superdiy

Here's mine. Unistrut connected with stainless steel angle brackets. I had the brackets lasercut and bended. Sikaflex in-between everything.

Panels secured with standard mounting hardware, but I've added stainless steel angles and ball-bearings in the heads of the cap-screws to prevent easy removal of the panels - the allen key won't go into the head of the cap-screw and if you try to use pliers or a vice-grip around the head of the cap-screw, you won't be able to turn it.

Here's mine. Unistrut connected with stainless steel angle brackets. I had the brackets lasercut and bended. Sikaflex in-between everything.

Panels secured with standard mounting hardware, but I've added stainless steel angles and ball-bearings in the heads of the cap-screws to prevent easy removal of the panels - the allen key won't go into the head of the cap-screw and if you try to use pliers or a vice-grip around the head of the cap-screw, you won't be able to turn it.

I am not saying that it is the case, but what they usually do is to only change the duty cycle on "lower" power settings. In other words (ignoring efficiency and power used by controlling circuit, display etc.) if you set it to 2100W, it will draw 2100W all the time. If you set it to 1400W, it will draw 2100W for 67% of the time and draw 0W for 33% of the time. If you set it to 800W, it will draw 2100W for 38% of the time and 0W for 62% of the time. The switching rate (from full on to full off) might be at 2 times per second or 100 times per second, I don't know, but the point I want to bring across is that the power is not necessarily varied, but in most cases the duty cycle is varied. So the problem with induction cookers is where someone want to power it from an inverter, the inverter will have to be able to handle the full 2100W and not only the 800W or 500W you've set it to.
A microwave oven works on the same principle, if you set a 1000W oven to a power setting of 700W, it outputs 1000W for 70% of the time and 0W for the other 30% of the time. In microwave ovens the duty cycle is just much lower - few seconds on, few seconds off, few seconds on, few seconds off.

Some teaser screenshots - still a long way to go though...

I am not saying that it is the case, but what they usually do is to only change the duty cycle on "lower" power settings. In other words (ignoring efficiency and power used by controlling circuit, display etc.) if you set it to 2100W, it will draw 2100W all the time. If you set it to 1400W, it will draw 2100W for 67% of the time and draw 0W for 33% of the time. If you set it to 800W, it will draw 2100W for 38% of the time and 0W for 62% of the time. The switching rate (from full on to full off) might be at 2 times per second or 100 times per second, I don't know, but the point I want to bring across is that the power is not necessarily varied, but in most cases the duty cycle is varied. So the problem with induction cookers is where someone want to power it from an inverter, the inverter will have to be able to handle the full 2100W and not only the 800W or 500W you've set it to.
A microwave oven works on the same principle, if you set a 1000W oven to a power setting of 700W, it outputs 1000W for 70% of the time and 0W for the other 30% of the time. In microwave ovens the duty cycle is just much lower - few seconds on, few seconds off, few seconds on, few seconds off.

Chris, you are spot-on. The most important thing here is to never exceed the inverter PV input voltage. If the inverter specs says that it accepts 600W from PV, that simply means that the inverter can utilize up to 600W from PV, even if you have 3000W worth of panels connected, the inverter will only use up to 600W of the available 3000W. Current and power is not an issue - just do not exceed the max PV input voltage.

Here's mine. Unistrut connected with stainless steel angle brackets. I had the brackets lasercut and bended. Sikaflex in-between everything.

Panels secured with standard mounting hardware, but I've added stainless steel angles and ball-bearings in the heads of the cap-screws to prevent easy removal of the panels - the allen key won't go into the head of the cap-screw and if you try to use pliers or a vice-grip around the head of the cap-screw, you won't be able to turn it.

Most of the time 4mm2 bare copper wire is used.

You will always get galvanic corrosion between dissimilar metals, just more between certain metals and less between others.  The potential difference between zinc (plated) and aluminium is much lower than between copper and aluminium - if you would make use of the zinc plated clips or lugs the corrosion should be much less than between copper and aluminium.  If you are inland you should also have less worries than if you are close to the sea.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion

The image you've posted is for DC systems - where you distribute DC throughout the premises e.g. your home and all equipment / appliances run off DC. That is why the DC negative is grounded as well.  On AC installations the Negative is also grounded before going into the E/L unit - when there is a ground fault (current leaking from Negative OR Positive to ground), the E/L unit disconnects the power if the leaking current is more than the leakage rating of the E/L unit.
 
You should however not connect the DC Negative of the PV panels or the batteries to the system ground unless your inverter / charge controller installation manual clearly states that you may do so, otherwise you risk damaging the inverter / charge controller.

Here's mine. Unistrut connected with stainless steel angle brackets. I had the brackets lasercut and bended. Sikaflex in-between everything.

Panels secured with standard mounting hardware, but I've added stainless steel angles and ball-bearings in the heads of the cap-screws to prevent easy removal of the panels - the allen key won't go into the head of the cap-screw and if you try to use pliers or a vice-grip around the head of the cap-screw, you won't be able to turn it.

Axpert MKS 3KVA 24V & 3 x Trojan T875's. Sorry for the terrible photo quality.

Yes, I've just configured mine to use PV, then grid for the rest, no battery while PV and grid is available.  So say 2.5KW from PV and the rest from the grid, depending on your current load requirements - some forum members has drawn 8KW in total for a few minutes from the infini 3KW inverter while the grid was available.
Edit: Yes, Feedback to grid can be enabled or disabled.

Which "max amps" are you referring to. Any device, including the inverter will only draw as much current as required - current is drawn, not pushed.
 
A simple example: although your car's battery can supply the starter motor with 80A when the car is started, the parking lights will only draw 1 amp from the battery. The battery always has much more than 80A available, but the load only draws what it requires.

Chris, you are spot-on. The most important thing here is to never exceed the inverter PV input voltage. If the inverter specs says that it accepts 600W from PV, that simply means that the inverter can utilize up to 600W from PV, even if you have 3000W worth of panels connected, the inverter will only use up to 600W of the available 3000W. Current and power is not an issue - just do not exceed the max PV input voltage.

The Finder relay's coil and its AC load side are isolated from each other and not related at all. The Finder's coil is the load seen by the BMV's relay and the Finder's coil is a 230V coil and the 230V is switched by the BMV's relay, which is more than what is recommended by Victron.
The geyser's element is a pure resistive load, so if the relay contact is rated for 15A @ 240VAC, and the geyser element draws 15A @ 240V AC, the relay should be able to switch the load for a few hundred thousand cycles as per the datasheet without any problem.
The problem comes in where you are using a relay rated at 60V to switch a 230V relay coil and to make it even worse, a relay coil which is an inductive load.

Here's mine. Unistrut connected with stainless steel angle brackets. I had the brackets lasercut and bended. Sikaflex in-between everything.

Panels secured with standard mounting hardware, but I've added stainless steel angles and ball-bearings in the heads of the cap-screws to prevent easy removal of the panels - the allen key won't go into the head of the cap-screw and if you try to use pliers or a vice-grip around the head of the cap-screw, you won't be able to turn it.

My wife and I had to move ours - about a meter up onto a terrace and then about 5 meters further - luckily she is used to do physical work. She also helped when we did the slab for the tanks - to be honest, I think she might have worked harder than me that day. It was a really hot Saturday and we started mixing by about 15:00 and I finished floating the last concrete by about 19:00 - we mixed by hand, just the two of us.

The Victron battery monitors BMV700 & BMV702 are supplied with a 10m 24 AWG 3 pair UTP (patch) cable, but my preferred location for the display was almost 20m from the shunt. I decided to experiment with a longer cable, but feared that the additional cable length might have an effect on the measurements, especially when the backlight is on and/or when the relay and/or buzzer draws more power and that proved to be the case. For my experiment I took a 30m piece of CAT5e 24AWG 4 pair cable and initially connected 3 of the 4 pairs and left the 4th pair unconnected. The difference in the displayed voltage readings with the backlight on and the backlight off were about 0.03V, compared to the readings on my Fluke. The difference in the current readings were about 20mA (backlight on compared to backlight off).
 
I then removed the PC board from the shunt and traced the circuit to determine on which wires the positive and negative battery connections and the load connection of the shunt, were running. Since I had a pair of unused wires in the 4 pair cable I then started, by first adding one wire of the unused pair in parallel with the positive (power) wire and then both wires of the unused pair, but the measurements stayed the same. I then added the unused wires in turns in parallel to each of the 2 wires running from the one side of the shunt to the monitor and did the same with the wire running from the other side of the shunt to the monitor. A notable difference was only seen when one of the unused wires were connected in parallel with the orange-white wire. I decided to make use of the additional wire pair (brown & brown/white) and connect that in parallel to the orange/white wire to effectively lower the resistance of the orange/white wire. The result was much more accurate readings and less difference in readings with the backlight and relay either on or off.

Well, the amendment is real, though it says November 2016 instead of December as the article alleges. Looking at the original law, it seems the trouble is with the definition of IPP. I simply cannot see how a residential rooftop plant could be classified an IPP, not if you read section 34(1) of the original. IANAL though.
But there is more. There is a "Norton Rose Fullbright" we can look into. That's a law firm that really exists, but searching for them with Nersa in the same search yields only one useful article: The one linked above. Looking for Lizel Oberholzer, again an actual director there, an "oil and gas lawyer"... that sounds fishy. Jarret Whitehead... well he's a 2nd candidate attorney according to his LinkedIn profile, doing his articles at said company right now, so that yields no additional authority.
But the story seems to go back even further. Here is something from 2015, and that links a consultation paper from earlier that year. Now I suggest reading that as the best source. It covers regulations, targets, feed in tariffs, and yes, some taxes (you are using grid infrastructure to sell your goods). It covers an important issue that is outstanding at the moment: That each metro has its own rules and some areas have none!
From a cursory reading, it seems that it comes down to this: That in setting the target for 3725MW, they didn't account for all the small systems that would spring up and help contribute towards that. The cherry on that cake is section 4 (b), which talks about incentivising grid tied installations using tariff options.
In other words, this article is horribly one-sided and thin on details.

Truth be told, this feels like it suffers from journalistic license. You see it mentions the loss of income and the registration requirement in the same article as if they are connected (and they may well be), but haven't we learned so far that Nersa doesn't always give Eskom their way... why would we expect Nersa to help Eskom here? Just applying some healthy skepticism guys...
Also, I get the feeling that there are generation plants within that bracket above 10kw and below 1mw, big things, that were exempt from registration, but will no longer be. So the draft wording simply refers to plants smaller than 1MW and the journalist simply assumes (it is implied is it not?) that this would include rooftop plants. But will it?
I'm pretty sure this is just badly worded and they are not actually targeting rooftop solar. The mere fact that it feels like a poor April Fools joke sort of hints that way.
Let's hope I'm right!

i best not write my thoughts down here...might get banned...... but they can F.O.

It is not PV, It is reflective covers on the roof to keep the home cool in summer

I'm not generating power with those PV panels. They are just there for show.

First of all, parallel battery strings are not advised.  Rather invest in a single string of higher Ah rating.
The way the batteries are connected in the diagram, the top string will work the hardest, followed by the string second from the top etc.etc.
If you really have no other option than to use more than 1 string, best way to ensure that all strings are utilised equally is to ensure that all the cabling in each string is of the same size (gauge) and length and to connect the ends of all the strings to the same connection points e.g. busbars.  Then never link the midpoints of the different strings directly - you can do it via fuses, but not directly as per the diagram.
Then for safety reasons you have to fuse each string separately before it is connected to the busbar.
All that said, parallel battery strings are not advised.  Rather invest in a single string of higher Ah rating.

Furthermore a battery balancer is recommended - for parallel strings of up to 4 batteries you can get away with something like one HA-02.  The only advantage of using more than one HA-02 balancers for parallel strings, is an increased balancing current, but once the batteries are balanced after the balancer was connected for the first time, the balancer will not work that hard any more and one balancer should be able to keep the bank balanced. If more than one balancer is connected in parallel (more than one pair of wires per balancer in parallel) the balancers might fight each other and actually not balance effectively - discussion for another day...

In my experience all failed cells I've ever came across went "short-circuit" and not "open circuit". I know @Chris Hobson said that he has seen cells which have failed and went "open circuit" - that will not be such a big deal, except that the remainder of the string containing the faulty cell will effectively be disconnected from the bank and of no use at all, until it is discovered maybe years later. 
 
The problem comes in with a cell failing and causing an internal short-circuit. To simplify the following explanation I will use a standard lead-acid cell voltage of 2.25V.  If you now have 24 cells in series, you have a total string voltage of 54V.  Since all the strings are connected in parallel, the voltage of every string will be 54V.  Now if one cell in one of the strings fails and becomes shorted (0V) the 54V across the string (maintained by the other parallel strings) needs to be divided by the number of healthy cells in the string - 54V / 23 cells => 2.35V.  To get these cells to 2.35V each they need to be charged and they will be charged by the other parallel strings.  This will result in high (charging) currents flowing into the faulty string which will cause heat.  When the battery bank is charged by the charge controller / inverter the voltage per cell will rise even more, because the voltage of the battery bank will go higher during charging - again this will cause more heat in the faulty string.  Furthermore, when one cell in a battery fails, another and another usually fails soon after that; now when 2 cells in the same string fail, the voltage in the remainder of the cells in the string will rise to 2.45V each, if another cell fails, the voltage in the remainder of the cells will rise to 2.57V each, you get the picture. Higher and higher currents will flow into the faulty string, causing more and more heat and eventually you might have a thermal runaway, exploding batteries and some pyrotechnics.  Now imaging all of this happens when you are away for the weekend and there is nobody at home to react to the BMV's mid-point alarm (which might not even detect a problem in the first place, especially not if the midpoints of all the strings are tied together)...
So bottom line, parallel battery strings are not advised.  Rather invest in a single string of higher Ah rating.