Why not use two seperate panels when designing a high end system?

Here is something that to me seems so obvious, but something that I have never seen or employed personnaly. Lets say for example I am designing a system for a high end jewelry store. I call for my glass breaks, my motions, a Potter vibration on the safe, high security contacts on the doors, and maybe a mat.. then I go home and the customer feels safe.

But for just another 175, the customer could buy a seperate panel just for the interior safe contact and the vibration detector. This way, if the intruder found his way into the store and bypassed the perimeter alarm, he would think he is home free.. But when he gets to the mother load, he is met by another independent syste. Of course, the panel would be installed away from the primary panel and a radio or cell could be used to transmit the signal.. My question is.. it's so obvious that it would be money well spent, why does no one do it??? Am I not seeing the big picture?

Reply to
SecurityNovice
Loading thread data ...

If it is a properly designed system, he isn't going to defeat the primary system before being detected and reported. Multiple "layers" of security such as perimeter, interior, and "trap" devices such as safes, drawers, bill traps, etc, are used to accomplish what you are suggesting. A properly designed system control will be in a secure location, and have communication redundancy through phone line hardening, dummy phone line tamper, and backup communication.

As an aside, many modern systems include the capability to have separately functioning "partitions", which function as independent alarm systems. This would allow the store and safe to be on separate systems, using the same control and communicator hardware.

Install a system per UL certificated specs and you'll be fine.

Reply to
Stanley Barthfarkle

PS- If your safe is big enough, and in a proper location, install the control in the safe. ;-)

Reply to
Stanley Barthfarkle

I have one _very_ paranoid residential client where we did exactly that..everything is reduntant. Two alarm panels, two contacts on all openings, double motions, glassbreaks, everything! Including two Uplinks...nice system...a bit of an overkill imo, but nice...and very expensive.

I did do one jewelry store where we put a separate small system on the safe and another for the store itself..but this is not typical imo.

Reply to
Crash Gordon

It's not just another $175, when you consider the cost of the panel, the additional secure communications link, and the installation labor. Plus, there's the extra monitoring costs every month.

However, you may be interested to know that until the mid to late 1970s, it was standard practice for jewelry stores to have two separate alarm systems, one for the premises and one for the safes. This was in the days before control panels had zoning, and it also avoided having a single point of failure disabling the entire protection system.

Incidentally, in those days, the premises system and the safe system were sometimes interconnected so that a skilled attempt to defeat the premises system would cause an alarm on the safe system. And vice versa, meaning that both systems would have to be compromised simultaneously. The details are unimportant because today's systems are totally different, but old-timers will recognize the term "direct wire interlock."

- badenov

Reply to
Nomen Nescio

I've seen at least one cash vault set up this way. We installed the system for the acutal vault and Security Link put the system on the building. When we bought Slink, there was some question as to the reasoning and whether or not they'd have to find another company to take over one of the systems. According to the customer, they wanted to make sure that they had redundant monitoring from two entirely different places in case something got screwed up on that end. As long as the signals from each panel went to a different monitoring center, they were okay with it. You've all heard of this customer. They're one of the big armor car services around, and they compete with most of you in the alarm business everyday.

Reply to
J.

I have two Pawn shops (very large) that are insured through Llyods of London. They are required to have two totally independent systems. Two installation/service companys, two different monitoring companys, two different phone lines, etc. Nothing is shared. It is an interesting account because you have two systems working in the same environment and can compare the operations of both. ADT is the other company, at least until their agreement is up.

Reply to
Bob Worthy

With a business, it is an insurance thing. They will install the minimum their insurance company requires.

So far as insurance companies go, it is... Is this a problem? If yes, require additional measures. If not a common problem, no need to require additional measures.

In some areas a beer distribution warehouse will require much tighter security than a bank for burglary. Why? Because the beer warehouses are frequently broken into whereas banks are seldom broken into.

But government high security situations are different. They are more concerned with security. So they might be more inclined to have duplicate systems in certain situations. They would also have 24 hour "duplicate" armed guards as well. They like to do things in "twos"...

Reply to
Bill

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.