défaillance (in this context)

English translation: fault protection / protective device

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
French term or phrase:protection de défaillance
English translation:fault protection / protective device
Entered by: Tony M

14:47 Sep 5, 2017
French to English translations [PRO]
Tech/Engineering - Energy / Power Generation
French term or phrase: défaillance (in this context)
From a description of protection equipment on a transmission system: "Les protections de ligne xxx au P345 et défaillance (relais, TT, TC, disjoncteur, etc.)"

Any help would be appreciated.
John Detre
Canada
fault
Explanation:
I have to put a very low C/L here simply because it seems to me these terms are not being used correctly; this could simply be my own ignorance, or it could be that the writer got it slightly wrong — or there may be some special significance that escapes me.
SO, assuming it is intended to mean what I suppose it to and that the writer made a slight mistake, I would read this as "protections de ligne xxx ... et de défaillance..." which would mean 'line and fault protective devices' — note that even though we might think of them together, these are in fact two quite distinct functions, provided by different devices.

Note the common use of 'protective device' often necessary to translate 'protections' — another one of those cases where a noun 'missing' in FR has to be supplied in EN, since 'protection' in EN tends to be abstract and uncountable.

I'm sort of assuming that this 'P345' is in some way the name of the 'poste' that you have mentioned in another question, or similar?


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 heure (2017-09-05 16:34:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Asker, that would make sense, inasmuch as some point needs to be defined as where the line begins and the substation ends; though I do have a suspicion that the P might still stand for Poste; the trouble is, in this specialist field, 'poste' is used for lots of different things, to the point that you can even have several different 'postes' within one 'poste' — confusing, NOT!

What puzzles me slightly is the 'au' — at the P345; this could be just a stray def. article as so often in FR (le point X); OR it might be indicative that there is some specific significance that could need to be addressed...

I think it is meant to be 'line protective devices at P345 AND fault protective devices' — the fact of having the 'at P345' in there makes it awkward to streamline it in EN as has been done in FR. Or of course 'devices providing line protection at P345 and [other!] devices providing fault protection'.
Once you're clear in your head as to the meaning, you can play around with the syntax to your heart's content...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 heures (2017-09-05 21:00:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

It's important to appreciate that ALL the protective devices are inherently going to be 'electrical' ones; it is, however, important to differntiate between WHAT they are protecting or protecting against — and that is the distinction being made here: between protecting the line, and protecting against faults. Whence the slightly cumbersome wording.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 heures (2017-09-05 21:10:53 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Asker, since Eduardo has found the same 'P345', it looks as if it can't be a specific drawing reference as you thought, but something more specific to do with the lines; is there any connection with the 345 kV, which seems likely?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 heures (2017-09-05 21:14:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OK, so if you think the P345 is some model of protective device, than it makes more sence now: it is likely then to be 'line protection via P345 devices + fault protection (using the other devices listed, or possibly protecting against faults in those devices)

The fact that no specific equipment is specified for the 'défaillance' is exactly why 'fault' (= general) is better to use here than 'failure' (= in some specific element).
Selected response from:

Tony M
France
Local time: 16:00
Grading comment
Thanks Tony. Your suggestion "line protection via P345 devices + fault protection" and discussion of the issues solved my problem for this item and the entire list.
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
3protection against failures
polyglot45
3electrical protective devices
TechLawDC
3failure (protective devices)
Eduardo Ramos
1fault
Tony M


Discussion entries: 4





  

Answers


38 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
protection against failures


Explanation:
i.e. relays and other cut-outs. Not sure what P345 is... maybe the text reveals more?

polyglot45
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish, Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 20

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Tony M: Can't say 'failure' here, unless we specify WHAT (transformer failure, etc.) — otherwise, it can only be 'fault protection' in general.
2 mins
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
electrical protective devices


Explanation:
The main phrase:
protections de ligne xxx au P345 et défaillance = the protections provided in (or by) line xxx at P345, and the electrical protective devices.
("the electrical protective devices" might be interpreted, depending on the context, as "the ordinary and customary fault protection means".)
---
Note "electrical protective devices" is a very broad term which in electrical engineering is interpreted more broadly than indicated by the words themselves. It means e.g. means of protection in the event of an external fault, means of protection against internal failure, means of protection in the event of an internal fault, means of protection in the event of an irregularity (external or internal), etc.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2017-09-05 15:59:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

---
Holdings: Electrical protective devices :
library.kilgore.edu/vufind/Record/18623
Electrical protective devices : how to select fuses, circuit breakers, overload relays. Interpreting the national electrical code / ...


TechLawDC
United States
Local time: 10:00
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  Tony M: Given that we know this is an electrical context (and other types of prtective device are unlikely), there's really no need to specify 'electrical', and 'protective device' is as I already said; but you haven't really addressed the issue of 'défaillance'.
3 mins
  -> "Defaillance" is implied. This is yet again one of the 000s of instances where English engineering idiom does not match the French.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 hr   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
failure (protective devices)


Explanation:
I would say...

P345 transmission line XXX and (relay ... ... breaker, etc.) failure protective devices

As a transmission system is mentioned/involved, here's a nice link that includes all *items* (even P345 transmission lines):

https://books.google.co.th/books?id=c6WpR2tjQp8C&pg=SA7-PA26...


hope it helps,
EjR


Eduardo Ramos
Thailand
Local time: 21:00
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in PortuguesePortuguese, Native in EnglishEnglish
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thanks Eduardo but I can't find P345 transmission line in the reference you gave. I see "transmission line" in the "product description" column in Table 11 and 345 in the "quantity" column for another item, but no obvious connection between them. Am I missing something?

Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

18 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 1/5Answerer confidence 1/5
défaillance
fault


Explanation:
I have to put a very low C/L here simply because it seems to me these terms are not being used correctly; this could simply be my own ignorance, or it could be that the writer got it slightly wrong — or there may be some special significance that escapes me.
SO, assuming it is intended to mean what I suppose it to and that the writer made a slight mistake, I would read this as "protections de ligne xxx ... et de défaillance..." which would mean 'line and fault protective devices' — note that even though we might think of them together, these are in fact two quite distinct functions, provided by different devices.

Note the common use of 'protective device' often necessary to translate 'protections' — another one of those cases where a noun 'missing' in FR has to be supplied in EN, since 'protection' in EN tends to be abstract and uncountable.

I'm sort of assuming that this 'P345' is in some way the name of the 'poste' that you have mentioned in another question, or similar?


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 heure (2017-09-05 16:34:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Asker, that would make sense, inasmuch as some point needs to be defined as where the line begins and the substation ends; though I do have a suspicion that the P might still stand for Poste; the trouble is, in this specialist field, 'poste' is used for lots of different things, to the point that you can even have several different 'postes' within one 'poste' — confusing, NOT!

What puzzles me slightly is the 'au' — at the P345; this could be just a stray def. article as so often in FR (le point X); OR it might be indicative that there is some specific significance that could need to be addressed...

I think it is meant to be 'line protective devices at P345 AND fault protective devices' — the fact of having the 'at P345' in there makes it awkward to streamline it in EN as has been done in FR. Or of course 'devices providing line protection at P345 and [other!] devices providing fault protection'.
Once you're clear in your head as to the meaning, you can play around with the syntax to your heart's content...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 heures (2017-09-05 21:00:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

It's important to appreciate that ALL the protective devices are inherently going to be 'electrical' ones; it is, however, important to differntiate between WHAT they are protecting or protecting against — and that is the distinction being made here: between protecting the line, and protecting against faults. Whence the slightly cumbersome wording.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 heures (2017-09-05 21:10:53 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Asker, since Eduardo has found the same 'P345', it looks as if it can't be a specific drawing reference as you thought, but something more specific to do with the lines; is there any connection with the 345 kV, which seems likely?

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 heures (2017-09-05 21:14:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OK, so if you think the P345 is some model of protective device, than it makes more sence now: it is likely then to be 'line protection via P345 devices + fault protection (using the other devices listed, or possibly protecting against faults in those devices)

The fact that no specific equipment is specified for the 'défaillance' is exactly why 'fault' (= general) is better to use here than 'failure' (= in some specific element).

Tony M
France
Local time: 16:00
Works in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 338
Grading comment
Thanks Tony. Your suggestion "line protection via P345 devices + fault protection" and discussion of the issues solved my problem for this item and the entire list.
Notes to answerer
Asker: I'm not sure but I believe "au Pxxx" refers to points in a transmission system as numbered on a diagram that I don't have. So my suspicion is that "protections au P345" would be "protection at P345."


Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  polyglot45: protection against P345 and against failures
18 mins
  -> I am far from convinced 'P345' is something to be protected against. I don't see how 'protections au P 345 et [à la]) défaillance' can possibly mean 'against'?

neutral  TechLawDC: Un, fortunately, I tried to find "fault protection devices" and similar phrases in Google, and as suspected they 100% do not exist, other than following specific adjectives!! That is why I deleted my earlier answer.
3 hrs
  -> Google can NEVER prove something does NOT exist, and the more unusual the wording, the less likely you are to find it; just how common is the source term? Specific collocations are what it's all about here.
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search