Yale Premium Alarm Hsa6400 Wirefree Alarm Kit

[JohnD]

yeah, sure you can.

So what's your point?

It is also possible to set your whizzo pro alarm with the front and back door closed but not locked, and all the windows open.

If you have a person who is in the habit of leaving their doors and windows open, they are making it easier for burglars. Are you going to claim that it is Yale's fault that there are careless people around?

If they have your whizzo pro alarm at ten times the price, and they leave their windows open, which have no sensor on them, the position is the same. So what?

If they have numerous doors and french windows and have economised on your expensive pro system by not having a door sensor on every one, then what?

If they have your expensive pro system, leave the back door open, press the "set" button and are through the door and away in their car without noticing that as well as the front door and hallway zones, there is another zone open as well, then what? The whole system will fail to set, which is even worse, since your burglar will not even get picked up by a PIR. At least they are better off having a Yale alarm than having nothing at all, which is probably their other alternative.

You're just finding excuses to whine about a low-cost DIY system not being the same as a high-cost pro system. Of course it isn't, dummy. We've had 20 pages of that, none of which is the slightest use to the OP, it's just anti-Yalers ranting again.

 

[Europlex]

Europlex anyone doing a risk assesment would NOT rely purely upon a door contact anyway... see the previous post.

Are you saying it is common practice within the security industry to protect say a kitchen at the rear of the house with a door contact only even though the room has window access aswell?

Another one, but there again we all know you can't read and understand the English language.

For just once, address the point I making, IT IS POSSIBLE TO SET A YALE ALARM WITH A PROTECTED DOOR OPEN.

The rest of your diatribe, is just that, diatribe.

 

[JohnD]

Yeah, so what? Your expensive pro system will also not protect people who are stupid or careless, and as I accurately and truthfully pointed out, the effects can be even worse.

I won't repeat the rest of it.

The last line is especially true, though.

 

[mdf290]

Europlex anyone doing a risk assesment would NOT rely purely upon a door contact anyway... see the previous post.

Are you saying it is common practice within the security industry to protect say a kitchen at the rear of the house with a door contact only even though the room has window access aswell?

Another one, but there again we all know you can't read and understand the English language.

For just once, address the point I making, IT IS POSSIBLE TO SET A YALE ALARM WITH A PROTECTED DOOR OPEN.

The rest of your diatribe, is just that, diatribe.

I did not say it wasn't did I?. What I said was it makes no difference .

Well if you want to get pedantic you could say that someone who comes in a back door that was left open will set the alarm off in two seconds. 2 seconds being the time that will elapse from entering the open door to being picked up by the pir in the room...

So this 2 SECOND POTENTIAL DELAY is what is getting you in a tizzy is it? lol you need a lie down.

 

[Europlex]

.......

Don't bother to reply to anything I write any more because the rubbish you have just spouted just goes to prove that you know a little about Pro systems and how they work, but NOT a lot.

I like WHIZZO, very Greyfriars.

 

[Europlex]

So do I take it now that you agree that " IT IS POSSIBLE TO SET A YALE ALARM WITH A PROTECTED DOOR OPEN.", well?

 

[JohnD]

So I take it you now agree that your expensive pro system will also not protect people who are stupid or careless, and as I accurately and truthfully pointed out, the effects can be even worse. WELL?

I suppose you have to, as it's undeniably true.

 

[mdf290]

So do I take it now that you agree that " IT IS POSSIBLE TO SET A YALE ALARM WITH A PROTECTED DOOR OPEN.", well?

We have NEVER DENIED IT IS WAS ME THAT ORIGINALLY TOLD EVERYONE????


Jeeeezzzzzzzzzzz

 

[JohnD]

He's just finding excuses to whine about a low-cost DIY system not being the same as a high-cost pro system. Of course it isn't, dummy. We've had 20 pages of that, none of which is the slightest use to the OP, it's just anti-Yalers ranting again

 

[Europlex]

.......

Don't bother to reply to anything I write any more because the rubbish you have just spouted just goes to prove that you know a little about Pro systems and how they work, but NOT a lot.

I like WHIZZO, very Greyfriars.

I'll change my quote above (here)

Don't bother to reply to anything I write any more because the rubbish you have just spouted just goes to prove that you know NOTHING about the workings of Pro systems.

I'm not going to get into a war of semantics with someone who does not know what they are trying to talk about.

How many alarms have you been involved with, the one that you have at home, perhaps one at a previous house also, if I'm right in this, you know next to nothing about the design, installation and operation of an alarm system.

 

[JohnD]

Are you going to try to deny that your expensive pro system will also not protect people who are stupid or careless, and as I accurately and truthfully pointed out, the effects can be even worse. WELL?

No, obviously not.

 

[Europlex]

So do I take it now that you agree that " IT IS POSSIBLE TO SET A YALE ALARM WITH A PROTECTED DOOR OPEN.", well?

We have NEVER DENIED IT IS WAS ME THAT ORIGINALLY TOLD EVERYONE????


Jeeeezzzzzzzzzzz

So its taken you two children all these pages to admit that what I was saying is correct.

Why was that so hard?

Thank you. That's all I wanted. No more to say on the subject now.

 

[JohnD]

I'm glad you agree that your expensive pro system will also not protect people who are stupid or careless, and as I accurately and truthfully pointed out, the effects can be even worse. Was that so hard for you? Obviously you had no option, since it is undeniably true. I don't know what you hoped to gain by bringing up the fact that people who are stupid or careless are liable to give themselves security problems. Perhaps you hoped to score a cheap point against Yales by omitting the fact that the same applies to expensive pro systems, though in a different way that can have even worse effects.

I suppose it's just another anti-Yaler spouting off again to no purpose. All this irrelevant nonsense has added 20 pages to a simple enquiry.

 

[bernardgreen]

You have now thrown into the pot the smash grab and run scenario as if it is something a Yale could not deal with when in fact there is not an alarm in the country that could help in a smash grab and run scenario. So why did you even ask that question.

The purpose of the alarm is to report that a break in has occured and then the owner can take urgent action to repair the damage to the home to make it secure (?) again. Silent alarms ( that is ones with out bell boxes ) do just that. Alarms with bells ( sirens ) may deter the intruder from remaining in the property if they consider a response to the bell is likely be it neighbour or police.

It is possible that a smash grab run intruder could be apprended or identified by neighbours if they react to the alarm.

I asked the question because if the time before jamming detection activates is say 15 minutes a clued up and tooled up intruder knows they can break in and have 15 minutes inside the property before the alarm will sound. It does seem that if they leave within that 15 minutes then the only record on the system will be ...... Yes what would it be. Would it even record the entry bearing in mind that the panel cannot receive anything its sensors are transmitting.

 

[bernardgreen]

I suppose it's just another anti-Yaler spouting off again to no purpose. All this irrelevant nonsense has added 20 pages to a simple enquiry.

Most of the 20 pages has been trying to make you see that any wireless based alarm system is a compromise between what is needed in an alarm system and what the regulations and the laws of physics impose on the use of radio. That is any from below Yale to the top of the range custom built systems.

It is NOT irrelevant that a wireless linked alarm system can be blocked from operating before the intruder has entered the premises. It is NOT a vanishing small probality that will happen, it is a small but significant probability that legal use of 433.xx Mhz by other equipment may block a sensor's signals before the sensor goes to sleep.

Do you continue to ignore the risks from use of the channel by equipment that does not comply to the regulations, is faulty and transmitting for long periods of time or has been modified to intentionally transmit for long periods of time ?Only if you ignore those can you say the risk is low.

In the real world the sources of interference, both compliant and non ccompliant are increasing, if you live in the real world you have to accept this.

I am NOT anti Yale, provided the user is aware of the compromises between what is possible using radio and the requirements of an alarm system and accepts the limitations they create then there is notheing wrong with Yale or any similar system for that user.

What I against is people, like you, who state that the possibility of a wireless linked alarm being put out of action by interference is vanishly small based on you experience of a few alarms in what appears to be an area with little activity on 433.xx Mhz.

Can you explain why Yale fit a jamming detection system and then suggest that if there are several alarms due to tamper in the bell box that the jamming detection is turned off.

Question, There have been several people over the years whose bell box tamper switch has been suspected on causing the siren to sound. Various solutions such as bending springs and fitting bits of flat material on the wall have been suggested.

Could these tampers have been the jamming detection operating the siren and not a defective tamper switch. ?