2 PIR's on 1 cable

[garrymum]

Hi
This is a followup to my previous thread that was locked by the mods due to a couple of users arguing and getting abusive.

Previous thread //www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=124737

Anyway. If the two PIR's which are not working 100% are connected on the same 8 core cable, how are these wired up? Given there are normally 6 cores to each PIR, how are two PIR's wired with one 8 core cable?

Basically I think I have managed to put a screw through the return wires to the panel. The PIR's are still getting power and the tamper circuit has not been tripped. I spoke to the guy who commissioned the alarm (the builder installed all the cables, he just connected the panel) and he said I could take out the tamper circuit and swap the return wires with the tamper at both ends. This will cure the problem, although I will no longer have the tamper protection.

If 2 PIR's are on the one cable, are the tamper wires shared? If so, I don't think I can do as he suggests??

 

[Europlex]

It's NOT THE RIGHT WAY to do things but it is possible to have >

1. 2xPIRs with no tampers
2. 2xPIRs with tampers or even
3. 4xPIRs with no tampers
4. 4xPIRs with tampers

run from a 6 core cable

ps

Just thought of this one, 3xPIRs with a common tamper to all 3!

You've got an 8core cable
1pair 12v
2nd pair common tamper to both detectors - (if connected)
3rd pair to alarm side 1st PIR
4th pair to alarm side 2nd PIR

 

[saxondale]

Hi


Basically I think I have managed to put a screw through the return wires to the panel.

thank you

If 2 PIR's are on the one cable, are the tamper wires shared? If so, I don't think I can do as he suggests??

yes thats the way it has been done since multicore cable was invented (oddly enough flat cable never really took off) you`ll get people telling you "oh its so wrong and the sign of a cowboy" - it isnt so dont worry about that

solve your problem - either rewire it ? change the C/U to one that uses EOL or loose the tampers to give you enough cores

Im assuming this is a domestic dwelling in which case the tamper have never been needed to comply with the regs anyway

good luck

 

[Europlex]

Im assuming this is a domestic dwelling in which case the tamper have never been needed to comply with the regs anyway

Below is a direct quote from

Commissioning and preventative maintenance of intruder alarm systems installed to PD662:2004
-- Code of practice

BSIA Form No 177 March 2005

"i.
j.
k. Check no adverse tamper conditions exist on the system
l.
m.

During a Site Visit this check is Mandatory
During a Remote Check this check is Mandatory "

I could not be bothered to go back to BS4737 to find it there.

It does not differentiate between domestic and commercial.

-- so your use of the word 'never' is wrong.

Of course if a system is installed by a 'cowboy', your word, it would seem anything goes.

 

[saxondale]

your so quick trying to get one over, I can imagine you now jumping up and down going " me,me let me have a go..." but just for a change your wrong again

BE BOTHERED - GO BACK TO BS4737 THATS WHAT I REFERENCED AND THATS WHAT GARRYMUMS SYSTEM IS INSTALLED TOO, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT BEFORE YOU GET MORE EGG ON YOUR FACE

AND


what you posted above - yep you "check no adverse tampers..." that doesnt say you need any in the first place does it (and er see g1 systems dont need them on interconnection devices)

you wanna play this game then fine, just dont cry afterwards

 

[Europlex]

Well, the use of the word COWBOY seems appropriate.

End of.

 

[securitywarehouse]

Form 171 is an interpretation document to pd6662:2004 from the BSIA

Tampers for devices are optional on Grade 1 systems, which this may be, but as far as im aware (or at least i thought) were mandatory under 4737... i may be wrong

 

[saxondale]

Form 171 is an interpretation document to pd6662:2004 from the BSIA

Tampers for devices are optional on Grade 1 systems, which this may be, but as far as im aware (or at least i thought) were mandatory under 4737... i may be wrong

your are I`m afraid mate theres no requirment for anti tamper devices except on the sounder and control equipment (think about it ffs LOL)

 

[Barsteward]

Well, the use of the word COWBOY seems appropriate.

End of.

For you Breezer, yes.

 

[saxondale]

Well, the use of the word COWBOY seems appropriate.

End of.

LOL at the fool - the NSI dont give out ten gallon hats, now remind me who your inspectorate are ?



oh yeah you aint got one, your a washing machine repair man

 

[securitywarehouse]

saxondale

dont suppose you want to explain 4737 section 3.2.2 then do you? The tamper detection bit.

But
Also have a look at 3.3.2 and the note. The note seems to suggest that tamper detection of the cable is desirable not mandatory. Interpret away?

 

[garrymum]

Saxondale, all you manage to do when you reply is argue with people!

Anyway, not a problem anymore, all sorted!!

 

[Spark123]

Did you find the nail?

 

[alarmnewb]

Saxondale, all you manage to do when you reply is argue with people!

Anyway, not a problem anymore, all sorted!!

Well said i asked a question and got some well informed advice then came along silly nuts and started chucking abuse about idiot.

 

[Atilla]

And you appear, as yet, to have failed to answer a question posed to you regarding your potential arsonist. I wonder why.