The Efficacy of Internal Dual Technology Sensor Devices - Essay Example

Efficacy of an Internal Dual Technology Sensor Device Name: University: Date: Efficacy of an Internal Dual Technology Sensor Introduction Contemporary internal dual technology sensors are a combination of microwave and PIR technologies. Both technologies are very different and are normally influenced by unwanted alarm sources; therefore, dual technology sensors are utilised where false alarms are not desired. Basically, both sensors function independently, but there are processed using the ‘AND’ logic with the aim of only generating the alarm output when both sensors are triggered at the same time. In this case, when a situation triggers one alarm it can be rejected as a false alarm. The intruder is expected to trigger both the microwave and PIR sensors so as to maintain the performance of the sensor. According to Adams (2014), dual technology sensors resistance against false alarms facilitates a higher sensitivity that ensures that performance of the detection is not infringed. The thinking behind the dual technology sensors is to ensure that both sensors support each other’s weaknesses with the objective of eliminating false alarms.  This essay seeks to examine the efficacy of internal ‘Dual Technology Sensor’ devices in terms of their underlying principles, and strengths and vulnerabilities. Underlying Principles The internal dual-technology sensors were developed with the objective of reducing the rates of nuisance or false alarm in the interior sensor. Basically, this is achieved by integrating two sensors into a single casing in order that both sensors are complementary. The two sensors are connected by electronic means through the ‘AND’ logic function; therefore, both sensors must sense an incident in a pre-set interval prior to the generation of a valid alarm. Therefore, when an event is detected by only one sensor, the alarm will not be generated. This is because the dual-technology sensors are designed in a way that it generates an alarm after an intrusion is sensed by both sensors at a predetermined time interval, normally some seconds. However, the time interval can be configured by the user. Still, the dual-technology sensors can be designed to use the ‘Or’ logic function logic, an alarm can be generated independently by one sensor (USNRC, 2011). Basically, there are two types of internal dual-technology sensors: Passive Infrared Microwave and Passive Infrared Acoustic. Scores of manufacturers develop these sensors using different technical specifications. With regard to Passive Infrared Microwave, the dual-technology utilises a microwave sensor and a PIR sensor, wherein the Doppler changes are detected by the microwave sensor. The other type is the PIR-acoustic dual-technology, which utilises the PIR sensor together with the ultrasonic sensor (Whitfield & Hay-Ellis, 2015). The internal dual-technology sensors as mentioned earlier normally involve microwave and PIR, whereby the PIRs are employed to detect warm objects movement against the background level while the microwave sensors are employed to transmit signal as well as analysing the reflected signal (Honey, 2003). Given that the spectrum portions where microwave and PIR operate are different and that the former utilises active sensing while the latter uses passive sensing, both sensor are not bound by a similar source of false alarm. Still, if deployed incorrectly, the dual-technology sensor can bring about different issues; for instance, when the using the OR’ logic the detector will generate alarm if a motion is sensed by one of the sensors. Currently, manufacturers of dual-technology sensors are integrating the sensors outputs in a configuration of ‘AND’ logic, which requires almost simultaneous alarms from both the in order to generate a valid alarm. When one of the sensors fails or is defeated, the entire internal dual-technology sensor will fail. According to Garcia (2005), when the two sensors have been combined in the ‘AND’ logic configuration, the probability of detection (Pd) from the combined detectors is below that of the individual detectors. For instance, when the PIR sensor with a 0.95 Pd is combined with ultrasonic sensor having a 0.95 Pd the dual-technology sensor will have a Pd of 0.90 (Garcia, 2005). Still, a higher probability of detection can be achieved from logically combined sensors that are mounted separately as compared to that of a dual-technology sensor. According to DiLouie (2008) internal dual-technology sensors, particularly the PIR-acoustic dual-technology can be used to activate lights after both technologies detect someone is in the room. Basically, this type of setup reduces the likelihood of false-on problems. This is suitable for conference rooms, classrooms as well as spaces whereby higher level of detection is required. The features of internal dual-technology sensors include: the PIR sensitivity and the time interval can be adjusted (Yahoo Finance, 2016). Dual Technology Ceiling and In-Wall Mount sensors are utilised for managing lighting in partitioned open areas, subdivided bathrooms, libraries as well as storage rooms. The technologies are designed in a way that when they detect a motion of a person in the room they switch on the lights, but for the lights to stay on, one of the technologies either the Ceiling or In-Wall Mount sensors must continue to sense the person in order. The internal dual-technology sensors are can automatically adjust timing as well as sensitivity thanks to their self-adaptive feature. Strengths Normally, the dual-tech sensors have a lower rate of nuisance alarm as compared to the individual sensors. Besides that, the internal dual-technology sensors, especially the Passive Infrared Microwave are complementary in offering narrow and long detection fields. In the ‘AND’ configuration, the dual-technology sensors significantly reduce the rate of the false alarm. According to Lutron (2014), dual-technology sensors can be installed easily because there is no need for new wiring and can be shifted easily after the reconfiguration of the space. In addition, dual-tech sensors are expandable and flexible since they can be mounted easily in locations, which offers maximum coverage and the cost of installation is exceedingly low. The technology is also reliable and cannot be interfered with other wireless devices because it operates on low frequency band. Furthermore, internal dual-technology sensors are convenient because they eliminate the need for manually switching on or off the lights. This technology saves a lot of energy because it switches of the light when the space is not unoccupied. Federal Energy Management Program (2016) mention that using dual-technology sensors can reduce the use of lighting energy by 10 per cent to 90 per cent, but it depends on how the space is utilised. A study carried out on a university campus as cited by Federal Energy Management Program (2016) established that installation of dual-technology sensor in over 200 rooms led to a cost savings of approximately $14,000. The main strength of dual-technology sensors is their flexibility since their configuration can be easily changed or can be moved from one room to another. According to Hodges (2009), the utilisation of dual technology detectors offers improved detection and significantly reduces the rates of false alarms. Basically, the occupancy sensor cannot generate the alarm or activate the lighting before both the Ultrasonic and PIR elements have been triggered. This is beneficial because minor typing motions at a laptop or PC can be detected by the ultrasonic technology. Aside from detecting both minor and major movements, the internal dual-technology sensors reduce false off and false on. As mentioned by Nassetta and Dean (2013), the utilisations of dual technology sensors have significantly reduced common confusion whereby the lights are turned off when the occupant is in the room but not moving. Vulnerabilities Akin to other technologies, the internal dual technology-sensors have some vulnerability; for instance, the microwave sensor can sense beyond the walls; therefore, they can erroneously detect an outside activity as an intrusion; therefore, can lead to a false alarm (O'Leary, 2008). Furthermore, dual-technology sensors normally possess a lower rate of nuisance alarm as compared to single sensors. Basically, the vulnerability for the dual-technology sensor involves those of both sensors. For instance, when using ‘AND’ logic configuration, if one of the technology sensor is defeated, the entire system will be defeated and would result in a failure. Furthermore, the dual-technology sensors cannot be utilised as a substitute for two sensors that have been installed separately in the high-security applications. When installing the internal dual-technology sensor is for issues associated with nuisance alarm, then the user should install another sensor (single- or dual-technology) in a way that both the technology sensors are protecting each other, and offering a detection coverage that is overlapping in the protected area. Moreover, the dual-technology sensors cannot be utilised in areas where either of the detectors is vulnerable to false alarms. When one of the detector is used in areas where experiences of false alarms are high, the there is a probability that one of the false alarms may be existent in the ‘AND’ logic. For instance, when the Passive Infrared Acoustic dual-technology sensor is installed in an environment wherein high number of false alarms can be experienced by the ultrasonic detector due to the projected energy pattern distortions and the Passive Infrared detector could experience numerous false alarms because of the changes in the background temperature attributed to drafts, then there is high probability of high rate of false alarms from both the detectors. In this case, the infrared and microwave detector should be combined because the latter cannot be affected by this environment. Although the drafts can still bring about temperature changes, which may negatively affect the infrared technology sensor, the microwave detector will reduce the probability of false alarms. Still, when utilising the Passive Infrared Microwave with the ‘AND’ logic configuration, the detection zone of the microwave is normally very large as compared to the detection zone of the infrared; therefore, detection will not happen until the intruder gets to the point where detection can be picked by both sensors. Recommendations The sensor area of the building should always be maintained and the inspection for corrosion and stability should always be done frequently. Basically, conducting visual inspections frequently will help reduce objects that could block the dual-technology sensor and render it inoperative. There should be self-test and periodic tests to make sure that the sensors are operating effectively. All service calls have to be recorded in the log so as to facilitate the assessment of the problem. For dual-technology that needs professional installation, the user should explain to the installer how they would like the sensors to be set up. Still, before installing the technology, the user should ensure that they have read installation instructions carefully. More importantly, passive infrared dual-technology should not be utilised in areas with high rate of false alarms, because the probability of detecting a false intrusion is very high. The users of internal dual-technology system should remember that motion sensors are not error-proof; therefore, there could be instances of false alarms, especially when using passive infrared dual-technology. Besides that, false alarms could be cause by configuration errors, electrical failures, faulty equipment, lightning or power surges. Furthermore, the dual-technology sensors can erroneously detect animals or foliage as intruders; thus, raising false alarm. Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has examined the efficacy of internal Dual Technology Sensor devices in terms of their underlying principles, and strengths and vulnerabilities. A mentioned in the essay, internal dual-technology motion sensors provide suitable solutions and can help save energy. By utilising a passive infrared and microwave technologies, dual-technology sensors can reduce the rate of false alarm and can also improve security by generating an alarm in case of an intrusion. The dual-technology sensors as emphasised in this essay reduces the time required for installation since there are no complicated adjustments that installer needs to make on the sensor. The use of dual-technology is beneficial because it aside from reducing the energy use and rate of false alarm, it can still detect an intrusion even when one detector fails and can as well be utilised in different environments. Given that ultrasonic sensors as well as passive infrared have to detect occupancy in order to activate lighting, false triggering (the risk of activating lighting) by the internal dual-technology is exceedingly reduced. However, Passive Infrared Microwave cannot trigger false alarm easily because the microwave detector can detect things that are outside the room. Both major and minor can be detected easily by the internal dual-technology sensors; thus, reducing the probability of false triggering. References Adams, J. (2014, April 4). Selecting Internal Alarm Sensors. Retrieved from Security Electronics and Networks: http://www.securityelectronicsandnetworks.com/articles/2014/04/04/selecting-internal-alarm-sensors DiLouie, C. (2008, September). Occupancy Sensors: Passive Infrared, Ultrasonic and Dual-Technology. Retrieved from FacilitiesNet: http://www.facilitiesnet.com/lighting/article/Occupancy-Sensors-Passive-Infrared-Ultrasonic-and-Dual-Technology-Facility-Management-Lighting-Feature--9608 Federal Energy Management Program. (2016). Wireless Occupancy Sensors for Lighting Controls: An Applications Guide for Federal Facility Managers. Washington, D.C., United States: Department of Energy. Garcia, M. L. (2005). Vulnerability Assessment of Physical Protection Systems. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Hodges, L. (2009). Ultrasonic and Passive Infrared Sensor Integration for Dual Technology User Detection Sensors. Application Note, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Honey, G. (2003). Intruder Alarms. Oxford : Newnes. Lester, A. J., & Smith, C. L. (1999). Analyses of Performance of Volumetric Intrusion Detection Technologies. IEEE 33rd Annual 1999 International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology Proceedings (pp. 101-111). Madrid: IEEE. Lutron. (2014). Occupancy/Vacancy Sensor Design and Application Guide. White Paper, Lutron Electronics Co., Inc., Coopersburg, PA. Nassetta, C., & Dean, W. (2013, November 4). Lighting Control Basics: Occupancy and Vacancy Sensors Explained. Retrieved from Glumac: http://www.glumac.com/announcements/article-lighting-control-basics_occupancy-and-vacancy-sensors O'Leary, T. (2008, October 27). Making Sense of Motion Sensors . Retrieved from SecurityInfoWatch.com: http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/10517412/making-sense-of-motion-sensors USNRC. (2011). Intrusion Detection Systems and Subsystems. Technical Information, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It contains information on the, Washington DC. Whitfield, J., & Hay-Ellis, A. (2015). The Electrician's Guide to the 17th Edition of the IET Wiring Regulations BS 7671:2008 incorporating Amendment 3:2015 and Part P of the Building Regulations (4th ed.). Pennsylvania : EPA Pres. Yahoo Finance, Y. (2016, June 21). Intermatic’s Dual Technology Occupancy and Vacancy Sensors Save Energy in Commercial and Residential Spaces. Retrieved from Yahoo Finance : http://finance.yahoo.com/news/intermatic-dual-technology-occupancy-vacancy-140000936.html Read More

According to DiLouie (2008) internal dual-technology sensors, particularly the PIR-acoustic dual-technology can be used to activate lights after both technologies detect someone is in the room. Basically, this type of setup reduces the likelihood of false-on problems. This is suitable for conference rooms, classrooms as well as spaces whereby higher level of detection is required. The features of internal dual-technology sensors include: the PIR sensitivity and the time interval can be adjusted (Yahoo Finance, 2016).

Dual Technology Ceiling and In-Wall Mount sensors are utilised for managing lighting in partitioned open areas, subdivided bathrooms, libraries as well as storage rooms. The technologies are designed in a way that when they detect a motion of a person in the room they switch on the lights, but for the lights to stay on, one of the technologies either the Ceiling or In-Wall Mount sensors must continue to sense the person in order. The internal dual-technology sensors are can automatically adjust timing as well as sensitivity thanks to their self-adaptive feature.

Strengths Normally, the dual-tech sensors have a lower rate of nuisance alarm as compared to the individual sensors. Besides that, the internal dual-technology sensors, especially the Passive Infrared Microwave are complementary in offering narrow and long detection fields. In the ‘AND’ configuration, the dual-technology sensors significantly reduce the rate of the false alarm. According to Lutron (2014), dual-technology sensors can be installed easily because there is no need for new wiring and can be shifted easily after the reconfiguration of the space.

In addition, dual-tech sensors are expandable and flexible since they can be mounted easily in locations, which offers maximum coverage and the cost of installation is exceedingly low. The technology is also reliable and cannot be interfered with other wireless devices because it operates on low frequency band. Furthermore, internal dual-technology sensors are convenient because they eliminate the need for manually switching on or off the lights. This technology saves a lot of energy because it switches of the light when the space is not unoccupied.

Federal Energy Management Program (2016) mention that using dual-technology sensors can reduce the use of lighting energy by 10 per cent to 90 per cent, but it depends on how the space is utilised. A study carried out on a university campus as cited by Federal Energy Management Program (2016) established that installation of dual-technology sensor in over 200 rooms led to a cost savings of approximately $14,000. The main strength of dual-technology sensors is their flexibility since their configuration can be easily changed or can be moved from one room to another.

According to Hodges (2009), the utilisation of dual technology detectors offers improved detection and significantly reduces the rates of false alarms. Basically, the occupancy sensor cannot generate the alarm or activate the lighting before both the Ultrasonic and PIR elements have been triggered. This is beneficial because minor typing motions at a laptop or PC can be detected by the ultrasonic technology. Aside from detecting both minor and major movements, the internal dual-technology sensors reduce false off and false on.

As mentioned by Nassetta and Dean (2013), the utilisations of dual technology sensors have significantly reduced common confusion whereby the lights are turned off when the occupant is in the room but not moving. Vulnerabilities Akin to other technologies, the internal dual technology-sensors have some vulnerability; for instance, the microwave sensor can sense beyond the walls; therefore, they can erroneously detect an outside activity as an intrusion; therefore, can lead to a false alarm (O'Leary, 2008).

Furthermore, dual-technology sensors normally possess a lower rate of nuisance alarm as compared to single sensors. Basically, the vulnerability for the dual-technology sensor involves those of both sensors.

Read More