Magnetic gate lock from Texecom PSU200XP

Joined
12 Feb 2021
Messages
114
Reaction score
6
Country
United Kingdom
Hi all,

I have a Premier Elite 48 + PSU200XP expansion. I would like to add a magnetic gate lock (the smaller of the two versions) to the expansion so that I can secure a side gate when one of the alarm areas is set.

According to the PSU200XP docs, the 12v output is protected by a 1.6A fuse and fed from a 2A power supply (which also has to run the expander and attached peripherals). In my case, I have a few door sensors, a couple of Pyronix PIRs (30mA each) and an M12 smoke detector (14mA). There is no bell box on the expander.

I have a few options on how to wire this, from installing a dedicated 12v PSU and using a bespoke control system run from Home Assistant (my home automation hub) which gives me more or less unlimited control over it, but in fact a much simpler approach would be to wire it directly to the PSU200XP expansion 12v output, via a relay switched from one of the 100mA outputs. The 12v magnetic door lock draws 500mA when actuated, so there should be ample spare capacity on the PSU200XP power supply. The magnetic door switch even has a built-in reed switch, so as a bonus I could connect this to the expander on a spare input, allowing me to include the gate in the outbuildings alarm.

I appreciate that this is a bit out of the normal run for alarm installs, but I would be very interested in opinions on the best way to do it, either in the Texecom alarm, or outside.
 
Sponsored Links
1. Back EMF from the lock might upset the alarm.
2. You don't want a fault in the lock (or its cabling) to take out the alarm's psu.
3. It's good practice to keep the alarm and its power supples separate from other things - use an alarm output to trigger a relay to operate the lock and a zone/input to monitor the psu (if you want).
 
Sponsored Links
Thanks all.

To explain my slight reticence here - adding the magnetic lock to the existing system would only cost me about £50 for the lock as well as some cable, relays and bits that I already have knocking about. If, on the other hand, I need a separate PSU, it potentially gets a bit more tricky, with a need for an additional fused spur and a new enclosure to put it in - on top of the above. I guess I *could* stick a separate PSU in the PSU200XP case (there's load of room in there to do it and it would only have to be a small one), using the existing fused-spur that runs the alarm, but I'd need to have a look to see how much space is in there and make some consideration about cooling as the standard enclosure has no ventilation.
 
Short term you can try it and see how you get on

PSU200 and you could use resistors to monitor its status.

Don't know your exact setup so can't say what you may be able to move around.

But space seems to be the main concern, as a PSU 200 or other PSU isn't mega bucks?
 
Short term you can try it and see how you get on

PSU200 and you could use resistors to monitor its status.

Don't know your exact setup so can't say what you may be able to move around.

But space seems to be the main concern, as a PSU 200 or other PSU isn't mega bucks?

I'll be honest - I was mostly being lazy :)

I've ordered a power supply and will do it the correct way. Thanks for the advice as always!
 
All installed and working. In the end, I decided against using a dedicated PSU and went with my original plan of running it directly from the expander PSU (after all, this was one of the reasons I went for an expander-with-PSU in the first place, rather than using an un-powered expansion module). No problems so far, and working nicely on an output set to enable when one of my areas is part armed:

DPoLqlRCpKjVrn8FlLfIhcX4FWv4ssG6Cx-YEJNnTeDF7IR8gqwBshEz8e5ZIo9PF9yXzeSYehlntKqxgJhky78HuTFGhnf2PX4E7DI_CVizCjY7hzYFiYCNXQr-ZELNbYCojcBPK5Uh-0andrQLXrlUgrSi1YlisX3Bp1ffoVd4SmS21BL1iFLfRHjR8ag0jYmBzF92Rru75KUbTVvzlWSuUYcNmj7n0jjEDUILyWLtKqcXGK5daepUd4GnfrK7vHzLl3MQ5hNukgF-Gy0zjMBSMVrGP8V50l2nYHowWTHx0JteQNXdQwuf2zKC7nFgbDBvl5KB43SfpQoqrX0kqRrH3ecYwgaTmeowcq8XM7HU3VI5_qJd7nd_FU3r0I8eKFhvie99DKxhDHKcbisoCRFTJO5Xkwc3xYm-AeSf_97U2pp8gF8zx9o_PMX5Vkz9CFv4tqA9ooVaIlViYGiRzCRQKNms_QE54Z5B1bw-uTx2buUJUkxoh5qrEf-UI_mrRviZvP9krhUQ9eKNr-i5_TDYVA4VE5_-fxiayGuxBtsuPKPcbcngZqwE6r0on_qoVXv1I0rqK4ROBs09Z85_LPldSp9e0iPGPaZO-1MwoeZhHnhixc6sP1y7p0AdeKLcIvNVn4PrvyBlOsuw8dVmzaBy0ar2pd46kd-yEMFzt0lE87uXyIRWzys7C2KR3oAHIDp-kqjVGYP9rCmvqIYB-lRM=w984-h1311-no


qO4UEVRatWrnEconW2C8uf4OBD7duPVu_5Hy2XOqSm3DXK2drOrxuvUKB7E4KnY-5x7NX41u2TqKCYiVokmXBXVgjDnoCA2E0OqRbpEiJSCZ28AA1YHAxIifnl5YBOEFN3iC6cAAKtMoluLcSXlkrfsXeF0aEk8wXYV6qbC45mgkPfOfLp0ayhWWpE4usS3LcwFAw_zm4dB3g_638FOycy5X-shYZZZjgzqkdaFUx8ygXvlq3o5JFAFX-DyR2N5VZKn9p2J_T015FOQoVlxw96iKKAff5avh12azzOfgs_2Kp-t-z4LpF7riuApDp2C0ExVWzGS_S4PEdlGab61LkDfccceQ4IbXeQj5wLmgshmoS9zBrlR73CUfphEQFRA9jQioylTdb9Ry0iePKsACV4ch_OFNdZHOe5oKFlRKWQ5recDhrFoRrC-MbOAhEp-fnk1l5JVTbdJot9EaltCLml1Pjf97evs9LGnrcGZhfOIajrDNKSrcs8hrvZJLMgauYdemb8gsLhvK-gbLEsAQdXZU8V_HDynM4W8mo1Wj2deMk8Lf1tb97jFDjzsqWQmt2GpEDcUvquS6X8xeCmJ_IQG2sEJQCoyoC9ETrfPAbKbQ2olNzEkWV-iQw7J0zxz2oHZ_MVKxWQ6ls5Qccv2lDuGWKKJmeaNcJ67eoAL-FFrTewCVzJrDg-2Y1E2_Jtg_7TLbhLYeIvlYDDWr-pMeYT_L=w1374-h1031-no


One question I do have, though:

The magnetic lock has a reed switch built-in which reports whether or not the door is secured or not. I'd like to use this as a dedicated zone to monitor for someone forcing the gate lock, but the reed switch only actually reports "closed" when the gate lock is energised, not when it is unlocked. This means that using such a zone as part of a program is problematic as it will report "open" until the gate is locked and as the gate lock is only energised when the alarm is set, the system would never arm.

Is there a way to allow it to ignore a zone for a number of seconds after the alarm is set, or perhaps ignore it altogether until it starts to report "secure", even if this does not happen during the exit timer? Alternatively, is there any way for an output to fire when the system is in exit *and* remain on after the system is armed?
 
force omit will; ignore a zone that's active until its been secured
Thanks for this. Reading the docs suggests that this will actually omit the zone if it's not secure when the alarm arms, so I don't think this will do what I need.

What I think I might do is common two (active low) outputs together, which should allow me to say "output active if in exit OR armed) so the mag lock will secure while the alarm is settling in exit mode. This should sort it. Might have a look at custom output to see if I can do this in software too...
 
Last edited:
Force Omit allows the system to arm when the zone is active ie it ignores it.
It comes back into play when secure, it is not permanently omitted unless the zone is open before and after the system is set and remains so until system is unset.

Is there a way to allow it to ignore a zone for a number of seconds after the alarm is set, or perhaps ignore it altogether until it starts to report "secure", even if this does not happen during the exit timer? Alternatively, is there any way for an output to fire when the system is in exit *and* remain on after the system is armed?

For example those that used wireless DT on the exit route had issues at times with arm failure because the IR part was activated and the microwave woke up during setting. SO to ensure the system would set the choices were to replace with a wireless QD, get it to ignore the sensor by one means or another. the easiest way to bring the sensor back into play was to use force omit, bringing the sensor back into play after the sleep period of the IR had expired., or you could increase the settle time, doing that means the premises werent armed for longer.


This exactly what force omit does, but you know what your trying to achieve.

If that is not what you want the question is what do you want and at what point do you need it behave in what way, from unset to set.
 
Force Omit allows the system to arm when the zone is active ie it ignores it.
It comes back into play when secure, it is not permanently omitted unless the zone is open before and after the system is set and remains so until system is unset.



For example those that used wireless DT on the exit route had issues at times with arm failure because the IR part was activated and the microwave woke up during setting. SO to ensure the system would set the choices were to replace with a wireless QD, get it to ignore the sensor by one means or another. the easiest way to bring the sensor back into play was to use force omit, bringing the sensor back into play after the sleep period of the IR had expired., or you could increase the settle time, doing that means the premises werent armed for longer.


This exactly what force omit does, but you know what your trying to achieve.

If that is not what you want the question is what do you want and at what point do you need it behave in what way, from unset to set.

This does make sense - the documentation doesn't make it clear that the when using Force Omit that the zone only remains omitted until it's secure, at which point it becomes a guard zone again. What I'm trying to achieve is something like this:

upload_2022-1-17_14-11-16.png


As you can see, the gate zone will never report secure until after the gate lock is enabled, which will always be after the alarm is set. I could do something clever to enable the gate lock earlier (e.g. during exit) so that the gate zone has chance to become secure before the alarm is set, but I need to think about what's actually possible with Texecom outputs as this would need the gate alarm to be enabled under both exit *and* alarm set conditions, which I don't think it will do by default (unless I start playing with custom outputs, or physical wiring - both of which remain an option).

I don't think that settle time will help me here as this just extends the period before the alarm is set and thus the gate lock enabled.
 
so a custom, output that fires when the system is in exit or set should keep the gate locked
(energised) if it isn't then the contact remains open until the gate is shut.

The problem with force omit is you would never know if the gate was actually closed/locked.

so custom output 1a programmed on an actual output for the condition 1 exit, 2 armed and which area is armed.

without testing its hard to say if it would also work in part arm, however you have to test the conditions and select the correct option whithout testing on your panel and firmware version i cant predict how it would actually perform
 
Thanks, very useful. Will have a play later this week when the rest of the family are out and I can play with full sets without annoying anyone. For now, I just have the output working and can at least monitor the gate status through the appropriate zone (even if it plays no part in the alarm):

upload_2022-1-17_15-16-50.png


upload_2022-1-17_15-17-18.png


(in this case, "locked" meaning "energised and closed" based on the status of the reed switch)
 
just turn the bell and internal sounders off for the area your testing then dont need to worry but to be fair wont make much of a noise unless activating a guard zone when system set or delay bell for 5 minutes
 

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

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top