[RE-wrenches] 690.32(E) + MC?

[Darryl Thayer]

I have always read metal conduit, The reason being the solar is unfused source circuits, and there is no way for overcurrent protective devices to open.  Therefore, the conductors must be protected from starting a fire under conditions of continuous overcurrent. 
darryl
  

--- On Fri, 12/4/09, dan at foxfire-energy.com <dan at foxfire-energy.com> wrote:

> From: dan at foxfire-energy.com <dan at foxfire-energy.com>
> Subject: [RE-wrenches] 690.32(E) + MC?
> To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
> Date: Friday, December 4, 2009, 5:18 PM
> I
> did a project a while ago for a supplier / Installing out
> fit (who has their in house engineering types), who told me
> that either MC or maybe AC cable did comply with 690.32E.
> today I'm being told that's not the case, and I
> can't seem to put my finger on it ... any pointers?
> thanks db
> 
> 
> Dan Brown
> President
> Foxfire Energy Corp.
> Renewable Energy Systems
> (802)-483-2564
> www.Foxfire-Energy.com
> NABCEP #092907-44
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
> 
> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
> 
> Options & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
> 
> Check out participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
> 
>