Another area that should not be overlooked is that of technological advances made by manufacturers of late. Innovations such as microprocessor-controlled detectors allowing digital pulse counts and digital temperature compensation, combined with advanced detection algorithms, have dramatically reduced detector activations caused by false alarm sources.
Traditionally, intruder detection and false alarm immunity have been tied together, each exerting a detrimental effect on the other whereby improving one reduces its counterpart and vice versa. Finding the ‘optimum’ balance point has been the key. The ultimate goal, however, is to separate these two factors and improve on both elements.
The introduction of the new European Standards has meant many changes for the manufacturers of security products, and necessitated the modification of systems. To the more reputable solutions providers, this was seen as an opportunity to further enhance products by ensuring full system compliance to further add value for the user.
For example, in May last year Texecom was one of the first companies to certify all products EN 50131-compliant. The move reflected the company’s aim to provide security installers with clear guidance on the prevailing issues that face the security industry.
The decision as to which equipment manufacturer’s products they should choose is a complex one for the end user. After all, they are entrusting the security of their business to the solutions provider. Reliability is the key, although never at the expense of performance. Well-designed products will always provide high levels of performance and reliability.
When selecting a detector, for example, there are a few features that ought to be considered essential. A PIR must have a suitable white light filter, sealed optics and mounting height adjustment. A dual technology detector must have an adjustable range on the microwave Doppler to ensure that the detector doesn’t ‘spot’ objects outside of the intended range.
Security product manufacturers have added various features to products over the years, the most important development arguably being the advent of microprocessor-controlled digital detectors. This has allowed a host of techniques to be developed, not only aimed at false alarm reduction but also improved detection, too.
Digital pulse counts – which can actively discriminate against false signals – have taken false alarm detection to new levels, while also providing vastly improved intruder detection rates through pulse wave discrimination and shape analysis. In addition, digital temperature compensation allows detectors to adjust to the ambient temperature of a specific environment. This enables sensors to differentiate between false alarm sources and actual alarm situations more effectively in extreme environments.
Carefully engineered, insect-proof optical chambers have further aided the reduction in false detections by eliminating false activations due to drafts, dust and, of course, insects.
The primary cause of false alarms is the end user, the most common cause being an incorrect un-setting of the system on entry. Thankfully, this problem has now been virtually eliminated thanks to the condition laid down by DD 243 that an alarm cannot be confirmed in an entry exit zone.
The second most common user-generated false alarm is when the end user sets the system incorrectly. To alleviate the situation, some manufacturers have added features such as ‘Auto Part Set’. Essentially, this simplifies setting the system by arming full set if the entry exit door is opened during the exit timer or auto arming part set if it’s not.
The features outlined by no means represent a ‘definitive’ list of solutions and innovations provided by security product manufacturers to aid false alarm reduction. It’s simply intended to serve as a reminder of the time and resources many systems providers are allocating to what constitutes a vital issue for the entire industry.
Andrew Loxham
Marketing Co-ordinator
Texecom