Alarm Stays On

Page 2 of 2  


The problem did not begin with a new sensor. It began with the old one and continued when the sensor was replaced.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I am thinking I activated the Dual Tec then went outside to wait for the alarm to stop. It is possible that the DT kept reactivating (like its predecessor did) due to something that it actually sensed. I think I need to keep my eye on the LEDs during the initial alarm condition. Are you familiar with these combo PIR/microwave units. Anything you can think of that might cause repeated activations? Something in the house wiring, or outside the house or a reflection? The unit sits on a running refrigerator next to a microwave oven. The oven is off but plugged in. If this sounds suspicious, bear in mind that this never happened before since these were installed. the location was never changed. I'll unplug both the fridge and the microwave and try again, while watching the LEDs. Any PIRs that you like, minus the microwave?
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:33:38 -0500, G. Morgan

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
frank1492 wrote:

Remember, microwaves will penetrate walls. If the sensor's PIR part is near a vent it may be the combination of heat change + something moving that the microwave (radar basically) detects. Any floating Mylar balloons, any moving apparatus at all in the detection area?
Have you tried to adjust the pulse count on the detector? Have you tried turning the trim-pot down on the microwave field that is emitted? Have you read the cut-sheet inside and out and understand how a dual-tech works?

Sure, but a dual-tech is nice for f/a reduction.
Do you have pets that may be setting it off?
The Honeywell Aurora series is a fine brand.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

opening/closing the circuit makes the alarm work properly? Almost has to be a sensoe related problem.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jun 7, 9:30 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

You think after 25 years it re-wired itself to be backwards?
For the OP, it might be time to consider a new system. Anything electronic that is approaching 30 years of service is bound to have issues. Just simple things like electolytic caps for example. Another problem with a system of that vintage is that it's probably going to be impossible to program if you want to change anything, even if you have the codes. My old one of that vintage was programmed by blowing PROMS to set the thing up. You can get a whole new panel kit for $150.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 06:41:26 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Being obtuse again, eh?? The unit was replaced. Always possible the first one was defective and the new one reversed, no??
Stranger things have happened. Smartass.
By his description and basic analysis it would APPEAR to be a sensor related problem - either function or installation, or interference.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

The sensor was replaced, not the control panel. That is what needs to be upgraded.
Over 30 years, that thing has served it's purpose and was obsolete 20 years ago!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:40:36 -0500, G. Morgan

I was not talking about the control panel - which appears to be working just fine, according to the OP's testing. Not saying replacing it might not be a good idea - but I doubt (not saying I know it definitely is not) it is the panel at fault.
My thought right now is that he has possibly not removed the jumpers on the integrated EOL resister pack on the new SENSOR.
That "dynosaur" panel is pretty simple, and pretty reliable. If the resistance is other than 2.2K ohms or zero (within tolerances) the panel "faults" and if the resistance is 2.2 K it alarms, and if it is zero it says "all's well". Basically a voltage devider circuit with a couple of comparators. If the resistance is too high, the voltage across the "reference" resistor goes too low. If the resistance of the string is too low, the voltage across the "reference" resistor goes high. Either condition trips the comparator If he has ANY jumpers installed the resistance will not be 2.2 K when the contacts open. And with the sensor removed and jumpered, the system will work just fine - as his does.
I believe I made one error on my last post. I believe I said if he had the sensor jumpered to 2.2K the panel would see 4.4K ohms with the contacts open. In this setup, it would see 1.1K ohms with the contact opened, because the resistors would be in PARALLEL, not series.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Bwahahahahaha!!!
Why did you remove my x-post?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:34:07 -0700 (PDT), Evan

is only the one sensor causing a problem, and if the sensor is removed from the circuit and a switch substituted, the system works as it is supposed to. This would lead ME to suspect it is an issue with the sensor.
Now,I don't pretend to know it all. However, many times, particularly with older tech solid state devices, reverse connections can have strange results, and unlike a simple switch type "sensor" like a door or window sensor, the microwave and PIR units ARE polarity sensitive.
ALSO
On any Honeywell Dual Tec I've seen there is a separate 7-16 (usually 12) volt power supply which is polarity sensitive, as well as the alarm contacts - which have 4 different programmable resistor values across the NC contacts if connected C to NC. and another 4 resistors across the NC tamper switch connections. On some you can connect C to EOL - I don't know what the rammifications would be if connected C to EOL.
Being Normally Closed contacts, if there is more than one sensor or switch on the loop, they are wired in series, with the EOL resistor across the terminals at the panel (generally) so with the whole string closed the resistance across the circuit is nominally ZERO ohms, and as soon as any contact is opened the panel sees the EOL resistance (in the OP's case, 2.2K ohms. If the sensor is installed jumpered to 2.2K ohms, the panel will see 4.4 k ohms with the sensor tripped - and the panel could "fault".
If he is using an external EOL resistor he needs to remove all of the jumpers.
If he has not removed the jumpers, it would very likely malfunction with the sensor connected, and work fine with it removed and replaced with a switch or jumper.
You can look for zebras and unicorns all day, but when you hear hoofbeats, it's much smarter to look for horses, ponies, or jack-asses first.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

LMFAO -- I don't think you have ever seen one based on this explanation of alarm system workings.
x-posted to ASA for a good laugh.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:56:37 -0500, G. Morgan

years ago - wired and wireless - and I've worked on one of the new ones within the last 2 years - a whole lot more complex - a whole computer packed into the box, with complex programming up the ying yang. Other than moving the control panel (keypad) and a few sensors, I said "get the alarm company - it'll be cheaper than paying my time to figure out how to program it".
There's more than just open and closed switches and resistors in the new digital jobs. The old analog or "2 bit digital" systems WERE simple. The 30 year old ones were a lot simpler than the 15 year old ones - which were not "leading edge" at the time.
But (at least most of) the sensors from the 30 year old system still work on the new systems, and many of the new sensors work on the 30 year old ones as well.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.