36. Yes i confirm Wireless unreliability since 2001

36. Yes i confirm Wireless unreliability since 2001
Secure Home | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 Electronic Security in UK    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
36. Yes i confirm Wireless unreliability since 2001 -pull 06-19-2005
Posted by on June 19, 2005, 5:41 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

I post on a regular basis since 2001 that wireless alarm systems are
unreliable during Radio Frequency Interferences (RFI).

Since that time, several professional specialists (they call
themselves like that but I don't see why in view of theyre knowledge)
have mentioned that the new systems avoid RFI but they are unable to
explain how.
Other pro's (?) say that RFI is detected but they can't explain how.
It doesn't exist that marvelous/imaginative wireless alarm system.

Instead of analyzing the problem and submitting it to they're "product
manufacturers" for eventual support, no, pro's wanted to "handle" it
themselves, they're uses a more in theyre reach technique, they
attempt to block my post, email en Internet access, they insult and
more...
Pro's don't like what I say...
Pro's are unable to counter-argue with technical supported arguments.

Instead of looking to the real problem RFI causes, pro's try to hide
reality, they raise unjustified smoke curtains in an attempt to
generate uncertainty, fear in order to put my statements in doubt.

Business and financial interests obliges...

All attempts failed and convince me even more that I have to inform
the new readers...

The problem of RFI on wireless alarm systems is to serious to be
neglected and not mentioned to the purchasers.

All REAL PROFESSIONALS in the wireless data communication business
know that RFI problem, "low level electricians" in the alarm
installer/seller business don't.

WHY do Manufacturers not counter-argue by publishing the most basic
data subject theyre wireless data communication loop quality (RFI
avoidance means???, RFI detection means???, receiver quality data???).

WHY? Theyre system have elementary receivers with a large band pass
(SAW filter type band pass), low outside band pass rejection, low
intermodulation quality, etc.. cost obliges.. theyre wireless alarm
systems are RFI sensitive, NO RFI selective warning, they know it but
don't like to publish it.

I will continue posting in order to inform the new readers because I
cant admit so called pro's (?) stupidity that don't admit that there
is a inherent Radio data communication problem with wireless alarm
systems..
Wireless signals can be detected and disrupted from the outside.

So called pro's in that alarm business obviously don't possess the
meager intellectual capacity required to understand the basic concepts
of wireless data exchange principles. Don't overestimate theyre talent
to judge others either.

Paul



Posted by Roger on June 19, 2005, 4:44 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I have on several occasions attempted to explain these things to you. All
that happens is that you end up not understanding what's going on and
through your ignorance you end up ranting. A week or so later you post again
saying that no-one has explained these things to you. If you have such a
problem understanding wireless systems why don't you contact a manufacturer
directly?.

If you really want to learn about wireless technology in alarm systems why
don't you ask a proper question here on this newsgroup. You never know,
someone might educate you. I haven't given up hope yet but I must admit that
when you constantly post lies on top of lies it doesn't help. You are not
subjective.

> Other pro's (?) say that RFI is detected but they can't explain how.
> It doesn't exist that marvelous/imaginative wireless alarm system.
I can explain how. If you ask me I will tell you how it works. You only have
to ask... nicely!.

> Pro's don't like what I say...
> Pro's are unable to counter-argue with technical supported arguments.
In all my time reading your posts I cannot remember seeing any technical
supported arguments with reference to RFI jamming detection. Show me some.
And in reference to the above, I will give you whatever technical arguments
you want. Don't rant. Just ask.

> Instead of looking to the real problem RFI causes, pro's try to hide
> reality, they raise unjustified smoke curtains in an attempt to
> generate uncertainty, fear in order to put my statements in doubt.
Just so that I know, what type of 'smoke curtains' are you talking about.
Please give me an example.

> WHY do Manufacturers not counter-argue by publishing the most basic
> data subject theyre wireless data communication loop quality (RFI
> avoidance means???, RFI detection means???, receiver quality data???).
Bad english here but I think what you're after is How is a high level of
background RFI detected. Is this what you are getting at?. If so all you
need to do is contact a manufacturer & they'll probably tell you. I can tell
you if you like. Just ask. It's actually very simple so maybie you could
understand it.

>NO RFI selective warning, they know it but
> don't like to publish it.
Older systems maybie. Newer systems... ah! smell the roses. RFI jamming
detection in all its glory. Want to know how it works?. Ask away.




Posted by Jim Rojas on June 20, 2005, 2:06 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
After 4 years of endless dribble, we can safely say that Paul's brain is
still not immune to RFI. It's time to take the headphones off Paul. Maybe
one of us "PROS" can send you a tin foil lined hat to block all the unwanted
RFI.

Yes Paul, there is a life beyond RFI...

Jim Rojas


>
> I post on a regular basis since 2001 that wireless alarm systems are
> unreliable during Radio Frequency Interferences (RFI).
>
> Since that time, several professional specialists (they call
> themselves like that but I don't see why in view of theyre knowledge)
> have mentioned that the new systems avoid RFI but they are unable to
> explain how.
> Other pro's (?) say that RFI is detected but they can't explain how.
> It doesn't exist that marvelous/imaginative wireless alarm system.
>
> Instead of analyzing the problem and submitting it to they're "product
> manufacturers" for eventual support, no, pro's wanted to "handle" it
> themselves, they're uses a more in theyre reach technique, they
> attempt to block my post, email en Internet access, they insult and
> more...
> Pro's don't like what I say...
> Pro's are unable to counter-argue with technical supported arguments.
>
> Instead of looking to the real problem RFI causes, pro's try to hide
> reality, they raise unjustified smoke curtains in an attempt to
> generate uncertainty, fear in order to put my statements in doubt.
>
> Business and financial interests obliges...
>
> All attempts failed and convince me even more that I have to inform
> the new readers...
>
> The problem of RFI on wireless alarm systems is to serious to be
> neglected and not mentioned to the purchasers.
>
> All REAL PROFESSIONALS in the wireless data communication business
> know that RFI problem, "low level electricians" in the alarm
> installer/seller business don't.
>
> WHY do Manufacturers not counter-argue by publishing the most basic
> data subject theyre wireless data communication loop quality (RFI
> avoidance means???, RFI detection means???, receiver quality data???).
>
> WHY? Theyre system have elementary receivers with a large band pass
> (SAW filter type band pass), low outside band pass rejection, low
> intermodulation quality, etc.. cost obliges.. theyre wireless alarm
> systems are RFI sensitive, NO RFI selective warning, they know it but
> don't like to publish it.
>
> I will continue posting in order to inform the new readers because I
> cant admit so called pro's (?) stupidity that don't admit that there
> is a inherent Radio data communication problem with wireless alarm
> systems..
> Wireless signals can be detected and disrupted from the outside.
>
> So called pro's in that alarm business obviously don't possess the
> meager intellectual capacity required to understand the basic concepts
> of wireless data exchange principles. Don't overestimate theyre talent
> to judge others either.
>
> Paul
>




Posted by on June 21, 2005, 4:54 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Paul,

The only person you are impressing with your anti-wireless rhetoric is
yourself. It's a shame you don't put all this energy into something
worthwhile--something that would benefit society. Perhaps you ought to
work for the United Nation, or for one of their more popular NGOs.
That would be an organization that works like, and acts like yourself.
You'd feel right at home there old top!



Similar ThreadsPosted
30. Regardless the wireless brand.. June 14, 2005, 7:11 pm
FS: C&K SpreadNet Wireless February 18, 2006, 10:10 am
25. Newbee? Wireless RFI alarm OWL will hit you.. May 31, 2005, 4:44 pm
Wireless CCTV web cam supplier December 15, 2005, 4:09 am
Re: 44. Why are wireless alarm systems... June 25, 2005, 5:21 am
yale wireless alarm August 30, 2007, 2:35 pm
Wired and Wireless Combo January 18, 2008, 3:06 pm
Wireless camera to use on pc - advice please February 29, 2008, 1:18 pm
18/ Why does RFI jeopardize wireless alarm opperation? May 27, 2005, 5:46 am
Re: 22. Are you an OLD or a NEW VICTIM of wireless alarm systems May 29, 2005, 7:08 pm

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy