Simplex 4020

[Wibber]

Trying to change the monitoring of a Simplex 4020 from Reverse Polarity to a security panel monitoring trouble, supervisory and alarm contacts.

When the reverse polarity conductors were removed it introduced a trouble with the city contacts.

What is the difference between the P4 jumper options of local energy, shunt, and Form C?

I changed the P4 jumpers to the three other options and couldn't get the trouble to go away. What am I missing?

[FIRETEK]

What configuration are you using on P4?

[Wibber]

It's now jumpered on 2,5,7,9,12,13 - Local energy.

I'm trying to get dry contacts that change on a) trouble and b) alarm states in order to monitor the panel with a security system.

I eventually got the panel trouble to go away with a resistor accross the +,- nodes of the city tie.

[FIRETEK]

Remove all but 13 on P4. Leave the resistor across the (+) & (-) of the City Tie.

[sparky]

Contract someone who's qualified to work on the system please! I can only hope a system verification has been scheduled to ensure this system is functioning entirely after your adjustment.....

[FIRETEK]

Jumper settings on P4 don't affect anything that's really mission critical. It will provide the installer the ability to tie in an independent communicator as it will convert the currently useless city tie to relay outputs. I don't think a verification is necessary, but I do agree that a Simplex trained technician should have been called in to begin with. It sounds like he's got everything under control.

[sparky]

I did not realize that our standards stated that a control panel adjustment that is not "mission critical" does not need verification... In fact one of your inspirational references whom which has a forum topic dedicated to him states quite clearly that any modification to a main control panel requires a "FULL" system verification. Someone such as yourself Frank should know that in the city of Vancouver BULLETIN 2000-021-E states this exact fact.

Don't be so quick to judge Mr. Kurz. If you want to be so quick to slander companies and people is this industry for a code interpretation I suggest you take a look at yourself.

Purhaps you should add yourself to your bull shit brickee awards. I know you'll get my vote.

[FIRETEK]

I did not realize that our standards stated that a control panel adjustment that is not "mission critical" does not need verification... In fact one of your inspirational references whom which has a forum topic dedicated to him states quite clearly that any modification to a main control panel requires a "FULL" system verification. Someone such as yourself Frank should know that in the city of Vancouver BULLETIN 2000-021-E states this exact fact.

Don't be so quick to judge Mr. Kurz. If you want to be so quick to slander companies and people is this industry for a code interpretation I suggest you take a look at yourself.

Purhaps you should add yourself to your bull shit brickee awards. I know you'll get my vote.

Interconnection of the third party contacts (also referred to as "contractor terminals") normally doesn't require a verification (the individual connecting to them must adhere to the voltage and current limitations stipulated by the manufacturer). Changing the output collector that uses an unutilized "city tie" connection to straight relays doesn't require a verification (the technician should confirm status change for the alarm, trouble, and supervisory relays to ensure they operate correctly). Hook-up to a third party communicator doesn't require verification.

As far as "pointing fingers" goes, feel free to do so, but I would prefer it come from an individual that identifies himself/herself rather than hides behind a pseudonym (this includes using a bogus email address, which incidentally I've tolerated in the interests of populating the forum with legitimate discussion, but is also against our Terms of Use).

Your accusation of "slander" is untrue, I would suggest you look up the meaning in the dictionary and in Canadian Legal Statutes. To begin with "slander" is a verbal slur, "libel" is written and both involve the dissemination of false or untrue statements (as you have so eloquently demonstrated with your own accusation). I have not libeled or slandered any individual or company (I believe in calling a Spade, a Spade). A very high percentage of the articles you see that involve annual inspection errors have all been investigated by ASTTBC and the conclusions to those investigations have also been published (it's only been recently that ASTTBC has instituted the "VI" discipline and it's currently still in the "teething stages" so I will have to rely on the applicable Codes and Standards which all technicians engaged in the practice should be following).

In closing I invite you to give me a call (my system will accept blocked calls too) and we can discuss this further. You're also free to open another topic and we'll continue this debate in the open forum so we can all benefit.

Happy Thanksgiving!