remote interference in a wireless security system

I suppose it's possible to "jam" a frequency, but I doubt it would affect a wireless system that uses burst transmission devices. Holding the keyfob down on my ELK system doesn't result in a "jam". Who manufactured your system and what's the model number?

Dear Roland and Frank,

thanks for your valuable comments - for propriety sake i dont want to mention brand name on this forum - but your valuable point is taken.

For my understanding could you throw some light on burst transmission devices and serial number based systems and how they deal with and report RF jam

thanks SNH

Roland Moore wrote:

Dear Roland,

thanks once again for your precious time... i got the burst principle.... is there any other approach to this...other than burst .=2E the only other one i can think of is a base station which sends alarm if the frequency channel is bocked continously for more than say

even rolling codes may not work... if the channel itself is blocked... such that PIR radio signals donts reach the base station... what say you?

bye SNH

Roland wrote:

I am certainly no expert in RF signal propagation. My bias is not to use any RF devices in an alarm system when possible. Here is what you might be talking about. Here is how a different manufacturer deals with issues effecting RF alarm signals and how it alerts the end user and/or installer. Receiver Troubles Note: Also displayed with the receiver trouble code is the receiver number ("NN"). RF REC JAMMED - E16-NN. Transmitter interference from nearby radio-frequency source.

thanks once again for your precious time... i got the burst principle.... is there any other approach to this...other than burst .. the only other one i can think of is a base station which sends alarm if the frequency channel is bocked continously for more than say

even rolling codes may not work... if the channel itself is blocked... such that PIR radio signals donts reach the base station... what say you?

bye SNH

Roland wrote:

Same here but for different reasons. I don't like to make the system unnecessarily complex (more hardware means more stuff to possibly fail). If it can be done by running a wire, that is almost always the better choice.

There are a few wireless "experts" (English translation: "people who don't know how to run wire") who claim that wireless is as good as or better than hard wired, but they're just trying to justify their existence. :^)

When wireless is the only practical solution, by all means use it. Most modern supervised wireless systems can detect and respond to signal jamming attempts.

Who made the system?

Ya know someone had to say it :)

DAMN!

Ya beat me to it! :-)

Oh well, back to vacationing.

Just in case ...... Merry Christmas.

Must be some joke I don't get. Can anyone explain?

Paulie the Parrot and his second cousin the paranoid NSA nutjob.

| > > Mark Leuck wrote: | > >> Who made the system? | |

Unless you know about people who wear tin foil hats with old television rabbit ears, rely on old dial up radios for testing, have crazy caffeine habits and base the whole industry on a cheap old wireless system that God only knows what was done to it, you would have had to have been there.

Paul was a nut that trolled here for years raving about radio frequency interference and how some wireless headphones caused his alarm system to false.

Roland wrote:

Some nutcase who used to troll here (very successfully) going on about a fictitious wireless system.

To Cheech, Yeah I remember now, I think I sold that system to the dude. Later, Tommy