APSystems installation

[Mike90250]

no, outlets. 240v outdoor outlets, replaced the micro inverter plugs with 240v plugs. Just like any other outdoor outlet. Covered with an in use cover.

As long as your are describing your own, non compliant system, which ignores several safety rules, have fun and be warned your homeowners insurance will likely not cover any electrical related claims. And don't even think of suggesting anyone else follow your unsafe choices, because those posts will be deleted.

[Ampster]

So you've got an energized male plug ? Not subject to inspection I guess.

It not technically energized until inserted in the receptacle because presumably the antislanding function works. I am not sure it is code doing it that way but I don't know for sure.

[bob-n]

RShackleford - #22 in this thread is a post from you with links to renvu. One is the link to the unit of sale of the cable and the other describes the current limit of the cable and how this restricts you to 3 QS1 per cable. Is that the missing post or is there another? If there is another, please resend it. I'd like to read it. Thank you.

By the way, I agree with you and Mike: Follow the code. Anything else adds unnecessary risk. I've never seen a case where it is technically or financially worthwhile to cheat on the code. You might save a few dollars or euros, and might save a trip to the store and an hour, but never enough to justify the risks.

[RShackleford]

It not technically energized until inserted in the receptacle because presumably the antislanding function works.

Good point. I still suspect an inspector would be unhappy.

[RShackleford]

I came across the following disclaimer about APSystems stuff. This smells to me of a company just looking to deny warranty claims and avoid providing support. It's ludicrous to think that someone like me - electrical engineer with over 30 years experience, plus a fair amount of experience wiring my home - could not install these units safely:

https://usa.apsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Policy-on-Non-Professional-Self-Installers-WEB_2.pdf

[RShackleford]

And in that vein (I'd like to put this in the same post, but two links is a no-no) I found some disturbing info in reviews of APSystems at another site:

https://www.solarreviews.com/manufacturers/apsystems

[bob-n]

Thank you for the links. When I bought from APsystems, Renvu told me that they would serve as the intermediary / installer for my installation. So that made me feel OK about the first note. Time will tell if that is a false sense of security.

As to the reviews in the second note, you can find some people with bad Enphase experiences, too. So that didn't scare me either. The thing missing is anyone saying good things about APsystems. I can't find any.

I've had a support request into APsystems for 28 days now. The QS1 metering is just plain wrong. Another person here found the same issue. They finally closed my request after 28 days. They didn't answer the question. They didn't give any support. They didn't fix anything. They didn't tell me anything. They only said (actual quote) "This case is a bit touchy" and closed the case. Very strange.

Your first link states that they don't want DYI installers, period. DIY is a small enough segment of the market that if they don't buy from APsystems, it won't affect their bottom line. As a rule, low-volume installers require more support than large-volume installers. So it is a financially justifiable position.

Also, the fact that a low-volume installer is well educated and experienced in electrical matters doesn't necessarily mean that they will be able to do an installation correctly. It involves a specific set of skills and experience. Do you want your cardiologist repairing your car? I get that point, but it's just noise in the discussion. The real fact is that they don't seem to be staffed to answer questions.

However, with all of that said, their disclaimer doesn't free them from liability for warranty or meeting stated performance.

I'm not ready to say bad things about APsystems and not ready to tell people to steer clear of their products. Their connectors are too fragile and come damaged. We can work around that. But if they don't eventually get back to me on this support request, I would recommend everyone steer clear of them.

[solar pete]

Hi All,

RShackleford your post with links have been sent for moderation. Several of your post have pointed to sites in direct opposition to this sites owners. Links to sales sites OR any site who is a lead generator for solar leads that is not solarreviews.com is simply not allowed. Please stop doing it

[Pir8radio]

As long as your are describing your own, non compliant system, which ignores several safety rules, have fun and be warned your homeowners insurance will likely not cover any electrical related claims. And don't even think of suggesting anyone else follow your unsafe choices, because those posts will be deleted.

I'm open to someone posting code showing this is non-compliant. I'm always looking to improve and learn. Its not an energized output, it can not be energized without first detecting power the whole point of UL1741.

The usual reasons for the non-exposed terminals on 1741 micro inverters is so they can call them "integrated AC disconnects" in an attempt to save installers money from installing a disconnect within sight of the inverter to meet NEC, they also use it as a selling point.. I have an AC disconnect within sight of my inverters.

[Pir8radio]

To add to this NEC 690 only covers "live parts above 150 V-G" and NEC 110.27 also only covers "LIVE" parts. Plus these plugs are inside an enclosure (while in-use outlet cover that is lockable or you can use a bolt that requires a tool to open) AND are above 8 feet from the ground (in my case) covered by 2 of the 4 different protection methods. So even if these were live contacts, its allowed by NEC as long as they are protected from "accidental contact", "other than qualified persons when energized". Again not energized. And allowed if it was.

But still open to code saying that it is non-compliant. I like to think I know all of the great code out there, I'm an electrical engineer at a large utility, but I'm still always learning.

[SunEagle]

To add to this NEC 690 only covers "live parts above 150 V-G" and NEC 110.27 also only covers "LIVE" parts. Plus these plugs are inside an enclosure (while in-use outlet cover that is lockable or you can use a bolt that requires a tool to open) AND are above 8 feet from the ground (in my case) covered by 2 of the 4 different protection methods. So even if these were live contacts, its allowed by NEC as long as they are protected from "accidental contact", "other than qualified persons when energized". Again not energized. And allowed if it was.

But still open to code saying that it is non-compliant. I like to think I know all of the great code out there, I'm an electrical engineer at a large utility, but I'm still always learning.

It really comes down to what the AHJ determines what is allowed or not. I agree with you that it sounds like those plugs will not be energized unless they "see" a working grid and should be ok to use. But as you know the NEC is sometimes funny to figure out what it means and based on my 45 years in the industrial electrical field, POCO's are usually not held to the NEC because they follow a higher safety code.

[Pir8radio]

But as you know the NEC is sometimes funny to figure out what it means.

Try the NESC which we follow lol...

And I do understand the points made, I do appreciate the input. Like I said above too, the NEC allows exposure to energized conductors if you are "qualified persons" and as long as you can not "accidentally" contact energized conductors. You would have to climb up to open my while-in-use cover, unplug, then touch the terminals, nothing accidental about that (again, all assuming UL1741 has failed here, which if it did, I would be putting linemen at risk with over 7kv at the pole from back-feeding through the transformer, a bigger issue which 1741 is there to protect against).

I hold personal safety and system stability dear to my heart, especially when 3.5 million customers, and 8k+ employees depend on my designs being safe, I guess I got offended by the incorrect statement "And don't even think of suggesting anyone else follow your unsafe choices".

[Mike90250]

no, outlets. 240v outdoor outlets, replaced the micro inverter plugs with 240v plugs. Just like any other outdoor outlet. Covered with an in use cover.

Generally, when someone plugs into an outlet, the outlet is on a shared circuit. If your outlets are individually wired back to a breaker rated for the wire gauge in use, that's safer, but you have taken a compliant Micro Inverter and downgraded it to a Plug-In inverter which, because they are often plugged in to branch circuits, is not permissible. I don't know the subtleties of the code regarding using a dedicated unique outlet & matching plug instead of a hardwire & disconnect.

[Pir8radio]

Generally, when someone plugs into an outlet, the outlet is on a shared circuit. If your outlets are individually wired back to a breaker rated for the wire gauge in use, that's safer, but you have taken a compliant Micro Inverter and downgraded it to a Plug-In inverter which, because they are often plugged in to branch circuits, is not permissible. I don't know the subtleties of the code regarding using a dedicated unique outlet & matching plug instead of a hardwire & disconnect.

Again no basis or code example, what do you think a branch or bus cable is that they sell for micro inverters. I have the same thing but with standardized connections. I have three 240v outlets on each of my 15 amp circuits, with 12ga wire. Three inverters per circuit.

Code only requires a unique receptacles compared to what is in use by other electrical systems on the premises. I have no 240v outlets in use on my premises. 690.33 (A)

[Mike90250]

Well, it sounds like you have actually planned the system and if the inspector accepts it, you win.