<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Humm...an LED and 9V battery would serve the would-be bypasser
well...<br>
<br>
...but of course once we implement yearly inspection and
certification of the PV system rapid shut down by the local FD, that
will deter such tampering....<br>
<br>
Is there an analog to our concerns vis-a-vis 690.12 in Europe or
Japan?<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/5/2015 10:29 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:boB@midnitesolar.com">boB@midnitesolar.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:54D45F66.5020309@midnitesolar.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Redwood Alliance
List Address: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org">RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org</a>
Change listserver email address & settings:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org">http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org</a>
List-Archive: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org/maillist.html</a>
List rules & etiquette:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm">www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm</a>
Check out or update participant bios:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.members.re-wrenches.org">www.members.re-wrenches.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>