survtech

See this thread: http://www.cctvforum.com/post-65127.html

Polishing can take care of light surface scratches but if they are deep, forget it. Pelco recommends wax suitable for acrylics to clean their lower domes ftp://www.pelco.com/ServiceBulletinsTechTips/TechTips/5973020.PDF. If the scratches are deep, you really have no choice except to replace the dome. AD has a number of distributors in their chain. Contact them for a list. They also may be able to directly sell you repair parts. Check with them at http://www.americandynamics.net/home/default.aspx.

Most bubbles are made of acrylic, which is not easy to resurface. You should be able to buy a new lower dome from Sensormatic (American Dynamics?) I would assume that you can also buy the plugs from them.

No, just the active receivers. The MDA is after the balun since the balun connects to the input of the MDA. Just to rant a bit - I absolutely hate the RCA connectors on Monster's video and audio cables. The outer prongs (ground) on the males often don't make a snug fit on the female of the equipment. This causes poor grounding and the cables tend to come loose from the equipment. They are also very brittle metal so if you try to "squeeze" the prongs in to tighten the connection, they snap off. JUNK!

OK. I just don't understand why so many users have variable results when we haven't found any that caused problems. At least I am aware that there may be bad baluns out there in case we do have a problem, but I doubt it. Balun design is pretty much the same in every brand, no matter what the manufacturer's hype says. Maybe the real expensive baluns are different but my experience in other fields tells me they are probably not. Take Monster Cable versus cheaper brands like Audio Research. Discounting really shoddy construction in some super-cheap brands, there is no detectable difference ( except the price ).

Darned if I know what the difference is. Like I said, maybe the MDAs???

Maybe the equipment they are connected to makes the difference. We have not noticed any real difference between the different units we have used and we are very critical of the PQ. Here is a list: Passive: VideoEase (the original ones made in Canada) GVI - VB-59 Vigitron - VB1000M, VB1001M, VB1003M NVT - built into Ganz ZCD3xxxNHAT domes Pelco - Spectra IV built-in passive UTP Active: Vigitron - Vi1016 16-port active hub Pelco - TW3004AR 4-port active hubs The Vigitron Vi16 does get some noise but we think that is due to the distance (over 1500') and wire type (Telco CAT-3 or less). I know CAT-5 is recommended but we are unable to find direct-burial 25-pair CAT-5 anywhere. The funny thing is that there are some places where passive-passive gives better PQ than passive-active. We haven't tried active transmitters because they are difficult to place in small domes. Another possible reason for our apparent good luck is that every camera connects to a Pelco CM9760-MDA that splits the signals to our DVR encoders and the Pelco matrix bays. With the passive-passive cameras, the receiver balun is connected directly to an MDA input. With the passive-active cameras, the output of the active receiver connects to the MDA input.

Well, I guess I can't believe the integrator, then. We were actually prepared to buy the product because we wanted a POS interface, despite the fact that it was not compatible with our DVR system and required us to buy a 32-channel Intellex DVR just for the POS. Even so, we thought it was reasonably priced and appeared to perform as we expected. Then the integrator called and told us that AD had postponed the whole Intelliview product because the head engineer of the project had trashed it in a rage - deleting all of the files and their backups. At that time, AD wasn't even certain if they would resume development of the system or cancel it altogether. That was late 2005. Then in March, 2006 the integrator contacted us again and said: "We are finally able to give you a register interface for the American Dynamics unit. It is not IntelleView, but it is very close. It is the Intellex Ultra. It has all of the register interfacing and texting. I would like to discuss this with you. I certain apologize for the faux pas on IntelleView." Now you say it has been in production since early 2000? Hmmmmmm, who to believe....

Try http://www.systec.co.kr/eng/download.htm

As I said in my post, we purchased the Honeywell Enterprise system made by FAST Video Security (now a division of NICE Systems), but we did not buy the original system through Honeywell. By the way, have you been to the Wynn or Mirage in Vegas? How about: Admiral Sportwetten, Austria Atlantis Casino and Resort Hotel , Bahamas Atlantis City Casino, USA Grand Casino Catez, Slovenia Ho Chunk Casino, Wisconsin, USA Kobarid Casino, Slovenia Kursaal Casino, Interlaken, Switzerland La Courte Oreilles Casino, Wisconsin, USA LCO, Canada MGM Grand at Foxwoods, USA Northern Quest Casino , Washington , USA Park Tower Casino, UK Porteroz Casino, Slovenia Radgona Casino, Slovenia Red Wind Casino, Washington Regents Hotel and Casino, Manitoba Lottery Commission, Winnipeg , CND Richmond Club, Australia Mounties Club, Australia River Rock, Richmond, Canada Schaffhausen Casino, Switzerland Seneca Allegany Casino in Salamanca , New York , USA Seneca Casino in Niagara , NY , USA Sibaya Casino, South Africa Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort , Michigan , USA St. Gallen Casino, Switzerland Sycuan Casino, USA Tulalip Casino, Washington, USA Victoria Casino, London, UK Wynn Resorts, Macau, Republic of China Zusterna Casino, Slovenia By the way, Steve Wynn is one of the few casino owners who is willing to spend a buck on state-of-the-art surveillance. Whenever I walk through a casino, I take notice of things like camera placement and brand, etc. Most of the casinos are using ancient equipment. I've also been in a few Surveillance rooms and we had better picture quality 10 years ago than many have now.

Twisted-pair does not work real well without the baluns. You may get a picture but as you discovered it may be noisy and have other problems. Balanced cable (twisted-pair) eliminates noise by having it cancel itself out in a balun or active receiver. How this works is that the same noise will get to both conductors. At the balun or active receiver, the noise on the two conductors cancels out since they are connected + and -. Simple math; say x=noise, then (+x) + (-x) = 0. Also, twisted-pair is 100 ohms and coax is 75 ohms. The baluns also match the impedance. Without them you will have an impedance mismatch which can cause signal loss and ghosting.

Sure. http://home.hiwaay.net/~rgs/awgcalculator.html

No it doesn't. The net effect is still to lower the DC resistance of the wires.

I'm sure it was accidental

All original video wiring (done in 2000) was RG-59U Plenum. That was about 500,000 feet of video plus 50,000 feet of 18/2 power and 22/2 shielded for control. Five of us pulled it all. Since 2002, we have added an ungodly amount of CAT-5 - 25-pair trunks and 4-pair to the cameras. Mostly passive-passive baluns (a mix of brands, including GVI, Vigitron and a few others). Some active receivers (Vigitron and Pelco).

I don't think you really want my opinion of AD, but here goes: When I started at my present job (1997), we had a Megapower II matrix switch with some code convertors (made by Sennetech, I presume, although AD branded). We had trouble with about 1/2 second latency on our Pelco Integra domes. AD's factory rep (SeeVid) kept trying to get them to send a tech to our casino to troubleshoot the system but they couldn't be bothered. This went on for over two years. Eventually, I tried calling AD tech support and told them the problem. Their response was (and I quote verbatum) "We didn't tell you that would work!" To this day, I have never purchased another AD product. In 1999, we replaced the switch with a Pelco 9760 (since re-replaced with a 9780) and we have never looked back. DVR systems are far more complex than VCRs. Installers and techs need to have a strong background in IT and they need strong support from the manufacturer. Casinos rarely have the technical staff qualified to manage this technology alone or troubleshoot the unique problems that can occur. And these problems can be unique to each brand of DVR. For this reason, casinos should insist that manufaturers provide a highly competent and dedicated support staff. "We didn't tell you that would work" is neither! By the way, do you know anyone who might be interested in a used 9760 - 864x32 with two CC1's but no hot switch (we are using it with the 9780).

About 70% Pelco DF-5 with CCC1300/1370/1380 cameras, 20% Ganz ZCD domes, a few Ikegami ICD-505's and a few oddballs for fixed; all Pelco Spectra II, III and IV PTZ's.

If you say so. The Nevada Gaming Commission has tried using a number of systems as their "yardstick". From personal experience, I've found most Nevada casinos live in the dark ages as far as Surveillance and CCTV are concerned. I've also tested and evaluated (in no particular order) the Dallmeier, Synectics, Pelco DX and Endura systems, March Networks, Philips, Colby Systems, Nice, an IBM-based blade system (I don't remember the name offhand), the Cisco product (again the name), Veronix (now Lorint), Geutebruck, I3DVR, the Sanyo casino DVRs and a few others whose names I forget. I tested 11 brands before we bought our system in 2003 and more than a few since. I currently manage a 1024-input Honeywell Enterprise (FAST) system with Sanyo DSR-M800's as backup; recording the monitor loops. We have 33 servers and over 250TB of storage.

Yes. If you measure the voltage with no load there would be no voltage drop across the line. And you have to measure at the camera end; not the power supply end.

He could try tripling it. He might get enough voltage to power the camera or he might not. It depends on the camera, the power supply, etc. One thing he could do is the same as I did with the Dallmeier camera. If he used a power supply that was meant to replace a car battery (typically rated at 13.2 to 13.8 VDC), he would probably wind up with enough voltage at the camera. I'm too tired to do the math right now but the extra 1.8 volts should provide enough power with two or three pairs paralleled. He could try two, measure the voltage, and if it is too low add the third pair.

125 ft. (78 x 2=156 x .8=124.8 ). Most equipment is rated to operate at the rated voltage +/- at least 10% (except Dallmeier cameras that are rated at +/- 5% ) (I blew one up using a 13.8 volt Radio Shack power supply).

I saw the original beta version at AD in San Diego. That was over a year ago so it has probably changed a lot since then.

For what purpose? They are not ideal for casino use.

Voltage drop is the key and that is affected by resistance. Since paralleling two equal resistances equals 1/2 the resistance of one, the wire would drop the same amount of voltage in twice the length, assuming the current draw remains the same. here is a link to a wire gauge chart: http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm That's the theory, anyway. In practice, I don't like to exceed 80% of any published rating so call it 1.6 times the rated distance. By the way, wire length charts and calculators are usually calibrated so that the voltage drop is 10% at the maximum length specified. Assuming you start with exactly 12.0 volts, the equipment at the end would be getting 10.8 volts.

Two 24-gauge wires can be run approximately twice the distance of one (3 = 3, etc.). 24 gauge is 25.67 ohms per 1000 ft. and can handle a maximum power of 3.5 amps. Two 24 gauge wires would be 12.84 (25.67/2) ohms per 1000 ft. and can handle a maximum power of 7 amps (3.5 x 2). 22 gauge is 16.14 ohms per 1000 ft. and can handle a maximum power of 7 amps. Since two 24 gauge wires together is a lower resitance than one 22 gauge wire, there would be less voltage loss per foot and they could go farther. The equivalent would actually be 21 gauge which is 12.8 ohms per 1000 ft. (though I dare you to find it)