Yale Premium Alarm Hsa6400 Wirefree Alarm Kit

[mdf290]

If we want to talk about "misleading information" then we can start with yours:

You may buy the wireless system and install it and it works fine. Then a neighbour buys the same system and there are two alarms using the same radio channel to communicate from sensors to control panel and/or siren.

Scaremongering nonsense.

Absolutely and factually proven as nonsense.
I fitted 20 alarms all on a Park Home Estate near York (ie like holiday homes)
They have been there for the last two years in fact more than two years and have worked without any cross inteference at all...lol They are all within the immediate vicinity of three to four other identical systems on the neighbouring homes and the ones accross the street and behind on the street backing. In fact I can think of a cluster of 5 homes in one corner all adjacent or backing each other.

Not one report has come to me of systems exhibiting problems.

This does not surprise me however because I know they can work independently without problems from previous experience anyway.

Scaremongering indeed.

Just admit it Bernard the companies own trials and risk assesments have come up with a system that works fine in a local domestic environment.

 

[bernardgreen]

To the lay readers

JohnD and mdf are concentrating on defending their favourite system by stating that it is nonsense that two or more of their favourite systems will interfere with each other. There may be no apparent signs of interference but receivers will receive messages from transmitters on other nearby systems. Due to the way the system is designed these messages from other systems will be ignored by the computor in the panel or siren if they can be decoded and seen to be from items on a different system.

What the receivers cannot do is to accurately receive messages from items in their own system if at the same time there is any other transmission on the radio channel from any[/u] other source. The extent to which the messages are corrupted and there for un-decodable by the computor depends on the strengths of the signals and the type of signals being carried.

John and mdf are correct in saying that the chance of an activation signal being blocked by transmissions from a nearby transmitter in a nearby alarm system are small. They are not correct in saying it is so small as to be ignored.

John and mdf choose to concentrate on discussing interference only from other alarm systems. They refuse to discuss the problem of interference from other systems. They have yet to give any explanation of this refusal to discuss interference from sources other than nearby alarms of the same make.

At least one alarm manufacturer recognises this is a problem and has fitted a jamming detection system to their alarm system. This can only detect jamming. It cannot prevent it, it cannot work around it, if the system channel is jammed ( or blocked ) the activation messages will NOT be received. When jamming is detected the system goes into full alarm state. ( unless the user has dis-abled the function ). As the user is un-aware there is jamming in progress this full alarm state is often seen as a false alarm leading to reduced confidence in the system.

Going into full alarm state is a logical and sensible reaction to prolonged jamming as the jamming may be intended to dis-able the system by blocking activation signals reaching the panel or siren.

Other manufacturers have other more secure methods to try to work around the jamming ( frequency changing, activation messages repeated until acknowledged etc etc ) before going into a full alarm state. They also provide an indication that the alarm state is due to jamming and not a false alarm.

 

[mdf290]

To the lay readers

John and mdf choose to concentrate on discussing interference only from other alarm systems. They refuse to discuss the problem of interference from other systems. They have yet to give any explanation of this refusal to discuss interference from sources other than nearby alarms of the same make.
.

Nonsense. The reason we replied specifically about inteference from an identical system was because YOU SPECIFICALLY suggested it would cause a problem when in fact experience has proven otherwise.

However I am sad to report Bernard that inteference from other sources is equally NON PROBLEMATICAL.

I only have 1000 installations to back up my report unfortunately so perhaps you think I should fit a few more before I can report back on whether they work or not...

The average new house in a new estate has what devices locally?

Its own wireless router , possibly a baby monitor, a cordless phone maybe a door bell
Next door and accross the road they may have the same..possibly even a wireless alarm . .

Nothing in that scenario poses any threat to an alarm working properly when needed.
I have tried everything from car remotes to phones and baby monitors all with the express intention of trying to jam a siren and activate it and I have yet to suceed.

 

[JohnD]

Poor Bernard is getting rattled now, and sadly his internet debating style is unsatisfactory

My position has been from the start, quite simply, that a wireless alarm system such as a Yale is cheap to buy and easy for the householder to install himself in an hour or so, and that the householder can buy a better system for more money if he wishes and can afford it. Bernard has never tried to disprove these statements, probably because they are so obviously true, and they point up the key features that are important for a person buying this kind of alarm.

He started out by trying to scare the reader by vaguely suggesting that a neighbour buying a similar wireless system would stop the first one from working. We know that this was nonsense. He would not deal with the question of the probability of a burglar entering your house at the very fraction of a second that an interfering signal occurs, which is very close enough to your home, and has no walls in the way, because it is this question of probability that makes his allegation nonsense.

He is now complaining that people are responding to his silly claim and pointing out its absurdity

He is also making an untrue allegation "JohnD and mdf are concentrating on defending their favourite system"

I have no favourite system, and I am not defending one. However I do have an objection to anyone making up unsatisfactory and misleading stories, like Bernard did.

Bernard is unsatisfactoryily pretending I said that something should be ignored "They are not correct in saying it is so small as to be ignored." I did however ask him to comment on probability, which he refuses to do.

He is complaining that I commented on the absurd and unsatisfactory scare story that Bernard himself kicked off with "John and mdf choose to concentrate on discussing interference only from other alarm systems."

Bernard enjoys contemplating theoretical possibilities. My old mum's house has a Yale alarm, and a thousand times a year the Entry door is opened and kicks off the count down. Thousands of times a year the door is opened and sounds the chime. Bernard has in mind a theoretical possibility that an interfering signal might occur at the very moment that a burglar forces entry into the house. He will not discuss the probability of this happening, and he will not discuss the chance that the burglar will hope that it happens.

(edited since I do not wish to be as rude as Bernard)

 

[jonm01]

All cars now use wireless keyless locking - surely this means a wireless signalling system is secure, or how could motor manufacturers be using it? It puzzles me how it might be thought to be unsafe, particularly considering the number of cars all in close proximity,(eg in a car park) but each secured with its own wireless locking system.

 

[alumni]

All cars now use wireless keyless locking - surely this means a wireless signalling system is secure, or how could motor manufacturers be using it? It puzzles me how it might be thought to be unsafe, particularly considering the number of cars all in close proximity,(eg in a car park) but each secured with its own wireless locking system.

.

Means nothing.
VW Golfs have always been a pain for killing mobile phone connections.

 

[mdf290]

All cars now use wireless keyless locking - surely this means a wireless signalling system is secure, or how could motor manufacturers be using it? It puzzles me how it might be thought to be unsafe, particularly considering the number of cars all in close proximity,(eg in a car park) but each secured with its own wireless locking system.

.

Means nothing.
VW Golfs have always been a pain for killing mobile phone connections.

Lol. You get a watertight argument and you fob it aside with 'means nothing,

 

[bernardgreen]

All cars now use wireless keyless locking - surely this means a wireless signalling system is secure, or how could motor manufacturers be using it?.

Secure only in that a key fob can almost always only open the car it is intended to open.

But less than 100% reliable which was the reason for the RAKE committee being formed back in the 1990's

The Radio Activated Key Entry (RAKE) Committee has been established in response to the increasing number of UK motorists who are experiencing a problem with vehicles fitted with 433MHz radio controlled security systems. RAKE has been formed to try and resolve the problem. RAKE members include motoring organisations, radio users, representatives of vehicle, radio and security equipment manufacturers and representatives from UK central government departments.

The number of cars using radio key fobs to unlock doors and de-activate security systems was estimated to be more than 2 million at the end of 1996. The problem is expected to get steadily worse. The AA and RAC estimate that more than 8,800 breakdowns attended in 1996 were a result of remote key fobs being blocked by radio interference.

In 1993 a European frequency of 433.92 MHz for radio car keys was allocated by the European Radio Committee (ERC); this became European Law in 1995. The same frequency was already legally allocated to other users: the primary UK user being the Ministry of Defence, with secondary users including amateur radio operators and traffic information systems. Some private and public access mobile radio networks operate close to the 433MHz band. These stronger sources of radio transmissions can sometimes block the signal from a radio activated key.

full document here.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/ra/topics/low-power/document/rake/rake.htm

Supporting public domain reports of more recent events

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8545104.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-15306994
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...g-works-after-electrical-signal-failures.html

This problem of car key fobs and wireless linked central heating controls being put out of action by radio interefence is relevent to wireless linked alarm systems operating in the 433MHz band.

 

[alumni]

All cars now use wireless keyless locking - surely this means a wireless signalling system is secure, or how could motor manufacturers be using it? It puzzles me how it might be thought to be unsafe, particularly considering the number of cars all in close proximity,(eg in a car park) but each secured with its own wireless locking system.

.

Means nothing.
VW Golfs have always been a pain for killing mobile phone connections.

Lol. You get a watertight argument and you fob it aside with 'means nothing,

and yaleguy 3, the forums erstwhile expert on nothing claims the argument to be water tight. What a happy little world he lives in.

 

[bernardgreen]

What a happy little world he lives in.

The happy world where radio receivers are never interfered with and can always hear the messages sent to them no matter what else is happening in the area.

I am waiting for a Neighhood Watch co-ordinator to tell me the details of six months of erratic behaviour by alarms in his area. I will post them when I get them and give the experts some time to explain it before posting the actual cause of the erratic behaviour.

 

[JohnD]

It will be especially interesting if Bernard gathers sufficient experimental data to let him try to answer the question "what is the probability of an interfering signal blocking a sensor at the same fraction of a second that a burglar forces entry?"

Much more likely it will just be more fanciful speculation.

 

[bernardgreen]

It will be especially interesting if Bernard gathers sufficient experimental data to let him try to answer the question "what is the probability of an interfering signal blocking a sensor at the same fraction of a second that a burglar forces entry?"

Much more likely it will just be more fanciful speculation.

From the chat with the coordinator it is clear that several wireless linked systems were "out of order" for several hours for many days at a time over a period of more than 6 months.

If the interfering signal lasted for three minutes how many sensor activation signals could it have blocked in that three minutes ?

Be brave and attempt an answer.

Sorry but it very difficult to remain un-sarcastic when comments like

what is the probability of an interfering signal blocking a sensor at the same fraction of a second that a burglar forces entry?

are posted here immediately after news items are posted about interference being present at the same fraction of a second when a car owner tries to unlock his or her car door. It happened so often that it made the newspapers. No doubt the " explanation " will be that signals created by a burglar forcing a door are totally different to the signal from a car key fob so the blocking of key fobs has no relevance to the blocking of alarm signals. The data in the signal is different but the wireless system used is the same.

 

[JohnD]

signals created by a burglar forcing a door are totally different to the signal from a car key fob

that's a very silly idea, Bernard, why do you make up these silly ideas?

Even sillier than the idea you made up about two alarms in adjacent houses.

You refer to newspapers, I would be interested to see some reports that show evidence that a car key fob prevented a Yale alarm from starting countdown when a front door was opened. But perhaps no such reports exist and you're making it up and trying to mislead?

I note you are determined to avoid saying anything sensible about the probability of an interfering signal blocking a sensor at the same fraction of a second that a burglar forces an entry, which is the only issue of interest to a person contemplating fitting one of these alarms.

You're very silly to suggest I only asked that question when prompted. I've been asking it, and you've been avoiding it, for days.

 

[Europlex]

You make me laugh you do.

I suppose you will deny that 'hoovers' generate RF when running?

 

[JohnD]

I don't need to.

Would you care to estimate the probability of an interfering signal blocking a sensor at the same fraction of a second that a burglar forces an entry, which is the only issue of interest to a person contemplating fitting one of these alarms?