We would not be able to say definitively how your existing system is set up, to do so you would need to test locally, but the assumption is likely. What model numbers are the devices? It is possible that the 2GIG panel replaced a prior Simon panel or similar.
It appears the original system is a concord 4 series system. Within the box, there is a resolution RE108. Additionally, there is a RE224GT mounted on the wall next to the original box which is connected via wires through a hole in the metal box.
What is the reason for that setup, vs just having a TAKE-345?
On my panel, 7 RF sensors are enrolled (nothing is enrolled under #3); I understand 8 is the max for the wired to wireless translators.
For the perimeter sensors, the “equipment code” is listed as (0873) 2GIG takeover module–I assume this means these are perimeter sensors from the original setup?
For motion sensors, no “equipment code” is listed in the summary. Instead there is an “equipment type” listed as “motion”, with no number. Does this mean these motion sensors were added at the time of the 2GIG panel? Or something else? Does it matter?
Aha, I see the new login is tied to a specific suretyDIY subscription. That will help. I’m able to see the devices on your system now in dealer tools.
Before we assume, did you recently move into the home? If so that will help us direct you to more likely issues.
What is the reason for that setup, vs just having a TAKE-345?
Based on the prior statements I would guess there was probably originally a GE wireless panel like a Simon XT which used the RE108, then instead of swapping for a TAKE-345, they added a translator.
I would not recommend doing it that way, but only because the system then relies on two devices to accomplish the task so it creates an additional point of possible failure in the system. It should otherwise be fine.
For the perimeter sensors, the “equipment code” is listed as (0873) 2GIG takeover module–I assume this means these are perimeter sensors from the original setup?
Equipment code does not affect much in programming. I think they just selected 0873 because they did not have a more accurate option.
For motion sensors, no “equipment code” is listed in the summary. Instead there is an “equipment type” listed as “motion”, with no number. Does this mean these motion sensors were added at the time of the 2GIG panel? Or something else? Does it matter?
Equipment code would be there, there would just be an additional programming option for Interior Follower zones, the “Type” which specifies Contact or Motion. I can see on Alarm.com it looks like this Zone has an equipment code of 0609, Existing Motion Detector, which is fine.
the sensor statuses are not registering correctly. when they are all closed, some are still registering as open, and do not correct after any length of time. why is this?
Another likely issue here is that since these zones are wired in series, keep in mind if one sensor on the zone is open the whole zone is open. Do you have any windows open?
Do you know for sure if these zones were previously working as expected or is this a new system to you?
the sensor statuses are registering correctly on the panel, just not on ADC. i have not been able to discern a pattern as to which ones are incorrect and why–they seem to vary by day, and can change after arming and disarming.
Another likely issue here is that since these zones are wired in series, keep in mind if one sensor on the zone is open the whole zone is open. Do you have any windows open?
all sensors are closed even when showing an open zone on ADC; again, the panel itself shows correct status
RF#3 is listed as inactive currently, but it seems it was previously programmed, as when i go in to edit, there is previously entered information…what do you suspect happened here?
Do you know for sure if these zones were previously working as expected or is this a new system to you?
it was functioning correctly for the previous owners
You would need to check the remainder of the zone 3 programming to see if a certain zone was deleted. If marked unused, no other details can be viewed through dealer diagnostics, unfortunately.
It is likely that a zone was deactivated for some reason. Do you notice any sensors that are not accounted for in programming?
the sensor statuses are registering correctly on the panel, just not on ADC. i have not been able to discern a pattern as to which ones are incorrect and why–they seem to vary by day, and can change after arming and disarming.
Could you provide a photo of the Home Screen and the Status screen? Security - Status.
It looks like a prior arming command caused a forced bypass on a number of zones, which would indicate that they were open at that time. It looks like if they have been reporting since then, Alarm.com did not receive an update from the panel.
Have you tried opening and closing any of those sensors? Can you do so now? For this purpose let’s test Zone 4. When you open it, does the panel show it as open? When you closed it again does that resolve the ADC status?
The zone 3 attributes in the panel have it labeled as its own room with a description appropriate for its physical location. However, when I test it, it activates another one of the zones. Is this explained possibly by the original installers, instead of creating a unique zone for the zone 3 sensor(s) (which would have been their original intention in this hypothesis), having unintentionally or mistakenly wired it in series with the the other sensors in the zone it’s currently grouped with? Or could there be another explanation?
So I tested all the sensors reporting incorrectly on ADC. (The panel always reports the correct state of the sensors.) After opening and closing the sensors reporting incorrectly on ADC, they all report correctly on ADC now. Is this an expected consequence of arming the system with open sensors and creating a forced bypass? If so, why does this happen? Can the system be set to not allow arming if any sensors are open?
Is this explained possibly by the original installers, instead of creating a unique zone for the zone 3 sensor(s) (which would have been their original intention in this hypothesis), having unintentionally or mistakenly wired it in series with the the other sensors in the zone it’s currently grouped with? Or could there be another explanation?
There could be a lot of explanations. If you can confirm that the sensors which would logically be associated with that zone already trigger a different zone and all sensors activate an existing zone, then the 2GIG installer likely just thought there was an extra zone, but later found that the sensors were part of another one.
After opening and closing the sensors reporting incorrectly on ADC, they all report correctly on ADC now. Is this an expected consequence of arming the system with open sensors and creating a forced bypass?
No, that should have no effect. We suggested to open and close the sensor so that sensor activity from those zones would be sent to ADC from the panel. The panel updates ADC when a change occurs. This tells us that there was a state change that didn’t reach the panel for some reason.
You could always test the scenario again by opening a sensor on one of the zones, arming remotely, then closing that zone after the panel is armed. Does Alarm.com see the sensor close?
Can the system be set to not allow arming if any sensors are open?
Locally you would need to actively bypass the zones. Remote commands will always force-bypass zones.
do you mean the state change didn’t reach the panel, or did’t get communicated from the panel to ADC? (i think the latter, since i’ve not seen the panel be incorrect yet). either way, what would be the reason for state changes not reaching the panel or ADC? is this a known or common issue, or would it reflect a problem with my system that needs to be fixed? is there a way to minimize its occurrence? i assume there is no way to confirm whether the statuses shown on ADC are correct if i am not on the premises?
do you mean the state change didn’t reach the panel, or did’t get communicated from the panel to ADC?
That the panel did not sync that change with ADC.
what would be the reason for state changes not reaching the panel or ADC?
This would need to be tested. The panel should send each state change.
One possibility is if you were working on the panel and powering it down, the sensors may have changed state when the panel was powered down. Another possibility if physical work was being done with the panel is that the antenna may have loosened and lost connection temporarily. Signal strength looks to be solid, so it was unlikely an overall communication loss without local cause.
First try to recreate the scenario by opening a sensor on one of the zones, arming remotely, then closing that zone after the panel is armed. Does Alarm.com see the sensor close?
<li>Next test if supervision is working as expected by powering down the panel completely, opening a sensor and leaving it open, then powering up the panel. Alarm.com and the panel should show that window zone as closed. Leave the sensor open for a full hour and a half. <strong>Does the panel announce within that time that the sensor is open and does that update on ADC?</strong></li>
Are your sensors now opening and closing as expected? Be sure to test the sensor supervision per above, as I am curious if that might be the issue with the RE108 - Translator combo.
Can you verify that sensor supervision is enabled on all of those zones in programming? the RF Supervision option should be set at (1) Enabled.
Next test if supervision is working as expected by powering down the panel completely, opening a sensor and leaving it open, then powering up the panel. Alarm.com and the panel should show that window zone as closed. Leave the sensor open for a full hour and a half.
ok will do. pardon my ignorance, but just to make sure i understand the sequence correctly: power down -> open sensor -> leave open and wait 1.5 h -> power up? OR: power down -> open sensor -> power up -> wait 1.5 h to see if sensor state changes from closed to open? (i think it’s the latter–so it can take supervision up to 1.5 h to pick up a status change?)
to power down completely, is the only way to unplug and remove the backup battery?
pardon my ignorance, but just to make sure i understand the sequence correctly: power down -> open sensor -> leave open and wait 1.5 h -> power up? OR: power down -> open sensor -> power up -> wait 1.5 h to see if sensor state changes from closed to open?
It’s certainly not ignorant to request clarification of steps!
Yes, the latter sequence.
Power down > open sensor > Power Up. The panel will boot into a state where it assumes all sensors are closed as it has not been sent any status change from a sensor yet. Then wait for the supervision interval to occur within that hour and a half.
to power down completely, is the only way to unplug and remove the backup battery?
On the GC2, yes. You could try opening a sensor while the panel is rebooting after exiting system programming, but that usually doesn’t take too long so you would need to hurry. We just want to open the sensor in the powered off state. It is the easiest way to test this.
First try to recreate the scenario by opening a sensor on one of the zones, arming remotely, then closing that zone after the panel is armed. Does Alarm.com see the sensor close?
yes–panel and ADC saw sensor close on this test
Next test if supervision is working as expected by powering down the panel completely,
on this test, neither the panel nor ADC recognized the sensor as open when the panel powered back up, BUT i only had time to wait a half hour; i’ll report back when i have time to wait the full 90 mins. when i closed then opened the sensor, the panel and ADC started reporting the status again correctly
am i correct in assuming there is no way to confirm whether the statuses shown on ADC are correct/concordant with the panel if i am not on the premises?
am i correct in assuming there is no way to confirm whether the statuses shown on ADC are correct/concordant with the panel if i am not on the premises?
If trying to test and confirm, yes, there would be no other way to check unless someone can physically see the sensors.
The panel is reporting the status changes to Alarm.com. If the panel is incapacitated for some reason when a change occurs, supervision should ensure the status is later updated. Ultimately during normal operation you shouldn’t see any miscues.
I think what you saw is likely a situation where the sensors were simply opened when the panel wasn’t able to communicate, was powered down or otherwise being worked on.
It is important to test the supervision interval in this case to verify that status can update during it.
-I powered down the system
-I opened zone 7
-on power up, zone 7 reported closed on panel. After about 1 hr, zone 7 reported open on panel and ADC
next:
-i closed zone 7
-I powered down the system
-I opened zone 8, and left zone 7 closed
-on power up zone 8 reported closed; after about 1 h 20 min, zone 8 reported open
-after 2 h, zone 7 still reports as open on ADC, but reports closed on the panel
So it appears supervision is working? How long should it take/does it normally take for supervision to recognize an open sensor? What is the max time it should take? Why is the time to recognition of a sensor being open variable, and what determines the length of time?
Why is the panel not reporting the closed zone 7 to ADC, and appears it never will until the sensor is opened and closed again?
-i opened then closed zone 7, following which it reported correctly on panel & ADC
-i closed zone 8
-i opened zones 4 and 5
-i rebooted the panel by entering installer configuration, then exiting
-once the panel had powered back up, the panel reported unarmed and ready (green home button), i.e. it thought all zones were closed, even though zones 4 and 5 were still open
-after 50 minutes, zones 4 and 5 reported open on panel and ADC; however, zone 8 continued to show open on ADC, despite having been closed prior to rebooting
the conclusions seem to be that:
if the panel is powered down, once it has powered back up it assumes all sensors are closed, unless and until supervision tells it otherwise. it also seems apparent that the sensor doesn’t need to be opened while the panel is powered down, but that this phenomenon will occur even if the sensor is opened when the panel is on, before powering down
there seems to be a delay in a sensor telling the panel that a sensor has closed and/or a delay in the panel sending the closed status to ADC, and that if the panel is powered down and back up before the status is sent to ADC, ADC will show the sensor as open forever, until that sensor is opened & closed again.
are these known/expected features of this system? it seems supervision ultimately corrects #1 above. however as far as i can tell, #2 requires a manual fix by a human (open and closing the faultily-reporting sensor). i’m curious to hear what you guys think.
Yes, it sounds like supervision is functioning as expected, but what you are seeing makes sense; if the sensor is open, then is closed and the panel reboots before the panel updates ADC, the sensor status would not change at the supervision interval as it would have been assumed closed during power up.
Since no change occurs as far as the panel is concerned, no change is seen by ADC.
From a prior post, keep in mind that there is a 3 minute delay roughly between like signals registering in ADC, to make sure that a malfunctioning sensor or someone opening and closing a sensor repeatedly does not overload the data transmission.
Under normal operation you should never really run into this.
Ok. I’m still not understanding why when the sensor is closed, then the panel is rebooted, why the closed state is not eventually reported to ADC, since it’s correctly showing closed on the panel? i guess it must be that the panel does not periodically report system status to ADC, but only reports to ADC when there is a change in status?
Why is the time that supervision takes to notice an open sensor that the system previously thought or assumed was closed so highly variable and potentially takes up to 90 mins?
Will supervision tell me if a sensor is malfunctioning for any reason, e.g. tampering, malfunction, power loss, device end of life, etc.?
i guess it must be that the panel does not periodically report system status to ADC, but only reports to ADC when there is a change in status?
Yes, the panel reports when a change in status occurs. In the circumstance where it reboots into a state where the sensor is closed but ADC still thinks it is open, it will not send a close signal until the sensor is opened and closed.
If the sensor is open and the panel reboots into a state where the panel assumes it to be closed, supervision sees that it is open, the status changes on the panel, thus updates on Alarm.com activity status.
Why is the time that supervision takes to notice an open sensor that the system previously thought or assumed was closed so highly variable and potentially takes up to 90 mins?
This will depend on the last supervision time. The RE108 supervision interval is 60 minutes. We suggested 90 minutes to ensure that enough time had elapsed for a good test (just to make sure it wasn’t aborted early)
Will supervision tell me if a sensor is malfunctioning for any reason, e.g. tampering, malfunction, power loss, device end of life, etc.?
Malfuntions and tampers etc., are forwarded when they occur, but if the communication does not go through for whatever reason, yes the state would be caught by supervision.
Thanks so much for all your help. You guys are great for people who like to understand how things work!
It seems like if 2gig updated their firmware to periodically ensure ADC has the correct status from the panel, the system would be a little more robust…
would there be any reason for me to switch out the re108 for a take as long as things seem to be functioning?
Is there a way to test the integrity Of the backup battery in the wired system?
It seems like if 2gig updated their firmware to periodically ensure ADC has the correct status from the panel, the system would be a little more robust…
The activity status on Alarm.com doesn’t affect how the local system performs, and this is a specific set of circumstances which lead to the issue being discussed, so normal operation shouldn’t really see it. I think it’s not a bad idea, but I am not sure if it is possible in the current framework.
would there be any reason for me to switch out the re108 for a take as long as things seem to be functioning?
I don’t think so, as long as signaling is good to the panel.
Is there a way to test the integrity Of the backup battery in the wired system?
I wouldn’t recommend draining it all the way as a test, as that will impact life of the battery. Typically, whenever starting service with a system that has a 12VDC brick battery involved, I would recommend swapping the battery. That way you have a fresh battery and concern over the charge capacity and battery life are unnecessary.
If you know for sure that the battery was recently installed, you should be fine.
The battery would be providing backup for any powered wired sensors like glass breaks and motions, but the RE108 should have its own backup as well, which is all that is needed for doors and windows since they do not use power.