Is the bell box connected to the panel by wire or a wireless link ?
- Status
Sponsored Links
So you say you witnessed the problem occurring. But you were not able to identify where the interference was coming from, but surmise that it "appear to coming from a domestic wireless headphone system."
There must be some reason why you weren't able to track down the source, which is why I asked if you witnessed the problem on site. What was this reason?
And for added clarity, you are talking about an ordinary domestic house in an ordinary residential street? How did this house come to have a telemetry link in it? Mine doesn't.
The off air monitor available to an un-trained person during the periods of interference did not have either a directional aerial or a signal strength meter so tracing to a precise location was not feasible.
There is little point in tracing any source of interference on a licence exempt channel unless it is believed the transmitter involved is non compliant or is compliant device used with intent to disrupt another person's use of the channel.
Yes, a row of semi detached houses. The link is between an industrial unit and the house of the owner.
So an industrial unit (not a domestic house) is involved.
As you know, a Yale alarm is typically installed in an ordinary domestic house, usually a fairly small one, and is not expected to communicate between two buildings. It seems your example is not a close match.
Sponsored Links
M
mdf290
It's a wireless link, However jamming the siren externally wont affect how the internal devices and panel work with each other. The external siren may activate but the internal sensors and panel still stay armed and work as normal.
The siren is simply a slave which the control panel sends an activation signal to.
The "match" is close in that the telemetry receiver in the house was affected by transmissions from a transmitter in a nearby house. A receiver in a Yale alarm would be affected as well. If the Yale had jamming detect enabled it would have gone into alarm mode when the interefering signal was present. If jamming detect was dis-abled then the owner of the alarm would not have known his or her alarm was being blocked. Any intrusion would not have have triggered an alarm while the alarm was blocked.
M
mdf290
Please do not change what I have written when quoting me.
Any intrusion would not have have triggered an alarm while the alarm was blocked
Please explain how the sensors can communicate to the panel or siren if the channel is blocked.
...is your guess.
Of course your guess is dependent on how close the errant transmitter was to the Yale installation, and how close the parts of the Yale installation were to each other. We have already established that you are only guessing what the source was, and you do not know where it was. As you have never carried out any tests on Yale alarms, and have never claimed to have used, or even seen one, your guess is of little value.
It would be interesting, given your willingness to make guesses, to hear you guess what is the probability, in an ordinary domestic house in an ordinary residential street, that a sensor would be blocked at the same fraction of a second that a burglar broke into your house.
Others have, I respect their professional judgement.
You have been given the answer. It depends on what other equipment is in use in the vicinity of the alarm at the time of the break in.
so make your guess based on the typical environment in a typical domestic house in a typical residential street.
You may of course factor into your guess your estimate of how many such houses are exposed to transmitters which are powerful enough to to prevent the signal from a sensor getting through at the same fraction of a second that a burglar breaks into the house.
You may of course factor into your guess your estimate of how many such houses are exposed to transmitters which are powerful enough to to prevent the signal from a sensor getting through at the same fraction of a second that a burglar breaks into the house.
Same question, same answer.
Not correct
You think ( hope ) it is vanishly small.
I and various other professional people experienced in the application of radio communications know the probability of any system using 433.92 Mhz being blocked is a variable that ranges from vanishingly small in some locations to extremely high in other locations.
I am beginning to wonder if your obsession with it being vanishingly small is a result of anxiety about the reliability of the ( apparently ) one system you have installed. Naturally your anxiety that it may not work at some time in the future will be reduced if you can convince yourself that the chance is vanishingly small now and at all times in the future.
If, as you suggest, you can estimate the probability that, in an ordinary domestic house in an ordinary residential street, interference will block the signal from a sensor at the same fraction of a second that a burglar breaks into your house, please do.
I think that you already have done, but you don't want to disclose it.
Oblique references to abnormal installations, for example under a transmitter mast, are not relevant.
I think that you already have done, but you don't want to disclose it.
Oblique references to abnormal installations, for example under a transmitter mast, are not relevant.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
- Status
Sponsored Links
