From: Jason S. <ja...@sh...> - 2007-12-03 20:35:37
|
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, MrT wrote: > > > Stu Wells-2 wrote: >> >> ... The only benefit I've seen over wired sensors is the reliability and >> I've never missed a event with >> the DS10 from X10. >> ... >> > > One problem with home-brew security solutions is that the sensors are not > "supervised" (i.e. monitored). A dead motion sensor reports nothing and > leads the application to conclude there's no movement in the room. > > A UL-approved security controller supervises its zones, wired or wireless, > and reports when it detects a failed sensor. It also runs on > highly-reliable, dedicated hardware that draws very little power. I wouldnt downplay home-brew security systems just because of a shortcoming in X10 wireless sensors. For example I use joist pressure sensors in my home-brew which IMO are far more reliable than using standard supervised PIR/Glass break sensors. My point is, a home-brew is as reliable as you want, not a problem with the concept as a whole. As far as monitoring goes, there are a lot of third-party monitoring companies that will play ball with whatever you have. Mine SMS's my cellphone with zones tripped, along with any motion pictures from all of the cameras, and then I can call the cops or not. |