48. New readers, Pro's are UNprofessional

48. New readers, Pro's are UNprofessional

Secure Home | Search | About
 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
48. New readers, Pro's are UNprofessional -pull 07-05-2005
Posted by on July 5, 2005, 12:26 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

Its now since 5 years that i first mentioned:
- Wireless Alarm Systems are UNRELIABLE during
Radio Frequency Interferences (RFI);
- Theyre is no warning that the system is muzzled to dead.

Some "so called" Pro's come to the conclusion:
1. RFI exist and can't be avoided;
2. There is a RFI detection in the "modern" wireless alarm systems.
3. The wireless alarm systems are working fine, no RFI detected
since 20+ years and 100000+ systems;
4. They have no RFI reliability measurement tools except theyre
on site experience;
5. There is no manufacturer support on that RFI subject.

Even if a "unsupported by manufacturers" RFI detection exist(?) its
strange that they have NO RFI alert/warnings.

Instead of having a closer look to the problem (Pro's discovered it
for the first time when i mentioned it 4 years ago), no they prefere
to act theyre way with insults, by denigrating, attempt to spoil my
posts with out of context posts, attempt to avoid my posts by calling
my provider, ++

How is it possible that they are so UNprofessional. Why do they not
call the manufacturers?


Similar ThreadsPosted
41. Nose leading... Leg twisting... Pro's June 22, 2005, 6:05 am
27. New Readers Wire less, WH0 believe in it? June 13, 2005, 12:23 am
Proximity readers June 30, 2006, 4:53 am
28. New readers, RF intruders in wireless alarm systems June 13, 2005, 12:26 am

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy