Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!mit-eddie!attctc!vector!telecom-gateway From: KLH@nic.ddn.mil (Ken Harrenstien) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Trivial Ring Detection Message-ID: Date: 24 Nov 89 00:45:51 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 31 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 530, message 9 of 11 > Oh, yeah, take your BSR alarm module set the switch to trigger on > contact closure. Wire the contacts together and plug it into the > 43-177. I'm guessing that there is enough time for the BSR signal to > get out before the ring pulse falls (closing the internal relay). If you know that the FF (43-177) is powered by telco current rather than house current, and consequently doesn't need to be plugged into 120VAC, that might work. Otherwise won't this method end up frying the unsuspecting alarm module? (btw, a complete X-10 message takes 183ms) > Otherwise a 110vac SPST relay will solve the problem, tie the coil > side to the 110ac output on the 43-177 and the NO (normally open) > contact side to the "trigger" connections on your BSR alarm module. Yeah, this was what I had been thinking of doing, if no other ideas came along. Unfortunately, it now looks as if the RS "Universal Interface", aka BSR "PowerFlash" burglar alarm, may not be useful after all. The instructions I dug from an opened box for the latter seem to imply that once triggered, things remain active until a reset button is manually pushed. In other words, if you forget to disconnect it before going out of the house, you could return to find that a random call had left the entire place blinking on and off all day (or week). Not so good. Unless I discover that the RS version has a modification to track the input signal instead of triggering on it, or an automatic reset timeout, it looks like the "technology store" is going to come up short. Ken