rter brain so we have some idea how many ground-faults there had
been since day 1. The whole intent behind my comments is to PREVENT THIS
KIND OF THING FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE. That's all.
_
From: Nick Soleil [mailto:nicksoleilso...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 2:
s" which is probibly all the modules in the
array.
Darryl
--- On Mon, 10/18/10, Nick Soleil wrote:
From: Nick Soleil
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Target fire
To: gilliga...@gmail.com, "RE-wrenches"
Date: Monday, October 18, 2010, 4:08 PM
Hi Matt:
I saw you chimed in
o: RE-wrenches
Sent: Mon, October 18, 2010 1:12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Target fire
Andrew,
The General/Prime Contractor on the job was SunPower vis a vis Powerlight. As
per standard operating procedures there, the actual installation was subbed
out. I don't recall which subs th
ou see, when
> you cover it up, it's just gonna keep happening. At least until somebody
> calls you on it.
>
> $0.02001
>
> Solar Janitor
>
> --
> *From:* re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org [mailto:
> re-wrenches-boun...@l
g
[mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Matt
Lafferty
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 1:13 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches'
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Target fire
Andrew,
The General/Prime Contractor on the job was SunPower vis a vis Powerlight.
As per standard operating proce
: Darryl Thayer
To: RE-wrenches
Sent: Mon, October 18, 2010 12:28:57 PM
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Target fire
I keep thinking had the installer routinely megohmed the ground and the "hot"
they would have known a ground fault existed, and would have repaired. The
event would have no
_
From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Truitt
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 12:04 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Target fire
Thanks William. That is the first place I looked but I didn't
Check the email CC list at the end of the official report, and I think
you'll find the party you are looking for.
DAN FINK
Buckville Energy Consulting
http://www.buckville.com/
William Miller wrote:
Andrew:
It may be in the report:
http://mpandc.com/practices/Safety/safety_data.html
Willi
. No fire.
Again it is installers with knowledge, tools and skills.
Darryl
--- On Mon, 10/18/10, William Miller wrote:
From: William Miller
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] Target fire
To: "RE-wrenches"
Date: Monday, October 18, 2010, 1:47 PM
Andrew:
It may be in the report
Thanks William. That is the first place I looked but I didn't see it in
there. But I love all the resources on your website!
- Andrew
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:47 PM, William Miller wrote:
> Andrew:
>
> It may be in the report:
> http://mpandc.com/practices/Safety/safety_data.html
>
> Wil
Andrew:
It may be in the report: http://mpandc.com/practices/Safety/safety_data.html
William
At 11:30 AM 10/18/2010, you wrote:
Does anyone know who installed the infamous Bakersfield Target job?
Andrew Truitt
NABCEP Certified PV Installer (ID# 032407-66)
Truitt Renewable Energy Consu
Does anyone know who installed the infamous Bakersfield Target job?
Andrew Truitt
NABCEP Certified PV Installer™ (ID# 032407-66)
Truitt Renewable Energy Consulting
(202) 486-7507
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-truitt/8/622/713
"Don't get me wrong: I love nuclear energy! It's just that I
Bob-O,
Opening the ungrounded circuits at (near) the source is the only thing
that is going to provide real protection. Moving the GFP to the
combiner would help in that sense. But the current sensing scheme would
still be dependent on there being a single ground connection. An
undetected
Kent,
Sort of makes the case for the GFPs to be in the combiner boxes on
large systems, doesn't it? Obviously nearly worthless at the inverter
in this case.
Bob-O
On May 6, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Kent Osterberg wrote:
Richard,
I 100% agree with you.
The thing that concerns me most is that the
the GFP scheme that our industry has relied on to provide fire
protection doesn't work very well.
This has been a continual rant of mine since the GFP first became
required. It needs to open the circuit near the source of the power
if it is to be effective.
Drake Chamberlin
Athens Elect
Richard,
I 100% agree with you.
The thing that concerns me most is that the last exhibit in the report
shows that the GFP scheme that our industry has relied on to provide
fire protection doesn't work very well. As PV system size gets larger
there are more and more opportunities for an undet
Kent,
I'm trying not to lose sight of the forest for the trees here. I agree that the
expansion joint is probably completely functional. It also appears to be a well
intentioned effort by the installer to anticipate and compensate for the
inevitable movement in the conduit run. The installer took
Richard,
I think you are right, the weakest link in the chain was a compression
fitting. Maybe one that was not properly tightened. An EMT connector
will thread right into a RMC coupling and it doesn't look like it would
interfere with the expansion joint motion, so I still think the
expans
Kent,
I looked at the photo of that expansion coupling and initially thought, "That'll
work". But if the conduit was RMC OR IMC all the joints would have been
THREADED into couplings, and even if by mistake they were not wrench tight, they
would not have pulled apart. Even if strapped too tig
William,
Thanks for posting the info on the Target fire. We all need to learn
some lessons from it. I'm sure that it is going to lead to changes in
our industry.
Some things that the report brings to my mind:
There will be fire inspectors, electrical inspectors, all kinds of other
experts
20 matches
Mail list logo
