charlie6

No

Is there a best domestic cctv ? as in the best.

In thirty or more years my current readings have been in that region, not always, but more often than not. The reason for mentioning this is to ensure that the reading for the OP is not abnormally low.

I doubt that the same input could be used conventionally to trigger twice..I am assuming by 'input' you mean a detection device. This belies the whole concept of a security system. You could, however, achieve something akin to your needs using a relay, possibly on a timer (at the bell trip). Haven't worked out a method yet so bear with me. Which version of the Enforcer are you using ? (issue). Two items in the post are bothering me. Firstly, just how many false alarms have you actually had ? you appear to be highly concerned on this front. Secondly, I would prefer it if, when your wife is at home alone at night that external sounders are operational rather than just an internal keypad. If you are, in fact, prone to false alarms, the shockers may need consideration, and of course your proximity to traffic.

Might be worth checking the battery charging current, nominally 500mA or thereabouts. Also a current limiting resistor gone high value, look for burn marks around resistors in that area.

Unless there is an overriding reason, 45 seconds entry time is far too long.. in many cases the intruder has been and gone within that time.. and no external sounder for 45 seconds.. a bit iffy !! Regarding the OP's initial concerns, perhaps a second keypad located in the sleeping quarters would resolve the issue..try ebay !!!!

Glad we've got a reply from the experts. My 2015 list consists of Risco, Texecom, Pyronix and Visonic only. Some of these modules are for use with their particular control panels and may or may not be compatible with others. The GSM350 PG2 for example is designed as an internal module for the Powermaster range.. and so on. I cannot therefore make a valid suggestion on all external modules at this time.. but in my opinion anything pyronix gets my vote. Personally I would not go for the cheapest unless a particular model is recommended.

Hi, Subject to alternative input from the site professionals I can see no reason why you could not use the Pyronix. However, there are quite a few others available which may be more suitable.

Peter, thankyou for your valuable comments. I totally agree with everything you have said, and for that matter the observations of every contributor(too numerous to recall their names)should be applauded. If the implication is such that CCTV operators are not allowed to record audio according to the 'regulations' imposed upon that 'field' then you have reassured myself in some respects. However, it would be appreciated were you to accept that I have no intention of 'back-tracking'. My view is such that 'yobbos' congregating at the rear of the property (originating post)should, emphasis on should, be recorded complete with audio ... voice recognition is a favourable tool in the police armoury. Throughout these posts I have included actual and hypothetical situations where it is perceived that litigation is unlikely, and never has, arisen in the circumstances highlighted by myself. I am sure you are aware, however,that the industry manufactures cameras complete with audio facilities costing hundreds of pounds, and in so doing they recognise this 'need' in certain environments. As a member pointed out, this is not a forum for legal advice but perhaps it is worth adding that there are 'loopholes' within the legal environment which may be 'persuasive' although the audio may not be accepted as evidence inside the actual courtroom. I am not allowed to discuss the latter comment further.

Hello Admin2, Thankyou for your reply.

Had to look back through quite a few recordings for this one.... and make a few enquiries into the bargain.. During a shoot of a school sports day I have a few private conversations (in part) recorded... The camera does not dwell on individuals 'chatting' when there are other scenes which need capturing..Two people having thier 'private conversation' in public is not, unfortunately, private..they are in a public place in the full knowledge that others may overhear them talking. These 'chats' are captured unintentionally and may or may not be used for 'cut in' to the next scene or else 'cut aways'... lasting all of three to five seconds. The remainder of that conversation is of no use and ends up 'on the cutting room floor'. Consider a situation where an argument is taking place between a parking warden and an irate motorist, this may be regarded as a private conversation between two people, nonetheless they are in a public place and being filmed. The parking warden tells me to stop filming, I refuse and he attempts to 'grab' my camera... He is committing an offence..I am not. The subsequent film may be produced in evidence or may be uploaded etc... see Stone's 'Unseen History of America' dvd set. However, if I intentionally film a personal conversation carried on by perfectly innocent people with the prospect of uploading, using in a derogatory manner, for personal gain, and so on then it may be construed as an offence..For action to be taken on this wise.. the resultant film content of two apparently innocent members of the public must be of a duration where there can be no doubt that my actions have infringed their rights viz; data protection, human rights etc. In conclusion, where I choose to film a public place from a position within the boundary of my property whilst any persons present therein are not aware of my actions, as a general rule of thumb no offence is seen to take place...so go ahead and use audio... Finally, 'secret filming' (of say a person's bedroom) is a criminal offence.

As a last resort you could wire the new sensors in series with one in close proximity.

I've seen plastic roller shutter contacts..honestly..probably in the maplin catalogue or something like that..Many years ago though !!

Your losing me now chaps..The last time I used self cert was when I had a few days off from the factory many years ago. I would need to check but Pulnix, Takex have rear tamper. Concrete posts are O.K. for that but there is a tendency to see them shattered by over exuberant drivers of rather heavy vehicles probably. I still fail to see why actives cannot be used on the external wall of a property since this in itself representing external protection self evidently may well prevent damage, theft and so on at the actual property. The reg is probably something to do with alarm confirm.. am I getting warmer ?

I'd go with you on that one goncall. But back to the external beam regs, If the roller shutter is not protruding onto a public highway (space etc.) and is on enclosed private land wouldn't it be better to 'catch' the intruder before he decides to demolish the roller shutter ? What are the regs on this ?

Is there a particular reason for that PSE ?

Glancing through old posts again... Vortex Sounder Optima 2 trg ................................. B rtn..................................T off- ................................ A hold + ............................D At the Vortex make a small wire link and connect this between 'Strb' and 'trg'

Each one an excellent point, and I am not trying to wind anyone up. All my roller shutter contacts are bolted on to be absolutely certain of no movement and the correct operating gap...sometimes up to 57mm (but that depends on the natural movement of the shutter when closed - wind etc.). I endorse the use of self tappers although I have never used them for this procedure (so I guess I am not in the skilled installer league Amps). There may be numerous reasons why there are two bolts in a roller shutter abbz so if that is the case the intruder knows exactly what he's looking for.. why not just stick two dummy bolts on the other side ? but I guess you're not talking about the 'common or garden' thief..so I get the point. It seems that PSE has the answer with a internal quad or dual tec etc aimed directly at the roller shutter, this is the method I have used for years. You see, the bellbox (do you still call external sounders by that name ?) is the first thing the intruder would look for (not always a common sense thing to do since arc link may cancel this out - provided the latest directives allow you to omit the external device - I wouldn't know !!). Assuming that the intruder has seen the warning device and decides to go ahead anyway and regardless of the circumstances, I fail to see that it matters which side, both sides, or top left or right, are going to make much difference... we used to call this a 'gross attack' and in these cases there is no guarantee that police response would be fast enough. If cost is not the overriding factor (and dependant on your risk factors PSE) perhaps twin external beams in this area would be a safer bet.

Quite a debate, tell me..how would the intruder know which side the contact is on and would he recognise one if he saw it anyway ?

We've reached a stage in Wireless which is 'Minions' away from the old days of 'Thrust' and 'First' (although if they were installed and maintained correctly problems would be reduced I should imagine). Texecom's iMesh technology appears to be the 'in thing' but it is worth looking at other manufacturers as outlined above. The quoted price is about the norm but, as RFS points out... "..does this include vat ?". It is more than likely that whichever wireless system you choose, any added or replacement devices may need to be of that manufacturer's specs..and this is not going to get any cheaper in the future. Add in detector battery replacements over the years (and standby)... things soon mount up. But at this point my negatives end. I am persuaded that wireless has to be the way forward. There is one point that disturbs me, possibly the experts could explain; On Sunday last an 'offroad biker' revved the engine whilst passing a wireless external sounder ... causing it to activate. It would appear to me therefore, that a wired sounder should be part of any wireless package ( a practise I have insisted on over the years). The arguments for wired are manifold. Choice of devices, sounders, psu's ... all interchangeable (keypads being the exception),.. and quite a reduction in cost over that of a wireless system. Provided the property layout accomodates it I would opt for a wired system.. and I'm an hypocrite.

Hi Admin2, Thanks for your comments (and everyone else's for that matter). You raise an interesting point regarding 'privacy of conversation' and I am not sure that I can a case on the matter for the moment. In principle therefore, I tend to agree with you..but my jury is still out..need time to think about it. Charlie6

Hello, Just glancing at a few older posts, came across this one. I appreciate that this is not a forum for legal matters, but cctv installers are, or at least should be, aware of the issues. I have been a videographer for years filming in high streets, events, major theme parks etc. both here and in America. Since the 'paedophile' issue emerged some years ago I was reluctanct for a while to video just about anything, not even a sparrow. Frustrated, I telephoned the police to ask for their views...and this is the current status unless there are updates to the law. You can film anywhere in a public place, and since my cameras obviously have inbuilt sound recording there is no obligation to Mute. Therefore video is complete with sound...obvious really, or else what is the point of a video camera. The area beyond the garden is, in this case, a public place so go ahead and video..complete with sound. You may not film the property of your neighbour without their consent, However, if you are experiencing problems, such as damage to your own fence or garden you may point a camera at your fence...if by some accident it happens to be sited such that perpetrators are observed offending...it is purely accidental that the camera happened to be wrongly positioned and filmed the offence being commited. Councils, Housing associations and the police are interested in footage of this nature. Take Care.

If the fault occurs at night it's possibly at the external warning device