GalaxyGuy

Typical driver for a piezo. You'll find many examples on-line. The waveform is probably a warble or the like. I'd suggest getting a copy of Horowitz & Hill 'the art of electronics' it's an excellent reference.

Having designed compatible modules, my thoughts for panel / module / sensor design would be to leverage other modules/sensors that are out there already. If you have no experience in firmware and electronic design, then the more complex parts of the system will be a huge undertaking. I would expect a control panel alone (enclosure / electronics / firmware / software / compliance / packaging) at current market level product expectations to take at least 100 man months of effort to go through concept, alpha, beta, release and ramp to volume. To release a product within a couple of years would mean recruiting skilled engineers and probably cost in excess of 500k. The volume sales required to recover the development costs are huge, so risk is very high. There's also ongoing support costs, as nobody wants to buy a product that has no long term support. Any investor willing to back such a venture would be looking at your own track record, your own investment and ability to bring it all together. As others have commented, it's probably best to start very small before even thinking about something complex. The internal speaker is a good example. Take all current offerings, perform teardown analysis, voice of customer analysis and so on. Design something new. Send out free samples. Get feedback and iterate until you have an ace product that your customers want. That said, it's still very difficult to produce something simple and make money. You may be able to design with a small team (ie.yourself) in the UK, but would find it very difficult to make profit manufacturing here. It's all a very nice thought of being able to create local jobs for people, but very difficult to justify if skilled/unskilled labour is available at 1/5 of the cost elsewhere.

Functionality on the G2 is limited to the emulated keypad only. Only flex and dimension will communicate with the other features. You can always use a metal cased flex, which is the same size as the G2.

If that's the Chiron GT-20 Ethernet board, then no. You need an LCE module for the G2 series. The Honeywell modules don't support Virtualkeypad on the G2 series.

Sorry, super busy lately. Op, do you have any old serial rs232 lead? You can reset with RSS, but you need to be able to connect somehow. Alternatively, and for cases where RSS is locked out, I also have a special Ethernet module, which allows browser based access to log in as remote like with the special engineers keypad. I suppose it depends if you can wait a couple of days to fix it. Any Ethernet, or pstn dial in enabled on the system?

Okay, checked this out on the Flex with a RIO. So what you need to do is configure the virtual RIO in the RF portal so that it doesn't take any addresses up. Ie. No virtual RIO enabled. Then you can configure any of the 20 hardwired zones as either wireless or hardwired. The easiest way to do this is to: 1. Enter engineering mode and remove both portal and rio from the system. 2. Exit engineering mode and remove the devices from the config when prompted. 3. Set the RIO address to 2 and add back to the bus. 4. Enter eng mode and menu 72 to detect the device. 5. Add the portal and then menu 72 to detect it. Now the portal should show on its bus, but with no virtual RIO's addressed (menu 51.60.1 shows the virtual RIO - note my typo earlier when I said it was 56). If you want to do this without removing devices, you need to use 51.60.1 to diable the virtual rio, then the hard wired RIO can be enumerated onto the bus.

The process is: Start the Auto-learn mode in menu 72. Remove the device from the data bus (for example disconnect the module). Exit from the Auto-learn mode and confirm the address of the device removed (using *). Enter Auto-learn mode once more. Yes, the boards across the range are the same form. Only different between the metal case and plastic case boards. The Flex+ supports grade 3. The 50 and 100 series panels support more users, zones, outputs, bigger event and access logs, schedules, keypads and links.

Just remove the portal and scan devices in menu 72 - * to delete. Then scan again to find the RIO. I think the intent is to stop zone expansion beyond the 20 zone limit of the panel, but you should be able to expand to 20 zones max and have any of the 20 hardwired or wireless. It seems that this may not be an option with the FX20 and you can only have 12 hardwired and a possible 20 wireless. If you upgrade to an FX50 or FX100, you can have a number of RIO's fitted. As I said, I thought that this was a bug in the early Flex and I never went back to see if it was fixed in the newer models, as I only use the FX100+ now anyway.

The RF portal can have up to three virtual Rio addresses. They are not the same as the physical bus address of the portal. The virtual Rio addresses are in menu 56.60.1 The last time I looked at this, the Flex would not allow the portal to coexist with the Rio on an fx20 in the way that was allowed on the older g2-20 panels. The panel responded differently depending on which module was added first (Rio or portal). IfI get a minute, I will test that this is still the case at the latest Flex version 3.50.

Which firmware version flex? I seem to remember some issues trying to mix fx20 with portal and RIO. Never had the problem on fx50 or fx100.

In the flex you fit a jumper on the tamper header of the portal. There are a few unused jumpers on the existing headers if you don't have any spare.

Part entry.

If both are marked T, then either take the white back to 0v in the panel too, or just remove the white wire and place a wire link from that 'T' connection in the siren to the black 0v in the siren.

You've not shown the white wire in your image, so I cannot tell you.

This is the wiring on a Dimension with default programming for outputs 1001 (bell) and 1002 (strobe)