Best way to turn off wireless on Yale HSA 6400 alarm

[bernardgreen]

If the problem persists it is also recommended to disable the radio interference detection.

Not my words. they are copied from http://www.yale.co.uk/en/yale/couk/Let-us-help/Alarms-FAQs/
Why would they suggest disabling the radio interference detection if radio interference was not a problem.


Read more: //www.diynot.com/forums/alarms...alarm-kit.333540/page-3#2481445#ixzz2B2lS5o4i

 

[bernardgreen]

Thanks Bernard,

So a jamming signal can effectively put the panel out of action. Is that correct ? I'm still coming to terms with these panels.

As with any wireless connected system signal blocking (jamming), intentional or accidental, can prevent a system working as intended.

Depending on the system's design an effective system disabling block can come from legally operated equipment transmiting on the the same or an ajacent wireless frequency.

Systems can be designed to overcome most intentional blocking and thus the equipment required to effectively block these systems is far more than a simple transmitter.

To mdf.... I only harp on when you persistantly insist that the DIY alarms you install for your customers are better than they are.

 

[JohnD]

I think it can be generally agreed that the Yale alarm is very suitable for the householder who is willing to pay one or two hundred pounds for a system he can install himself in an hour or two. It can also be agreed that if he is willing and able to pay more and/or do more work, he can get better.

At current prices you can get a telecommunicating Yale for about £150, which I think is a great bargain, though probably not suitable for someone whose house was built under a BBC transmitter aerial.

 

[mdf290]

To mdf.... I only harp on when you persistantly insist that the DIY alarms you install for your customers are better than they are.

Nope Bernard you totally misunderstand my position.
I say they are exactly what they are.
I have never said they are better than X Y or Z allthough a basic Yale alarm without a panel works without electricity at all so will outperform professional systems in a power outage if the power is off for over 12 hrs
My continued defence of the Yale system is not an attempt to lie and say they are better than they are but in response to people like yourself who makes claims that they are not fit for purpose.

 

[chaindaisy]

Thanks for the info mdf,

The yale detector sends a periodic signal to the panel ? At what intervals ? This is not a bad piece of kit for a diy'er.

Thanks

 

[mdf290]

Thanks for the info mdf,

The yale detector sends a periodic signal to the panel ? At what intervals ? This is not a bad piece of kit for a diy'er.

Thanks

I don't know the exact rate but I do know that if you have a fault with a sensor showing low batteries and you change the batteries the fault light goes out within around 3 - 4 seconds of the sensor recallibrating.

 

[bernardgreen]

The control panel indicates jamming by instigating a fault and starting the warning beep.

That is jamming of the control panel's receiver. The control panel cannot be aware of jamming local to the siren which would prevent the siren receiving an activation signal. In this situation the panel would NOT indicate a fault even though the alarm was unable to sound the siren.

If the siren was held off by regular "no alarm" signals from the panel then any jamming local to siren would [a] cause the siren sound due to lack of "hold off" messages being received and would cause siren to sound if the panel was disabled before it could send a "sound alarm" signal to the siren.

In some systems prolonged jamming local to the siren would ( eventually ) set the siren to sound provided the siren's jamming detection function had not been disabled. ( remember Yale suggest this as the answer to false alarms )

As to the panel being aware of a sensor within a few seconds of the sensor's battery being changed, that is no indication of the interval between transmissions in normal use. No doubt the interval timer is reset when the battery is replaced and a message packet is sent within seconds of battery being inserted. The Yale documents say the sensor goes to sleep for a minute after detecting motion and sending that motion detected packet. It also states that the sleep period is extended if further motion in detected during sleep. From that it can be inferred that the sensor may allow a sensor to be silent for several minutes before considering it to be absent.
.

I am not totally against wireless but am very concerned that some people advocate its use without making clear to their customers the short comings and compromises that the use of wireless imposes on the system.

 

[JohnD]

I think we are agreed that a wireless system is probably not suitable for someone whose house was built under a BBC transmitter aerial. We have not been able to find cases of an alarm in an ordinary house, in an ordinary street full of other ordinary houses, where RF interference prevents the alarm working, though we have tried. It is theoretically possible, and no doubt one day a case will be found.

It is very unlikely that in an ordinary house, even if your next-door neighbour has an alarm on the same frequency, a signal will occur and be so strong that it is able to prevent your alarm working at the very moment that a burglar breaks into your home.

 

[bernardgreen]

John

You may not personally have come across a system that was blocked in a way that the blocking prevented the alarm operating.

But you say

a wireless system is probably not suitable for someone whose house was built under a BBC transmitter aerial

which does not even transmit on the frequency used by an alarm system.

It would therefor also be unsuitable for someone living next door to a source of RF energy. Suppose that the next door neighbour had a baby monitor that transmitted on a frequency in the pass band of the alarm's receiver.

You need to realise that there is a lot of equipment that uses the same licence exempt frequency as DIY wireless alarms and these can and do interfere. Yale recognise this by their suggestion to turn off the jamming detection function if there are repeated false alarms. The jamming will continue to block the siren and if the jamming signal is there when there is a break in the siren will be blocked and therefor unable to sound as the alarm activation from the panel will be blocked. The panel may not be aware it cannot activate the siren.

 

[JohnD]

John

You may not personally have come across a system that was blocked in a way that the blocking prevented the alarm operating.

and have you?

personally come across a Yale alarm in an ordinary residential house in an ordinary residential street that was blocked? We've had the anecdote about alarms being blocked in abnormal conditions, and we've had the anecdote about car keyfobs not working next to a radio transmitter. We also know that if a householder puts his alarm device adjacent to his Wifi hub, he may have communication problems until he moves them apart. If the householder has intereference, he will be aware something is wrong because his set/unset signals will get lost, or his Entry sensor will not start the countdown. I have personal experience of these working perfectly thousands of times so I am confident that house did not have a problem.

What do you think the probability is, that a burglar will break into a house at the exact fraction of a second that a signal occurs which blocks the sensor, and prevents the alarm going off? Unlike theoretical musings, That's the only point that actually matters.

 

[mdf290]

Suppose that the next door neighbour had a baby monitor that transmitted on a frequency in the pass band of the alarm's receiver.

We have discussed this scenario before in a mega thread...

The upshot was that the baby monitor would have to be nearer to the control panel than any sensors and near enough to the control panel to be the strongest signal otherwise the control panel would still register the sensor reports.

Your post are always full of what ifs Bernard. It would really help if instead of conjecture you found out the specification of the system instead of repeatedly guessing about the timing intervals involved and painting worst case scenarios without any technical information to back up your claims.

 

[chaindaisy]

".....The upshot was that the baby monitor would have to be nearer to the control panel...."

Baby monitors, ADSL's, automated homes, foil backed plasterboard, the list is endless. We check all these things before installing a trade system. I am thinking of ordering a Yale system to find out what all the fuss is about.

Older Yale's operated at 419MHZ I believe, the next generation at 433 and after that 868. I would suggest that Yale, insert a few paragraphs regarding these potential problems in their literature, but there again we don't see it in trade literature either. These are all narrow band with an insignificant jamming history.

As far as a home "underneath a mast is concerned", I personally would not live there if the house was given to me, and there is as much probability of this mast affecting a wired as there is a wireless system. In some States in the U.S. they have banned house building within a certain distance of power transmission lines and masts. Don't ask me which State or the distance, I read it in Reader's Digest some years ago.

 

[JohnD]

the reason I mention a home built under a BBC transmitter mast, is that we had an anecdote about car locking keyfobs not working when they were parked close to a mast. We've had a few anecdotes about RF interference and Yale alarms, but the only one that seems common in real life is when a wifi hub is adjacent to the panel and they have to be moved apart. There are frequent suppositions and scare stories trotted out from time to time, but not real-life experinces of RF intereference jamming in an ordinary domestic house in an ordinary domestic street.

 

[TheAlarmMan]

The issue of 2 different units on different frequencies affecting each other is actually quite a simple concept.

The first is what is known as bleed over, which is when either the transmitter is not tuned to or more likely the receiver is able to receive more of the bandwidth than it should, this is often the case on the cheaper end of the market. This also is the case for total output power, while home electronics are licence exempt they are limited to the wattage that they can output, this is 500mW or half a watt.

I remember the early B&Q DIY systems had awful PIR's that standing within 6 feet of them with a commercial 2 way radio (4 watt) would cause them to false alarm. And they were WIRED!

Think of it as trying to talk to someone who is in another room while a siren at 110 dB is right next to you, both are at different frequencies but you cant hear the person talking.

Jamming is defined as receiving a signal that cannot be decoded, like being talked to in a foreign language, the panel receives a signal it doesn't understand for a long enough period that it shows a jam.

Many things can cause jamming, even items that don't transmit, for instance putting a RF panel behind a TV set could and has caused issues.

 

[JohnD]

we get quite a few people on here who use Yale alarms.

The posts about them getting jammed always seem to come from people who don't.