And now as you flounder around trying to find a way out of the corner you have boxed yourself into you reverse your position completely. What a hoot.
If the panel can be progammed that way, then it will satisfy the requirements of the code and there would be no need to use a slew of relays to short or interupt line 1 or any other ill conceived idea in order to send a send a test signal on line 2, you really need to make up your mind or are you trying to buy time until Napco tech support opens tommorrow morning.
I'm glad you agree that this panel does not meet the requirements of the current edition of NFPA 72, with or without the addition of one, two, or three extra relays.
It's you who needs to read more closely. Especially the part where I said, "Since the panel hasn't detected a phone line trouble." My point is that if line 2 is bad (voltage present, but no dial tone), the panel's phone line monitor will not detect a problem, and when test time rolls around, your setup will disable line 1 as well. Not a good plan.
I think I'll finish with a couple of quotes from NFPA 72, 2002 edition:
"4.3.1 Equipment. Equipment constructed and installed in conformity with this Code shall be listed for the purpose for which it is used. Fire alarm system components shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions."
Contrary to popular belief, the code does not say, "Install it any way you want, so long as the AHJ signs off on it." If that were the case, there would be no need for a code at all. The AHJ's job is to enforce the code, not make up his own, and to interpret issues not addressed by the code. He does not have the authority to disregard a code requirement.
Section 1.5 addresses the issue of equivalency:
"1.5.1 Nothing in this Code shall prevent the use of systems, methods, devices, or appliances of equivalent or superior quality, strength, fire resistance, effectiveness, durability, and safety over those prescribed by this Code."
"1.5.2 Technical documentation shall be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency."
So, unless Napco approves your phone line testing system, section 4.3.1 prohibits its use, since these components are not installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions.
If you want an AHJ to approve your design, section 1.5 requires you to submit technical documentation to demonstrate that your design is "equivalent or superior" to the requirements of the code. Clearly, it isn't. Therefore, it's not eligible for an equivalency determination.
While the above provides definitive proof of what Mark and a number of others have been saying all along, why do I get the feeling that it's still not over? What is this?? I feel like I'm in the middle of "Scary Movie Six and Two-Thirds, Revenge of the Bass".
It's a good thing you're no longer installing for a living (or running an alarm installation company). Sooner or later the customers whose systems you've compromised using your "method" will finally discover what an imbecile you really are. I just hope that no one gets hurt in the meantime. It would be a real shame to have *that* on your conscience.
And how many systems did you install *before* you got your license?? You frequently tell us that you opened your business in 1979, yet weren't licensed until 1983, and you couldn't pull permits until 1989 (when you finally got your contractor's license). As for "instructing DIYers"... If this thread is an example of the kinds of things you teach, I'd make darn sure you have a good insurance policy.
Your methods are shoddy, against code, and dangerous. I wouldn't consider anything you've said in this thread as even remotely resembling a valid solution to Allan's problem.
Sure they are, Bass. Why not post the "approval". You did get it in writing didn't you??
Heh... What did you "contribute" to the thread again??
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.