Hi Wiz - with reference to the individual isolators having isolators this is achieved by installing isolator bases instead of standard bases at each detector,with relevant other field devices bein of the integrated isolator type (eg - Apollo or Hochiki).
My personal opinion is that with the data being transmitted between panel and device getting more,whats the phrase,cluttered(!) then I feel that 1.5mm standard FP isn't up to carrying it over longer distances (hence the use of other cables in mainland EU states.) leading to acceptable yet slower message handling.
You wouldn't think to wire a PC network at home in 1.5 FP (or equivalent).
Buzzard905, I fully understand the isolator issue and the original post suggested devices with integral isolators anyway. Although a point could be made that the isolator issue is not the most important potential problem anyway, I thought I would confirm that the role of any short-circuit isolator positioning would need to be considered.
When it comes to the cable, I asked if the proposed suggestion was a way of reducing cable costs. Your answer appears to be saying that longer loop cable lengths would be the big advantage. I understand that a more 'data friendly' cable might allow faster (your post said slower but surely you meant faster) data (message) speeds but the longer cable lengths mights still give us volt drop problems - are you saying that this special data cable would have, say, 4mm2 csa conductors and allow loop lengths of 4Km and 250+ devices? How would we connect such thick cables to the equipment?
Also the loop length cannot be infinate (even ignoring the volt drop problem) since BS recommends that it shouldn't cover an area of more than 10,000 sq m anyway.
So to get the benefits of the 'thick-cored' 'data friendly/faster' cable, we would probably want protocols handling many more than the (typical) 126/127 addresses and we would still be restricted by the 10,000 sq m recommendation anyway.
Hmmm - I can't see that there are many suitable advantages.
I can see that a fire resistant cable that allows faster data is a good idea but there is no way around the conductor size issue unless device power requirements drop even further. And then to get the full potential of it's faster speeds in respect of more addresses, the BS recommendation might need to be changed.
p.s The home PC network is not a good analogy for your argument because home PC network is not considered a life safety system!
