Re: [RE-wrenches] Square D Disconnects mounted on the slope of the roof.

[b...@midnitesolar.com]

Robin had a comment on the breaker issue...
I'll just copy and paste since he says it better than I can for this 
kind of stuff.

boB


Square D breakers are thermal breakers and are never used on PV 
combiners. I am not familiar with any solar applications where thermal 
breakers are used on a roof top. They would not be a good choice due to 
the high heat on a roof top.  Square D thermal breakers are only rated 
for 50 volts DC anyway. The solar industry has always used CBI 
hydraulic/magnetic breakers up on the roof top for PV combiners. They 
come in 150 and 300VDC configurations. Some CBI breakers are also used 
for 600VDC disconnects up on the roof. Carling hydraulic/magnetic CX 
600V breakers are also used up on the roof for disconnecting combiners. 
These breakers will change by about 5% for trip characteristics if laid 
on their back. Remember when you mount a breaker facing you and it is 
horizontal or vertical, this is still considered the vertical 
orientation because the front plane is vertical. PV combiners that use 
CBI breakers are made by OutBack and MidNite. There are over 2 million 
breakers in the field in all sorts of orientations. No problem with trip 
have ever been reported to me. That is a pretty good record. CBI 
breakers in the future will be non-polarized in accordance with NEC2014 
so they can continue to be used in PV combiners.








On 11/11/2013 2:42 PM, Bill Hoffer wrote:

Dan

Hydraulic actuated breakers like the Classic Heiniman GJ,used in off 
grid battery based systems ( now made by Carlon and Airpax, since 
Henimans's patent ran out)  it is very critical that they be used in 
the vertical position as is marked on the breaker's chassis.  I know 
this from experience because I designed and got UL listed the GFI 
breaker ( common tripped GJ breakers with a .5 amp ground circuit, 
common today in many systems )  for Trace engineering and it kept 
failing the UL test for no apparent reason until we discovered the 
technician at UL was testing it on it's back, not in compliance with 
their own UL sticker on the device!  Go figure.


But in support of Dan's comment, unless marked on the breaker itself, 
breaker operation is not dependent on orientation.  Water proof rating 
of the enclosure is also another matter and the manufacturer should 
have specifics as to the mounting angle that keeps the outdoor rating. 
The angle can be very critical for any box that uses a lip to deflect 
water (NEMA  3R rating) rather than a seal to keep water out at any 
orientation (NEMA 4 or better).  That is more of the issue here along 
with the fact that breakers are operating at less than ideal 
temperature ranges for the designed trip levels  This would be 
relevant to the Square D disconnect that I am familiar with that uses 
an overlapping lip to get water spary out for it's 3R rating, if it 
was only tested in a vertical position than tiliting it would not be 
within the paramaters of the UL listing.

Bill


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Exeltech > wrote:


Wrenches,

There appears to be some misinformation getting into this thread.

The "trip" mechanism within standard thermal over-current
protective devices ("OCP devices") is mechanically spring-loaded,
and is triggered by heat.

Eric mentions below that Square D breakers are tested in a
vertical orientation only - the implication being that's their
only "UL certified" position.  If this were true, it would imply
the breakers cannot be used in any other orientation.  This would
potentially limit the Square D OCP market to sub-panels and other
enclosures where the devices are vertical.  Inasmuch as the vast
majority of panelboards I've encountered in my 40+ years in this
industry have the breakers stacked horizontally, it would not be a
wise business decision for the manufacturer to self-inflict such a
limitation on their product.

This also does not mean any such limitation (real or not) applies
to all breakers.

By way of example, OCP devices work in a horizontal position,
stacked "pancake" style in a main panelboard, as well as
vertically oriented side-by-side in a sub-panel.  In either
orientation, they are  in full compliance with UL 489, (UL
Standard for Circuit Breakers, Switches, and Circuit Breaker
Enclosures).  If an OCP device *was* positionally-sensitive, UL
Standards require this sensitivity to be noted in the
documentation accompanying the device.  Further to that point, UL
489 Section 7.1.1.13 states: "In determining if a circuit breaker
complies with the test requirements, the device shall be mounted
or supported as in service and tested under conditions
approximating those of intended operation, except as otherwise noted."

Mounting position notwithstanding, a greater concern would be the
ambient temperature of a rooftop location, whereby summer heat
would ten

Re: [RE-wrenches] RE-wrenches Digest, Vol 6, Issue 423

[Bill Brooks]

William and David,

 

This particular problem goes away with arc fault detection. The longer we
wait to introduce arc fault detection into our systems, the more we will
have opportunities for news reports such as the one William brings forward.
Wire ties are not the problem. Could a wire tie cause a problem-sure, just
like anything improperly installed.

 

At the end of the day, you can a have a perfectly installed system, but if
it does not have arc fault detection and high resolution ground fault
detection, it can still catch on fire. You have no control over product
failures other than buying from large companies that can actually insure
their products in a failure.

 

Fires are not that common, but it didn't take much to get all the viewers of
this news report up in arms did it?

 

Bill.

 

 

From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of David
Brearley
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 11:37 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] RE-wrenches Digest, Vol 6, Issue 423

 

William,

 

Thanks for posting a link to that story.

 

Here's more background on the tile roof integrated PV system recall and
warranty fiasco:

 

http://runonsun.com/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/solworks/safety/suntech-recalls
-solar-roofing-tiles

 

http://runonsun.com/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/ranting/centex-clouds-solar-til
e-repairs

 

http://runonsun.com/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/solworks/safety/centex-suspends
-solar-repairs

 

http://runonsun.com/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/solnews/centex-steps-up-will-re
place

 

It sounds like this could be a product design failure rather than a wire
management issue. But wire management is certainly suspect until proven
innocent. Regardless of the cause, since these are roof integrated systems,
Centex basically needs to replace all of the TIPV systems with conventional
rack-mounted PV systems-provided they can get the homeowners to sign the
liability releases. 

 

Even though these are relatively unique installations, the general lessons
would seem to apply broadly. Qualify your vendors carefully. Make sure your
installers are properly trained. Put QC systems in place to catch problems.
A small investment in quality wire management practices is cheap compared to
the alternative.

 

Best regards,

 

David Brearley

Senior Technical Editor, SolarPro magazine

 

 

On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:02 PM, re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org
  wrote:





 

From: "William Miller" mailto:will...@millersolar.com> >

Subject: [RE-wrenches] House fire news

Date: November 11, 2013 12:09:08 PM CST

To: "RE-wrenches" mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >

Reply-To: RE-wrenches mailto:re-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org> >






Friends:

 

This was brought to my attention:
http://on.aol.com/video/are-solar-panels-a-fire-hazard--518000682?hp=1

&playlist=127173&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl12%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D403848

 

 

I know this is an isolated scenario, but bad PR can spread like umm,
wildfire.  We should all be aware of bad press so we can respond to
questions about safety hazards.

 

I think this story is relevant in that as the number of PV installations
continues to grow, the chance of an accident naturally increases. I believe
we all need to do the best work possible to minimize this risk.  Even though
some of the Code requirements seem illogical, I favor strict adherence to
the code, including the more subjective judgments on good workmanship. 

 

I look forward to the day when plastic wire ties of any type are not
accepted for wire management - I think they are sub-standard practice and
increase the likelihood of fire or shock hazards.

 

William Miller

 

 



17395 Oak Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422

www.millersolar.com  

805-438-5600 voice

 

 

___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & 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

Re: [RE-wrenches] Square D Disconnects mounted on the slope of the roof.

[Bill Hoffer]

Dan

Hydraulic actuated breakers like the Classic Heiniman GJ,used in off grid
battery based systems ( now made by Carlon and Airpax, since Henimans's
patent ran out)  it is very critical that they be used in the vertical
position as is marked on the breaker's chassis.  I know this from
experience because I designed and got UL listed the GFI breaker ( common
tripped GJ breakers with a .5 amp ground circuit, common today in many
systems )  for Trace engineering and it kept failing the UL test for no
apparent reason until we discovered the technician at UL was testing it on
it's back, not in compliance with their own UL sticker on the device!  Go
figure.

But in support of Dan's comment, unless marked on the breaker itself,
breaker operation is not dependent on orientation.  Water proof rating of
the enclosure is also another matter and the manufacturer should have
specifics as to the mounting angle that keeps the outdoor rating. The angle
can be very critical for any box that uses a lip to deflect water (NEMA  3R
rating) rather than a seal to keep water out at any orientation (NEMA 4 or
better).  That is more of the issue here along with the fact that breakers
are operating at less than ideal temperature ranges for the designed trip
levels  This would be relevant to the Square D disconnect that I am
familiar with that uses an overlapping lip to get water spary out for it's
3R rating, if it was only tested in a vertical position than tiliting it
would not be within the paramaters of the UL listing.
Bill


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Exeltech  wrote:

> Wrenches,
>
> There appears to be some misinformation getting into this thread.
>
> The "trip" mechanism within standard thermal over-current protective
> devices ("OCP devices") is mechanically spring-loaded, and is triggered by
> heat.
>
> Eric mentions below that Square D breakers are tested in a vertical
> orientation only - the implication being that's their only "UL certified"
> position.  If this were true, it would imply the breakers cannot be used in
> any other orientation.  This would potentially limit the Square D OCP
> market to sub-panels and other enclosures where the devices are vertical.
>  Inasmuch as the vast majority of panelboards I've encountered in my 40+
> years in this industry have the breakers stacked horizontally, it would not
> be a wise business decision for the manufacturer to self-inflict such a
> limitation on their product.
>
> This also does not mean any such limitation (real or not) applies to all
> breakers.
>
> By way of example, OCP devices work in a horizontal position, stacked
> "pancake" style in a main panelboard, as well as vertically oriented
> side-by-side in a sub-panel.  In either orientation, they are  in full
> compliance with UL 489, (UL Standard for Circuit Breakers, Switches, and
> Circuit Breaker Enclosures).  If an OCP device *was*
> positionally-sensitive, UL Standards require this sensitivity to be noted
> in the documentation accompanying the device.  Further to that point, UL
> 489 Section 7.1.1.13 states: "In determining if a circuit breaker complies
> with the test requirements, the device shall be mounted or supported as in
> service and tested under conditions approximating those of intended
> operation, except as otherwise noted."
>
> Mounting position notwithstanding, a greater concern would be the ambient
> temperature of a rooftop location, whereby summer heat would tend to make
> the OCP device more sensitive than necessary, potentially causing it to
> trip at an amperage below that of its UL ratings.  While a nuisance, a more
> serious issue arises when operating the OCP device in cold ambient
> conditions, whereby the device may allow MORE than its rated trip current
> to flow.
>
> Per UL 489, OCP devices are tested at either 25C or 40C ambient.  Again
> per UL 489, if an OCP device is to be used in ambient conditions other than
> those two ranges, the acceptable temperature range for that OCP device
> shall be marked on the body of the device.
>
> In UL 489, Supplemental Annex, Section 2, Subsection 2.3.3, mechanical
> vibration testing is conducted with OCP devices oriented vertically,
> horizontally, and inclined 30 degrees from vertical, with all devices
> energized up to 200% of the device rated current during the testing.
>
> Given the preceding, and per implication of UL 489 testing methods, OCP
> devices are NOT positionally sensitive.
>
> In conclusion, if you DO install a rooftop OCP system, and for proper
> protection, please ensure the OCP devices utilized are rated for the
> worst-case ambient temperatures involved.
>
>
> Regards to all,
>
>
> Dan Lepinski
>
>
>
>
> At 09:33 AM 11/8/2013, you wrote:
>
> Hi Kirpal,
>
> All Square D safety switches are UL tested in the Vertical position ONLY,
> so if someone is trying to install a switch in any other position other
> than vertical, that will be between them and the inspector.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Eric
>
> 

Re: [RE-wrenches] Square D Disconnects mounted on the slope of the roof.

[Gary Willett]

  
  
Fellow Wrenches:
  
  Per NEMA Standards Publication 250-1997 "Enclosures for Electrical
  Equipment (1000 Volts Maximum)", a NEMA 3-R enclosure is designed
  to provide a DEGREE of protection against 45 degree angled rain.
  When testing for compliance, there can be no significant amount of
  water within the enclosure and no water may be present on live
  parts.
  
  NEMA 250 states is Section 4.4 ENCLOSURE ORIENTATION:
  If the acceptability of a Type 2 or 3R enclosure is
  dependent upon a particular mounting orientation, the
  enclosure shall be marked to indicate the required orientation
  unless the mounting is obvious.
  
If a Type 2 or 3R enclosure has knockouts for conduit in
  the sides or back of the enclosure in which the
  equipment to be installed is not known, it shall be marked to
  indicate the area in which live parts are to be
  installed.

  The spec sheet for a NEMA 3-R Square-D safety switch states that
  "Device Mounting" is "Surface". I would interpret that as
  vertical. Also, a vertical orientation of the enclosure would
  minimize the amount of water intrusion from a 45 degree angled
  rain test. 
  
  Regards,
  
  Gary Willett
  Icarus Solar
  
  
  On 11/11/13, 1:49 PM, eric.bent...@schneider-electric.com wrote:


  
  Hi Wrenches,
  
   There is no "implication"
other than confirming how the disco 
  
  is tested, and thus certified. It
probably
makes no difference electrically which position the
  
   unit is mounted, but AHJs may
have differing opinions on whether this would be permitted. 
  
  Rgds,
  _

  
  Eric Bentsen  |  
  Schneider Electric  
  |  Solar
  Business  |   UNITED STATES  |   Technical
  Support Representative 
  Phone: +(650) 351-8237 ext. 001#  |   
  Email: eric.bent...@schneider-electric.com
 |   Site:
www.schneider-electric.com/solar
 |   Address: 250 South Vasco Rd., Livermore, CA 94551

  

*** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
From:

Bob-O Schultze


  
  
To:

RE-wrenches


  
  
Date:

11/11/2013 10:09 AM

  
  
Subject:

Re: [RE-wrenches]
Square D Disconnects
mounted on the slope of the        roof.

  
  
Sent
by:

re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org
  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  Dan,
  I think this thread applied not to OCDs but to an unfused
  600VDC disconnect
  can mounted on a roof which is less than vertical.
  Bob-O
  On Nov 11, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Exeltech wrote:
  
  Wrenches,
  
  There appears to be some misinformation getting into this
  thread.
  
  The "trip" mechanism within standard thermal over-current
  protective
  devices ("OCP devices") is mechanically spring-loaded, and is
  triggered by heat.
  
  Eric mentions below that Square D breakers are tested in a
  vertical orientation
  only - the implication being that's their only "UL certified"
  position.  If this were true, it would imply the breakers
  cannot be
  used in any other orientation.  This would potentially limit
  the Square
  D OCP market to sub-panels and other enclosures where the
  devices are vertical.
   Inasmuch as the vast majority of panelboards I've encountered
  in
  my 40+ years in this industry have the breakers stacked
  horizontally, it
  would not be a wise business decision for the manufacturer to
  self-inflict
  such a limitation on their product.
  
  This also does not mean any such limitation (real or not)
  applies to all
  breakers.
  
  By way of example, OCP devices work in a horizontal position,
  stacked "pancake"
  style in a main panelboard, as well as vertically oriented
  side-by-side
  in a sub-panel.  In either orientation, they are  in full
  compliance
  with UL 489, (UL Standard for Circuit Breakers, Switches, and

Re: [RE-wrenches] Square D Disconnects mounted on the slope of the roof.

[Drake]

If the box is NEMA 3R, it needs to be mounted vertically to shed 
water. If it is a sealed NEMA 4X rated unit, it can be mounted at any angle.


At 02:49 PM 11/11/2013, you wrote:


Hi Wrenches,
 There is no "implication" other than confirming how the disco
is tested, and thus certified. It probably makes no difference 
electrically which position the
 unit is mounted, but AHJs may have differing opinions on whether 
this would be permitted.

Rgds,
___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & 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

Re: [RE-wrenches] House fire news

[Jason Szumlanski]

I had a customer and a potential customer bring this to my attention. Bad
press and misinformation in this industry is rampant.

Jason Szumlanski

Fafco Solar





On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:09 PM, William Miller wrote:

> Friends:
>
>
>
> This was brought to my attention:
> http://on.aol.com/video/are-solar-panels-a-fire-hazard--518000682?hp=1&playlist=127173&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl12%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D403848
>
>
>
>
>
> I know this is an isolated scenario, but bad PR can spread like umm,
> wildfire.  We should all be aware of bad press so we can respond to
> questions about safety hazards.
>
>
>
> I think this story is relevant in that as the number of PV installations
> continues to grow, the chance of an accident naturally increases. I believe
> we all need to do the best work possible to minimize this risk.  Even
> though some of the Code requirements seem illogical, I favor strict
> adherence to the code, including the more subjective judgments on good
> workmanship.
>
>
>
> I look forward to the day when plastic wire ties of any type are not
> accepted for wire management – I think they are sub-standard practice and
> increase the likelihood of fire or shock hazards.
>
>
>
> William Miller
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: cid:679355323@23072013-1054]
>
> 17395 Oak Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422
>
> www.millersolar.com
>
> 805-438-5600 voice
>
>
>
> ___
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Change email address & 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
>
>
>
<>___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & 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

Re: [RE-wrenches] Square D Disconnects mounted on the slope of the roof.

[Eric . Bentsen]

Hi Wrenches,
 There is no "implication" other than confirming how the disco 
is tested, and thus certified. It probably makes no difference 
electrically which position the
 unit is mounted, but AHJs may have differing opinions on whether this 
would be permitted. 
Rgds,
_
 


Eric Bentsen  |   Schneider Electric   |  Solar Business  |   UNITED 
STATES  |   Technical Support Representative 
Phone: +(650) 351-8237 ext. 001#  |   
Email: eric.bent...@schneider-electric.com  |   Site: 
www.schneider-electric.com/solar  |   Address: 250 South Vasco Rd., 
Livermore, CA 94551 


*** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 




From:
Bob-O Schultze 
To:
RE-wrenches 
Date:
11/11/2013 10:09 AM
Subject:
Re: [RE-wrenches] Square D Disconnects mounted on the slope of the roof.
Sent by:
re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org



Dan,
I think this thread applied not to OCDs but to an unfused 600VDC 
disconnect can mounted on a roof which is less than vertical.
Bob-O
On Nov 11, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Exeltech wrote:

Wrenches,

There appears to be some misinformation getting into this thread.

The "trip" mechanism within standard thermal over-current protective 
devices ("OCP devices") is mechanically spring-loaded, and is triggered by 
heat.

Eric mentions below that Square D breakers are tested in a vertical 
orientation only - the implication being that's their only "UL certified" 
position.  If this were true, it would imply the breakers cannot be used 
in any other orientation.  This would potentially limit the Square D OCP 
market to sub-panels and other enclosures where the devices are vertical. 
Inasmuch as the vast majority of panelboards I've encountered in my 40+ 
years in this industry have the breakers stacked horizontally, it would 
not be a wise business decision for the manufacturer to self-inflict such 
a limitation on their product.

This also does not mean any such limitation (real or not) applies to all 
breakers.

By way of example, OCP devices work in a horizontal position, stacked 
"pancake" style in a main panelboard, as well as vertically oriented 
side-by-side in a sub-panel.  In either orientation, they are  in full 
compliance with UL 489, (UL Standard for Circuit Breakers, Switches, and 
Circuit Breaker Enclosures).  If an OCP device *was* 
positionally-sensitive, UL Standards require this sensitivity to be noted 
in the documentation accompanying the device.  Further to that point, UL 
489 Section 7.1.1.13 states: "In determining if a circuit breaker complies 
with the test requirements, the device shall be mounted or supported as in 
service and tested under conditions approximating those of intended 
operation, except as otherwise noted."

Mounting position notwithstanding, a greater concern would be the ambient 
temperature of a rooftop location, whereby summer heat would tend to make 
the OCP device more sensitive than necessary, potentially causing it to 
trip at an amperage below that of its UL ratings.  While a nuisance, a 
more serious issue arises when operating the OCP device in cold ambient 
conditions, whereby the device may allow MORE than its rated trip current 
to flow.

Per UL 489, OCP devices are tested at either 25C or 40C ambient.  Again 
per UL 489, if an OCP device is to be used in ambient conditions other 
than those two ranges, the acceptable temperature range for that OCP 
device shall be marked on the body of the device.

In UL 489, Supplemental Annex, Section 2, Subsection 2.3.3, mechanical 
vibration testing is conducted with OCP devices oriented vertically, 
horizontally, and inclined 30 degrees from vertical, with all devices 
energized up to 200% of the device rated current during the testing.

Given the preceding, and per implication of UL 489 testing methods, OCP 
devices are NOT positionally sensitive.

In conclusion, if you DO install a rooftop OCP system, and for proper 
protection, please ensure the OCP devices utilized are rated for the 
worst-case ambient temperatures involved.


Regards to all,


Dan Lepinski




At 09:33 AM 11/8/2013, you wrote:

Hi Kirpal,

All Square D safety switches are UL tested in the Vertical position ONLY, 
so if someone is trying to install a switch in any other position other 
than vertical, that will be between them and the inspector.

Hope this helps. 

Eric


Eric Bentsen  |  Schneider Electric   |  Solar Business  |   UNITED STATES 
 |   Technical Support Representative 
Phone: +(650) 351-8237 ext. 001#  |   Email: 
eric.bent...@schneider-electric.com  |  Site: 
www.schneider-electric.com/solar   |   Address: 250 South Vasco Rd., 
Livermore, CA 94551 


___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenc

Re: [RE-wrenches] House fire news

[Ray Walters]

  
  
I've always found much of BIPV using
  amorphous technology to be somewhat less safe.  Ever see the
  Unisolar BIPV setup, with all the parallel connections made loose
  in the attic?  Yuk.
  R.Ray Walters
CTO, Solarray, Inc
Nabcep Certified PV Installer, 
Licensed Master Electrician
Solar Design Engineer
303 505-8760
  On 11/11/2013 11:36 AM, Marco Mangelsdorf wrote:


  
  
  
  
  
Brings up an
obvious question: are BIPV systems more of a fire risk than
standard modules mounted on top of the roof systems.
 
Opinions?
 
marco
 
Friends:
 
This
was brought to my attention:  http://on.aol.com/video/are-solar-panels-a-fire-hazard--518000682?hp=1&playlist=127173&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl12%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D403848
 
 
I
know this is an isolated scenario, but bad PR can spread
like umm, wildfire.  We should all be aware of bad press so
we can respond to questions about safety hazards.
 
I
think this story is relevant in that as the number of PV
installations continues to grow, the chance of an accident
naturally increases. I believe we all need to do the best
work possible to minimize this risk.  Even though some of
the Code requirements seem illogical, I favor strict
adherence to the code, including the more subjective
judgments on good workmanship. 
 
I
look forward to the day when plastic wire ties of any type
are not accepted for wire management – I think they are
sub-standard practice and increase the likelihood of fire or
shock hazards.
 
William
Miller
 
 

17395
Oak Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422
www.millersolar.com
805-438-5600
voice
 
  
  
  
  
  ___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & 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




  

___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & 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

[RE-wrenches] House fire news

[don]

Wow was that news story hard to watch with all the fear mongering. They generalized one brand to all solar panels when they asked the big question about safety. Similarly for Marco's question--- we cannot generalize all BIPV systems and judge from problems with one brand. That said, I agree with William M. that we want to do the best work possible to avoid and taint on the industry. That means fix or remove the problems...
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 08:36:13 -1000
From: "Marco Mangelsdorf" 
To: "'RE-wrenches'" 
Subject: [RE-wrenches] House fire news
Message-ID: <006c01cedf0c$e7a70f50$b6f52df0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Brings up an obvious question: are BIPV systems more of a fire risk than
standard modules mounted on top of the roof systems.

 

Opinions?

 

marco

 

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:09:08 -0800
From: "William Miller" 
To: "RE-wrenches" 
Subject: [RE-wrenches] House fire news
Message-ID: <035801cedf09$21d24090$6576c1b0$@millersolar.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Friends:

 

This was brought to my attention:
http://on.aol.com/video/are-solar-panels-a-fire-hazard--518000682?hp=1

&playlist=127173&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl12%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D403848

 
I know this is an isolated scenario, but bad PR can spread like umm,
wildfire.  We should all be aware of bad press so we can respond to
questions about safety hazards.


I think this story is relevant in that as the number of PV installations
continues to grow, the chance of an accident naturally increases. I believe
we all need to do the best work possible to minimize this risk.  Even though
some of the Code requirements seem illogical, I favor strict adherence to
the code, including the more subjective judgments on good workmanship. 

 

I look forward to the day when plastic wire ties of any type are not
accepted for wire management - I think they are sub-standard practice and
increase the likelihood of fire or shock hazards.


William Miller


cid:679355323@23072013-1054

17395 Oak Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422

www.millersolar.com millersolar.com/> 

805-438-5600 voice

 




___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & 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

Re: [RE-wrenches] RE-wrenches Digest, Vol 6, Issue 423

[David Brearley]

William,

Thanks for posting a link to that story.

Here's more background on the tile roof integrated PV system recall and 
warranty fiasco:

http://runonsun.com/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/solworks/safety/suntech-recalls-solar-roofing-tiles

http://runonsun.com/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/ranting/centex-clouds-solar-tile-repairs

http://runonsun.com/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/solworks/safety/centex-suspends-solar-repairs

http://runonsun.com/~runons5/blogs/blog1.php/solnews/centex-steps-up-will-replace

It sounds like this could be a product design failure rather than a wire 
management issue. But wire management is certainly suspect until proven 
innocent. Regardless of the cause, since these are roof integrated systems, 
Centex basically needs to replace all of the TIPV systems with conventional 
rack-mounted PV systems—provided they can get the homeowners to sign the 
liability releases. 

Even though these are relatively unique installations, the general lessons 
would seem to apply broadly. Qualify your vendors carefully. Make sure your 
installers are properly trained. Put QC systems in place to catch problems. A 
small investment in quality wire management practices is cheap compared to the 
alternative.

Best regards,

David Brearley
Senior Technical Editor, SolarPro magazine


On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:02 PM, re-wrenches-requ...@lists.re-wrenches.org wrote:

> 
> From: "William Miller" 
> Subject: [RE-wrenches] House fire news
> Date: November 11, 2013 12:09:08 PM CST
> To: "RE-wrenches" 
> Reply-To: RE-wrenches 
> 
> 
> Friends:
>  
> This was brought to my attention:  
> http://on.aol.com/video/are-solar-panels-a-fire-hazard--518000682?hp=1&playlist=127173&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl12%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D403848
>  
>  
> I know this is an isolated scenario, but bad PR can spread like umm, 
> wildfire.  We should all be aware of bad press so we can respond to questions 
> about safety hazards.
>  
> I think this story is relevant in that as the number of PV installations 
> continues to grow, the chance of an accident naturally increases. I believe 
> we all need to do the best work possible to minimize this risk.  Even though 
> some of the Code requirements seem illogical, I favor strict adherence to the 
> code, including the more subjective judgments on good workmanship.
>  
> I look forward to the day when plastic wire ties of any type are not accepted 
> for wire management – I think they are sub-standard practice and increase the 
> likelihood of fire or shock hazards.
>  
> William Miller
>  
>  
> 
> 17395 Oak Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422
> www.millersolar.com
> 805-438-5600 voice
>  

___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & 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

Re: [RE-wrenches] Square D Disconnects mounted on the slope of the roof.

[Kirpal Khalsa]

Bob O..thank you, you got to the heart of my original questionI am
not questioning the OCPD ratingsjust the can mounted at a slope
equivalent to the roof slope.Typically if we have rooftop OCPD they are
high voltage fuse holders and fuses or the Outback and Midnite solar
breakers.I haven't actually looked up the temp ratings on those but
have assumed (i know) that they are rated for roof top temps as they are
marketed as combiner box breakers and combiners are often located on the
hot roof next to the modulesOregon has a rule where many jurisdictions
are now requiring lockable, visible disconnects on roofs for fire fighters
to be able to disconnect the array from the BOS down below from up on the
roof.In my opinion this is of limited use in micro inverter and
optimizer systems.but i can see some limited value in high voltage
string inverter systems..I should also note that i am primarily
referring to smaller residential systems.(~3-10Kw)
>From what i have gleaned from this discussion, Midnite solar has a single
circuit 600V disconnect, (apparently a multi string disconnect as well, I
haven't fully researched that all the way thru yet) DC Sunvolt out of NJ
also has a line of disconnecting combiners which we have used a few times,
and  Crouse Hinds has some jumbo disconnecting combiner boxes that are way
over sized and also over priced.
Thanks for all your input...


Sunny Regards,
Kirpal Khalsa
NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional
Renewable Energy Systems
www.oregonsolarworks.com
541-218-0201 m
541-592-3958 o


On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Bob-O Schultze <
bo...@electronconnection.com> wrote:

> Dan,
> I think this thread applied not to OCDs but to an unfused 600VDC
> disconnect can mounted on a roof which is less than vertical.
> Bob-O
> On Nov 11, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Exeltech wrote:
>
> Wrenches,
>
> There appears to be some misinformation getting into this thread.
>
> The "trip" mechanism within standard thermal over-current protective
> devices ("OCP devices") is mechanically spring-loaded, and is triggered by
> heat.
>
> Eric mentions below that Square D breakers are tested in a vertical
> orientation only - the implication being that's their only "UL certified"
> position.  If this were true, it would imply the breakers cannot be used in
> any other orientation.  This would potentially limit the Square D OCP
> market to sub-panels and other enclosures where the devices are vertical.
>  Inasmuch as the vast majority of panelboards I've encountered in my 40+
> years in this industry have the breakers stacked horizontally, it would not
> be a wise business decision for the manufacturer to self-inflict such a
> limitation on their product.
>
> This also does not mean any such limitation (real or not) applies to all
> breakers.
>
> By way of example, OCP devices work in a horizontal position, stacked
> "pancake" style in a main panelboard, as well as vertically oriented
> side-by-side in a sub-panel.  In either orientation, they are  in full
> compliance with UL 489, (UL Standard for Circuit Breakers, Switches, and
> Circuit Breaker Enclosures).  If an OCP device *was*
> positionally-sensitive, UL Standards require this sensitivity to be noted
> in the documentation accompanying the device.  Further to that point, UL
> 489 Section 7.1.1.13 states: "In determining if a circuit breaker complies
> with the test requirements, the device shall be mounted or supported as in
> service and tested under conditions approximating those of intended
> operation, except as otherwise noted."
>
> Mounting position notwithstanding, a greater concern would be the ambient
> temperature of a rooftop location, whereby summer heat would tend to make
> the OCP device more sensitive than necessary, potentially causing it to
> trip at an amperage below that of its UL ratings.  While a nuisance, a more
> serious issue arises when operating the OCP device in cold ambient
> conditions, whereby the device may allow MORE than its rated trip current
> to flow.
>
> Per UL 489, OCP devices are tested at either 25C or 40C ambient.  Again
> per UL 489, if an OCP device is to be used in ambient conditions other than
> those two ranges, the acceptable temperature range for that OCP device
> shall be marked on the body of the device.
>
> In UL 489, Supplemental Annex, Section 2, Subsection 2.3.3, mechanical
> vibration testing is conducted with OCP devices oriented vertically,
> horizontally, and inclined 30 degrees from vertical, with all devices
> energized up to 200% of the device rated current during the testing.
>
> Given the preceding, and per implication of UL 489 testing methods, OCP
> devices are NOT positionally sensitive.
>
> In conclusion, if you DO install a rooftop OCP system, and for proper
> protection, please ensure the OCP devices utilized are rated for the
> worst-case ambient temperatures involved.
>
>
> Regards to all,
>
>
> Dan Lepinski
>
>
>
>
> At 09:33 AM 11/8/201

[RE-wrenches] House fire news

[Marco Mangelsdorf]

Brings up an obvious question: are BIPV systems more of a fire risk than
standard modules mounted on top of the roof systems.

 

Opinions?

 

marco

 

Friends:

 

This was brought to my attention:
http://on.aol.com/video/are-solar-panels-a-fire-hazard--518000682?hp=1

&playlist=127173&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl12%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D403848

 

 

I know this is an isolated scenario, but bad PR can spread like umm,
wildfire.  We should all be aware of bad press so we can respond to
questions about safety hazards.

 

I think this story is relevant in that as the number of PV installations
continues to grow, the chance of an accident naturally increases. I believe
we all need to do the best work possible to minimize this risk.  Even though
some of the Code requirements seem illogical, I favor strict adherence to
the code, including the more subjective judgments on good workmanship. 

 

I look forward to the day when plastic wire ties of any type are not
accepted for wire management - I think they are sub-standard practice and
increase the likelihood of fire or shock hazards.

 

William Miller

 

 

cid:679355323@23072013-1054

17395 Oak Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422

www.millersolar.com  

805-438-5600 voice

 

<>___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & 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

[RE-wrenches] House fire news

[William Miller]

Friends:

 

This was brought to my attention:
http://on.aol.com/video/are-solar-panels-a-fire-hazard--518000682?hp=1

&playlist=127173&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl12%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D403848

 

 

I know this is an isolated scenario, but bad PR can spread like umm,
wildfire.  We should all be aware of bad press so we can respond to
questions about safety hazards.

 

I think this story is relevant in that as the number of PV installations
continues to grow, the chance of an accident naturally increases. I believe
we all need to do the best work possible to minimize this risk.  Even though
some of the Code requirements seem illogical, I favor strict adherence to
the code, including the more subjective judgments on good workmanship. 

 

I look forward to the day when plastic wire ties of any type are not
accepted for wire management - I think they are sub-standard practice and
increase the likelihood of fire or shock hazards.

 

William Miller

 

 

cid:679355323@23072013-1054

17395 Oak Rd. Atascadero, CA 93422

  www.millersolar.com

805-438-5600 voice

 

<>___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & 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

Re: [RE-wrenches] Square D Disconnects mounted on the slope of the roof.

[Bob-O Schultze]

Dan,
I think this thread applied not to OCDs but to an unfused 600VDC disconnect can 
mounted on a roof which is less than vertical.
Bob-O
On Nov 11, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Exeltech wrote:

Wrenches,

There appears to be some misinformation getting into this thread.

The "trip" mechanism within standard thermal over-current protective devices 
("OCP devices") is mechanically spring-loaded, and is triggered by heat.

Eric mentions below that Square D breakers are tested in a vertical orientation 
only - the implication being that's their only "UL certified" position.  If 
this were true, it would imply the breakers cannot be used in any other 
orientation.  This would potentially limit the Square D OCP market to 
sub-panels and other enclosures where the devices are vertical.  Inasmuch as 
the vast majority of panelboards I've encountered in my 40+ years in this 
industry have the breakers stacked horizontally, it would not be a wise 
business decision for the manufacturer to self-inflict such a limitation on 
their product.

This also does not mean any such limitation (real or not) applies to all 
breakers.

By way of example, OCP devices work in a horizontal position, stacked "pancake" 
style in a main panelboard, as well as vertically oriented side-by-side in a 
sub-panel.  In either orientation, they are  in full compliance with UL 489, 
(UL Standard for Circuit Breakers, Switches, and Circuit Breaker Enclosures).  
If an OCP device *was* positionally-sensitive, UL Standards require this 
sensitivity to be noted in the documentation accompanying the device.  Further 
to that point, UL 489 Section 7.1.1.13 states: "In determining if a circuit 
breaker complies with the test requirements, the device shall be mounted or 
supported as in service and tested under conditions approximating those of 
intended operation, except as otherwise noted."

Mounting position notwithstanding, a greater concern would be the ambient 
temperature of a rooftop location, whereby summer heat would tend to make the 
OCP device more sensitive than necessary, potentially causing it to trip at an 
amperage below that of its UL ratings.  While a nuisance, a more serious issue 
arises when operating the OCP device in cold ambient conditions, whereby the 
device may allow MORE than its rated trip current to flow.

Per UL 489, OCP devices are tested at either 25C or 40C ambient.  Again per UL 
489, if an OCP device is to be used in ambient conditions other than those two 
ranges, the acceptable temperature range for that OCP device shall be marked on 
the body of the device.

In UL 489, Supplemental Annex, Section 2, Subsection 2.3.3, mechanical 
vibration testing is conducted with OCP devices oriented vertically, 
horizontally, and inclined 30 degrees from vertical, with all devices energized 
up to 200% of the device rated current during the testing.

Given the preceding, and per implication of UL 489 testing methods, OCP devices 
are NOT positionally sensitive.

In conclusion, if you DO install a rooftop OCP system, and for proper 
protection, please ensure the OCP devices utilized are rated for the worst-case 
ambient temperatures involved.


Regards to all,


Dan Lepinski




At 09:33 AM 11/8/2013, you wrote:

Hi Kirpal,

All Square D safety switches are UL tested in the Vertical position ONLY, so if 
someone is trying to install a switch in any other position other than 
vertical, that will be between them and the inspector.

Hope this helps. 

Eric


Eric Bentsen  |  Schneider Electric   |  Solar Business  |   UNITED STATES  |   
Technical Support Representative 
Phone: +(650) 351-8237 ext. 001#  |   Email: 
eric.bent...@schneider-electric.com  |  Site: www.schneider-electric.com/solar  
 |   Address: 250 South Vasco Rd., Livermore, CA 94551 


___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & 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



___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & 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

Re: [RE-wrenches] Square D Disconnects mounted on the slope of the roof.

[Exeltech]

Wrenches,

There appears to be some misinformation getting into this thread.

The "trip" mechanism within standard thermal over-current protective devices 
("OCP devices") is mechanically spring-loaded, and is triggered by heat.

Eric mentions below that Square D breakers are tested in a vertical orientation 
only - the implication being that's their only "UL certified" position.  If 
this were true, it would imply the breakers cannot be used in any other 
orientation.  This would potentially limit the Square D OCP market to 
sub-panels and other enclosures where the devices are vertical.  Inasmuch as 
the vast majority of panelboards I've encountered in my 40+ years in this 
industry have the breakers stacked horizontally, it would not be a wise 
business decision for the manufacturer to self-inflict such a limitation on 
their product.

This also does not mean any such limitation (real or not) applies to all 
breakers.

By way of example, OCP devices work in a horizontal position, stacked "pancake" 
style in a main panelboard, as well as vertically oriented side-by-side in a 
sub-panel.  In either orientation, they are  in full compliance with UL 489, 
(UL Standard for Circuit Breakers, Switches, and Circuit Breaker Enclosures).  
If an OCP device *was* positionally-sensitive, UL Standards require this 
sensitivity to be noted in the documentation accompanying the device.  Further 
to that point, UL 489 Section 7.1.1.13 states: "In determining if a circuit 
breaker complies with the test requirements, the device shall be mounted or 
supported as in service and tested under conditions approximating those of 
intended operation, except as otherwise noted."

Mounting position notwithstanding, a greater concern would be the ambient 
temperature of a rooftop location, whereby summer heat would tend to make the 
OCP device more sensitive than necessary, potentially causing it to trip at an 
amperage below that of its UL ratings.  While a nuisance, a more serious issue 
arises when operating the OCP device in cold ambient conditions, whereby the 
device may allow MORE than its rated trip current to flow.

Per UL 489, OCP devices are tested at either 25C or 40C ambient.  Again per UL 
489, if an OCP device is to be used in ambient conditions other than those two 
ranges, the acceptable temperature range for that OCP device shall be marked on 
the body of the device.

In UL 489, Supplemental Annex, Section 2, Subsection 2.3.3, mechanical 
vibration testing is conducted with OCP devices oriented vertically, 
horizontally, and inclined 30 degrees from vertical, with all devices energized 
up to 200% of the device rated current during the testing.

Given the preceding, and per implication of UL 489 testing methods, OCP devices 
are NOT positionally sensitive.

In conclusion, if you DO install a rooftop OCP system, and for proper 
protection, please ensure the OCP devices utilized are rated for the worst-case 
ambient temperatures involved.


Regards to all,


Dan Lepinski




At 09:33 AM 11/8/2013, you wrote:
 
Hi Kirpal,

All Square D safety switches are UL tested in the Vertical position ONLY, so if 
someone is trying to install a switch in any other position other than 
vertical, that will be between them and the inspector.

Hope this helps. 
 
Eric


Eric Bentsen  |  Schneider Electric   |  Solar Business  |   UNITED STATES  |   
Technical Support Representative 
Phone: +(650) 351-8237 ext. 001#  |   Email: 
eric.bent...@schneider-electric.com  |  Site: www.schneider-electric.com/solar  
 |   Address: 250 South Vasco Rd., Livermore, CA 94551 


___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org

Change email address & 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

Re: [RE-wrenches] Square D Disconnects mounted on the slope of the roof.

[Drake]

It can look better when coming straight up like a chimney or stack.

At 02:45 PM 11/9/2013, you wrote:
Drake...we have made mounting brackets to make box vertical before 
but our customers complained about aesthetics.Hence the search 
for a parallel to the roof slope mounting box quest..Bob O i 
will look at the midnite dual pole 600VDC optionThat sounds like 
what we are looking for

Thanks

Sunny Regards,
Kirpal Khalsa
NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional
Renewable Energy Systems
www.oregonsolarworks.com
541-218-0201 m
541-592-3958 o


On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Ray Walters 
<r...@solarray.com> wrote:
We've made up mounting brackets with unistrut for this purpose as 
well.  We just bend their regular 45 deg angle brackets to match the 
roof tilt.  It's a bit of work though, so we are going to other 
solutions like the Soladek, or just putting the combiner box in a 
different location.


R.Ray Walters

CTO, Solarray, Inc

Nabcep Certified PV Installer,

Licensed Master Electrician

Solar Design Engineer

303 505-8760
On 11/9/2013 11:01 AM, Drake wrote:
A NEMA 3R box can be mounted vertically on a sloping roof by 
attaching brackets to the sides of the box and leveling the box. 
The bracket or L-foot can allow the box to swivel to vertical.





At 09:33 AM 11/8/2013, you wrote:


Hi Kirpal,
All Square D safety switches are UL tested in the Vertical position ONLY,
so if someone is trying to install a switch in any other position other
than vertical, that will be between them and the inspector. Hope 
this helps.

Eric
_ 



Eric Bentsen  |  Schneider Electric   |  Solar 
Business  |   UNITED STATES  |   Technical Support Representative

Phone: +(650) 351-8237 ext. 001#  |
Email: 
eric.bent...@schneider-electric.com 
|   Site: 
www.schneider-electric.com/solar 
|   Address: 250 South Vasco Rd., Livermore, CA 94551



*** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



From: Kirpal Khalsa 
To: RE-wrenches 


Date: 11/07/2013 01:42 PM
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Square D Disconnects mounted on the slope 
of the roof.
Sent by: 
re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org 







Hi Folks!!!
Anyone aware of minimum slope requirements for Square D 321RB 
disconnectsCan they be mounted on rails parallel to the slope 
of the roof like Outback and Midnite solar combiner boxes(down to 
a 3/12 pitch)
I can't seem to find any notes stating the limitations in 
manufacturer documentation.. They are NEMA 3 of course

Thanks in advance for any direction you can provide

Sunny Regards,
Kirpal Khalsa
NABCEP Certified PV Installation Professional
Renewable Energy Systems
www.oregonsolarworks.com
541-218-0201 m
541-592-3958 o





__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
__ 
___

List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: 
RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org


Change email address & 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





___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: 
RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org


Change email address & 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




___

List sponsored by Home Power magazine


List Address: 
RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org



Change email address & settings: