Originally Posted By: a49deere
Originally Posted By: Formermac
Originally Posted By: a49deere
easily! program siplex system to detect if one. two or more heads are activated, sprinkler flow and a smoke head activation! multiply head activations and a sprinkler flow. any of the above and a pull station activation. campus security could investigate an alarm of only one device activated and at the same time putting fire dept on standby without leaving house. just sayin

Exactly, it all sounds good on paper or as we say in the electronic arena, schematics are flawless. Tell me of a perfectly and flawless system and I'll show you one that is PERFECT in every form in regard to design, one which is totally deactivated and lays dormant. Now about your infinite knowledge of what system HWS utilizes, maybe you can fine tune it to zero malfunctions. Based on experience, it's always a fool who speaks nonsensical babbling when uneducated in such areas, Just saying wink

ok, Mister" electronics expert" do you have any clue of what type of fire alarm system Hobart utilizes? How old of a system it is? What is a remote receiver and transponder in the system? Have you looked up the definition of transponder? modern day fire alarm systems like Hobart's don't use transponders, unless they have fired their IT dept and gone back to the 70's

I love it when I can get under the skin of someone that don't know what they're speaking about. You're right, I have no knowledge of the type of fire system HWS possess. My point? regardless of the system, how do they minimize the amount of false alarms. BTW 4 years at Buffalo State and 34 years with LaChase as a master electrician, do think in any way I'll lower my standards for lil ole you? Calm down and try to get back to the topic at hand.....excessive call outs. lastly, unless you can tell us what type of fire detection is used, most of your rhetoric is for naught, I still retain my knowledge and you appear to be the fool.whistle