> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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 ? As far back as the manhole from the street ? 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.
> You've done your customer a huge disservice and grossly overcharged them
> for the last two and a half years. You should be ashamed!!
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Sincerely
> Frank Olson
That's very nice of you, and no I don't work for them.
Frank Olson - 29 Jul 2008 09:44 GMT
>> 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
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> 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!!
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> That's very nice of you, and no I don't work for them.
Didn't think you did...
Frank Olson - 29 Jul 2008 14:57 GMT
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Either end of the building/structure.
Actually this applies to the central station, not the monitored
premises... My bad. Be that as it may, I've always been nervous
employing a dual line communicator. I've seen "hatchet jobs" on more
than one main incoming drop.
Bob - 29 Jul 2008 15:36 GMT
>> Considering the occupancy, I'd say as far as is necessary to achieve
>> the maximum benefit. In this case two separate technologies will be
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> employing a dual line communicator. I've seen "hatchet jobs" on more
> than one main incoming drop.
right, next you'll be saying you flew upside down while selling
insurance. ;)
Frank Olson - 30 Jul 2008 02:43 GMT
>>> Considering the occupancy, I'd say as far as is necessary to achieve
>>> the maximum benefit. In this case two separate technologies will be
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> right, next you'll be saying you flew upside down while selling
> insurance. ;)
Heh...