End of Line resitor connections

[alig31]

The alarm is a texecom excel control panel

 

[breezer]

sorry to here that
but what we have said , how to connect it is still true

 

[alig31]

For Lectrician I do not intend looping the detectors. The reason I want to connect it with EOL is for security. I understand how to connect it in the global method. I appreciate all your help but I am still unclear.
Does each detector have 2 cables connected to the two zone connections on the control panel and it is the two tamper cables that are in a line??

 

[Lectrician]

Don't understand what you mean.

Neither method offers better security....EOL or DP wiring.

DP wiring is easier, but requires 2 extra cores (6 core per detector).
EOL uses just 4 cores, but needs resistors, which you sem lost on.

The diagrams in the installation manuals should be enough, coupled with my diagram and descriptions, for you to be able to wire your system. If you are still struggling, then I would say this is too much for you.

You have a tamper pair and an alarm pair in the panel?? Next to each other?? USE THE 2 OUTSIDE TERMINALS OF THESE 4, connected to the PIR as I have drawn.

 

[breezer]

sorry to say this, but EOL is higher security.

with EOL if you cut either it goes o/c
if you short it it goes c/c
if you put a resistor across it goes in paralell with the EOL resistor

either way it goes off

Alig31 i can see you are trying but can not grasp how it is done, (despite my and lectricians advice) i think you should just have strait loops, you have the cable for it any yway

 

[plugwash]

sorry to say this, but EOL is higher security.

with EOL if you cut either it goes o/c
if you short it it goes c/c
if you put a resistor across it goes in paralell with the EOL resistor

if you know what the resistance should be and have well calibrated pots you may be able to carefully transfer it off the sensor

just how much can you change the resistance without the panel noticeing? 50%? 20%? 10%? 1%? 0.1%?

 

[breezer]

ohms law says you cant, but i see what you are thinking

 

[plugwash]

you set pot 1 to zero and put it in series with the sensor wiring (connect first then cut so the resistance remains at zero throughout the process)

you put set pot2 to open cuircuit and put it in paralell with the sensor and pot1

like
[code:1]
------pot1----.
| |
pot2 sensor
| |
--------------'
[/code:1]

then you carefully adjust the pots in small (how small depends on the panels input cuircuits) increments based on carefull calculations to keep the resistance close to constant

eventually you get to the point at which the sensor is isolated

 

[breezer]

as i said i see your theory, it wont work though, try it with a m/m and see

what do you set pot 1 to?


i see how you get it there, but what do you set it to, and when do you cut the detector off

 

[plugwash]

you work in graducal incrementa making sure you do the sums to keep the overall resistance the same

you would probablly wan't a logarithmic scale on the pots and they would need to be well calibrated you would also need to know how much variation you could have in the reistance before setting the unit off

eventually pot 1 would be near as damnit open cuircuit at which point the detector is no longer going to have any effect on the system

so if the EOL resistors add up to 6.9K and the panel allows 10% either side of this without chance of setting off the alarm (you would need a similar panel to find out just what the panel would tolerate without going off)

use pot1 to increase the overall resistance to 7.59K
use pot2 to reduce the overall resistance to 6.21K
increase pot1 again to bring the overall resistance back to 7.59K
use pot2 again to reduce the resistance back to 6.21K
repeat until pot1 is set high enough and pot2 low enough that the detector will not cause enough of a change to trigger the channel

 

[breezer]

we could go on debating this for ever, so all i am going to say is , yes if you say so, but you have it wrong