charlie6

Try pressing ##REMOVED## then press reset twice, if not then try ##REMOVED## then press reset twice

"...Using a risco panel would wireless work at 100m?..." As Norman pointed out, the panel doesn't dictate beams, I would add that were you to run four separate cable lengths of considerable distance between the panel and receivers you should double up on the power supply ( + and -), some just say the positive, but I disagree with this. Personally, I would tend to include a further boxed power supply adjacent to the four receivers, but that's just the way I do it as my preference. "...Think I would rather stick with hard wiring myself especially with the distance involved..." It would be to your advantage if you can locate a mains supply somewhere near the transmitters and run a boxed power supply from this source to power the transmitters. It might be worth taking into consideration the manufacturer's quoted distance of 100 metres, This is usually pretty reliable but consider the elements, fog, rain, hail, snow, and adjust the range as you think necessary. I tend to suggest about eighty percent of the stated range in order to compensate, although again this is personal preference. A cloudy overcast day is best for calibrating the units rather than a very sunny day.

"....charlie, cmon mate there has been loads of posts showing that 2 way systems can communicate in both directions. Either answer the question on gear asked about or ill close the thread cos its going nowhere..." There are two operative sentiments here, the first is "..loads of posts showing that 2 way systems can communicate.." The operative word in this case is 'showing' rather than submitting to the request in my first post for 'solid evidence' (not in context). The second is "...answer the question on gear..." and this has indeed been answered on numerous occasions. There remain quite a few posts in this topic to which I believe I have the right to reply, however, may I thank each and every contributor (one in particular was very near, very near, a positive reply). I bow to your superior knowledge and suggest that you do indeed close this thread. In parting from this thread I may add that I have seen the relevant schematics, block diagrams and so forth and can confirm that I know the answer, and have known so, since my first post. Thankyou for your time.

How are you Vince ? Thanks for the information, it is very interesting and well laid out. Thankyou for that. Unfortunately I am unable to accept as proof positive your comment "...It shows clearly that there are in existence two way and one way devices..." although the advert would suggest otherwise. One further point...the original post is clear insofar that the 'boffin' as he is referred to is obviously aware of the controversy and not "...It could be that the boffin is unaware of devices that talk to each other and depending on the system talk to the control panel too..." else, it would not have been worth his while deliberating on the subject.

Hello Alyeti, I'm afraid I have some bad news for you... I never ever change my story...No story change insofar that neither myself nor the lecturer were 'asking'. For my own part in posting I was 'Requesting', for the lecturer's part he was 'Stating'.

Hi Mr Happy, How do you know Wickford, are you from that area, Yes, but he was forced to move away.

"...Electronic s boffin should think about it himself as he would know how and what circuits do to component level.." Thanks again for your reply Al-Yeti, What you have unknowingly achieved here is complete agreement with the 'electronics boffin' as you refer to him, since he has made the statement based on 'what circuits do to component level' as you put it. This is obvious from my original post.

Al-Yeti "...Whoever asking is talking rubbish.." Thanks for the reply, in response to your question ... I am asking.. I am asking a perfectly legitimate question in my original post. Hi Mr Happy, your quite right I do have an uncle called Arfur.

Al-Yeti "..What you mean "irrefutable proof then."? Thanks for that, the dictionary definition is basically 'Absolute, cannot be challenged'

Mr Happy "..."two way" define what you & your "electronic's boffin" expects under the term,"" Thanks for the reply. First and foremost, it might be advantageous to remove the 'you' from your reply since the 'you' refers to myself. For my own part I did not define 'two way' in the original post (although it was used as a heading)..the lecturer did indeed refer to 'two way' and goes further to expect absolutely nothing 'under the term' since he maintains that 'two way' does not exist with regard to the control panel and transmitting device.

I could never lower myself to speak to anyone on this forum like that.

Technology moves on I suppose, but I doubt if any self respecting company would just go ahead and change a perfectly working id system. Don't know much about the biscuits..if they are numbered or whatever, can't they be sorted according to the panels or systems they are supposed to work with ?

Yes, I tend to agree with that idea Morph, provided the site is suitable I should imagine that wireless would give a bit more scope to the project.

"....all this stuff here in the forums is just chit chat and opinions?..." So no irrefutable proof then. "....You do realise professional advice is paid for..." But you just said it's chit chat and opinions. "...OP why are you being evasive?..." I can't for the life of me think of one reason for being evasive, nor can I point to any post where I am being deliberately evasive, Why would I do so, I have stated the views of a lecturer in electronics and look to yourself and fellow professionals for concrete evidence to the contrary, I have no intention of starting a war here, if no one can offer irrefutable proof then we'll drop the subject... but check out some of the evasive and sometimes personal replies Norman, viz; "....i can only assume whoever is asking the question over and over again is somewhere on the autistic spectrum..."

The transmitters just need power and tamper so that's straightforward. Stick to the rules regarding siting of the receivers.. generally there's a list of do's and dont's in the engineering manual. The receivers require 6 connections in basic mode, and sometimes the trip is via a pair of relay contacts. As for wiring it depends on whether or not you are working to any industry regulations. If you are not, and the receivers are within the hundred metre range try using twelve core to each unit, that is twelve core to the first receiver, branch off with six to the next receiver. Do the same with the next pair of receivers. At the panel there are two twelve cores which need to be divided into zones. Double up on your power pairs if possible. It's wise to double on the transmitters also. Not knowing your layout or the units that's about it really.

I believe you need to be a trade member in order to be able to download pdf's.

The installer has programmed this feature, I would advise not to touch the panel until the engineer calls to change the battery. Isn't there an engineer who can call today or tomorrow ? Tuesday is not good enough. Do you have a copy of the user instructions ?

I don't want to prove anything, I have asked for professional advice from the site experts who have thousands of posts to their credit. I am certainly not going to buy a dongle... I'll wait until I receive a civil answer..

If I thought I was being 'smutty' I would never have posted the question.

So, can anyone offer 'irrefutable proof' ?

Fair comment, leave out my use of the term 'standard' then, if that makes a difference to the original post. Here it is again:- "....I need some irrefutable proof from the experts on this one since a local electronics boffin appears to doubt the integrity of the term 'two way' when related to wireless detection. The claim, basically, is that the panel does not 'talk to' detectors, but rather it interrogates it's own received signals from detectors, but does not actually interrogate the detectors themselves only the received signals..." He doubts the integrity of the term 'two way' and I am just seeking the opinion of professionals in the field of security.

"....so how is that 2 way?.." I didn't say it was. On the contrary, these are not my remarks they are the comments of the electronics lecturer outlined in the original post, where he maintains that there is not two way occuring in a standard wireless system, anything I insert thereafter is not my opinion but rather a portion of his original comment..I am merely seeking the advice of this site's experts. The question is in the opening post.

Good answers, all appreciated... would you mind if I inserted a part of my opening post it might help to resolve the question? "....but rather it interrogates it's own received signals from detectors, but does not actually interrogate the detectors themselves only the received signals.."

Good answers, all appreciated... would you mind if I inserted a part of my opening post ? "....but rather it interrogates it's own received signals from detectors, but does not actually interrogate the detectors themselves only the received signals.."

Unfortunately, good answers worth thinking about, but nothing categoric.