-rick- Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago (edited) 24 minutes ago, Roger440 said: However, things go wrong, especially electronics. Yes it "should" cut of the power if it doesnt see "mains power". Should is doing a lot of heavy lifting on a device thats likely sub £200. The big brands offering things like this cost a more than that. If the regs say that to legally sell this product it 'MUST' ensure that the pins are not live unless a mains signal has been seen within the last 20ms then either the product complies and is safe (ie, wont kill anyone even if they touch live pins) or it doesn't comply and is therefore defective. That should be the end of it. 24 minutes ago, Roger440 said: With a plug in panel, if it doesnt detect the mains power has gone, the pins are live. Single point of failure. Going to a situation of single point of failure is a significant step backwards. The results of which, as ive already said, are forseeable. Really not sure what you are getting at here. The number of things that have to happen to produce mains output from a solar panel these days is huge. The computers involved in generating the waveforms are far far more powerful than desktop computers from the early/mid 2000s. It's not a case that the waveform will be produced unless blocked by a safety system, it's more that the system can't produce a waveform unless a long list of conditions are met. This is technical but heres a reference design from TI for a microinverter. Not suggesting you take anything from it other than it's not a simple system that will just continue working in a fault condition (the document doesn't touch on the safety side unfortunately). https://www.ti.com/lit/ug/tiduf63a/tiduf63a.pdf?ts=1774517354380 The MCU (brain) they use to do the control is this : https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tms320f280039c.pdf?ts=1774508361987 Again not really an accessible document, but you'll note that it supports various functional safety standards. Those are some pretty rigorous standards and if you design a product to meet them then you can make guarantees about the behavior. ie, make it fail safe. Edit: I'm not saying this is currently part of the regs for this, seems a little OTT for the situation, but it's certainly something that could be added to regs if a need is identified. Edited 2 hours ago by -rick-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now