just wondered why jamming detection is off by default for a yale wireless alarm, isnt this something that is required for a wireless system? or is it such a small risk that it isnt worth the extra false alarms?
If jamming wasn't a problem then Yale would not fit jamming detection and then recommend dis-abling it if it gave rise to too many false alarms.
Oh dear, I can't stop laughing, good old Yale admitting their equipment suffers from "jamming", poor things.i asked yale why this is the preffered setting. They said because jamming isnt a problem right now but may be in the future but turning it on may give a rise in false alarms because of interference.
Opinions differ but the facts don't, Never under estimate the crack head's ability.Opinions differ on whether a casual kid crack-head burglar will go to the trouble and complexity of buying and learning to use a jammer
Very sensible adviceIf you are in a house that is likely to attract competent and well-equipped professionals, you should consider a more expensive alarm.
I am not sneering. I am merely pointing out that given the restrictions that apply to the use of licence exempt frequencies and the need to get a reasonable life out of a set of batteries a wireless alarm has to be a compromise between function and cost. The major problem is that the system has to work in a satisfactory way on a wireless channel that is used for many other legal purposes and an increasing number of illegal uses.You will find a few people on here that like to sneer at inexpensive DIY alarms.
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