Galaxy Dimension compatibility with SSR Detectors

[Quintas]

Hi.

I have random high resistances in most zones of a Honeywell Galaxy Dimension. I would like to replace my panel with a new one, but I've been told these panels are incompatible with detectors that have solid state relays (and I have several of these).

Can anyone confirm this information?

Thanks.

[Secware_Tech6]

id be looking at the hr issues on the galaxy first. Its mostl likly to support these

You can use common rail 0v on a Galaxy you cant on most panels.

Can you post an example of your detectors?

[Quintas]

Sorry, can you explain the meaning of "hr issues on the galaxy"? Such as?

1 hour ago, Secware_Tech6 said:

You can use common rail 0v on a Galaxy you cant on most panels.

So this isn't an issue, right?

I have several DT detectors brands and the only ones that I suspect that don't have SSR are C&K Systems DT-400T. My most recent DT detectors (Bosch Blueline Tritech and Risco WhatchOut) have SSR.

Also have Out-Smart (Maximum Security) DT detector, and Texecom  Exodus 4W Series and Cooper Security M12 smoke detectors, but don't know what kind of relays they have.

Thanks.

Edited May 12 by Quintas
Wrote it wrong.

[Secware_Tech6]

id say not an issue. HR is high res reported by the panel assumming your 1k 1k the panel is seeing about 1.3k (ish)

thats showing to me a different issue

[Quintas]

The problem is, if I go through the max/min resistances registered in the last 14 days log, in all zones, most of the days max resistances are OK (near 1K). But sometimes, in one of the 16 zones, there is one day out of the 14 logged days with a HR near 1.3K (frequently it is 1297 Ohm).

This is a zone random issue and it happens occasionally. The problem is that sometimes it gets higher than 1.3K.

I've never seen it in a spare (closed with 1K resistor) zone though. Also, doesn't seem to happen if all 16 zones are closed with 1K resistors at the panel.

It seems to be more frequent the more the number of detectors I have wired and less frequent in zones without detectors (eg door contacts, panic button).

Any ideas?

Do you know if Galaxy panels are prone to this issues, because of the "common rail 0v on a Galaxy" you mentioned?

[Secware_Tech6]

no its not common.

Id be doing some tests on the cable etc.

Or move the circuit or swap 2 devices over first

 

[Quintas]

I've already done dozens of tests.

I've a GD-96, two external RIOs, three keypads. High resistance happened with the onboard zones and with RIO's zones.

One RIO was in Line1, the other in Line2. Swapped the RIOs, no luck. Disconnected one RIO at a time, changed the cable from RIOs to panel, changed the cable route (RIOs are 3m away from the panel), ended testing with just the panel and one keypad, tried different keypads, disconnected detectors by brand. Nothing works.

I believe I have a faulty panel and I'm willing to buy a new one. But I'd like to confirm the information of the incompatibility with detectors with SSR first.

Have you ever heard of that?

[Secware_Tech6]

No

I doubt its the Panel if the rios are reporting it.

the line should be irrelevant i wouldnt worry about that.

id prove the detector line first by just using a resistor. then id confirm the detectors dont have a cap between alarm and tamper lines

then if its just one detector type id drill that down

[Quintas]

22 hours ago, Secware_Tech6 said:

then id confirm the detectors dont have a cap between alarm and tamper lines

Can you explain how to do this?

[Secware_Tech6]

It's the design of the detector however doesn't usually affect eol circuits

Prove the cable or swap inputs first to see if it's a damaged expander.

Also ensure the power supplies are good batteries charge voltage etc

[Quintas]

Firstly, thank you for keep trying to point solutions.

Power supplies seem to be good. Option 61 - Diagnostics say everything is ok. Anyway, I changed to a new battery, tested with and without backup battery connected, doesn't make a difference.

20 hours ago, Secware_Tech6 said:

Prove the cable or swap inputs first to see if it's a damaged expander.

Not sure what you mean. If expanders are the external RIOs, I'm now testing without them and the problem persists.

[Secware_Tech6]

ok so we have a single detector that you can reproduce the error on?

[Quintas]

No. There are 16 onboard (in the panel PCB) zones. I also have 2 RIO expanders, each with 8 more zones. But these RIOs are now disconnected, so I presently have 16 functional zones. High resistances were registered in zones of the RIOs but also in onboard zones.

It seems to be an electrical issue that affects all zones. Since the problem persists after I disconnected the RIOs, I can conclude that the electrical problem comes either from the panel or from the detectors wired to the panel.

One thing that puzzles me: detectors normal resistance is around 1k Ohm, because of the 1k Ohm resistor. High resistances logged are frequently 1297 Ohm. I swapped the 1k Ohm resistor by a 930 Ohm resistor in some detectors and still high resistances of 1297 Ohm were logged after that.

[Secware_Tech6]

if you have cable damage or voltage on a single circuit leg it can affect 4 or 8 circuits (usually 4).

If its not reproducable its going to be difficult to track down. If its happening very often it will be easier to track.

You can also try chnaging your response time (default is 300m/s) but if you make it faster while testing it may help find and make it reproducable.

I assume all peripherals are run from the panel psu, and its anywhere near its limit?

ie what are your charging voltages and day mode current. Also what sounders, speakers strobes do you have connected to the outputs?

[Quintas]

I had 2 external bells, 1 voice communicator, etc. But I also have an external Elmdene PSU. I was very careful balancing the loads, between the panel PSU and the external Elmdene PSU.

Anyway, everything (bells , communicator, Elmdene PSU, RIOs) is now disconnected for testing purposes, except 12 zones wired to detectors, contacts and panic buttons and one keypad. And only 9 of those 12 are  detectors (I assume door contacts and panic buttons haven't power consumption). So it can't be an issue of excessive load on the panel PSU side.

The issue isn't reproducible, and it is kinda rare. Sometimes it is logged one, to three times in one of the zones during the 14 days log, but sometimes it's not logged in 14 days at all.

Also it can occur in on particular zone today and for months it will not occur again with that zone, but it will with another zone. Very difficult to track down.

The diagnostics showed a voltage of around 13,7 V in the peripherals. I don't remember the current, I'll check when I get back home.

[Secware_Tech6]

I was just wondering if the panel is close to current limit.

From what your saying i dont think its incompatible sensors. Ive not seen what your experiencing other that with interference on the cables/damage or overloaded psu's

If it were sensors being id expect it to happen often.

[Quintas]

I did option 61-Diagnostics again.

RIO 0 13.74V 0.21A

RIO 1 13.74V 0.20A

Lowest battery voltage on last test: 13.27V

Battery is completely charged with 13.95V, drawing 0.00A

When charging, battery is 13.74V, drawing 0.06A

Voltage in all 16 zones between 13.79 and 13.81V

Everything looks fine to me.

Next step, I'll disconnect detectors one at a time and see. Then I will begin changing cables. It might take a long time before I take any conclusion.

Thank you so much Tech6. If any new hint comes to your mind, please let me know.

[Secware_Tech6]

No worries

How is it wired, ie type of cable used and how is it run, any other cables nearby to those runs.

Screened cable is an option the other thing is to connect all spare cores to earth (at panel end only) to help

[Quintas]

I only use copper screened cables. But don't have the cables screen wires connected to the earthing pillar on the panel.

All my 16 intruder detectors came from a Galaxy 16+ panel that I had for 20 years. Same cables, same routes. They cross  electrical cables but don't go side by side with them, unless for short runs (max. 1 meter) and they are both (alarm and electric) inside separate  electrical conduits, in these cases. And I had zero problems or false alarms with the old G 16+ in 20 years. But I don't know the resistances of the zones, because G16+ didn't have that option.

I only added smoke detectors, one door contact and two panic buttons in the new GD panel.

But I tested it disconnecting all smoke detectors, issues persisted. Honestly, I didn't test disconnecting the door contact and the panic buttons, because they don't have relays, but I will try now. And, if the issues persist, I will try earthing the screen wires of the cables.

[Secware_Tech6]

1 hour ago, Quintas said:

I only use copper screened cables. But don't have the cables screen wires connected to the earthing pillar on the panel.

they should all be connected to earth at 1 end only. So if you connect them all at the panel end only id suspect that will cure your issue.

never connect both ends of a screen.

ALso did you adjust the repsonse time of the circuits. The 16+ was an older slower panel so probably didnt notice

 

[Quintas]

30 minutes ago, Secware_Tech6 said:

never connect both ends of a screen.

Yes, I got it, thanks. Just one thing: if the cable has a screening wire, I don't need to also connect the spare cores to earth, just the screening wire, right?

38 minutes ago, Secware_Tech6 said:

ALso did you adjust the repsonse time of the circuits. The 16+ was an older slower panel so probably didnt notice

Haven't done it yet, because of what you wrote earlier:

On 5/15/2024 at 5:40 PM, Secware_Tech6 said:

You can also try chnaging your response time (default is 300m/s) but if you make it faster while testing it may help find and make it reproducable.

This gave me an idea. One of my outdoor detectors has a function of activating the alarm relay contacts for 10 secs, whenever there is a detection event, to activate a surveillance camera. I don't have that function On (DIP Switch setting), but I am wondering if that could be malfunctioning, so I closed that zone inside the detector with a 1k resistor - circuit not going through the detector. I'll see what happens in the next days, but I don't believe that is the cause because that should give a high resistance only in that detector, I think.

I can change the response time next, but I have to understand it first. Guide me please: I should change the response time of one zone (to 10 msecs?)at a time and see what happens. If the issue is gone, it means that zone is responsible?

But if that is the problem, shouldn't that be happening only with one zone, or one type of detectors/brand/model, and not randomly with many zones with different detectors/brand/model?

[Secware_Tech6]

2 hours ago, Quintas said:

Yes, I got it, thanks. Just one thing: if the cable has a screening wire, I don't need to also connect the spare cores to earth, just the screening wire, right?

Correct

2 hours ago, Quintas said:

I can change the response time next, but I have to understand it first. Guide me please: I should change the response time of one zone (to 10 msecs?)at a time and see what happens. If the issue is gone, it means that zone is responsible?

Id drop it to like 50ms on all circuits and hopefully iy does it all the time. Then you can trackit down

Or put it 800ms (highest alowed under the standards even though the panel will go slower) to see if it 'hides' the problem

2 hours ago, Quintas said:

But if that is the problem, shouldn't that be happening only with one zone, or one type of detectors/brand/model, and not randomly with many zones with different detectors/brand/model?

I would say it isnt an equipment problem id say its interference. rf etc

Id be looking for RF noise but i dont know the site etc

[Secware_Tech6]

Screening your cables (without the earth connected screened cable is worse than non screened) is certainly your best starting point

Ideally change 1 thing ata a time till you track it down. Intermittent faults are a pia to find

[Quintas]

Give me some weeks to implement these things and be sure of positive results.

I'll be giving feedback.

Thanks a lot Tech6.

[Secware_Tech6]

Hope you get to the bottom of it!