However, when all is said and done, I think table 41.1 needs to be re-visited again.
But is that based on the fact that RCDs can't be trusted?
Table 41.1 is dry condition only.
Other than reliance on RCDs to achieve 40 ms disconnection time for additional protection, is IEC 60364 deficient in any other respect?
If all disconnection times are reduced to 0.2 s, what do you propose we do about circuits > 63 A (sub-mains etc.) that currently have disconnection times of 2 s and 5 s (and do NOT align in any way, shape or form to IEC 60479)? How will we achieve disconnection times and selectivity for these circuits?
If Table 41.1 is revisited for these reasons, other parts must be also ... would be good to hear your recommendations and reasoning on these other circuits?
However, when all is said and done, I think table 41.1 needs to be re-visited again.
But is that based on the fact that RCDs can't be trusted?
Table 41.1 is dry condition only.
Other than reliance on RCDs to achieve 40 ms disconnection time for additional protection, is IEC 60364 deficient in any other respect?
If all disconnection times are reduced to 0.2 s, what do you propose we do about circuits > 63 A (sub-mains etc.) that currently have disconnection times of 2 s and 5 s (and do NOT align in any way, shape or form to IEC 60479)? How will we achieve disconnection times and selectivity for these circuits?
If Table 41.1 is revisited for these reasons, other parts must be also ... would be good to hear your recommendations and reasoning on these other circuits?
