543.7.1.204 - the one about duplicate c.p.c.s needing to be 'terminated independently of each other' - has gone.
Does anyone understand the thinking behind this? It seems a bit odd to me.
Given that (in my experience) more problems occur at terminals rather than along cable runs, if we need the c.p.c.s to be duplicated, it seems like a bit of a flaw that one single loose connection can make them both useless simultaneously. I can see that in some instances (e.g. a terminal on a socket on a ring) that losing a single terminal carries a limited immediate risk (as the leakage current from a single socket should be small and all other sockets are still connected to a c.p.c.) but in other instances - say the connection of both c.p.c.s to the earth bar in a DB - that single fault could be very significant.
- Andy.
