[RE-wrenches] Sunny Island with Outback Transformer

Thu Feb 12 07:02:34 PST 2009

Max - 

I haven't looked up that NEC reference - but I don't think there is
anything wrong with using the OutBack PSX-240 for this application.  

What I think the inspector wants you to use is a full isolation
transformer to provide a separately derived neutral - the OutBack
PSX-240 is an "autotransformer" type which does not provide a separate
neutral - the neutral is common on the input and output - as is the Hot
Leg 1 conductor - the Hot Leg 2 is "made" by the transformer and has to
be kept separate from any other Hot Leg 2 in the system.  Not a big
deal. 

One issue here is what is the source?  The back-up inverter or the
grid-tie inverter?  The neutral is derived from the back-up inverter...
it's a matter of perspective perhaps.  

The problem with using an isolation transformer in this application is
that you will have MUCH lower efficiency - the losses are due to both
lower full power efficiency (higher resistive losses) and higher idle
power consumption (magnetic losses).  I tested a commonly available 4kW
isolation transformer years ago and it drew over 40 watts just powered
up (idle) and the full power efficiency was about 96% (160 watts at 4000
watts).  This compares to the OutBack PSX-240 which is 6kW rated and has
only 10 watts of loss at idle and a through but efficiency of around 98%
- so about 80 watts or so at 4000 watts.  

I would advise talking with the inspector more on this issue.  

Christopher

Christopher Freitas
Director of Research and Development 
OutBack Power Systems, Inc.
cfreitas at outbackpower.com
Tel 360 435 6030
Cell 360 202 4239
19009 62nd Ave NE 
Arlington WA 98223 USA
www.outbackpower.com

-----Original Message-----
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Max
Issacs
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 6:22 AM
To: re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Sunny Island with Outback Transformer

Howdy Everybody.  I am working on a grid tied battery back up system
with a
Sunny Island 4248U, a Sunpower 5000x and an Outback PSX 240
autotransformer.
I am using the transformer to step down the 240v power from the Sunpower
to
be compatable with the Sunny Island which only accepts 120v.  The
electrical
inspector is telling me that I cannot use the Outback as it does not
derive
a neutral from the source feed referencing NEC 215.11.  Has any one else
run
into this problem or know of another transformer that would work?

Thanks,  

Max Isaacs, Solar Technician

Southern Energy Management
(O) 919.836.0330
(C) 919.538.9712
(F) 919.836.0305
101 Kitty Hawk Drive
Morrisville, NC 27560
www.southern-energy.com

-----Original Message-----
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of
re-wrenches-request at lists.re-wrenches.org
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 7:58 AM
To: re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
Subject: RE-wrenches Digest, Vol 2, Issue 171

Send RE-wrenches mailing list submissions to
	re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

http://lists.re-wrenches.org/listinfo.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	re-wrenches-request at lists.re-wrenches.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	re-wrenches-owner at lists.re-wrenches.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RE-wrenches digest..."

When responding to posts within the Digest, be sure to restore the
Subject:
line to the original, and please edit out any extraneous lines from the
quoted message.

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: FW:  Panel Fire (David Brearley)
   2. Re: FW:  Panel Fire (Wind-sun.com)
   3. Re: another firefighter mis-information link (was:	Panel
      Fire) (Allan Sindelar)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:57:00 -0600
From: David Brearley <david.brearley at solarprofessional.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] FW:  Panel Fire
To: <allan at positiveenergysolar.com>,	RE-wrenches
	<re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Message-ID: <C5B9245C.26D1%david.brearley at solarprofessional.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Allan, there are 4 modules pictured in the ?before? photo, not 8. The
after
photo show the ?good? modules, the ones that did not burn. This suggests
there are 4 module each on two separate roof faces. Please have another
look
at the before picture and count the frames. In the before picture each
250 W
mystery module is supported at 4 corners only. They are some sort of
large
format modules. Nothing I can find online matches these characteristics,
especially the superstrate material.

Please re-read the homeowner?s account in these various postings as
well.
Sundiego indicates that the module superstrate is not glass, but some
other
material. Apparently it is a material that melts when exposed to flame.
It
sure isn?t glass, that?s pretty clear by the photos and the written
account.

This does not look like an elaborate hoax to me. It does look, as BB
points
out, like a potential crime scene, a fraud at the very least. Something
was
misrepresented to this customer. It?s pretty apparent that these modules
are
not listed and identified for the application. The installation isn?t
vaguely appropriate. It?s just dumb luck?literally?that the house didn?t
burn down.

Clearly the narrator is unreliable, but I don?t think it is malicious,
just
ignorance. The dude?s a ?solar newbie? and his house caught on fire.
That?s
what it looks like to me.

David

On 2/11/09 6:57 PM, "Allan Sindelar" <allan at positiveenergysolar.com>
wrote:

> I guess I'm not the only one who's suspicious of this whole story.
This
came
> to me off list. Some of the post here doesn't jive - it's pretty clear
there's
> no glass, and the blurry corner doesn't look it to me.
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
>   
>   I  may be very wrong here and I don?t mean to impugn anyone?s
integrity
but
> don?t forget that in this era of digital animation movies you can?t
always
> believe what you see in photo either. (I'm sure no one here has ever
> Photoshopped a photo to make it more presentable  looking.)  I
couldn't
help
> but notice that the bottom right corner of  the photo was surprisingly
blurry
> and indistinct.  It is  difficult to distinguish one thing from the
next,
when
> just a few feet  away but out of the range of detail in the photo,
things
> seemed to be  much clearer.  I?ve never seen a photo look like that
in
> reality.  It?s as if the roof and array have  mysteriously melted
together.
> Also, I have never seen tempered glass  melt in a low temperature
fire.
If
> it were a high temperature fire the roof would not have  survived.  I
think
> that a great deal of caution is warranted  especially considering the
lack
of
> detail that the poster is giving about  the panels, location,
> installer/supplier, existence of another array  etc.
> --- On Wed, 2/11/09, Allan  Sindelar <allan at positiveenergysolar.com>
wrote:
> One detail I haven't heard mentioned yet and am  curious about - the
photo
of
> the fire damage appears to show the corner of  another west(?)-facing
array. I
> find it curious that the system owner  described a 2 kW system made up
of
> eight 250W(!) modules, which are  clearly visible in the topmost
system
photo.
> There's just a whole lot that doesn't jive in  this whole story. Scary
to
me .
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/atta
chme
nts/20090212/a11d0d1c/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:07:38 -0700
From: "Wind-sun.com" <windsun at wind-sun.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] FW:  Panel Fire
To: "RE-wrenches" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Message-ID: <437DFDFE66A34C7BB4139E4479BDFBFD at Warren>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Re: [RE-wrenches] FW:  Panel FireA new term for bargain basement
modules?

........................................................................
....
......................
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Brearley 
  To: allan at positiveenergysolar.com ; RE-wrenches 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] FW: Panel Fire

  each 250 W < mystery module >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/atta
chme
nts/20090212/7f991688/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:58:03 -0700
From: "Allan Sindelar" <allan at positiveenergysolar.com>
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] another firefighter mis-information link
	(was:	Panel Fire)
To: "'RE-wrenches'" <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Message-ID: <E7F0BD42D304487080FEBB1243EEB32A at AllanLaptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Kurt,
Yeah, I did, and I tried to post a response. I had to register, and when
I
got to "Request a Reference", an apparent glitch kept me from
proceeding. I
finally gave up.

Two of five comments debunk the article. One is by Dan Fink of
Otherpower.com, and includes a link to his PowerPoint on the subject.
Allan at Positive Energy.

-----Original Message-----
From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Kurt
Albershardt

Did anyone else catch the link on that page to
http://www.firelink.com/training/articles/5689-the-dangers-of-solar-pane
ls-f
or-firefighters ?

On 2/11/09 6:48 PM, Michael Welch wrote: 

This seems corroborating. It has GOT to be the same situation:
http://www.examiner.com/x-432-Wedding-and-Marriage-Examiner~y2009m2d10-O
ur-w
edding-anniversary-like-a-house-on-fire-literally
<http://www.examiner.com/x-432-Wedding-and-Marriage-Examiner%7Ey2009m2d1
0-Ou
r-wedding-anniversary-like-a-house-on-fire-literally> 

Search the page for "solar" to get to the crux of it

Did anyone else catch the link on that page to
http://www.firelink.com/training/articles/5689-the-dangers-of-solar-pane
ls-f
or-firefighters ?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/atta
chme
nts/20090212/1f1ca559/attachment.htm>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
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

End of RE-wrenches Digest, Vol 2, Issue 171
*******************************************
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.234 / Virus Database: 270.10.21/1945 - Release Date:
02/11/09
08:01:00

_______________________________________________
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

MESSAGE CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2521, is confidential, and may also be protected by attorney-client or other privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please do not read it. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you.