Solax inveter tripping MCB

[Murdoch]

i kinda lost faith ages ago when i was emailing them on another matter.

they are too busy looking for the next install.

better to wipe my mouth, spend the £100-400 on upgrade and move on

Problem with your approach is that these companies don't realise they are in the wrong. Call them, get the name of the MD and write to him outlining your issues and enclose a copy of the photo you posted. I would also point out to him that his company has been named on the internet for offering poor or underwhelming service ...............

 

[tomcoleman]

very true murdoch!!

So i capped the charging to 10A which limited it to charging at 3500w peak and the fuse did not trip.

This could have been a one off so going to leave everything as is and see again tonight what happens.

It could be a short term fix until i get the correct cable+fuses installed.

Also waiting for the installer/company to comment they said they would comment within 5 days.

 

[johnb2713]

very true murdoch!!

So i capped the charging to 10A which limited it to charging at 3500w peak and the fuse did not trip.

Thats good to hear.

What size battery(s) do you have? Lower charging rates are help the life of the batteries. In 4 hours of off peak at your 10 amps you could charge 14kWh or thereabouts (slightly less due to charge rate dropping at the end of the cycle).

This could have been a one off so going to leave everything as is and see again tonight what happens.

Fingers crossed

It could be a short term fix until i get the correct cable+fuses installed.

Thats what I was hoping, at least you can get some service from the system.

Also waiting for the installer/company to comment they said they would comment within 5 days.

Not holding your breath on this one?

 

[tomcoleman]

Thats good to hear.

What size battery(s) do you have? Lower charging rates are help the life of the batteries. In 4 hours of off peak at your 10 amps you could charge 14kWh or thereabouts (slightly less due to charge rate dropping at the end of the cycle).


Fingers crossed


Thats what I was hoping, at least you can get some service from the system.


Not holding your breath on this one?

ive got 3 x triple power 5.8kw (17.4kw)

i'll give them their 5 days grace and ramp up the calling and emailing.

 

[Sidewinder]

The use of a Schneider breaker has been mentioned.

That cannot be fitted into the consumer unit in the photographs.

If it is, the assembly will fall foul of the safety requirements in safety standards and legislation.

Additionally, the Schneider (Square D) breaker has a proprietary mounting system and does not fit on and engage with a standard TS 32 DIN rail and bus bar system as per the Live branded unit.

In other words, the Schneider breaker won't fit the Live board, and it wouldn't meet safety requirements if it did.

Swapping a BS EN 60898-1 breaker with an Icn of 6kA to one with an Icn of 10kA will make no difference concerning the issue you are experiencing.

The kA ratings are the rated fault interrupt current and have no bearing on the routine load carrying capacity, ergo, the tripping current of the breaker in regular use.

A circuit breaker is neither designed nor intended to be a load-limiting device.

The design is fundamentally flawed if the system has been designed with the breaker as a load-limiting device.

There is no designated wire size of 8mm sq., so the entries in the table listing that size wire are nonsensical.

It is also impossible to state that a 10mm sq. wire will carry 50A without considering how the wiring is installed and the external influences on the wire, so another way that table falls down.

There appear to be many issues with this installation, and swapping out a breaker isn't going to solve any of them, unfortunately.

Resolving this issue will require proper reverse engineering of the design and installation and measurements of the system parameters to identify where the problems lay to remedy the issues.

 

[tomcoleman]

The use of a Schneider breaker has been mentioned.

That cannot be fitted into the consumer unit in the photographs.

If it is, the assembly will fall foul of the safety requirements in safety standards and legislation.

Additionally, the Schneider (Square D) breaker has a proprietary mounting system and does not fit on and engage with a standard TS 32 DIN rail and bus bar system as per the Live branded unit.

In other words, the Schneider breaker won't fit the Live board, and it wouldn't meet safety requirements if it did.

Swapping a BS EN 60898-1 breaker with an Icn of 6kA to one with an Icn of 10kA will make no difference concerning the issue you are experiencing.

The kA ratings are the rated fault interrupt current and have no bearing on the routine load carrying capacity, ergo, the tripping current of the breaker in regular use.

A circuit breaker is neither designed nor intended to be a load-limiting device.

The design is fundamentally flawed if the system has been designed with the breaker as a load-limiting device.

There is no designated wire size of 8mm sq., so the entries in the table listing that size wire are nonsensical.

It is also impossible to state that a 10mm sq. wire will carry 50A without considering how the wiring is installed and the external influences on the wire, so another way that table falls down.

There appear to be many issues with this installation, and swapping out a breaker isn't going to solve any of them, unfortunately.

Resolving this issue will require proper reverse engineering of the design and installation and measurements of the system parameters to identify where the problems lay to remedy the issues.

sidewindee thanks for the input.

Dead right about the breakers not fitting the current board i noticed they have a specail connector for what looks like live or netual.

The replacement 6kA/32A is a direct replacment though.

10mm cable is avilable, the run is fairly short and stright around 12-15m from the 32A fuse.


I think the manual recommends 8-10mm, best to fit the 10mm cable using the recommended 50A breaker @ 6ka.?


Im of course still waiting for the installing company to respond but wanted to have my ducks in a row and some ammunition to fight back with, and recommend the correct path forward.

 

[arwooldridge]

All of the above, but also consider a type C MCB ( of the correct rating) to avoid nuisance tripping.

 

[Sidewinder]

The connection is for the line conductor.
Neutral conductors are not supplied via a circuit breaker.
Unless the replacement 6kA/32A unit is Live brand then it is not compatible with the existing system.
If a different manufacturer device is fitted to the unit then it is no longer compliant with the relevant safety standards and legislation.
10mm sq. wire and cable is available, yes it is a standard manufactured size, unlike 8mm sq. which is nonsense.
So you have perhaps a 15m run, which you would like to protect at 50A.
What cable is proposed and what is the installation method?
What are the external influences on the proposed route that will affect the tabulated current carrying capacity of the cable as installed?
From this information it should be able to ascertain if 10mm sq. cable as selected will have a suitable current carrying capacity.
What is the fault current where the breaker ia installed?
The only way to ascertain if a 6kA breaker is suitable is to know what the fault current is at the point of installation.
Additionally the fault current from the battery will need to be assessed.
Also whether the breaker is intended to disconnect the battery in the event of a fault?
What’s the design scope for the battery supply?
Is ADS supposed to be afforded by the 32A (now) 50A (proposed) breaker?
What is the fault current at the breaker from the battery?
Is is adequate to instigate ADS?

 

[tomcoleman]

The connection is for the line conductor.
Neutral conductors are not supplied via a circuit breaker.
Unless the replacement 6kA/32A unit is Live brand then it is not compatible with the existing system.
If a different manufacturer device is fitted to the unit then it is no longer compliant with the relevant safety standards and legislation.
10mm sq. wire and cable is available, yes it is a standard manufactured size, unlike 8mm sq. which is nonsense.
So you have perhaps a 15m run, which you would like to protect at 50A.
What cable is proposed and what is the installation method?
What are the external influences on the proposed route that will affect the tabulated current carrying capacity of the cable as installed?
From this information it should be able to ascertain if 10mm sq. cable as selected will have a suitable current carrying capacity.
What is the fault current where the breaker ia installed?
The only way to ascertain if a 6kA breaker is suitable is to know what the fault current is at the point of installation.
Additionally the fault current from the battery will need to be assessed.
Also whether the breaker is intended to disconnect the battery in the event of a fault?
What’s the design scope for the battery supply?
Is ADS supposed to be afforded by the 32A (now) 50A (proposed) breaker?
What is the fault current at the breaker from the battery?
Is is adequate to instigate ADS?

sidewinder

thanks for the input

if the exsiting Live brand breaker is replaced with the same specs (6ka/32A) but a better manufacture i dont see any problem with this? It would be compatible and would work.

Nothing has been proposed yet.

As it stands today im emailing the orginal installer and getting no where fast.

I'm gathering information here on what the correct cable should be with the correct breaker. if the manual says 10mm + 50A then i guess i cant ignore that and need to pass that information onto the sparky.

He will want me to buy materials i presume (or he may do himself) if he does then i need to ensure im getting A) correct breaker b) correct cable

going on the presumption of the manual a 50A breaker ( SE brand) and a 10mm cable should do the trick.

it will be upto the sparky todo the run, ADS tests and sign off.

unless ive totally got that wrong.

Current MCB is type B

 

[monkey5]

Basically, you can't mix and match brands with the same board.
10mm will take 50A but can be alot less depending how its installed and what type of 10mm cable.
I would ask another solar electrician to look at what is needed and spec it.

 

[Sidewinder]

sidewinder

thanks for the input

if the exsiting Live brand breaker is replaced with the same specs (6ka/32A) but a better manufacture i dont see any problem with this? It would be compatible and would work.

Nothing has been proposed yet.

As it stands today im emailing the orginal installer and getting no where fast.

I'm gathering information here on what the correct cable should be with the correct breaker. if the manual says 10mm + 50A then i guess i cant ignore that and need to pass that information onto the sparky.

He will want me to buy materials i presume (or he may do himself) if he does then i need to ensure im getting A) correct breaker b) correct cable

going on the presumption of the manual a 50A breaker ( SE brand) and a 10mm cable should do the trick.

it will be upto the sparky todo the run, ADS tests and sign off.

unless ive totally got that wrong.

Current MCB is type B

Mixing of brands of devices within a consumer unit breaks the product safety standards requirements and the product safety legislation.
Therefore your Livd branded consumer unit with some Live brand devices and some from another company will no longer comply with the legislation.
The person who did the modifications will be the manufacturer of the assembly in the eyes of the law and will be legally responsible for any incidents or damage etc arising from the assembly.
The breach is under H&S legislation, therefore in UK law, the burden of proof is reversed.
It is down to the legal person (natural person, or legal entity) that created the assembly to prove that the item was safe and could not have caused the issues.
By virtue of the mixture of devices, both manufacturers will be stating that the assembly is mon compliant and thus dangerous, so you will have to overcome this.
Then pay for the testing of your design and build of the assembly.
This is going to cost well into 7 figures.
If you can prove that the assembly is safe, then you are going to be asked for the rest of the technical file for the devices and assembly.
Which you cannot provide as you didn't design the equipment and those who did have no requirement in law to provide you with this information, not even with a court order.
Then the requirements for product liability insurance will raise their head against whoever undertook the design and manufacture of the mixed assembly.
I believe that insurance is a legal requirement.
Possibly finally your home insurance policy is going to potentially refuse to pay for anything if you are the person who undertook the design and manufacture.
If they do pay them they may follow up with a claim back against the insurers of the person who did the design and manufacturing, if that person has no insurance then it will be a personal claim against them.

This is unlikely to happen, but, you need to understand that just changing things electrical, even in your own home is not always without consequences.

 

[binky]

sidewinder

thanks for the input

if the exsiting Live brand breaker is replaced with the same specs (6ka/32A) but a better manufacture i dont see any problem with this? It would be compatible and would work.

Your inverter is overloading the 32A MCB, so doesn't matter which brand it is, it will still overload it. Just get a 50A Live MCB.

Nothing has been proposed yet.

As it stands today im emailing the orginal installer and getting no where fast.

They have 5 days to respond to any complaints, after that go to MCS, assuming they are registered with the MCS.

He will want me to buy materials i presume (or he may do himself) if he does then i need to ensure im getting A) correct breaker b) correct cable

His firk up, his problem to supply and fit correct materials.

 

[johnb2713]

Sidewinder:

Isnt legislation ridiculous.............

Surely there should have been a standard in terms of fit, electrical connection etc to make such devices interchangeable. This is ridiculous.

And the likelyhood of something going wrong with an item that is a good fit mechanically is very low. My consumer unit at home has many different makes of MCB and it's been like that for 35 years, were not dead yet.

Do you have any examples of the above infringements leading to:-
"the legal person (natural person, or legal entity) that created the assembly to prove that the item was safe and could not have caused the issues.
By virtue of the mixture of devices, both manufacturers will be stating that the assembly is mon compliant and thus dangerous, so you will have to overcome this.

Then pay for the testing of your design and build of the assembly.

This is going to cost well into 7 figures.

If you can prove that the assembly is safe, then you are going to be asked for the rest of the technical file for the devices and assembly.

Which you cannot provide as you didn't design the equipment and those who did have no requirement in law to provide you with this information, not even with a court order.

Then the requirements for product liability insurance will raise their head against whoever undertook the design and manufacture of the mixed assembly.
I believe that insurance is a legal requirement.

Possibly finally your home insurance policy is going to potentially refuse to pay for anything if you are the person who undertook the design and manufacture.

If they do pay them they may follow up with a claim back against the insurers of the person who did the design and manufacturing, if that person has no insurance then it will be a personal claim against them."

The long tail of woe of what happens you could embellish further to make a much more dramatic story culminating in the end of the world due to nuclear holocaust triggered by this non standard MCB tripping out a computer at a critical time.

Your response which some parts I'm sure are factually correct also has a lot of supposition and scaremongering which doesn't befit the image of true professionals such as yourself.

 

[binky]

Your response which some parts I'm sure are factually correct also has a lot of supposition and scaremongering which doesn't befit the image of true professionals such as yourself.

The response is completely correct, even if it seems overkill and a bit rediculous. Whilst all MCBs are made to the same standard, that standard does not legislate for compatibility with other manufacturers MCBs, and CE certification is achieved as an assembly, not individual parts.

Mixing MCBs was only 'outlawed' a few years ago, but if you had seen some of the ***** we encounter where differing MCBs have been bodged into a board, you would probably understand why that was brought in. It's particularly irritating when its clear an MCB has been made in the same factory but has different markings on, but some of the Chinese rip off products are exactly the same dimensions as say MK, but clearly not made to the same standards. So it's not just about ' if it fits it's Ok '. We also have to consider our legal liability as paid professionals working for clients. What I'm happy doing at home is different to what I would do for a client. A bit like fitting different wheels to your car, no way are Ford going to accept any liability for a defect if you have decided to fit Vauxhall wheels. You have redesigned the assembly by doing that.

 

[Sidewinder]

Sidewinder:

Isnt legislation ridiculous.............

Surely there should have been a standard in terms of fit, electrical connection etc to make such devices interchangeable. This is ridiculous.

And the likelyhood of something going wrong with an item that is a good fit mechanically is very low. My consumer unit at home has many different makes of MCB and it's been like that for 35 years, were not dead yet.

Do you have any examples of the above infringements leading to:-
"the legal person (natural person, or legal entity) that created the assembly to prove that the item was safe and could not have caused the issues.
By virtue of the mixture of devices, both manufacturers will be stating that the assembly is mon compliant and thus dangerous, so you will have to overcome this.

Then pay for the testing of your design and build of the assembly.

This is going to cost well into 7 figures.

If you can prove that the assembly is safe, then you are going to be asked for the rest of the technical file for the devices and assembly.

Which you cannot provide as you didn't design the equipment and those who did have no requirement in law to provide you with this information, not even with a court order.

Then the requirements for product liability insurance will raise their head against whoever undertook the design and manufacture of the mixed assembly.
I believe that insurance is a legal requirement.

Possibly finally your home insurance policy is going to potentially refuse to pay for anything if you are the person who undertook the design and manufacture.

If they do pay them they may follow up with a claim back against the insurers of the person who did the design and manufacturing, if that person has no insurance then it will be a personal claim against them."

The long tail of woe of what happens you could embellish further to make a much more dramatic story culminating in the end of the world due to nuclear holocaust triggered by this non standard MCB tripping out a computer at a critical time.

Your response which some parts I'm sure are factually correct also has a lot of supposition and scaremongering which doesn't befit the image of true professionals such as yourself.

It's not supposition and scaremongering.
It is a description of the procedure for the potential pitfalls of following said route.
The reason I have not embellished it with examples and anything that could be interpreted as a real-life scenario was in an attempt to keep the explanation abstract.
It is correct and I have been involved with many of the individual aspects of the concept, just never all in one situation.
Yes it is unlikely, but then many people believe, and I am one, that one of the most dangerous sayings in business is "we have always done it that way ".
The absence of issues or failure of the consumer unit at any other locations where it does not comply with standards or legislation has zero bearing on the scenario anywhere else.
The devices, design, construction and installation conditions will differ.

I am merely making the OP aware of the process that can ensue when a "mix-and-match" consumer unit is placed on the market.

Armed with this, the OP can then make the decision as to whether they follow this route or not.

The product standards and legislation do allow for the mixture of devices but there is a route that needs to be followed to achieve this approval, and all of the parties involved with the design need to be a part of this process. You almost certainly will not get the agreement involvement of the other parties as it will mean them sharing the detailed intellectual property of their internal design and testing procedure with their competitors, you and placing them in the public domain.
So any competitive advantage that they have in their design and manufacturing will be made public, along with any potential, shall we say "corners cut" during their processes.

Apart from the intellectual property aspect, manufacturers don't follow the "open architecture" process because of cost, and liability, along with the limitations of the technology moving forward.
The "open architectural" process would require updating every time that every other manufacturer who places a product with the potential for combination on the market.

 

[Sidewinder]

The response is completely correct, even if it seems overkill and a bit rediculous. Whilst all MCBs are made to the same standard, that standard does not legislate for compatibility with other manufacturers MCBs, and CE certification is achieved as an assembly, not individual parts.

Mixing MCBs was only 'outlawed' a few years ago, but if you had seen some of the ***** we encounter where differing MCBs have been bodged into a board, you would probably understand why that was brought in. It's particularly irritating when its clear an MCB has been made in the same factory but has different markings on, but some of the Chinese rip off products are exactly the same dimensions as say MK, but clearly not made to the same standards. So it's not just about ' if it fits it's Ok '. We also have to consider our legal liability as paid professionals working for clients. What I'm happy doing at home is different to what I would do for a client. A bit like fitting different wheels to your car, no way are Ford going to accept any liability for a defect if you have decided to fit Vauxhall wheels. You have redesigned the assembly by doing that.

Actually, the mixing and matching aspect was only brought into BS7671 recently because sparks were not following the legislation and standards which were in place since 1975.
The issues with consumer unit fires came to light and manufacturers pushed for more regulation, hence the entries in BS7671.

 

[Murdoch]

Mix and match hasn’t been permissible under the regs for quite a while now but still goes on.

In my experience PV and EV installers are the worst at complying

 

[johnb2713]

It's not supposition and scaremongering.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you:-

the legal person (natural person, or legal entity) that created the assembly to prove that the item was safe and could not have caused the issues.

By virtue of the mixture of devices, both manufacturers will be stating that the assembly is mon compliant and thus dangerous, so you will have to overcome this.

Then pay for the testing of your design and build of the assembly.

This is going to cost well into 7 figures.

If you can prove that the assembly is safe, then you are going to be asked for the rest of the technical file for the devices and assembly.

Which you cannot provide as you didn't design the equipment and those who did have no requirement in law to provide you with this information, not even with a court order.

Then the requirements for product liability insurance will raise their head against whoever undertook the design and manufacture of the mixed assembly.
I believe that insurance is a legal requirement.

Possibly finally your home insurance policy is going to potentially refuse to pay for anything if you are the person who undertook the design and manufacture.

If they do pay them they may follow up with a claim back against the insurers of the person who did the design and manufacturing, if that person has no insurance then it will be a personal claim against them.

Could you provide any examples of the above happening anywhere? I have searched the net and cant find any, I accept that doesn't mean it hasn't happened but these 'facts' are in my opinion are nothing more then scaremongering.

I totally accept the factual aspects regarding the regulations are correct as always.

 

[rjp44]

Sidewinder:

Isnt legislation ridiculous.............

Surely there should have been a standard in terms of fit, electrical connection etc to make such devices interchangeable. This is ridiculous.

And the likelyhood of something going wrong with an item that is a good fit mechanically is very low. My consumer unit at home has many different makes of MCB and it's been like that for 35 years, were not dead yet.

Do you have any examples of the above infringements leading to:-
"the legal person (natural person, or legal entity) that created the assembly to prove that the item was safe and could not have caused the issues.
By virtue of the mixture of devices, both manufacturers will be stating that the assembly is mon compliant and thus dangerous, so you will have to overcome this.

Then pay for the testing of your design and build of the assembly.

This is going to cost well into 7 figures.

If you can prove that the assembly is safe, then you are going to be asked for the rest of the technical file for the devices and assembly.

Which you cannot provide as you didn't design the equipment and those who did have no requirement in law to provide you with this information, not even with a court order.

Then the requirements for product liability insurance will raise their head against whoever undertook the design and manufacture of the mixed assembly.
I believe that insurance is a legal requirement.

Possibly finally your home insurance policy is going to potentially refuse to pay for anything if you are the person who undertook the design and manufacture.

If they do pay them they may follow up with a claim back against the insurers of the person who did the design and manufacturing, if that person has no insurance then it will be a personal claim against them."

The long tail of woe of what happens you could embellish further to make a much more dramatic story culminating in the end of the world due to nuclear holocaust triggered by this non standard MCB tripping out a computer at a critical time.

Your response which some parts I'm sure are factually correct also has a lot of supposition and scaremongering which doesn't befit the image of true professionals such as yourself.

The response is completely correct, even if it seems overkill and a bit rediculous. Whilst all MCBs are made to the same standard, that standard does not legislate for compatibility with other manufacturers MCBs, and CE certification is achieved as an assembly, not individual parts.

Mixing MCBs was only 'outlawed' a few years ago, but if you had seen some of the ***** we encounter where differing MCBs have been bodged into a board, you would probably understand why that was brought in. It's particularly irritating when its clear an MCB has been made in the same factory but has different markings on, but some of the Chinese rip off products are exactly the same dimensions as say MK, but clearly not made to the same standards. So it's not just about ' if it fits it's Ok '. We also have to consider our legal liability as paid professionals working for clients. What I'm happy doing at home is different to what I would do for a client. A bit like fitting different wheels to your car, no way are Ford going to accept any liability for a defect if you have decided to fit Vauxhall wheels. You have redesigned the assembly by doing that.

Obviously the problem of accessories being bodged into old non-standard enclosures where they are mechanically incompatible is a huge issue in the installed base out there. Type approval is a completely ridiculous solution that benefits literally nobody though. It just increases the cost of maintenance in future, and makes sensible incremental upgrades cost prohibitive benefiting nobody except the manufacturers and bureaucrats (what a surprise). What is going to happen when half the vendors of today's most popular consumer units merge, go bust, or just make commercial decisions to stop manufacturing product lines?
Folks will have a choice between Fred from down the road who will pop another vendor's compatible device in, perfectly safely, for £50. Scam member Jim will propose a CU replacement for £400 because "thems the rules" which is rejected. Pragmatist Pete will quote to add a compliant extra accessory box outside the CU with a rats nest of external wiring and proliferating connections for £150.
Which of those is safer?
At the end of the day, a passive metal box is a passive metal box. Maybe regulatory effort expended on hard standardisation of largely mechanical compatibility would have benefitted consumers and general electrical safety a lot more.

In the meantime, looking at that picture of an enclosure full of brick dust, supplementary insulation on tails stripped way back leaving a huge length of only basic insulation both within and outside the enclosure and saying: "if somebody replaces the type approved MCB, next to the non type-approved meter accessory, with another vendors mechanically and electrically compatible device, it will be totally illegal, the house will burn down and world stop spinning on its axis" just highlights what a stupid place we are now in.

 

[Murdoch]

I’ve often commented that this regulation was rail roaded through by the manufacturers.

They have the most to gain

Just look at most of the changes to the regs - profit for manufacturers overrides pretty much everything but it’s dressed up as safety

That said long before the changes I would only mix and match if it was the only option