15 replies to this topic

[newalarm]

I am bench testing my unit and still figuring out things.

I have a magnetic contact that can be NO or NC. I wired it for NO. I installed a EOLR in parralel, as the ELK wiring diagram indicates.

I programmed the Control to: 03 = buglar perimeter instant.

Then If i do either:

3= eol supervised on short
or
4= eol supervised on open

I get a trouble signal when the magnetic contact is separated (door being opened), without the alarm being armed. I did repeat the test with wiring the contact as NC (I just thought of that and will try this evening.)

I wired a motion on a separate zone, supervised, NC with the EOLR in series and the Control set to 3= eol supervised on short and this work perfectly. no trouble when the contact is open (motion sensor senses motion) in unarmed mode, if i short the circuit, i get trouble. When armed, the alarm goes off.

I apologize if this has been explained in past post, but i did a search and could not find anything.

Thank you in advance.

[jpmargis]

Assuming you have an ELK M1, there is a very good explanation of the zones types on page 31 of the manual.

[attachment=4400:Capture4.JPG]

[newalarm]

Yes, M1g. sorry, forgot to state that.

This is what is confusing, the option i get is: 4= eol supervised on open. is this the '4 state wiring' described in the Elk Operating Description?

If you have a NC circuit and want supervised, it seems clear that you do '3=eol supervised on short'. If you short the wires, a trouble alarm will go off.

so wouldn't a NO circuit supervised, you would use '4= eol supervised on open'?

Another funny incident is when I have it one either 3 or 4 (i forget which), when i simulate the open door condition, it simply tells me the alarm is no read, zone 8. If I close door and reopen it, then it give me the trouble signal. The first time around, it does not.

The contact i am using is a Amseco (potter) BMC-33b balanced contact, if that helps.

Edited by newalarm, 06 July 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[DELInstallations]

I've installed lots of balanced switches in a prior life...I used to do weapons vaults and high risk security for the USAF and feds.

Balanced contacts are a special breed...there's lots of considerations and how they're wired to a panel. I can't get an accurate schematic, however most balanced magnetic switches have a NC and NO pair, as well as a pry tamper or magnetic interference tamper output, so depending on the contact, they may or may not be in series with a pole or the contact wires.

The panel is acting as it's supposed to. First, the panel is going to be set for 0, EOLR. 3 will only work with a NC circuit, and 4 will only work with DEOLR's, which are tough to explain, but they provide supervision for all the possible states of the contact and wiring.

As far as what the contact is doing, you need to take a meter to it, because most BMS' do a couple of things. First, if the magnet is too close or too far, they'll alarm. If another magnet is introduced, or they are moved out of plane of each other, they'll alarm. They also typically include a pry tamper, which is a magnet or even a manual tamper that is activated if the contact is removed from what it's mounted on. The ones I've done have a separate baseplate that is screwed underneath, inaccessable after the contact is mounted.

The only way to know how your particular contact behaves is to take a meter to it and see how the circuits react to magnet too close/far, pry and similar.

[newalarm]

"First, the panel is going to be set for 0, EOLR. 3 will only work with a NC circuit, and 4 will only work with DEOLR's"

This is what is suspected. So "0=EOL supervised/RF" is a supervised zone? If you remove the resistor, it should alarm trouble?

I completely removed the BMS from the equation and tried my luck at a using two wires and a resitor on my zone. I put common wire runing to resistor, and resistor back to zone. This would simulate a NO circuit. When i short them, the keypad shows the zone as not ready; this seems normal to me. If i disconnect one wire but it still shows zone as not ready and this seems incorrect; on a supervised zone, should it not give me a trouble signal?

The BMS has three wires, red green and black. Use black and green is NC, red and black is NO. I don't believe it has tamper. But it is a nice unit. I was holding the magnet within spec and had tested it with continuity tester so it is working properly.

[BraveSirRobbin]

Why not just use the NC if you are concerned about a supervised zone?

Edited by BraveSirRobbin, 06 July 2012 - 11:05 PM.

[DELInstallations]

Sounds like the contact is not a true BMS/high security switch, just a straight balanced contact if you have 3 wires only.

The first thing I'd recommend is looking carefully at the bottom of page 9 of the M1 install book, covers a lot of the questions you're asking.

The M1 will not supervise a NO burglar alarm zone as a trouble on open/alarm on short using a single EOLR. If you want to supervise a NO contact in the manner you're describing, you will need to run DEOLR's. To accomplish what you want to do you'd need a contact with more conductors than you already have, and in the case of the M1, it's really designed for NC circuits to perform higher level zone supervision.

[newalarm]

Thank you DEL, That is what i wanted to know. Makes sense. Just out of curiosity, why do they call 0=supervised?

I was planning on using the BMS as NC anyway, but I wanted to understand the NO scenario.

[DELInstallations]

Because the loop is supervised and would annunciate 3 states, open, closed and shorted. If you set the loop for NC or NO, it would only be able to "see" 2 states, alarm and normal. Wiring may or may not affect the panel seeing the device, IE: a NO circuit, the panel may never see an alarm if the wire is broken or disconnected, in a NC circuit, the panel would see no state change if the wiring was shorted. To keystone with another discussion, with the EOLR installed properly, and on the COM of the zone, the panel will be able to see open/closed and short (as well as short to ground/com).

Examples IRL from the alarm world:

A panic button would typically be a NO device, a short would generate an alarm and an open circuit would be annunciated as a fault. How the panel acts during each event is a function of the panel itself. Most of the times, it's not any more benefitial to provide different actions on a loop for the EOLR state based on armed condition, however many panels do provide such options (Vista P series configurable zones, entire Bosch/Radionics line).

In my case, doing military and government installs, all our circuits were set up as NO, with a tamper on open, alarm on short, so think of the devices being akin to a fire loop in how they would function. You really won't see an install being done with all NO contacts and NO relay contacts, it's just not how it's typically done.

Tangent:
Access control is the exact opposite to an extent. You will have a REX as NO, so a failure (depending on the hardware/software as well) will not tell the door to unlock, so if it were NC, a loss of power, etc. will not cause the door to unlock. Same being with everything but a mag lock, typically is in a locked state unpowered (fail-secure) so a system failure will not cause a door to unlock (exception being a maglock).

[newalarm]

So if i get this straight, "0=EOL supervised/RF" is the same as "3= eol supervised on short" except that the former '0' sets off the alarm on short, and '3' sets off a trouble on short? (both zones being wired with EOLRs).

Thanks for your help.

Edited by newalarm, 09 July 2012 - 08:24 AM.

[newalarm]

And there are two possible NO circuits. with EOLR and without. The EOLR will put the panel in alarm if someone were to cut the wire on the NO circuit.

[DELInstallations]

So if i get this straight, "0=EOL supervised/RF" is the same as "3= eol supervised on short" except that the former '0' sets off the alarm on short, and '3' sets off a trouble on short? (both zones being wired with EOLRs).

No.

EOLR is supervised and can be NO/NC depending on if the resistor is in series or parallel. NO/NC eliminates the resistor requirement. 3 & 4 are for DEOLR's and the circuit gets wired differently than a conventional circuit. You would get a trouble on short or a trouble on open & short, respectively if programmed properly.

[newalarm]

1. So you can only get the 'trouble' alert on 3 & 4 correct? I guess this is due to the fact that you can use it as NO or NC in 0 and software has no way of knowing.

2. If one uses EOLRs, is it not beneficial to know when there is a short, by trouble message at keypads (i guess you can always check voltage at panel/keypad also)? For a NC circuit, you could use 3 to get the trouble message on short (you can wire with just one resistor and it would only have three states).

Edited by newalarm, 10 July 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[DELInstallations]

1. That's what was said a few times. You're comparing 3 state wiring vs. DEOLR (4 state).

2. IMHO, I don't need to force an end user to instantly acknowledge an issue with their wiring, nor do I need to transmit a signal, I have enough information going to the CS already. Not ready on the keypad, necessitating further investigation is OK by me. If the wiring was subject to compromise or physical damage that could not be prevented, sure I'd pick a DEOLR.

You're misunderstanding how the other options work for DEOLR. You need a resistor in series and one in parallel for it to work, you can't use a single resistor.

[newalarm]

You're misunderstanding how the other options work for DEOLR. You need a resistor in series and one in parallel for it to work, you can't use a single resistor.

My only point was if for some reason you wanted the 'trouble' signal you can achieve with one resistor since the second resistor (in parallel) get bypassed when closed; if that second NC is not needed... why put the resistor. But I understand your reasoning behind the lack of necessity of the 4 state wiring or trouble alarm in a simpler residential scenario.

Thanks so much for all your responses. It has really helped clarify this and once i dive into the install, it will all make more sense.

Edited by newalarm, 11 July 2012 - 06:29 AM.