Fiona

That would be okay, but I have had a problem with one freak on this site for some time now. I have had many arguments with Soundy especially, but he never stalked me and never made personal attacks. You don't know this, but the bloke who runs this site removes posts and comments that are inconvenient to him. I told him to stop stalking me a while back and he actually removed that sentence. You can also tell by his little song and dance routine and his comments about 'getting out of the kitchen'. I have basically asked him to F%#$ off a few times but he can't get it through his thick misogynistic racist head. So I say again, any alternatives and I will be out of here.

And another: Mordachia, I mean rory, your contempt for females is one thing, but contempt for the idea of viable competition is another. Can anyone direct me to an alternative CCTV ***** please. There was one in the UK, but I lost the site address and have been unable to find it.

Here is another quote for you: I hope Soundy and Tom and the other Installers who focus on the issues and not on attacks and condescension do not leave this site for another forum which PAYS THEM.

I looked into the problem of heat affecting PTZs TWO YEARS AGO and barely got a reply. Then I found that Pelco (A BIG BRAND) had quietly identified significant issues with its PTZ at high temperatures. I wish I had posted that document which revealed Pelco's grave concerns about PTZs installed in locations above 120 degrees Fahrenheit. No such discussion had ever occured on this forum. Rory, you nit-pick with your rebuttals - always trying to find scope for another sledging. I have researched a number of specific expensive brand name components on this site and have come up empty handed. Part of the problem may be the search solution; the other part may be that the items, components or problems are not mentioned on this site. I hope you are paying Soundy, Tom and the other main Installers for their contributions. They are the guys who form the backbone of this website. Soundy, I had this argument with you over a year ago about generic components inside brand name cameras. Your long Arecont topic seems to support the claims that I made back then. I have come across many examples of big companies simply sticking their numbers on another generic part. I don't even know aht the argument is with this. Maybe it's to do with your definition of 'generic'.

--

What does that mean? Is that cynicism? Or shul we al mumbl and waffil aon al day an neva reely ansa a problim? By the way, Adam12, (rory aka num-chuks) no wonder this continues to be a marginal forum. The big players do not post any information here. Problems that arise on major brands are barely touched on this forum. Cummon rory, where is your next cynical reply?

We are trying to define the limits of a problem with AN ECONOMY OF WORDS. If a particular problem exists, such as Heat Affecting Cameras, we can predict that this problem will have wider implications. These wider implications mean that other folk in hot locations worldwide will read this information for a solution. We also know that many Manufacturers quietly read posts on this forum for mercantile reasons. By looking closely at harley1's heat issues, we are disseminating information to the wider public. By defining the limits a General Problem, we are allowing others to find a solution to their particular issue economically and efficiently. This is not a chatroom.

The fact is that the Igloo Dome exists. We can infer from this fact that PTZ Domes are being installed in extremely hot locations. We know that the best PTZs on the market tank-out at about 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Celsius. Applications above this temperature will be problematic. Airports, mines, oil-fields, military installations or industrial plants such as foundries and kilns come to mind. For these Giants, $3500 is petty cash. Attempts must have been made to make a non-refrigerated PTZ Dome that could take extreme heat. If such attempts had succeeded, the Igloo would have failed in the market. I don’t think anyone would place a $100 unit inside an Igloo. Those who install PTZ Domes in very hot locations would know the brands that are most reliable. There is a much bigger world out there of corporate and government installers who refuse to pass on their knowledge or experience on forums. This Topic ought to be remamed: Heat Affecting Installed Cameras

The Extreme Heat Solution. The aptly named Igloo Dome. A refrigerated PTZ Dome Enclosure for temperatures up to 167 degrees Fahrenheit or 75 degrees Celsius. Power consumption: < 450 watts http://www.hellascams.gr/grc/products/housings/pdf/Videolarm_IglooDome.pdf

The question of the heat performance of a shrouded enclosure is subject to many variables: intensity of sunlight; angle of sun; aspect of sunlight against enclosure window; air temp; degree of shade from the shroud; dissipation of heat via external heat sinks; heat emitted from actual camera etc., etc. In an Arizona summer, I would expect the internal temperature of a good enclosure to be about 18 degrees Fahrenheit (about 10 degrees Celsius) higher inside the enclosure than outside. I have done some work on the problem of heat up to about 115 degrees Fahrenheit or 46 degrees Celsius. With PTZ domes the internal dome temperatures are also consistently 18 degrees Fahrenheit (about 10 degrees Celsius) higher inside the dome than outside. As the angle of elevation of the sun decreases, as the sun moves off its zenith, the dome is struck by direct sunlight. The temperature then increases by up to another 9 degrees Fahrenheit or 5 degrees Celsius. Heat is one of the most destructive litmus tests for a PTZ dome. I recall reading an obscure Pelco document that used an exponential graph to emphasize the increased rate of failure of their PTZs in extreme heat. Something like a 50% decrease in lifespan for every extra 10 degrees in temp above 50 C when operated continuously at such high temperatures.

Yep. Plus the psychological aspect.

Don't quote me, but I remember reading somewhere that despite the gargantuan number of cameras installed in London, that only about 1000 crimes (a year?) were solved because of video evidence. The installation of cameras permits an operator to see patterns of behaviour in certain folk - whether it is criminal or belligerent or anti-social. The cameras are not an unequivocal solution to solving crime. So then, what is the purpose of installing cameras? In a car park, the distances might make facial identification difficult for those who do not wish to be identified. If the purpose is to control traffic congestion or minor accidents, then so be it. We all have a key purpose in mind when we install cameras: to push neighbourhood crime elsewhere or to catch a violent neighbour in a smoking-gun type of threatening act. But, ultimately, for most applications, the cameras act as a psychological deterrent. The installation of highly visible cameras does deter crime. By installing more and more discreet cameras, it could be predicted that they will video more crimes because more crimes will probably occur.

Interesting website. Presumably this a synopsis of the Data Protection Act. I do wonder though if British propriety enforces the letter of the law for this Act. In some Western countries, the Law is increasingly arbitrarily applied. In other words, if it suits the Authorities to ignore a law, then that law shall be ignored. This clause appears to negate the entire Law: •CCTV operators are not allowed to disclose images of identifiable people to the media - or to put them on the internet - for entertainment. Images released to the media to help identify a person are usually disclosed by the police. This presumably means that images can be broadcast so long as they are not for 'entertainment.'

Curious as to the size of the carpark? Is the objective to cover the entire carpark rather than the entrances and exits? It might be a minority opinion but bullet cameras in a church carpark undermine the ambience and may not be appreciated by the laity. Small enclosures aren't as aggressive looking as large enclosures. Small enclosures look picturesque and professional. And the visual impact of enclosures reduces the need for excessive numbers of cameras. It's a 'less is more' approach.

It is not possible to purchase any quality PTZ dome for that price. The good camera modules or the 'block cameras' which fit inside the domes start at that price alone. Top block cameras run to $500 US alone plus the dome. The Installers will recommend CNB. What is the cheapest CNB PTZ? What block camera does it use? (I am guessing a CNB unit?)

Always difficult to say anything useful after Tom, but here goes... I had issues with one particular PTZ dome camera that fogged terribly after each teardown. I would open it up and reassemble it in an air-conditioned room and that caused it to fog badly for days afterwards. It only occured to one very problematic PTZ dome. I figured out that I had to repair it in a de-humidified room which dramatically reduced, but did not eliminate, the problem. And once the fogging problem started, it would always reappear in very cold weather. First thing in the morning, there would be a blanket of condensation inside the dome. Hours would pass before it cleared. In order for ice to form, there must be a considerable amount of moisture in the dome. And, as any dome heats up and cools down in the course of the day, the potential for cool, moisture-laden air to enter arises. The heat of the dome ought to work in favour of keeping the interior of the dome dry. Is it possible that some other cause is allowing for water ingress? Also, the quality of perspex or plexiglass domes varies widely. The exterior surface of cheap domes always need cleaning; watermarks and dust are a constant problem. Higher quality domes require far less frequent cleaning. I wonder if this issue of quality affects a resistance against fogging too?

Good luck with the auto-tracking. I hope you intend to install them in an area well suited to motion trackers. i.e. an area free of 'movement pollution'. If it comes to the worst, PIR activated presets are a proven and robust alternative.

I just removed my post because, in hindsight, a solution to blocking cameras may be counter-productive. There would be many nefarious sorts who would like to block cameras for illegitimate reasons. Er, I just noticed the original post is two years old. Perhaps Agent863 might want to stick with the more up-to-date posts? Also, check out the number of hits: 3688 !!

The Pelco PP451 parapet mount uses a 4' pole which extends outwards and allows a Spectra to hang elegantly beneath it whereas the PP4348 uses a 4' vertical pole and a plate which accomodates various mounting arms like the IWM GY etc. Both units will carry a dome and allow for an inward swing of the camera to facilitate maintenance. The PP451 rotates on a substantial clamp at the base of the bracket; while the PP4348 pole rotates inside a 'sleeve' within the lowest part of the pole which is welded to the 18" x 18" lower bracket. Question: Are there any issues with either unit? The PP4348 'sleeve' appears to be a marginal engineering solution unless there is some way of clamping the upper section of pole inside the 'sleeve' that is not apparent from looking at the Pelco documents. The leverage caused by the weight of the camera which would be multiplied by the longer IWM GY arm in a 60mph wind would place a huge stress on that 'sleeve.' This is the Pelco manual for the PP4348 with a useful schematic diagram of the 'sleeve': http://www.schneider-electric.hu/html/epuletfelugyelet2011/PDF/09_pelco/9.6_Mounts/c204ma.pdf Here is the Pelco pamphlet for the PP350; PP351 and PP450; PP451 mounts: http://www.schneider-electric.hu/html/epuletfelugyelet2011/PDF/09_pelco/9.6_Mounts/c212.pdf

Thankyou for your advice and comments on this thread Dustmop. Telling me about your experience with these mounts is really greatly appreciated. Please know that my criticism is levelled at Pelco. It seems to be consistent with any company that dominates a market. Because Pelco has no direct competition on many of its fixtures, it can get away with ordinary workmanship. Between you and me, the PP451 looks like an excellent solution and I can't wait to install it. Thanks again.

Without the picture it's difficult to know if we're on the same page but I'm certain companies like Crouse Hinds; Killark; Appleton; Robroy (GRP); and Gedney make what you're describing: a metal terminal box. Something like this - with a cover:

Nope. Didn't say that. I am saying that the 18v Ryobi Lithium Ions are excellent. They were selling for close to the price of the Makita rechargeables a few months back. The old Ryobi 7.2s were are tough as nails but not as much grunt as the Lithium Ions. My old unit outlasted many batteries. I hope the new Ryobis prove to be as robust as their forebears.

The last of the great Makita’s may have ended when they wound down production in Japan. I bought a Japanese Makita 13mm hammer drill nine years ago and the build quality of that is way above the Chinese units made today. A while ago, a carpenter was doing a job for me. His Makita rechargeable failed and he laughed his guts out at my old 7.2 volt Ryobi. He then ate his words and continued to use my old Ryobi for several days: always with a little chagrin (embarrassment). As tough as those old Ryobi rechargeable units were, they are incomparable to the new range of Ryobi Lithium Ion units. The baby below has huge torque and is lighter to carry. It is so excellent, I wish I had forked out the extra $40 for the hammer option. (My Makita hammer drill is an uncomfortably heavy brute.) The Ryobi is part of a new range of units with interchangeable Li batteries.

I wouldn't worry too much about 'what looks normal.' If we all tried to look normal all the time, we'd end up with a society of conformists and the death of creative expression - McCarthyism all over again. The first PTZ in any neighbourhood always stands out. It's a little like the first satellite dish or the first PIR activated light. The 'new' always imposes its moment of readjustment as we bid farewell to old ways and old habits. As far as the camera goes, I think it looks excellent: it couldn't be any more discreet. You always get the gobsmacked gawkers who've never seen cameras look back at them. After a while, they'll wonder how your neighbourhood got by without it; especially when they come knocking on your door for help when they fall victim to crime. You might want to install a couple of fixed cameras too. The angle of vision of your PTZ is only about 60 degrees, and it looks like you've got at least 270 degrees of area to monitor. (How did my post end up way down here? Originally I was the first post before Tom, making my comments all the more pertinent - despite what the date and time evidence says. The Silent Hand is at work again.)

Below is a photo of a newly acquired PP451 Base Bracket: this is an all aluminium, powder coated unit that weighs 22 pounds (10 kgs). Stainless steel bolts are employed to secure the clamp to the vertical section of the base plate. The two centre tensioning bolts thread straight into the tapped aluminium plate. Pelco’s attention to detail is perfunctory. It appears that two outer welds are completely absent on the bottom plate at a point of the greatest stress; and the cutting of that section is quite rough. Pelco ought to take a look at Hoffman Enclosures to learn a little about meticulous metal fabrication.