Yale premium 6400

[mdf290]

But these are NOT mobile

so why use wireless ?

and my 4 years working with these EXACT systems probably trumps your experience of them specifically.

You have admitted that there are some aspects of the system that you do not fully understand. ( as mdf290 and yaleguy ).

No matter how much experience you have of this system or any other system the facts are that the regulations for licence exempt short range radio devices and the need for long battery life DO compromise the functionality of ALL wireless linked systems compared to hard wired systems.

So shall we pass on your repetative trolling?

if you were more publically open to the dis-advantages of the one way wireless systems you advocate there would be no need to point out the dis-advantages you ignore to people who have or are contemplating installing such a system.

Bernard if anyone of my installations over the last 4 years had proved to be problematical due to inteference then I would agree with you. As it is with careful installation you can work round any problems.

The reason people like wireless is because its fitted without disrupting the home or decor. Very few people I visit actually have a carpet to hide wires under.

If this thread was about a system with obvious wireless related problems then fine join in but no instead you join every Yale thread even if the problems are not related to the system being wireless just to suggest that the systems could fail and yet without any proof other than one story which could have been foreseen if the owners had any common sense or asked the right questions.

In reality the only wireless issues I have come accross are just local ones like proximity to a router or wireless phone base station or metalwork within PVC doors.

You admit you had to solve problems with MOBILE systems but you don't then acknowledge that if you set up a static system and it works correctly then it is likely to do so for the forseable future unless either the system is not maintained or there is a change of physical circumstances.

in short - you are trolling.

edited to add - you don't actually suggest any remedies for people like moving the sensor to a different location etc instead you just harp on in the usual 'should have gone to specsavers' mode making a generalisation about the systems POTENTIAL weakness even if there has been no suggestion of an occurance in the post (as in this one).

Do you habit a load of other forums too?
Perhaps you troll the Mini Forums telling people they should have bought a real BMW or the Blackberry forums telling people they should have bought an Iphone.

These systems ARE NOT CRITICAL!! worse case scenario is that someone ends up claiming on their insurance for a new iphone or laptop and perhaps a replacement door lock. They are systems to give some protection and peace of mind to homeowners.

NO alarm no matter how sophisticated will prevent a break in.
All alarms can do is notify neigbours in the hope that someone sees something that may be useful in catching a thief. The criminals in most cases are gone long before even the police turn up.

In short any alarm Yale ADT or otherwise tells would be burglars that the property has an alarm.

After that it is then the decision of the burglar to decide whether to try somewhere else or not.

In 84% of cases they do.

Thankyou.

 

[bernardgreen]

We always get a few manic posters on Yale threads, filled with bile and unreasoning hostility.

They tend to talk a lot of nonsense, like maybe one day there will be an interfering signal that prevents you alarm picking up a sensor,

That is why I came into this thread.

In reply to your edit.

If the siren starts to report jamming / blocking in a working system then moving a sensor is unikely to "cure" the problem. Evem if it does the new position may not be the best for detection of intruders.

Yes I am on a couple of forums. Two are closed forums for professionals working in or retired from wireless communication business. These forums, being closed can discuss the failings of various equipment that uses licence exempt short range radio devices. Both in general and from time to time about specific cases where a system failed to function and action has been taken against the supplier / installer / systems integrator who did not point out the potential for failure when using a licence exempt frequency.

I would suggest that alarms that are set when people are asleep in the house and/or include panic alarms to protect people from attack are critical alarms.

 

[securit]

Actually my control box is within 3 feet of my router AND charging station of my wireless phone, so I think Yale have gone to town on this as with so many signals crossing over each other I have had no problem so far, these cheap foreign imported wireless systems don't help, as with problems of false alarms etc they give people the wrong impression of a wireless system, so they are all tarred with the same brush, I am not knocking wired systems, but I do think wireless is the way forward, plus the bonus of a being able to add so many optional extras with ease is a big plus over wired, no system is 100%
Proof no matter if it cost thousands, wired or wireless, what man can make, man can break.

 

[markyb71]

Im afraid Yale is what I've got and is what's going to get fitted.

Thanks for the constructive posts above... Suspect I've wandered into a long standing and obviously heated debate here.

I'm going with the assumption that the something that I can afford is better than the nothing I can't.... If you see what I mean.

Thanks anyway chaps....

 

[securit]

Go for it marky, you won't be sorry, I admit I was dubious on the wireless systems, but this is my third, which I have just fitted as I moved house, it works as it should and a deterrent, as hopefully burgler bill will see my box n go next door where they have no alarm, it really is easy to fit, but any problems just come back as this forum is full of help.

 

[mdf290]

We always get a few manic posters on Yale threads, filled with bile and unreasoning hostility.

They tend to talk a lot of nonsense, like maybe one day there will be an interfering signal that prevents you alarm picking up a sensor,

That is why I came into this thread.

In reply to your edit.

If the siren starts to report jamming / blocking in a working system then moving a sensor is unikely to "cure" the problem. Evem if it does the new position may not be the best for detection of intruders.

.

But the systems in this thread or even on countless other threads are not reporting jamming????


So why keep on dragging it up?

A detector moved around a room will still pick up and intruder no matter where it is placed as with a 12m range and a 110 degree splay no matter where you put a pir in a room it will see movement.

 

[Europlex]

.....................
And lastly... Anyone know if I can squeeze the innards of a Yale bell box into a dummy ADT box ???

Too embarrassed to fit the Yale then. Love it.

As I said.

 

[mdf290]

.....................
And lastly... Anyone know if I can squeeze the innards of a Yale bell box into a dummy ADT box ???

Too embarrassed to fit the Yale then. Love it.

As I said.

Sorry?

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews130102.html

 

[bernardgreen]

But the systems in this thread or even on countless other threads are not reporting jamming????

The manufacturers consider it is necessary to fit jamming detection and then suggest dis-abling it if "radio interference" causes too many false alarms.

 

[mdf290]

But the systems in this thread or even on countless other threads are not reporting jamming????

The manufacturers consider it is necessary to fit jamming detection and then suggest dis-abling it if "radio interference" causes too many false alarms.

indeed they do and dependent on circumstances it would be the right thing to do.

For example a local signal that transmits beyond the algorithm set to detect jamming could cause false alarms. However turning off the jamming detection does not stop the alarm functioning as an intruder alarm

The signals from your sensors will still activate the alarm as designed.
A jamming signal unless it is particularly strong will not hide the sensors signals being sent from the allied sensors.

You are the one who keeps making remarks but at the same time hides the truth Bernard.

Yet again you harp on and troll about the jamming issue as if it totally discredits the wireless system and yet again you provide no proof other than a theoretical failure.

 

[bernardgreen]

So you do admit that a strong jamming signal can knock out a wireless connected alarm siren. Now perhaps you will learn about relative signal strengths between required ( sensor ) signal and unwanted jamming signals. Take account of the inverse square law ( double distance = one quarter the received signal ) Then learn about signal to noise ( or jamming ) ratios and obtain the signal to noise ratio for the siren and panel receivers ( listed as SNR ) .

Then come back and make INFORMED statements about jamming signals and how they affect wireless connected equipment. You may be right. but I doubt it.

 

[JohnD]

I wonder if Bernard has ever seen a Yale alarm, installed in an ordinary domestic house in an ordinary residential street, fail to work due to RF interference at the very moment that a burglar breaks in.

I think not.

Just fanciful postulating about theoretical possibilities, and he takes care to evade calls for an estimate of probability.

And he talks about "INFORMED statements"

 

[mdf290]

So you do admit that a strong jamming signal can knock out a wireless connected alarm siren. Now perhaps you will learn about relative signal strengths between required ( sensor ) signal and unwanted jamming signals. Take account of the inverse square law ( double distance = one quarter the received signal ) Then learn about signal to noise ( or jamming ) ratios and obtain the signal to noise ratio for the siren and panel receivers ( listed as SNR ) .

Then come back and make INFORMED statements about jamming signals and how they affect wireless connected equipment. You may be right. but I doubt it.

Ok lets tackle the inverse square law to start with then shall we.

Lets look at the typical installation I would provide.

The vast majority of new installations are to new homes where people have just moved in.

The reasoning being that old homes either already have an alarm installed or they don't have one and unless a neighbour is burgled there is nothing to spur them to change that decision.

So I would typically arrive at a newly built home in an estate environment.
Planning being what it is the estate will be residential with a mix of full price and affordable accomodation. Utilities and services will not be on site and neither will indutrial or light industrial premises. Most homes will have within a 100 metre radius of themselves either other new homes or existing homes , open space or roads.

This is the makeup of the typical housing estate.

The homes will be constructed of a 4 inch block wall with a 4 inch brick or concrete (stone effect ) skin. Interior walls will be stud partiton with 4inch studs and two layers of fireproof plasterboard. The walls will be drylined with batons and plasterboard facing.

This environment is extremely wireless alarm friendly with the only structural impediment being an metalwork within pvc doors and windows and metalwork either as plasterwork formers on corners or conduit covering electrical wires.

It is absolutely possible to install a Yale alarm to work perfectly in this environment without any issues wahtsoever.

Now back to the inverse square law mentioned.

The control panel being internally mounted means that the only obstacle to signals takes the form of the internal stud partition walling on the ground floor and the floor ceiling void to sensors on the second floor. The floor construction typically being from underneath plasterboard then 18mm chipboard covered with a 21mm laminate flooring. This again presents no problem to the passage of signals between the sensors to the alarm.

Lets take the case of the sensor which protects the most valuables ie the Lounge with your flat screen TV and scattered valuables , laptops , phones , etc etc and lets assume the control panel is in the hallway.

The lounge sensor would typically go in the corner nearest the entrance door so that the splay from the fresnel lens will detect movement coming in through the patio door and into the room.

This would make the sensor typically around 3-4 metres from the panel with just a stud partition wall to pass through.


Now lets discuss someone attempting to Jam the alarm.
Firstly they would be outside the home so that means instantly the jamming signal has to pass through a 9inch block/brick wall with cavity insulation. This would mean in reality that to present a signal at the same strength as the internal sensor it would already have to be twice as strong if only 3 metres away from the control panel.

If we then look at the inverse square law then someone on the street say 9 metres from the house with a jamming device is now 12 metres from the panel and the signal they needed to be equal at 3 metres from the panel already had to be twice that in strength compared to the internal sensor.

To make the maths simple lets assume that the jamming device is the same power as the sensor.

So already outside the house having to go through the wall the signal strength is halved even though both devices are 3 metres from the panel.

Now at 6 metres from the panel we have doubled the distance and a signal that was only half the relative strength of the internal sensor now is only operating at 1/8th of the internal sensor. (half signal quartered)

So if we move again to 12 metres the signal now becomes a quarter of the signal at 6 metres therefore only 1/32 of the power of the internal sensor.


What this tells us is that you can jam an alarm which will set off the anti jamming in the siren but in order for any burglary attempts to be successful the power of your transmitter would need to be greater than 32 times more powerful than the internal sensors power output to prevent the alarm being activated when attempting a break in.