Re: Dear "Well Known National Alarm Company":

A.J. wrote:
"Frank Olson" <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:KJxjk.40991$nD.1634@xxxxxxxxxxxx
The ULC certificated system you installed two years ago at this grade school was bogus. The fact that you certified the system was nothing more than a money grab. Here is a list of deficiencies we found (and corrected) when we took over the system:

1. A plug-in transformer is not allowed.


Correct.


2. ULC requires a dedicated circuit for the alarm communicator. It can't be "shared" with a Nortel Networks telephone system or a Telus supplied ADSL Modem.


Depending on the year it was installed. I believe it 's only until recent years that a dedicated circuit is required for the communicator.

Did I say 2006??




3. ULC requires that the primary telephone line must be dedicated to the fire alarm communicator. It can not be "shared" with the customer's ADSL Modem and most definitely must seize the line ahead of the modem.


Dedicated phone line is not required, as far as I know.

For the "primary line" in this jurisdiction it is. ULC "defaults" to the jurisdiction.




4. The Power 832 (your Focus 32) panel must have two 7AH batteries connected to the battery harness to meet the requirements of the ULC listing.


Correct.


5. You can not under any circumstances circumvent the lightning arrestor at the DMARC/Protector.


Correct, but nothing to do with ULC requirement.


6. All wiring to the communicator cabinet must be either armoured or run in conduit. This includes the wiring to the keypad.


Correct.


7. The ULC certificate has space for five scheduled inspections. The certificate was issued in 2006 and should be valid until 2011. The first "inspection" was signed off one month after installation. The last one was signed off less than two weeks ago. I hesitate to post what you charged the customer for each of these "inspections". What were you going to do "next year"? Sign off on the back of the certificate??


Hmmmm, no idea there.

The certificate calls for annual inspections.




8. You should teach your technicians to recognize a PROPER ULC installation. The fact that four separate techs signed off on this sham just boggles the mind.


Agree 100%.


9. The Mircom 1000 has independent outputs for sprinkler supervisory. The supervisory and trouble contacts do not activate together (simultaneously). ULC requires that you monitor the supervisory output (as does the local authority). For the last two years a latching tamper (generated by someone that's just turned off the water) would never have registered with your CS.


Correct.


10. If you're going to use a dual line digital communicator, the telephone lines must be installed in accordance with NFPA 72. And you definitely cannot run both lines in a single eight conductor CAT3 cable. When you have all the lines entering through the same conduit, an alternate means of communication must be provided. Typically this is done by either an RF transceiver or ULC listed cellular communicator.


I have to disagree with you here. How far are you willing to carry the different path approach ?

Considering the occupancy, I'd say as far as is necessary to achieve the maximum benefit. In this case two separate technologies will be used. A hard line (POTS) and GSM.


As far back as the manhole from the street ?

Either end of the building/structure.


But pretty soon dual line comm will be history anyway, so no point arguing further. I am not a big fan of digital communicator only for fire alarm system anyway, so the sooner it goes away, the happier I am.

I couldn't agree more.


You've done your customer a huge disservice and grossly overcharged them for the last two and a half years. You should be ashamed!!

PS. Your equipment has been neatly boxed and is located behind the office counter. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Sincerely
Frank Olson

That's very nice of you, and no I don't work for them.

Didn't think you did...
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dear "Well Known National Alarm Company":
    ... ULC requires a dedicated circuit for the alarm communicator. ... certificate was issued in 2006 and should be valid until 2011. ... "inspection" was signed off one month after installation. ...
    (alt.security.alarms)
  • Dear "Well Known National Alarm Company":
    ... The ULC certificated system you installed two years ago at this grade school was bogus. ... ULC requires that the primary telephone line must be dedicated to the fire alarm communicator. ... The certificate was issued in 2006 and should be valid until 2011. ... You should teach your technicians to recognize a PROPER ULC installation. ...
    (alt.security.alarms)
  • Signing drivers with signtool for XP 64-bit -- suppressing the war
    ... Ineed to suppress the unsigned driver installation dialog for an automation ... article "Driver signing policy is automatically elevated for unsigned ... I need to sign our drivers for unattended installation via ... Signing Certificate Chain: ...
    (microsoft.public.development.device.drivers)
  • Re: DIFx Framework - HOWTO
    ... The certificate was not installed on the machine, that's s why I did exactly ... The test certificate is obtained through the commands: ... I've successfully created the unsinged cat file using: ... >> installation through DIFx framework but have some troubles with it. ...
    (microsoft.public.development.device.drivers)
  • Re: client installation error
    ... The certificate is TRUST_E_TIME_STAMP however I do not think that will help. ... This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, ... the installation stop at this error "Error 0x80096005: ... >> Jeff Harbaugh [MSFT] ...
    (microsoft.public.sms.setup)