share account #

The issue wouldn't be so much the signals banging into each other at the reciever...reciever can deal with that.

First...I wouldn't do it with a fire system.

But, I have done it with large homes where it was impractical or impossible to run the main house and the barn (1/4 mile away) on the same system, so I put a monster system in the main house and a baby system in the barn. The house uses zones 5-40, and the barn uses zones 1-5...report in same format to same account# and make notes in CS zoning where sigs are coming from. Problem: which system fails to test?, which system is sending AC fail or low battery? Welp, if your CS has CID ability on signals you could tell if the barn and main house were on different phone lines.

Kinda funky way of doing things for owner that doesn't want to pay for two accounts.

The solution is simple.

Use 4/2 format.

recently added a

One problem will be supervisory signals. If there's a low battery or a/c failure, for example, which system is in trouble?

You might try talking to the central station sales rep. Perhaps they'll offer you a discount for multiple systems at the same address. We did that when we monitored multiple partitions, each with its own account number, from a single location. There's no standard way of handling the situation but it can't hurt to ask.

There are too many variables to give you an accurate answer. The first thing I can say it is a bad idea for many reasons. The person monitoring the account typically assumes there is one account number per panel. There may be more than one account number in a panel but there should not be more than one panel per account number. Read the monitoring agreement you signed. The only way to "pull it off" would be to have the DACT (or integrated fire dialer) programmed to the exact same format as the burg panel and have one sending signals on the unused zones of the other. The 24 hour test timer is an issue that might tip off the central station to what you're doing. For the amount of trouble it takes to cockroach out on a few bucks a month is not just silly but outright stupid when (commercial) fire is involved.

Yep done it that way too...

The solution is simple.

Use 4/2 format.

Instead of making compromises like that just use 2 account numbers, I hate it when 2 systems are set like this

How would you know if no one told you? You'd have no idea if the signals were coming from one or five differnt panels.

I've got an account with three alarm panels in three seperate buildings, each calling out on different telephone lines, all reporting to one account number. It's all 4/2 format and the alarms are reported as ....3/1 front door building one. 5/1Motion detector building three. etc. Supervisory codes for low battery, 8D, 8E and 8F. AC loss is 9D, 9E and 9F and so on. Central doesn't have to be concerned about how many panels or phone lines or locations. It just reports the signals as what I've told them to report. If there were fire panels, I'd do the same thing with them except with two descrete telephone lines to each panel. It's ok to report both fire and burg on the same account number, last time I checked. It's public utility so there'd be no problem getting as many lines as needed.

This is a perfect use for 4/2 formating. The best thing about it is, I collect for three monitored accounts.

That is crap.. Shoddy all the way.

If you are collecting for 3 accts. then establish 3 accts. and have them report CID or SIA.

True and I find out about it after the fact, it ends up being a confusing mess that didn't have to happen

So why not use multiple account numbers and avoid all this? I think I know why

And only have to pay for one, THATS the reason. The funny thing is I posted the "I think I know why" before I scrolled down to see the rest

you nailed it.

One problem this method (below) will encounter is when receivers & automation systems track caller-id for incoming calls, and encounter caller-id mismatch events. Will cause confusion in the station.

recently added a

Most systems will allow you to program your own report codes. Check the programming manuals for Ademco/Honeywell, Napco, DSC, etc.

that'd be the one with the trouble light.

Avoid all what?

What's the matter? Too tough for you to figure out?

I installed the systems in 1989. It was a very easy thing to do at the time.

Ahhh, I see.

Well I can understand that you, not knowing how to run a business and used to spending your employers money with out concern, wouldn't have an incentive to do a little cost saving.

The system has been doing fine for a lot of years. Long before CID was employed as an option in control panels and during a time when monitoring was about $7.00 per account and we were only getting $14.00 or so. If for some reason it didn't work, it would have been easy enough to change. It worked and still does.

But I know how astute a business man you are and that rather than saving a few bucks you'd have used CID on three seperate account numbers, even before it was available

Some day when you grow up and maybe aquire the guts to go into business for yourself, .......

Well ..... never mind .......

I've ignored you for a long time. With all of the bullshit shabby garbage you've boasted about here, for the time you've been here, you've got little room to talk. I'd suggest very strongly that you mind your own f****ng business.

Read my reply to Leuck. It goes as well for you.

My central is aware of the installation and they've somehow "linked" the numbers the accounts call in on.

This was an account that was "switched" from another central so they "ok'd" it when I explained how it was set up, how old the account was and therefore the reason it was done that way. If they had a problem with it, I would have changed it.

I'm sure it was

Yea, charge the customer for 3 accounts yet tell the monitoring station it's just 1, makes me wonder what other "little cost savings" you have out there

I'm sure you do think it does work fine but you seem to think this is all about CID, the reporting format has nothing to do with it

No then I would have used three account numbers and sent 4/2, but well thats just me

I see, it takes guts to screw the monitoring station, interesting

Then why the "you wouldn't know cost savings" speech you just gave me? Had you said this from the start it would be another story

Which I'm sure the central station operator sitting behind his console five states away will be able to see...