Talk:Fault current limiter

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electrical engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fault current limiter

The interwikis are wrong. They are for Superconductivity, I think all of them. I don't think this article has an equivalent in other languajes. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 ^{(Talk: here- commons- es)} 20:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could do with some idea of where they are used, cost, design parameters. Rod57 (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reference to rectifier type FCLs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.183.179 (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert in superconductivity, but the bit about quenching from a small amount of non-superconducting current sounds like rubbish to me. I'm pretty sure it's from exceeding the critical current density of the superconductor. Thoughts?GBMorris (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article neutrality disputed ( Oct 2013)

This article has multiple issues:

1. It should be re-titled Superconducting Fault current limiters.

2. It wrongly dismisses non-superconductor devices as "properly termed fault current controllers." This is subjective, such terminology is not in use by major manufacturers, see item 3 below.

3. Non-superconducting FCLs are in regular commercial use. See http://www.global-download.schneider-electric.com/852577A4005D7372/all/2C81359EF04E7A0785257825006CA6BB/$File/72007_pix_is_limiter_en_hires.pdf by the major manufacturer Schneider.

4. The links and references are titled falsely and overly optimistic. For ex, the references and links titled "YCBO-type FCL enters service....." and "First commercial FCL both have other titles.

5. This technology is not yet commercial mainstream and may have electrical or economic limitations, and yet it subjectively dismisses the mainstream alternative.

6. Recommend that this article be re-titled "Superconducting Fault current limiters." A new Wiki page is needed correctly titled "Fault current limiters" which discusses in a balanced manner the mainstream non-superconducting technology, and references "Superconducting Fault current limiters." ~~1capybara

On several of these points a categorization "Neutrality" may be going beyond the point ( it could be restricted to a matter of simple adequacy). However What links here does not bring many results. Regarding a re-title of the article, would a request for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics perhaps make sense? -- Askedonty (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article not does lacks neutrality, it's rather the field itself which is undecisive between using FCL or specifying "SFCL". It should be taken into account that FCL is not the simple same field than "current limiting". Here some docs most of which confer a relative legitimacy to the current state of the article: [1], [2], [3], [4]. A little confusion further is that (S)FCLs own their own controller inside. Doc #1 states: "Because the fault current is controlled dynamically through the power electronics, the SSFCL is sometimes referred to as a fault-current controller (FCC)". Other links for illustrating the confusion: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. There is no indication however that the link you indicated is using English entirely properly, in many documents it is obvious that this company does not. Note that the U.S. DOE prefer using the pair: HTS FCL vs. solid state FCL ([10]), [11] and an other frequent pair is also HTSFCL/MFCL. Then there will be also the "hybrids" (see again second link '): the article should be expanded for the time being, the two or more technologies differenciated in to separate articles perhaps later. --Askedonty (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still unbalanced in 2018

Article does not clearly state if/where there are any non-superconducting FCL's in use. Could do with a History section, eg. to indicate degree of use of non-SC FCL. Should describe the main types of non-SC FCL (not just name them). Now in 2018, where have SC-FCL have actually been installed ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]