I would like some opinions on tampers on Redwall SIPS and compliance with 8418. We have had to raise a couple of detectors from 2.3m to 4m. Rather than totally run a new cable from the transmitter to the device an ip66 rated junction box has been fitted and the cables extended using terminal block. There is a debate whether this box should be tampered? My take is that the cables conform to the standard for tampers even though they are joined and in theory as they have been joined correctly are 'continuos'. There have been other instances in the past where we have had to join cables in the same manner, for instance where duct grade Cat5 has been changed once inside the building. These installs have been regularly inspected by the SSAIB and never been pulled however, there is now a debate which I would like to clear up and I would appreciate any feedback as I believe some of this is subjective and open to opinion?

P.S. I believe BS8418 (4.4.5) is the applicable rule.

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by daubs8

I would say the box should be tampered, its not really containment it has a junction in it and the cable or joint can be easily accessed by undoing dome screws. You could solder the joints heat shrink them and then use containment if you dont want to put an anti tamper switch on the box.

Remember the purpose of tampering the junction is to stop someone tampering with the detector whilst the CCTV is not being monitored, if you have half an idea on what you are doing you could easily open the box and guess the alarm pair

Some good points Peter thanks. Probably not the one I wanted to hear though!

Solder and Heatshrink, then superglue the lid on. Problem solved.

agree with pete its needs tampering or potting?

Excuse my ignorance but 'potting'??

Excuse my ignorance but 'potting'??

Filling with a waterproof and non-conducting resin that sets hard. A bit like that stuff you get with unerground resin joint kits.

Edited September 8, 201114 yr by antinode