Four (4) State Zone Wiring -- ELK M1G

[RichardU]

I have some Exterior PIRs which I use with rules. I don't want them to set off an alarm, so I have them set as "Non Alarm."

However, if they are tampered with, I would like to set off an alarm.

I see the Four (4) State Zone Wiring instructions on page 9 of the M1G manual which looks perfect for tampering, but how would I define this zone to avoid setting off alarms from simple motion?

Thanks,

 

[rexwilson]

a Rule can help you here too. As one of the "Zone changes" rules, you can specify "Whenever [zone x] becomes not-secure - open loop", then you can indicate action to take when the tamper is triggered.
you might have to click on "list advanced options" in the trigger-operand dialog box when programming the rule.

 

[apostolakisl]

I am thinking you will need to set it up as a rule that notifies you rather than a true trouble code.

 

[RichardU]

a Rule can help you here too. As one of the "Zone changes" rules, you can specify "Whenever [zone x] becomes not-secure - open loop", then you can indicate action to take when the tamper is triggered.

Thanks.

 

[RichardU]

I am thinking you will need to set it up as a rule that notifies you rather than a true trouble code.

Why only a notification? Are you thinking i might get false alarms? I'm thinking, if someone just cut the wire on my exterior PIR, I want the alarm to go off instantly.

Also, how does one activate the alarm with a rule? I've seen where I can arm, but I don't see a choice to activate.

 

[apostolakisl]

Why only a notification? Are you thinking i might get false alarms? I'm thinking, if someone just cut the wire on my exterior PIR, I want the alarm to go off instantly.

Also, how does one activate the alarm with a rule? I've seen where I can arm, but I don't see a choice to activate.

If memory serves, you can't activate an alarm with a rule. You have to use a rule to turn an output on/off which is connected to a relay which opens or closes an alarmed zone.

But basically, if you don't want the zone as an alarm zone, I am pretty sure that Elk then won't display a trouble status on the zone if the wire gets cut or shorted. I could be wrong, but you can easily try it out. Just make yourself a short tail of wire coming off of a zone and wire up your resistors the same as you would with your motion sensor. Set the zone as a non-alarm zone. Then try disconnecting one of the leads (same as cutting wire), then try shorting the leads.

 

[RichardU]

If memory serves, you can't activate an alarm with a rule. You have to use a rule to turn an output on/off which is connected to a relay which opens or closes an alarmed zone.

Thanks for that. Although it's surprisingly kludgy for ELK which is usually more flexible than that.

But basically, if you don't want the zone as an alarm zone, I am pretty sure that Elk then won't display a trouble status on the zone if the wire gets cut or shorted.

On the status page, the Status is Violated and the State is Open(+). So now I need to test to be sure "not-secure - open loop" will detect that.

Overall, I'm surprised this hasn't come up more often. Maybe it has and I'm just not finding it.

 

[apostolakisl]

On the status page, the Status is Violated and the State is Open(+). So now I need to test to be sure "not-secure - open loop" will detect that.

Overall, I'm surprised this hasn't come up more often. Maybe it has and I'm just not finding it.

I am just 99% sure that a non-alarm zone will not give you an alarm no matter what the status indicates. You can use rules however to send an email, chirp the sirens, speak something, or whatever else you pick out of the list of stuff available in the rules section.

And I suspect Elk doesn't use rules as a way to trip alarms because it would be a reliability issue. Elk is a security system at heart and is UL listed as such. Using rules as a direct security controller would subject the rules section to much tighter tolerance on reliability. Thus way more testing and higher costs for a company that probably doesn't have enough profit margin to get that done.

 

[RichardU]

Thanks for your thoughts. Now I'm thinking it might be worthwhile to bite the bullet and run another wire to set up a separate tamper zone using one conductor from each wire.

 

[rexwilson]

or here's a goofy idea (which might prove puzzling to future owners of the system who have to figure out what you did):
reverse the resistor configuration on the 4-state wiring of the motion detector so that the tamper contacts act as the alarm contacts and vice versa. Set the zone an alarm zone.
When the tamper contacts open it will trigger the alarm as you want.
And you can use your Rule (with Whenever [zone x] becomes not-secure - open loop) to handle the condition when the PIR detects what it thinks is an alarm state but will be reported to the panel as a tamper (not-secure, open-loop) event.

 

[RichardU]

or here's a goofy idea

I'm trying to understand how this would work. Looking at the chart on Page 9, it seems that when Armed, opening either the tamper or the PIR circuit will result in an alarm condition.

For the benefit of anyone else who might read this, my goal is, I want to know if someone is at my front door (for example) so I can announce, turn on lights, etc, but I don't want it to set off an alarm. On the other hand, if someone goes to my front door and cuts the wire to my PIR, I want that to set off an alarm.

 

[rexwilson]

I'm trying to understand how this would work. Looking at the chart on Page 9, it seems that when Armed, opening either the tamper or the PIR circuit will result in an alarm condition.

For the benefit of anyone else who might read this, my goal is, I want to know if someone is at my front door (for example) so I can announce, turn on lights, etc, but I don't want it to set off an alarm. On the other hand, if someone goes to my front door and cuts the wire to my PIR, I want that to set off an alarm.

yes, but we're reversing things. So even though that chart used the term "alarm", the panel is seeing it as tamper (or in the language of the Rules, as "not-secure, open loop"). So every time somebody walks into your front door, the panel would see not-secure, open loop. For zone resistance short and open, when the PIR thinks it is reporting Sec. Alert/Tamper, the panel will see that as alarm, so it will report an alarm if somebody cuts the wires. As long as you have that page 9 handy, the simplest way to see this is to look at the "fig 2" on the bottom right of the page, and replace the phrase "N.C. Tamper Contacts" with "N.C. Alarm Contacts" and vice versa.

 

[RichardU]

I must be dense. I see what you mean in Fig 2, and that seems like a clever idea, but then I look at Fig 1. When Disarmed, some conditions are Sec. Alert/Tamper, but when Armed, all conditions except normal will trigger an Alarm. So how would it matter if Tamper and Alarm contacts were reversed? Either one of them will set off the Alarm.

 

[rexwilson]

in that fig 1, cross off every occurrence of the word "alarm" and write in "Sec. Alert/Tamper", and vice versa.
Then it should make sense.

 

[RichardU]

Okay. I don't mean to be argumentative, because you're being nice enough to help me think this through, but basically the alarm and tamper contacts are each a switch. If you swap places for those switches I don't see how that would change the function of the M1G such that when Armed, either switch will trigger an alarm. The M1G is just looking at voltage. It won't know or care which switch is where.