Think I have a bad EG4 6000XP

[Cannonsville69]

I don't recommend a ground rod at the array. But if it's installed it must be tied back to the AC grounding system. (If in the U.S. per NEC)

Why not ? That is the best place for it . The array can develop static charge voltage from wind ...or in the case of lightening, direct or more commonly, indirect streamers. Nearby lightning strikes are more common and less damaging than direct strikes, they create waves of energy that roll outward a long way from the strike zone, through the ground near the surface. Therefore, you want the shortest path to ground to be right at the array, not inside your house at your inverter and batteries . I don't understand why people don't ground their array frames and array metal . Give Static or lightening the shortest, easiest way to the ground , and an easy way that is FARTHEST from your equipment ...and that is right at the array . Yes, the frames and metal structure, not the Neg PV wires . This logic is pretty commonplace, well studied and documented in the RF industry, Motorola R56 guidelines cover all those several hundred foot "lightening magnet" towers you see on mountain tops ... while not solar, it's the same principal . I think they put alot more research and years of field experience into this than the solar market. NEC may not give the best equipment protection if they say carry that frame ground back to the inside system only , and not right at the array . Think logically, if static buildup on a windy day or a ligntening , where is it gona go ? it's gona go in to your equipment if that is the best ground path ... if the best ground path is outside, right at the panel frames into the ground, that is where it's gona go ... even if that ground is also carried back inside ...

 

[timselectric]

You answered your own question.

they create waves of energy that roll outward a long way from the strike zone, through the ground near the surface.

It's already in the earth. Placing a second rod at the array gives it a lower resistance path through your grounding system, and directs it to your equipment.
If you only make one connection to earth, you don't create a more favorable (low resistance) parallel path for that gradient pulse.

 

[Cannonsville69]

You answered your own question.

It's already in the earth. Placing a second rod at the array gives it a lower resistance path through your grounding system, and directs it to your equipment.
If you only make one connection to earth, you don't create a more favorable (low resistance) parallel path for that gradient pulse.

that's false . Ground rods at tha array create a shorter path to the ground, right at the array, as opposed to inside your house or building at the inverters and equipment . Just because the array structure is built on the ground does not make that a good ground . You need copper clad ground rods driven deeper into the ground...and sometimes more than one rod. This is very well studied in R56 and many decades of real world proof at thousands of radio towers worldwide for 50 yrs ... What's up Tim , are you trolling me again ? you were following me around posting on my comments last year too ...lol . Motorola R56 standards are likely the most commonly accepted standards of practice for the people that deal with lightening probably more than anyone

 

[timselectric]

that's false . Ground rods at tha array create a shorter path to the ground, right at the array, ass opposed to inside your house or building at the inverters and equipment . Just because the array structure is built on the ground does not make that a good ground . You need copper clad ground rods driven deeper into the ground...and sometimes more than one. This is very well studied in R56 and many decades of real world proof at thousands of radio towers worldwide ... What's up Tim , are you trolling me again ? you were following me around posting on my comments last year too ...lol . Motorola R56 standards are just about the most commonly accepted standards of practice for the people that deal with lightening probably more than anyone

I think that you are confusing lightning protection with electrical system grounding.
Electrical system grounding has nothing to do with lightning protection. That's a completely different system that is installed above and around what you want to protect.
Nothing I talk about in this forum pertains to lightning protection. Other than avoiding the gradient pulse generated by a nearby strike, and SPD placement.
The electrical grounding system has nothing to do with earth, other than the points where the earth is connected to the grounding system.
The sole purpose of the grounding system is to clear electrical faults, and keep everything safe for people to touch.
The earth connection to the grounding system keeps the earth safe, in regards to your electrical system. It also dissipates static energy from the grounding system. But that's just an additional benefit.
An extra ground rods at the array doesn't provide any electrical safety. But it can increase the chances of damage from a gradient pulse. Which is why it's not required or recommend.

 

[Madcodger]

I was just discussing the whole “placement of grounds” topic, including whether to have a ground rod at the array, with an experienced solar installer, yesterday. He agreed with Tim (and many here, me included) that while a ground rod at the array is allowed under the NEC, it’s not the best approach. So, I’d say that no one is “trolling” anyone, and certainly not @timselectric . They’re just trying to prevent the spread of a sub-optimal approach. Radio towers with their little building below are in the middle of nowhere, and typically the only structure present at their location. That’s very different from a typical solar installation. And no, I’m it going to debate this further. An inexperienced person has now been warned to look into this further. Mission accomplished.

 

[Cannonsville69]

I think that you are confusing lightning protection with electrical system grounding.
Electrical system grounding has nothing to do with lightning protection. That's a completely different system that is installed above and around what you want to protect.
Nothing I talk about in this forum pertains to lightning protection. Other than avoiding the gradient pulse generated by a nearby strike, and SPD placement.
The electrical grounding system has nothing to do with earth, other than the points where the earth is connected to the grounding system.
The sole purpose of the grounding system is to clear electrical faults, and keep everything safe for people to touch.
The earth connection to the grounding system keeps the earth safe, in regards to your electrical system. It also dissipates static energy from the grounding system. But that's just an additional benefit.
An extra ground rods at the array doesn't provide any electrical safety. But it can increase the chances of damage from a gradient pulse. Which is why it's not required or recommend.

you still following me around ? Ground rods at the array will have no affect on safety if the system is grounded at the house, any faults in the house would use that ground . Ground rods at the array will, however, allow for static buildup from wind on arrays to be dissapated, rather than build up and enter the system, possibly causing errors mentioned above , indirect lightening streamers too. You know that static does build up on metal structures, especially with wind and more so on dry windy days ...that static can build up to a surprisingly high potential voltage . This can cause faults and errors in inverters and CC's . Ground rods at an array are not going to increase chances of a pulse hitting them or damaging equip from a pulse . They are going to give it the shortest path to ground, a path away from your equip . I'm not confusing the two concepts . My best friend is an ibew "lawyer" like you ...lol we often have this same banter.

 

[Cannonsville69]

I was just discussing the whole “placement of grounds” topic, including whether to have a ground rod at the array, with an experienced solar installer, yesterday. He agreed with Tim (and many here, me included) that while a ground rod at the array is allowed under the NEC, it’s not the best approach. So, I’d say that no one is “trolling” anyone, and certainly not @timselectric . They’re just trying to prevent the spread of a sub-optimal approach. Radio towers with their little building below are in the middle of nowhere, and typically the only structure present at their location. That’s very different from a typical solar installation. And no, I’m it going to debate this further. An inexperienced person has now been warned to look into this further. Mission accomplished.

the "little building" below is a only very small part of a radio tower system . The main guts are often in another building a distance away. These are the expensive and sensitive parts which R56 standards work well to protect . This is not a very different situation from many solar systems which have an array out in a field with conductors run back to the house . If u didn't want to dabate then why comment ? i wasn't debating anything with you . I'm giving a possible cause for faults and errors i read above in this thread, wind static buildup on arrays . I'm not sure what you're refering to "inexperienced person" . As for myself, i've ran my cabin 100% off grid for 24 years and i've done electronics longer .

 

[Cannonsville69]

It's already in the earth. Placing a second rod at the array gives it a lower resistance path through your grounding system, and directs it to your equipment.
If you only make one connection to earth, you don't create a more favorable (low resistance) parallel path for that gradient pulse.

Both false . A ground at the array does NOT direct anything toward your equipment . it gives it the shortest path to ground, whether it be static buildup from wind or streamers fro indirect lightening or even direct lightening Also, just because the arrays in on the ground "in the earth" as you say, doesnt not make that a very low resistance path to ground . This is why R56 describes ground rods driven at the base of metal structures, like radio towers ...and ground mounted solar arrays are also a metal structure. Static or lightening does care if the metal structure holds of solar panels or an antenna . Whether this is NEC compliant or solar installer recommended, i cant say , but it is the physics of what will happen, what static electricity and or lightening will do . I'm not talking about equipment grounds ... this is in regard to mention of inverters getting errors and faults in the comments above and the mention of phantom voltages from their array at night . Static would explain that

 

[timselectric]

you still following me around ?

I believe that it's the other way around.
You replied to my post. lol

Both false .

You are welcome to believe what you want.
I can only provide the information. What you choose to do with it, is entirely up to you.

 

[wild01]

I think that you are confusing lightning protection with electrical system grounding.
Electrical system grounding has nothing to do with lightning protection. That's a completely different system that is installed above and around what you want to protect.
Nothing I talk about in this forum pertains to lightning protection. Other than avoiding the gradient pulse generated by a nearby strike, and SPD placement.
The electrical grounding system has nothing to do with earth, other than the points where the earth is connected to the grounding system.
The sole purpose of the grounding system is to clear electrical faults, and keep everything safe for people to touch.
The earth connection to the grounding system keeps the earth safe, in regards to your electrical system. It also dissipates static energy from the grounding system. But that's just an additional benefit.
An extra ground rods at the array doesn't provide any electrical safety. But it can increase the chances of damage from a gradient pulse. Which is why it's not required or recommend.

To me this is probably where most code gets lost/confusing. I see no reason to electrically bond a completely floating remote dc array's framework into an ac system ground. there isn't ac power at the array, and the dc power isn't ground bonded. Bonding the arrays metal components together and grounding them for lightening protection makes sense to me, but taking that huge lightening attraction device and bonding it into your homes egc has always seemed foolhardy to me.

 

[Cannonsville69]

You are welcome to believe what you want.
I can only provide the information. What you choose to do with it, is entirely up to you.

not what i believe , it's the simple physics of what electricity will do . A ground rod at an array will not make a lower resistance path back inside to your equipment. It will provide the shortest path to ground right at the array, where static can build up and where direct or indirect lightening can hit . This is why thousands of metal structures (radio towers) have extensive ground right at their base and NOT only inside the transmitter shack . Motorola and hundreds of engineers tested and proofed all this for 50 years (Motorola R56 Standard) ...and static or lightening doesn't care if it's a metal tower or a metal, ground mounted solar array . it does NOT direct any impulse towards your equipment. That is simply false . Again, whether it is NEC , i cant say but it is what will happen

 

[Cannonsville69]

To me this is probably where most code gets lost/confusing. I see no reason to electrically bond a completely floating remote dc array's framework into an ac system ground. there isn't ac power at the array, and the dc power isn't ground bonded. Bonding the arrays metal components together and grounding them for lightening protection makes sense to me, but taking that huge lightening attraction device and bonding it into your homes egc has always seemed foolhardy to me.

your logic is correct ...and it is what dozens of engineers concluded and thus produced the Motorola R56 standard , which is accepted as best practice worldwide for radio towers, which are a metal structure, just like a ground mounted solar array . And it's not just lightening, it's static . As the wind blows, micro dust particles in air , an array can build up a quite large voltage potential, which will find a way somewhere ....into a array ground if you give it one . Again, whether this is NEC and solar installer compliant, i cant say ...but it is what the electricity will do

 

[timselectric]

To me this is probably where most code gets lost/confusing. I see no reason to electrically bond a completely floating remote dc array's framework into an ac system ground. there isn't ac power at the array, and the dc power isn't ground bonded.

It would have to be an odd system to be completely floating, these days.
Most current inverters are not fully isolated between the AC and DC sides.
High frequency AIO's definitely aren't. Some low frequency inverters provide some isolation, but most are not fully isolated.
You can get some isolation with separate solar charge controllers. But if the inverter is passing AC voltage to the battery, the charge controller can pass it through to the PV.

Bonding the arrays metal components together and grounding them for lightening protection makes sense to me,

Lighting protection is built above and around what you want to protect.
Not connected to or through, what you want to protect.

 

[timselectric]

not what i believe , it's the simple physics of what electricity will do . A ground rod at an array will not make a lower resistance path back inside to your equipment. It will provide the shortest path to ground right at the array, where static can build up and where direct or indirect lightening can hit . This is why thousands of metal structures (radio towers) have extensive ground right at their base and NOT only inside the transmitter shack . Motorola and hundreds of engineers tested and proofed all this for 50 years (Motorola R56 Standard) ...and static or lightening doesn't care if it's a metal tower or a metal, ground mounted solar array . it does NOT direct any impulse towards your equipment. That is simply false . Again, whether it is NEC , i cant say but it is what will happen

If I ever build a radio tower, I will take your suggestions under advisement.
But again, we (everyone except for you) aren't discussing lightning protection.
We are discussing electrical safety grounding for personal protection.

 

[Cannonsville69]

If I ever build a radio tower, I will take your suggestions under advisement.
But again, we (everyone except for you) aren't discussing lightning protection.
We are discussing electrical safety grounding for personal protection.

We who ? The original post, right from page one is discussing a error code/fault which is produced when connected to one of the OP's PV strings. The whole premise of the post is discussing an inverter throwing random errors . You're the one discussing electrical safety grounding for personal protection. A tower and a ground mount solar array are both metal structures, both which build high static charges in wind, which can cause error codes and faults (and also attract lightening) if you lack the understanding to see the parallels in principle, i can't help ya . Seems you just want to troll or argue with someone . Look, you're wrong. A ground rod at a ground mounted array is NOT going to make strikes more attracted to or more likely to damage your equipment inside, it will give either static, which could cause error codes/faults (or lightening) the shortest path to dissapate into the ground, which is FAR away from your equip inside . And again, whether it is nec/solar installer compliant, i can't say . What i can say is that this is what the electricity will do , be it static buildup or indirect/direct strikes .

 

[wild01]

If I ever build a radio tower, I will take your suggestions under advisement.
But again, we (everyone except for you) aren't discussing lightning protection.
We are discussing electrical safety grounding for personal protection.

Ok, explain how bonding an auxilliary metal structure with no ac power and no dc bond into a buildings ac electrical system makes the system more safe, and how that additional safety outweighs the negative safety and performance issues created by connecting a lightening collector to the homes bonded ground. (I'm not trying to start a fight here, I really want to know)

I know I used to have an array that was not grounded at the array, but was bonded to my houses egc at the electrical panel, after losing 2 inverters during lightening storms, I put a ground rod at the array, and unbonded the array from the house egc, and I stopped losing inverters. (yes I realize this is contrary to current code, but I'm offgrid, and not required to comply)

 

[timselectric]

Ok, explain how bonding an auxilliary metal structure with no ac power and no dc bond into a buildings ac electrical system makes the system more safe, and how that additional safety outweighs the negative safety and performance issues created by connecting a lightening collector to the homes bonded ground. (I'm not trying to start a fight here, I really want to know)

The grounding/ bonding is to protect against AC faults.
But most currently available equipment is not fully isolated. If yours is then there's no concern. Just keep in mind that faults are not part of normal operation. They happen when things go wrong. If you are sure that there isn't (or ever could be) AC at the array, then I would agree with you.

 

[TM48]

They offer far poorer surge capacities

Both Midnight and Schneider will disagree.

 

[windsurfer]

I would never install one of these cheap, lightweight, high frequency transformerless inverters in my home. They offer far poorer surge capacities. A much shorter life expectancy, and because they don't have an output transformer, they can damage your appliances when their MOSFETs fail. A much better choice for an inverter is a low frequency, transformer based inverter. Don't take my word for it, ask Google AI the following question: Can a high frequency inverter damage your home's appliances?

Google AI may not be the best source for technical information...

 

[SomethingAppropriate]

I would never install one of these cheap, lightweight, high frequency transformerless inverters in my home. They offer far poorer surge capacities. A much shorter life expectancy, and because they don't have an output transformer, they can damage your appliances when their MOSFETs fail. A much better choice for an inverter is a low frequency, transformer based inverter. Don't take my word for it, ask Google AI the following question: Can a high frequency inverter damage your home's appliances?

You need a life

Eg4 customer service sucks. The inverters are not bad.

 

[42OhmsPA]

I would never install one of these cheap, lightweight, high frequency transformerless inverters in my home. They offer far poorer surge capacities. A much shorter life expectancy, and because they don't have an output transformer, they can damage your appliances when their MOSFETs fail. A much better choice for an inverter is a low frequency, transformer based inverter. Don't take my word for it, ask Google AI the following question: Can a high frequency inverter damage your home's appliances?

I've been running HF for years, powering my house and shop; deep well pump, air compressor, chop saws, shop vacs, fridges, freezers, etc.

I'm bored at work so I did ask Antiquated Intelligence...

 

[EPicTony]

I had high bus faults and EG4 tech told me to check the torque on the battery connections. I thought they were full of it but checked anyway. Wow I found several under-torqued nuts. Torqued them to spec and BAM no more high bus faults. Check the torque on all of your connections with a torque wrench.

 

[Quattrohead]

I would never install one of these cheap, lightweight, high frequency transformerless inverters in my home. They offer far poorer surge capacities. A much shorter life expectancy, and because they don't have an output transformer, they can damage your appliances when their MOSFETs fail. A much better choice for an inverter is a low frequency, transformer based inverter. Don't take my word for it, ask Google AI the following question: Can a high frequency inverter damage your home's appliances?

Hello LF transformer bot.
You regurgitate such rubbish.

 

[windsurfer]

You need a life

Eg4 customer service sucks. The inverters are not bad.

It doesn't matter how good the inverters are if the documentation sucks and support isn't able help you get them working correctly.

 

[SomethingAppropriate]

It doesn't matter how good the inverters are if the documentation sucks and support isn't able help you get them working correctly.

True