Yale hsa6200 problems

[Jacobz]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone can help or is experiencing similar issues with the Yale hsa6200 burglar alarm.

First of all before I start, I have previously installed the same model system at another house with no issues and that's nearly a year a go.

I installed the hsa6200 again at another location and at first everything was working fine. I tested the system and everything was good so I disarmed the alarm and carried on with my day, about 8 hours later the alarm goes off while the alarm has not even been activated.

So I assume it's to do with a tamper switch and check all the sensors, no problems what so ever. An hour passes and the alarm goes off again! I deactivate the alarm again and check the sensors, with no problems.

I then close the front door which knocked the sensor off slightly which In turn set the alarm off, now this is understandable.


So I assume that because the sensor wasn't screwed in it must of been slightly loose or something, so I remove the sensor completely to see if this stops the alarm going at random.

Still the problem persists! But it's not consistent, it could be once a day or five times a day.

It happened as I writing this out but this time I heard the alarm activate first! We don't have key fobs and have one keypad which no one was touching so know I can only assume someone else's alarm is interfering with mine.

Can any body shed light on this?

Thanks in advance

 

[bernardgreen]

From the User Manual supplied by Yale

This unit is equipped with the latest type of
radio receiver using AM radio technology. If the
system is armed any criminal attempt to interfere
detector transmissions will trigger an alarm.
If the alarm is frequently triggered by interference
there may be high levels of unusual radio signals
in your area. Some kinds of electronic equipment
can generate this kind of radio interference.
In the unlikely event of you experiencing problems
with interference, it is recommended that you
switch interference detection off.

Image what will happen if ""any criminal attempt to interfere
detector transmissions "" is made when you have switched off the interference detection.

Jammers that interfere and block the signals can be bought on-line. Some are sold as key fob blockers. Legal to sell but illegal to use.

 

[JohnD]

Interference and jamming are highly improbable.

More likely it is a sensor, faulty or loose or bad battery, or the tamper sensor on the siren is not firm on the wall or it is shifting in wind.

With the siren-based systems you can' t see any fault logging.

Take the batteries out of all your sensors. Does the alarm still sound? If yes take the siren off the wall and try it on the table. If not, put the batteries back in one sensor. Wait. If no alarm, put the batteries back in one more. Wait. Continue.

Don't use Duracell as they are a poor fit. Use new batteries unless you have a good battery tester. Clean battery contacts with a toothbrush and a tiny trace of WD40 rubbed off a rag onto the toothbrush.

Get someone to operate the keypad while you watch the siren and see if the LEDs confirm set and unset.

You can reset the siren and learn the sensors and keypad back in if you want, though I doubt it will be necessary.

While you are fault-finding and getting false alarms, set the siren to one second sounding to annoy the neighbours less.

 

[bernardgreen]

Interference and jamming are highly improbable.

Sales of equipment intended to block communications on the 433 MHz band are increasing. What use are they being put to ? Is there a legal use for them in the UK ?

More likely it is a sensor, faulty or loose or bad battery, or the tamper sensor on the siren is not firm on the wall or it is shifting in wind.

Doesn't the siren give any indication as to what the problem is ? It could for example have been designed to give different patterns of bleeps for different faults.

 

[JohnD]

I have never seen a case of jamming or interference on a Yale alarm, and I have never spoken to anyone who has. Have you?

However it is quite common for people to fit sensors or sirens badly.

Hence one possibility is highly improbable and another is highly likely.

I have seen Yale alarms working fine in houses with wireless baby monitors, wireless doorbells, wireless car keyfobs, wireless routers etc. I have seen a keypad signal blocked when steel scaffolding was erected around it, and I have spoken to people who put the alarm too close to a wireless router.

All the Yale alarms except the very cheapest and simplest have a fault log.

 

[bernardgreen]

I have never seen a case of jamming or interference on a Yale alarm, and I have never spoken to anyone who has. Have you?

Yes, and not just on Yale alarms.

Since Yale openly admit that false alarms from interference are possible one has to accept it is a recognised problem. Their advice to turn of interference detection plays in to hands of the criminals.

I have seen Yale alarms working fine in houses with wireless baby monitors, wireless doorbells, wireless car keyfobs, wireless routers etc.

With or without jamming detection enabled. ? You saw them in "peaceful" conditions. Did you see them when being attacked ? ( real or during testing )

I have seen a keypad signal blocked when steel scaffolding was erected around it, and I have spoken to people who put the alarm too close to a wireless router.

That just proves how weak and borderline the wireless communications are in the system

 

[JohnD]

You may not have noticed "If the system is armed..." in the text you pasted

and

... I disarmed the alarm and carried on with my day, about 8 hours later the alarm goes off while the alarm has not even been activated.

as for

Since Yale openly admit that false alarms from interference are possible one has to accept it is a recognised problem.

I'm sure you would moan even more if they didn't mention the possibility.

It would be very interesting to know if there has ever been a case of an ordinary domestic house in an ordinary residential street being successfully burgled as a result of interference.

It is very obvious that you have jumped onto this Yale thread with the sole intention of winding up your anti-Yale barrel organ.

For the householder who can do an hour's simple DIY and is able and willing to spend a very modest amount, budget alarms have their place.

 

[Europlex]

For the householder who can do an hour's simple DIY and is able and willing to spend a very modest amount, budget alarms have their place.

....... and buy cheap, pay twice

My two pence worth.

Bit of an overspend I know, but there ya go

 

[bernardgreen]

I'm sure you would moan even more if they didn't mention the possibility.

A few standards agencies would comment if there was no mention of the system being affected by interference from other equipment.

It is very obvious that you have jumped onto this Yale thread with the sole intention of winding up your anti-Yale barrel organ.

It is NOT an anti Yale barrel. What I have objections to is ALL makes of alarm that rely on one way wireless communications being sold to the public as reliable alarm systems.

a very modest amount, budget alarms have their place.

Yes, in the electrical goods re-cycling bins.

 

[bernardgreen]

It would be very interesting to know if there has ever been a case of an ordinary domestic house in an ordinary residential street being successfully burgled as a result of interference.

I had to confirm the details before replying.

Burglars broke into a house and removed several small high value items. The alarm did not sound but they were seen on the CCTV of the house next door. A clue to the reason why that alarm did not operate is that while the burglars were in the property the alarm of a house across the road started to sound. No signs of entry at that house.

Both alarms involved were using one way wireless communication.

 

[JohnD]

And what makes you think that was due to interference?

 

[bernardgreen]

The log of another alarm system that detected prolonged and continuous use of the wireless channel from shortly before the burglars entered the building ( as recorded on CCTV ) until they were seen to leave the area.

 

[JohnD]

Thats interesting. So well-prepared burglars, high-value items, alarms sounding, CCTV working, and they only had an £80 alarm. Why do you think jamming detection worked in the adjacent house and not in the burgled house?

 

[bernardgreen]

The CCTV was on a nearby house.

I assume the low cost alarm had its jamming detection turned off and the one that did sound still had its jamming detection enabled.

I did wonder if there had been a series of false alarms that prompted disabling of the jamming detection but that is not mentioned in the report.

Since the burglars were identified and arrested before they had sold the items no further investigation was made ( at least there is no mention of there being further investigations )

 

[JohnD]

interesting that there is now a suspected (but not proved) case of jamming, with an assumed (but not known) switched-off detection.