Going back to the original post of this actual discussion, omitting RCD protection from sockets that supply HiFi equipment because of some notion that it improves sound quality is not acceptable.
Why would a change be advertised? BS 7671 never made reference to BS 7288 at all, in the 17th Edition Amendment 3 (2015) or earlier, so it's not been removed.
A reference to BS 7288 might not have been removed in a textual or editorial sense, but when a requirement that allows you to use any device you like provided it's rated at 30mA and opens within 40ms at 5xIΔn (so included BS 7288 devices) changes to a short list of specific devices (which didn't include BS 7288) it's certainly a logical or meaningful deletion. (Changes to BS 7288 notwithstanding.)
BS 7288:2016 clearly states in the scope that SRCDs to that standard must have fault protection and additional protection upstream of the SRCD.
I've been wondering about that. The words as reported don't seem to make sense to me (as has already been mentioned, what's the point in an RCD socket or FCU if the supplying circuit already needs its own 30mA RCD protection?) - and I can't see the context in which it's been written - but could it have been intended to say something along the lines of: the circuit upstream of the device will need to have been provided with any additional protection required for that circuit (which might be 30mA RCD protection, or supplementary bonding, or (more usually) nothing at all - depending on the circumstances) - i.e. it's just attempting to emphasis the point that the device only provides downstream protection and you might still need something else if the supply cables are concealed in wall or run within a bathroom or whatever.
Andy, please see my posting of 11 Aug, which gives some context.
:
SRCDs are only intended to provide supplementary protection downstream of the SRCD. SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection are already assured upstream of the SRCD.
:
Sparkingchip:
Do Type EV and Type B RCDs provide additional protection?
Andy Betteridge
Can a Type B 30 mA RCD that complies with IEC62423 (EN62423) be used to provide additional protection?
AJJewsbury:
Andy, please see my posting of 11 Aug, which gives some context.
I had thanks - it was the preceding sentence (my emphasis)::
SRCDs are only intended to provide supplementary protection downstream of the SRCD. SRCDs are intended for use in circuits where the fault protection and additional protection are already assured upstream of the SRCD.
:
that hinted to me that the author (or authoring committee) might have had a particular point in mind that perhaps wasn't expressed clearly in the words of the second of those sentences when taken alone. However I'm always a bit uneasy reading bit of text extracted from a larger document - a sometimes a preceding paragraph or chapter title on the bottom of the previous page can shed quite a different light on things.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site