Ctec Xfp Fault Cleared Reoccuring Problem

[Guest Cerberus NI]

There must be at least one isolator in the loop, surely?

Otherwise a short would take out the whole system.

There is an isolator on board but unless the whole system is spread over one zone (ie - <2000m2 on one floor or no more than 300m2 in total) then it aint conforming if there are none out in the filed.

If you know the cable route and zone layout easiest way would be to fit base isolators in place of the standard ones.

[stevemiddleton]

There is an isolator on board but unless the whole system is spread over one zone (ie - <2000m2 on one floor or no more than 300m2 in total) then it aint conforming if there are none out in the filed.

If you know the cable route and zone layout easiest way would be to fit base isolators in place of the standard ones.

My reply to the question about the isolators was that this was not installed by us, but that we have recommended isolators between the 2 zones, who says I dont know BS!!!!! However this would not help find this problem but is in hand anyway. By the way how many systems do you take over without isolators, we seem to see quote a few and some are pretty big.

[L200]

Apollo gear has isolators built into the devices now , so it may be a case you have to many , on such a small detection loop , you could also try fitting a resistor across one section of the loop in the panel , to give the loop a bit of a draw.

[stevemiddleton]

Apollo gear has isolators built into the devices now , so it may be a case you have to many , on such a small detection loop , you could also try fitting a resistor across one section of the loop in the panel , to give the loop a bit of a draw.

Thanks L200, interesting, I have checked and none of the equipment has isolators built in, what would the resistor across the loop do???

[L200]

The loop is designed to be populated at a a maximum , of 125 addresses , obviously subject to loop loadings , so with this in mind they have a maximum draw off the loop , however you have only minimal amount of detection the loop , so by fitting a resistor this would possibly ' fool' the loop into seeing more of a load. Which may well quieten down.

You might have to try various ratings , try a 10 k first and see how you get on.

Before you try this check with Ctec and see what the ratings of the loop card are , they might beware of this problem.

[Guest Cerberus NI]

The loop is designed to be populated at a a maximum , of 125 addresses , obviously subject to loop loadings , so with this in mind they have a maximum draw off the loop , however you have only minimal amount of detection the loop , so by fitting a resistor this would possibly ' fool' the loop into seeing more of a load. Which may well quieten down.

You might have to try various ratings , try a 10 k first and see how you get on.

Before you try this check with Ctec and see what the ratings of the loop card are , they might beware of this problem.

You've lost me here - how will this aid finding the fault?

[stevemiddleton]

You've lost me here - how will this aid finding the fault?

Very interesting, so you think this may reduce background noise????? never heard of doing this before, I have spoken to CTEC and not much help, said they have never heard of this before so am on my own, apollo just want you to plug in a loop tester and see what results you get. The only thing Ctec have confirmed is that there log would not record the fault but just the fault cleared, however as it randomly picking devices to say the fault is clear I would imagine some sort of interference on the loop, will try the resistor idea and see what happens. Obviously quote is now with client for extra fault finding!!!! Lets wait and see

[L200]

Fitting a resistor will draw down the loop , as if there are more devices , what you don't know is whether it is open intermittent open or short circuit .

This should rule out the open circuit possible problem .

We got the Apollo loop tool , but i have got a single loop Juno panel in a flight case , and have put connection posts on the front of the panel , loop connection , bell circuits and 24v auxiliary , when we go to look at a problem panel we hook this up and leave it running on test . We check the log the next day and we rule out the detection in 95 % of the cases. You basically get 2 goes are this type of fault , as the client expects you to be a mind reader.

Its either the loop or the panel , rule out the loop first , easy job then.

[luggsey]

I have never had a loop fault turn out to be a faulty panel, maybe just luck!

I have had Apollo devices "ghosting" as technical called it when a device puts out spurious information causing random loop faults.

I would normally split the loop as two radials and run another loop card if it got real bad then change the "break" location to narrow down the problem area.

We had a floor board nail causing a loop fault once, a Protc system got ripped out because there was no way to track down the fault. Stuck a Gent Senator in and it found the faulty bit of cable within minutes....

Can you do as L200 recommended and run a temporary panel?

[stevemiddleton]

Hi guys, nice weekend hey!!!!

Is not the panel have ruled it out, will have to start splitting the loop and see, all on hold for now while the clients gets approval for further expenditure, typical!!

Thanks for all your help