Yale HSA 6400 Home Omit problem

[JohnD]

Ah.

The 6400 has a "walk test" option on the panel which makes it bleep and display the sensors as they trigger. In a large house, you can take the panel off the wall and carry it around with you as you learn-in the sensors, the panel will run on the standby battery for about 8 hours. I find it helpful to pencil the device numbers on the cases of the sensors or a post-it during learning-in to make it quicker to check which ones have reported.

The 6000 range sensors also have a little black test button to make them send a signal; this verifies that they are being received by the panel, but you still need to walk test to make sure it can see you, and you need to walk-test with the panel in its final position just in case there should be an obstruction like a metal or electronic item interfering with the signal path. .

 

[bernardgreen]

Carrying the panel around as you do the walk test of the system.

Leaves me speechless ! ! !

OK you did also say

you need to walk-test with the panel in its final position just in case there should be an obstruction like a metal or electronic item interfering with the signal path.

which is essential with any radio linked system. A proper test that a communication link is reliable is to reduce either the power of the transmitter or the sensitivity of the receiver for the test and then restore to normal when the system is operational.

Do not forget that a human body also interferes with radio signals.

 

[JohnD]

Carrying the panel around as you do the walk test

In a large house, you can take the panel off the wall and carry it around with you as you learn-in the sensors.

The panel bleeps and confirms as you learn-in each sensor. In a large house carrying it round saves you having to run back and forth.

Possibly this is an idea you have not come across before.

No need for you to be speechless.

 

[skyboy]

Bernard is correct in this case John..

You can't do a final walk test carrying the panel with you. You can however learn in the devices carrying the panel if you wish however

I learn in all the devices and the panel sat usually on the floor. You can then put the pir sensors face down on the carpet and test each one in turn. I do as you do and Mark a number on each sensor using a carpenters pencil which corresponds to a list I have written of the sensors and their status ie Burglar - entry - omit etc

For the final walk test however the panel must be in the place it will be when operating.
You then test the signal in walk test mode from where the sensor will be when installed. I usually get the homeowner or the person who is with me during the installation to stand by the panel if the distance is some way ie an upstairs bedroom etc and then I get them to tell me how many beeps they can hear at the panel as I press the learn button two or three times.

My hearing does not pick up the panel beep that well as I have tinitus from too much heavy rock as a teen.

After you have walk tested all the devices the final check after all the devices are in place will be a check at the control panel to ensure no fault light or log shows that any of the devices have dropped out of the system and then you do an arm test and a mock intruder by entering the home through a protected zone.. this allows you to demonstrate the system does what it should and also allows you to demonstrate to the homeowner how to reset the panel.

 

[denso13]

You can however learn in the devices carrying the panel if you wish however

That is what John said, surely?

In a large house, you can take the panel off the wall and carry it around with you as you learn-in the sensors.

 

[JohnD]

It was Bernard who introduced the idea of walk test carrying the panel.



I suppose in this particular case it might be worth trying as it could tell you if it was a settings problem (passes walk test but not Alarm test) or a communications problem (works next to it but not at a distance)

 

[AssociatedAlarms]

Ah.

The 6400 has a "walk test" option on the panel which makes it bleep and display the sensors as they trigger. In a large house, you can take the panel off the wall and carry it around with you as you learn-in the sensors, .

Actually it WAS you who said removing the panel from the wall. Read up.

As for the final commissioning aforementioned you test every device in a FULL SET situation. Not as suggested walk test and them do a setting with one device.

One main reason we do it is because it is the correct way. Also for false alarm filtering we need to get certain signals sent and that requires two or more detectors triggered if required. ( could be a large grouped/Area/Warded system)
We take this method of testing to bells only systems too. Its a recognised method that WORKS. Why would we fit to a different standard just because there is no communicator?

Now if I have misread the others post then mine is unnecessary if not then it was needed to clarify the correct testing sequence.

This is especially needed for wireless Panic Alarms whether they are wrist bands/pendants or pager types. We have to define an area where we can guarantee they work and that is put in writing.
Personally they are a risk as many will walk out of the detection area without thinking.

But back to the point John D pointed out testing with panel in hand. At least Skyboy said this was incorrect and NOT the way to do things, as he rightly pointed out how can you be sure the panel will actually hear the devices????

 

[JohnD]

Actually it WAS you who said removing the panel from the wall. Read up.

John D pointed out testing with panel in hand.

Do please try to be more careful. Read it again. I said that is a convenient way to "learn in" the devices if you are in a large house, to save you running back and forth to the panel, and I went on to describe testing with the devices and panel in place to identify any further problems due to poor communication resulant from their positions.

Here you are, read it again

In a large house, you can take the panel off the wall and carry it around with you as you learn-in the sensors.

you need to walk-test with the panel in its final position just in case there should be an obstruction like a metal or electronic item interfering with the signal path.

I fear your imagination is causing you to read things that aren't there.


You appear to have an obsessive hatred of DIYers who install Yale alarms, so you you might be happier if you kept away from them.

 

[denso13]

But back to the point John D pointed out testing with panel in hand.

Lying is a trait of yours, isn't it?

 

[AssociatedAlarms]

I love the way some twist and turn here, who have no idea about alarms. But join in to make "points" or thanks. Personally good advice is all that is needed keep the thanks.

Denso`s comment makes it all the funnier, as he knows nothing. Just joins in for a degrading comment. Always the same with those with no answers or knowledge.


As for

You appear to have an obsessive hatred of DIYers who install Yale alarms, so you you might be happier if you kept away from them.

You cannot be farther from the truth, they have a place, NOT the ones you and others seem to have. Nor make out.
Time and time again the issues here are "It cannot" or does not.
Where even cheaper wired or slightly more expensive can and does.

That is all.
I do not call people names, especially ones that could lead to court action. I say how something works or does not, and if it fit for the purpose needed.
If people asked the right questions before bying items then the correct and indeed possibly Yale could be included in the answers.

I cannot be more honest than this now can I?

 

[skyboy]

Honest?? no comment.

 

[skyboy]

It's really simple Yale are suitable for low risk domestic properties where the user is not required by the insurance company to install a grade 2 system
That is a huge market in fact its the same market as all the people who do not even fit an alarm at all.
Probably 35-40% of the population.

I installed last week to someone who had heard of me because I had installed to a friend of his and also to that friends two childrens homes

They had come to me because they had a quote by a company for a bells only wireless system that had come to £2000!! Ok so the kit would have cost around £400 from his supplier as there was 5 x pir - 3 x door contacts a remote keypad and an extra siren but at the end of the day it would have done no more than a Yale ie set off the alarm if someone intrudes... I saved them £1500.

I don,t know whether it was the law of diminishing returns forcing the other installer to be greedy or the recession meaning he still had 5 vans sat around not busy but tbh who needs to worry about burglars when that company were going to ROB them of at least a £1000 overcharge.

 

[JohnD]

Do please try to be more careful. Read it again.

I wonder if he did? No mention of it in his reply.

Probably prefers not to.

 

[bernardgreen]

When you saved the couple £ 1500 did your service include an RF monitoring of the location prior to the installation to identify any existing wireless equipment in the area that could be a source of blocking to the system you were about to install. Some will know that paying extra for a survey means they will not have an un-reliable wireless system installed. It may mean that they have to use a wired system or a wireless system that can work in spite of persistant blocking. Without a survey they could end up with a £ 500 system that either fails or produces numerous false alarms as a result of persistant blocking. What do you tell the customer about these false alarms ? To the customer they are false as there was no intruder. To you they are genuine warnings of the system being compromised.

If you ever did do a survey and then found there was a potential problem with blocking what would you do or what advice would you give to your client ?

 

[skyboy]

Bernard oh Bernard...

The wireless in their local area consisted of their wireless router and their cordless phone...

The router was in another room and the Panel was placed in the Hallway.
They had a cordless phone but this was not creating any local inteference.
All the devices were checked for transmission to the panel.

These false alarms you continually refer to - sorry they didn't have any and haven't had any since in their domestic street environment. I do not actually expect any which would be in line my personal experience.

As always Bernard I ask them to let me know if they have any problems - which of course they would do anyway as a matter of course. Not only that every one is reminded that I have a full money back guarantee if they are not happy with their systems....

I have not had to refund a single client ever...

Please lets not just keep picking as always on one system. I have seen some pro systems that were definately of the bung it in and take the money variety.

The owner in this case wanted a wireless system so how would the other system which would have cost £2000 have behaved in the same inteference scenario you have painted?
The truth is that in a vacated home with the alarm set if there had been any inteference or blocking they would have both behaved in exactly the same way and would have activated.
Since the 6400 has a log which tells you what activations have occured then by simple deduction of the non rocket science variety an activation where non of the enrolled sensors had shown as being the instigator of the alarm would point instantly to the cause being inteference or blocking.
In the £2000 system you would have a list logging any sensors affected by RF inteference but that is all.
The £2000 system cannot prevent inteference Bernard can it so according to your logic they would have been doubly stupid to pay 4 x the amount for a pro system.


Can I just direct you to a quote by the another poster who had the temerity to ask about a Yale alarm problem ....

My main problem however is the amount of so-called 'pro's' who want to stick their two-pence worth in and either slag off the item the OP has, saying "buy a real one" or "move house" WF planet are they on? Do you really think people come on here to look at crass comments, or to find a solution to their problems.
Again, a big thanks to all the genuine folk who reply with constructive and useful posts