Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Subscribers 16 subscribers
  • Views 511 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Pedantic semantics for earth fault

Stephen Biddle
Hi All



I'm reviewing some of our documentation and it says "a 30 mA earth leakage circuit breaker" should be used.



Earth leakage breakers as such are no longer used, having been replaced with residual current devices.  What wording do you think I should use?  It seems to me that the fault to be detected is still "earth leakage" even if the device uses "residual current" as the detection method.  So would I be correct to say "earth leakage fault protection, at a level of 30 mA"?



Thanks



Stephen
Parents
No Data
Reply
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    So would I be correct to say "earth leakage fault protection, at a level of 30 mA"?



    if you were pedantic (as I am) then you would not write "leakage fault" because that is a tautology (if current is leaking, by definition it is fault current)' and it's not really a level of 30mA its just a current (so more redundant words)



    if you are using an RCD can't you just say

    "protected with a 30 mA RCD"

    Seems a bit simpler and to the point (for pedants like myself). When writing technical documents, less is always more; but if you were being complete, you surely need to state the minimum operating time and current too.



     
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines