Hi, just heard you talking about the sequad. We've installed probably about 100 of these now. Seemed like a good idea at first and if you get them in the right position they work great and are very effective. However we have noticed a large number of false alarms on the outer zones of them. Probably at least 10 or 12 of them. This is hard to believe because in some incidents you have to be walking alongside the walls waving your arms before they go off. Just interested to see if anyone else has encountered any problems? From a technical point of view they are just two rx40's spaced out using mirror optics so whats wrong?!

The sequad is one of the most innovative detectors ever designed. NSI have slammed the product (not by name) We have tested the product fully and offered the results to NSI. They aren’t interested and will support any amendment to DD243 which will remove this detector from the market. We have defended our position in using this detector in protracted correspondence with NSI. Unfortunately they have flexed their muscle and we have now been forced to dump the product in favour of less effective equipment. i.e. a pir & dualtec looking at the same source of false alert. Strange enough SSAIB dont see a problem (could this be because they have inspectors who use screwdrivers instead of pens)

Jef

i fully support the idea of NSI if sometimes not its logic

GardTec offer a solution to the Veritec problem of linking all the pressure zones together and making them EE.

They have a zone attribute called "secondary".

According to our NSI inspector the secondary zone attribute should not be used on the Gardtec panel. The reason he gives is, you must not delay a signal from a detector at the panel it must give some sort of output immediately i.e. bell coms etc, for this reason we cannot use double knock either.

Paul