<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
>>>but the first time there is a system out there that
does not work some guy may just go and bypass it,<br>
hell its a cheap fix. now who thinks they are protected and they
are not, bad deal.<<<<br>
<br>
Sounds like a good reason for the system to have proper feedback
to<br>
let the firefighters know that the PV really was disconnected.<br>
<br>
boB<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/5/2015 8:37 PM, Jerry Shafer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMUFgmV8dSxwE2V4RjXNGC3ixsiaUQGTx=FfmpCiO-YPAu5-7g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Mark and the wrenches group<br>
</div>
You do have a point, in the many years of my PV life, we
have had three building fires not at all related to the
PV, on the first, all of the insulation on the wires
inside the metal conduit was gone, the at the time
required AC disconnect was turned off, and after all was
over we were called in to remove our system for the
re-construction at which time I found a glove print on
the conduit in the attic, it was wet, smoky and had live
wires inside shorted and all that was required was a
solid ground which it had and worked perfect. <br>
</div>
The second fire was the result of someone else and started
under the home, right next to our EMT conduit, here they
were able to turn off DC disconnect at the array which was
on the ground away from the home and the conduit was
properly grounded. again this protected the firefighters
which I support. <br>
</div>
<div>The third fire was to far back recall to much but again
it was not PV related.<br>
</div>
I hesitate to say this but all the wigets and waldos will
not protect against bad installs and some non NEC following
related repairs, sure shutting down the array on the roof
may help, but the first time there is a system out there
that does not work some guy may just go and bypass it, hell
its a cheap fix. now who thinks they are protected and they
are not, bad deal. <br>
We all need to remember these systems requires power and we
are in the industry of reducing power demands not increasing
them. home owners may in time disconnect it them selves for
this same reason. <br>
</div>
We need more KIS-S<br>
</div>
Jerry<br>
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Dave
Click <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:daveclick@fsec.ucf.edu" target="_blank">daveclick@fsec.ucf.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Mark-<br>
<br>
690.56(C) provides the placard you're looking for and
690.56(B) tells the first responder where that 690.12 switch
is, right?<br>
<br>
For 2017 there are a couple of proposals out there. One is
trying to better educate that first responder (quickly!) as
to what hazards exist. Another is clarifying some of the
language for 690.12 such that we continue to have [better]
array-level shutdown. Another is changing 690.12 to
[basically] module-level shutdown, which has been signed
onto by the IAFF, insurance companies, and... some
module-level electronics vendors.<br>
<br>
We've installed many, many rooftop systems but we're only
about 0.1% done with them. Regardless of how 690.12 changes,
I think that in the next few years we'll all be revisiting
every system we've ever worked on to make sure there's
enough labeling to inform firefighters about the hazards.
I'm curious how we're going to do that so that a 2027
firefighter can quickly distinguish between 2014's Rapid
Shutdown, 2017's Even Rapider Shutdown, 2020's
BlockOutTheSun Shutdown, 2014's Rapid Shutdown That Actually
Still Works, 2011's System That Will Only Shock You If You
Cut Through a Module, and 2005's Never-Code-Compliant system
that incorrectly has a "Rapid Shutdown" label on it because
the homeowner noticed that their neighbor had one. Somehow
we need to make sure firefighters know exactly what they're
up against.<br>
<br>
Non-farcically,<br>
DKC
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 2015/2/5 20:08, Mark Frye wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
...without a mandatory "Stop" switch co-located with
the service meter<br>
or main breaker?<br>
<br>
How many roof top systems have been installed to date?
Many, many, many,<br>
many.<br>
<br>
OK ,now I am a first responder showing up at a home
that is on fire. How<br>
do I know whether or not the DC has been installed
such that it provided<br>
the protections afforded by 690.12? I don't. Because
it is not require<br>
for systems conforming to 690.12 to look any different
to me than those<br>
that do not.<br>
<br>
So does the "stop" switch become the new "fire
fighters club" logo? If<br>
you have the switch the FD will save your home, if you
don't they will<br>
let it burn down, even if you have a 690.12 compliant
system that does<br>
not include an "initiator switch"?<br>
<br>
Mark Frye<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>