<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16788" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=343315212-12022009>David,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=343315212-12022009>OK, you're right. Each row is two panels,
not four, and one two-panel subarray burned. My mistake,
sorry.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=343315212-12022009></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=343315212-12022009>I have a strong defensive radar about
substandard work in our industry, and this is an extreme example of what can
happen. This can hurt us all in terms of public perceptions about PV. I have
been a bulldog about shoddy or unlicensed work in our area, and have helped to
"discourage" a couple of unlicensed companies from becoming established here.
It's my shadow side of trying to build a strong industry, and of trying to
protect our own company's reputation for quality.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=343315212-12022009></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=343315212-12022009>Allan</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=343315212-12022009></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> David Brearley
[mailto:david.brearley@solarprofessional.com] <BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT
size=4><FONT face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>David<BR><BR><BR>On 2/11/09, "Allan Sindelar"
<allan@positiveenergysolar.com> wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size=4><FONT face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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 .
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>