I'm installing a SmartPlug shore power inlet and the AC wire came up a few inches short.
I'm assuming that the best option would be to replace the entire length of wire.
Is there an easier option that would be OK to use in this situation? Would adding a terminal block in the lazarette be an option?
If not, how do I access the run of wire behind or under the head? (not sure how it's routed)
Thanks in advance...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/538/31829131424_e824763c8a_z.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/268/31829132384_744c1efcc2_z.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/526/32292867300_8b3d84d1b7_z.jpg)
Russell,
I haven't seen anything in ABYC that prevents you putting butt crimp splices on there. I would do that before putting a term block, which means more crimps and connections (corrosion, V loss - although with 120v that's not a big concern.) Just use the best butt crimps (FTZ brand) and a GOOD crimper (that means NO vice grips.)
IIWMC, I wouldn't go to the expense/pain of replacing the cable -- I'd stagger the crimps on the 3 conductors, so they're not in one bunch, and then cover the slice area with a decent covering (pvc vinyl hose?) and heat shrink over the ends. Or use Mil spec heavy wall heat shrink over the connection (myself <- use 2 layers, but I tend to overkill somewhat.)
Another way to look at is, now that you went one small step for man (the SP), it's a perfect time to add an ELCI breaker in the laz and add a super level of human protection to your boat for yourself and passengers. Then, after you add that protection you can theoretically remove the bond wire between the 12v neg buss and 120v green earth block, and eliminate ANY CHANCE of galvanic corrosion due to leakage from other boats on the elec grid.
If you need any mil spec AHS I have some I can drop in the mail.
ken
*** ooops, sorry I misspoke -- I shouldn't have said a laz, which is aft. It's a sail locker.
I had the same problem. For now I made white, black, green extensions butt connected and adhesive lined heat shrink to the original.
On my boat the AC cable runs from the shore connection through the plywood bulkhead in your photo along the tops of the cabinets in the head and by the navigation station then down along the holding tank vent and pump out hoses to behind the main distribution panel.
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 02, 2017, 01:45:50 PM
Russell,
I haven't seen anything in ABYC that prevents you putting butt crimp splices on there.
ABYC E-11
"11.14.4.3 INSTALLATION - AC
11.14.4.3.1 All connections normally carrying current shall be made in enclosures to protect against shock hazards."Now would be an opportune time to add a Blue Sea surface mount ELCI...
On my 1990 C30, the original wiring was 12 gauge, probably my 1991 C34 was as well. When I upgraded to the Smartplug on my C30, I upgraded to 10 gauge for the 30A AC circuit. An ELCI would be a nice improvement too.
Craig
Sorry I don't read that as applying to this.
Common sense says it applies to open connections at terminal strips, breakers, buss bars, fixtures, where a finger could accidently hit the post or screw head.
There's no greater "shock" hazard if the conductor is butt crimped, covered with an AHS butt, and then covered with multiple covers of Mil spec HST -- than there is a shock hazard for a wire with PVC insulation inside a NM cable sheath.
kk
Quote from: mainesail on February 02, 2017, 03:44:56 PM
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 02, 2017, 01:45:50 PM
Russell,
I haven't seen anything in ABYC that prevents you putting butt crimp splices on there.
ABYC E-11
"11.14.4.3 INSTALLATION - AC
11.14.4.3.1 All connections normally carrying current shall be made in enclosures to protect against shock hazards."
Now would be an opportune time to add a Blue Sea surface mount ELCI...
Ken,
It does apply here. You can use butt splices on DC but if you use them on AC they need to be in an enclosure/box..
Quote from: mainesail on February 02, 2017, 05:13:18 PM
Ken,
It does apply here.
RC
Explain how does that POSSIBLY presents a shock hazard once completed? It's no more of, in fact less of a chock hazard than a conductor with just PVC insulation and with no butt on it. Common sense.
k
Guys connections are always a bad idea prone to failure. Can't be more than 10 ft of new wire 10 awg well worth the work. Charlie
Quote from: sailaway on February 02, 2017, 05:22:02 PM
Guys connections are always a bad idea prone to failure. Can't be more than 10 ft of new wire 10 awg well worth the work. Charlie
Charlie, would you then say we shouldn't have any butt crimps on a boat because they are fail points?
Because if so, about every electrical system needs to be ripped out and redone with nothing but continuous wire from point A to point B.
In point of fact, however, butt connections done properly with proper materials, that are fully sealed from the atmosphere, and the cables supported to relieve strain, are LESS likely to fail than connections at a terminal strip or buss that's open and subject to corrosion.
kk
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 02, 2017, 05:16:52 PM
Quote from: mainesail on February 02, 2017, 05:13:18 PM
Ken,
It does apply here.
RC
Explain how does that POSSIBLY presents a shock hazard once completed? It's no more of, in fact less of a chock hazard than a conductor with just PVC insulation and with no butt on it. Common sense.
k
If you'd seen the sheer number of shoddy wiring jobs, and horribly executed butt splices, that I have, you'd certainly see how..(wink) This portion of the ABYC E-11 standard is no different than NFPA 70/NEC standards in that any
AC splice must be in an
enclosure. If you want to use butt splices in DC wring, knock yourself out, but not on AC outside of an enclosure, if you want to wire to meet the ABYC standards.
This really is not a debatable issue as far as standards interpretation. The standards & training are dead clear on requiring an
enclosure for AC terminations such as splices. Training material is actually quite stringent in not "splicing" AC wire at all and strongly suggests running a new wire end to end as the preferred method for all technicians. Only when a splice is absolutely necessary should that method be used.
ABYC Training Manual (Current ABYC Electrical Training Manual)
"It is still sometimes necessary, however, to make splices in AC wire runs. When doing so, make all AC terminations inside appropriate enclosures that can only be accessed with the use of hand tools.""Review Question:
Based on ABYC E-11, all terminations for AC conductors must be installed:
A. In free air to allow for proper ventilation
B. Inside an enclosure requiring the use of hand tools to open
C. In conduit
D. In snap covered junction boxes"In this case a surface mount ELCI (Blue Sea 3116 or similar), while not inexpensive, would make for an excellent
splice point and meet the requirements for an enclosure as well as meeting current ELCI requirements as well as meeting the 10' rule, which many early Catalina's do not meet.
As can be seen AC terminations inside an enclosure are a strongly emphasized & discussed part of ABYC electrical training and it's very clearly addressed in the certification study & training materials as well as in class discussions.
Keep in mind that while the ABYC standards are
voluntary surveyors survey to them and insurers underwrite to what the survey says. In my last continuing ed class nearly 50% of the attendees were surveyors. I do a LOT of "survey upgrades" work so it is never a bad idea to do your work to meet the standards.....
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 02, 2017, 05:29:50 PM
In point of fact, however, butt connections done properly with proper materials, that are fully sealed from the atmosphere, and the cables supported to relieve strain, are LESS likely to fail than connections at a terminal strip or buss that's open and subject to corrosion.
kk
Absolutely true, but those butt splices, if used on AC wiring, still need to be in an enclosure. :thumb: The key words to your point are "done properly" and this is much rarer than it should be...
Rod
We can't use poor workmanship to make a case. Apples vs apples.
Using that approach, a perfect butt splice such as done by yourself inside Mil spec HST, is preferred because Joe Blow could make a crappy splice inside a plastic enclosure. You can't compare apples against rotten bananas.
Re ABYC: "in conduit", which can be UL spec flexible PVC conduit. So slip a foot of pvc flex over the butt splices. But, not 2 layers of mil spec HST (which is better than UL rated flex conduit.)
But still, from a practical common sense point of view -- explain how making a perfect butt splice inside two layers of mil spec HST, is a "shock hazard." Under what condition is it a shock hazard? A practical example?
I agree, all things equal (which they NEVER are) no splice in ANY cable is preferred.
NEC allows butt splicing of direct buried cables -- using a waterproof splice kit. Is that not a hazard?
All codes have to be taken with common sense when necessary.
Is the SmartPlug a listed shore cable connection type (ie, ABYC E-11, Figure 12?)
kk
Examples:
This type splice is used and approved for direct earth burial, but the identical type splice on a boat has to be enclosed in an enclosure? There's more of a shock hazard on a boat than in the moist soil?
(http://www.rona.ca/images/0399055_L.jpg)
This type splice is also approved for junctions in NM cable (ie "Romex") in dry locations OUTSIDE any type enclosure/box.
(http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/productImages/1000/eb/eb5c2c92-8cd2-4d0a-a4e9-334ed06d8df3_1000.jpg)
Would I ever make a splice like above. NOT in my house, even if it's code.
ie. apply a strong dose of "common sense."
kk
Quote"Sorry I don't read that as applying to this."
Safety standard interpretation is distinct from our own beliefs of what is safe or not. Even if we can make an excellent technical argument that in a given instance a particular practice may be safe, that does not mean the standard doesn't apply. The ABYC standard is very clear on the matter, and no amount of arguing about the reliability of a carefully made splice protected with heat shrink tubing is going to change that.
In the case in point, I do not accept the argument that an inline splice protected solely by heat shrink tubing should be allowed.
Quote"There's no greater "shock" hazard if the conductor is butt crimped, covered with an AHS butt, and then covered with multiple covers of Mil spec HST -- than there is a shock hazard for a wire with PVC insulation inside a NM cable sheath."
The standard takes into account the risk that heavy/sharp metal objects may get thrown against a splice that is not enclosed (e.g. an anchor tossed into a compartment), as well as a number of other potential risks. Heat shrink tubing is not as resistant to chafing and cutting as the the original sheathing on approved 120 VAC cable. Personally I would not even for a moment entertain leaving a section of 120 VAC wire exposed to physical abuse if the sheathing were not intact.
If you can be 100% certain that the splice will never be subject to any mechanical stress that could chafe or cut the heat shrink tubing, or in any other way damage the splice, you are free to violate the standards on your own boat. But, that does not make it code compliant.
On a separate note, in the original post's photos there appears to be a section of 120 VAC cable disappearing behind what looks like an aluminum plate. Is it sufficiently protected there against chafing on the edge of the metal?
Quote from: J_Sail on February 02, 2017, 10:07:46 PM
Heat shrink tubing is not nearly as resistant to chafing and cutting as the the original sheathing on approved 120 VAC cable. Personally I would not even for a moment entertain leaving a section of 120 VAC wire exposed to physical abuse if the sheathing were not intact.
On a separate note, in the original post's photos there appears to be a section of 120 VAC cable disappearing behind an aluminum plate. Is it sufficiently protected there against chafing on the edge of the metal?
J_
I get code vs common sense. That's why
voluntary codes have to be applied with a dose of common sense sometimes. It's not a fairy tale perfect world that codes assume it to be, and oftentimes they do get out of date with the times. Using the arguments of "code," no one should install a SmartPlug because it's not a depicted connector type in ABYC. Is that correct or not?
Not so for
mandatory codes, no leeway generally.
Fact based, a 2x layer of MIL SPEC heavy wall HST is
CERTAINLY more robust and cut resistant than NM cable sheathing. But I would agree not as robust as, say,UF cable sheathing.
And no one can explain a rational reason why the spice kits shown are approved for direct burial (on robust UF cable) but are not ok to use on less-robust NM cable on a boat. It's contrary to common sense. The HST used is equivalent to UF cable, which is much more robust than the NM cable sheath on the boat. Just because it's code, doesn't make it make sense, when it's a voluntary code.
No one is suggesting an unsheathed NM cable should be left as-is. That's simply confusing the discussion.
No, the disappearing cable is not protected adequately!
k
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 02, 2017, 10:36:02 PM
No, the disappearing cable is not protected adequately!
True. Just so most who of you who may never have stuck their heads inside the port locker, that aluminum is NOT OEM. I have no idea what it is, what it is for, or why it is even there. Don't know where that wire is going either. Perhaps the OP can enlighten us. :D
Guys this connection is 120v 30amps continues load. a/c running hot water tank is on toaster oven on fans are on. NOT a place for butt splices. If you want to use butt splices on a bilge pump ok Charlie
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 02, 2017, 10:36:02 PM
And no one can explain a rational reason why the spice kits shown are approved for direct burial (on robust UF cable) but are not ok to use on less-robust NM cable on a boat. It's contrary to common sense. The HST used is equivalent to UF cable, which is much more robust than the NM cable sheath on the boat. Just because it's code, doesn't make it make sense, when it's a voluntary code.
k
Ken,
I have given you a hint on that answer in BOLD...
Think about why well pump wires and direct burial cables are allowed to be "spliced" and not in an enclosure.. When you bury your boat, and it's at ground potential, then we can splice without being in an enclosure... (wink)
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 02, 2017, 07:19:24 PM
Rod
We can't use poor workmanship to make a case. Apples vs apples.
But it is taken into account for all the time in the standards world, to make things safer.
Quote from: KWKloeberUsing that approach, a perfect butt splice such as done by yourself inside Mil spec HST, is preferred because Joe Blow could make a crappy splice inside a plastic enclosure. You can't compare apples against rotten bananas.
It's not just preferred but is a
requirement to use the proper tooling etc.. Still it does not always happen so language such as "Solder shall not be...." are included because based on historical data the vast majority of soldering in the marine environment is done horribly. Crimping with the proper tooling yields much more reliable results. With AC it kills people so the ABYC requires an enclosure for any AC termination/splice. As I mentioned before if you want to use butt splices
inside the enclosure knock yourself out. You do realize you're debating this "standards compliance issue" over the addition of a $6.00 surface mount plastic enclosure/box on a $35,000+ toy right? (wink)
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 02, 2017, 07:19:24 PMRe ABYC: "in conduit", which can be UL spec flexible PVC conduit. So slip a foot of pvc flex over the butt splices. But, not 2 layers of mil spec HST (which is better than UL rated flex conduit.)
You got the review question incorrect... The answer is not "in conduit", the answer is;
B. Inside an enclosure requiring the use of hand tools to open
Quote from: KWKloeberBut still, from a practical common sense point of view -- explain how making a perfect butt splice inside two layers of mil spec HST, is a "shock hazard." Under what condition is it a shock hazard? A practical example?
That was not the question and in "most cases" it would never create a shock hazard but it still
does not meet the standard. Below is what I responded to. You're now changing this to a "
common sense" discussion.
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 02, 2017, 01:45:50 PM
Russell,
I haven't seen anything in ABYC that prevents you putting butt crimp splices on there. I would do that before putting a term block, which means more crimps and connections (corrosion, V loss - although with 120v that's not a big concern.) Just use the best butt crimps (FTZ brand) and a GOOD crimper (that means NO vice grips.)
IIWMC, I wouldn't go to the expense/pain of replacing the cable -- I'd stagger the crimps on the 3 conductors, so they're not in one bunch, and then cover the slice area with a decent covering (pvc vinyl hose?) and heat shrink over the ends. Or use Mil spec heavy wall heat shrink over the connection (myself <- use 2 layers, but I tend to overkill somewhat.)
I responded to your post to simply clarify ABYC standards compliance. What you suggest above, regarding E-11 ABYC standards, does not meet the standard.
All I did was present accurate verifiable data that shows the type of termination you suggested, in AC wire,
does not meet the ABYC standards. If you want to still do that, on your boat, that is perfectly fine, unless you have an insurance survey and they guy is good..
Quote from: KWKloeberI agree, all things equal (which they NEVER are) no splice in ANY cable is preferred.
As a paid professional, certified by the ABYC, with hefty insurance premiums, there is only one way I would address that situation if called in to make that repair. That is to wire it to ABYC standards, or better. There is far too much liability risk in not wiring to the standards and they have been held up in court cases as the
default standard numerous times.
If I touch your AC inlet wiring it is getting an ELCI. If I touch your AC inlet wiring it will have another breaker at the inlet if the wire run is more than 10 wire feet to the main panel breaker. If it is
physically impossible to run a new wire I will add an enclosed junction box or SMB and do it that way.
Quote from: KWKloeberNEC allows butt splicing of direct buried cables -- using a waterproof splice kit. Is that not a hazard?
When you can get electrocuted by touching the Earth/Ground/0V that will certainly be interesting to hear about. This is why they allow splices in under
ground cable,
ground.....
Quote from: KWKloeberAll codes have to be taken with common sense when necessary.
Is the SmartPlug a listed shore cable connection type (ie, ABYC E-11, Figure 12?)
kk
Absolutely! That
common sense however should err on the side of doing BETTER than the codes. The safety standards are a
bare minimum. Under cutting the safety standard & you open yourself up to liability and are essentially on your own.
To answer the SmartPlug question, the ONLY issue the ABYC had was the auto resetting thermal breaker (something myself and many others on the electrical committee argued for keeping). SmartPlug presented their data at a standards meeting and the standards committee still shot down the auto-reset thermal switch. SmartPlug has since removed it, to comply with the ABYC standards, and when the next revision is made it will be inclusive. The SmartPlug, as it is today (no thermal switch), exceeds the ABYC requirements.
Rod,
Ok, fahgetabout common sense for now. Non-compliance is non-compliance, as you say.
These are all FACTS:
As of today, the old SPs were (and will remain) non-compliant.
As of today (until ABYC changes 11.13.3.2 and Figure 12,) even the "current" (no pun) SP is non-compliant
To pass a "good" survey, very technically speaking, the old SP MUST be removed and replaced with a twist-lock. Then, after ABYC changes 11.13.3.2 a breaker-less SP can be installed.
Accolades were sung about and X-number of (10? 20? 30? x?) SmartPlugs were installed when, although they were 'better', they were CLEARLY non compliant at that time!!
Website write ups and in a plethora of blog posts, never stated "These dang things are non compliant and are not recommended <wink>, but if you think they are for you it's YBYC, and go for it if you want to be non-compliant <wink>."
I'm not turning this personal and have bit my tongue until now, BUT.... one cannot fight to the death that "the way it's written on paper" is the "only way it shall be done." Yet recommend that owners should buy and install a non-compliant product, because "it's better." As you say, non-compliance is non-compliance period.
Yes, SPs were and are better, and yes, it made sense, but a non-compliant product was still installed in clear non-compliance with ABYC. I'd say you'll have a busy winter with big economic loss removing and replacing all those with a breaker-less model that they sold to customers!! <wiknk, wink>
Or will they be replaced only if the boat fails an insurance survey? Or not at all?
What if more AC work is done on the same boat -- will the old SP get ripped out and a new installed?
That would be erring on the safe side because the auto-resets are, and will continue to be not allowed. Or, will old SPs be left in place because common sense says the auto reset is okay and economically it make no sense at all? There goes that common sense sneaking in again. Should everyone else who installed a SP themselves remove theirs? No, because it doesn't make "sense."
kk
PS, And I'm not sure the old SP is "better." One could conjure up scenarios where an auto reset could be an a problem, without a telltale to identify an issue.
And we always must err on the safe side when there's an option. Well then ABYC needs to make a wholesale switch away from twist locks, correct? Is it doing that? Obviously not. So maybe ABYC isn't necessarily always "correct"?
How does the layman know if their Smart Plug has a auto reset? Was your bulk purchase for C34 members "old-style" or "new"?
Noah,
The new style has an "NT" (no thermal breaker) in the product number. (e.g., "BM30NT" for the 30 amp inlet, "B30ASSYNT" for the kit.) No NT (e.g., "B30ASSY"), HAS the thermal breaker.
Both, whatever SP supplied at the given time/order. The majority being with the thermal breaker because SP switch after the initial group purchases, and since then it's been "dribs and drabs."
cheers
Ken
Quote from: Noah on February 03, 2017, 02:01:26 PM
How does the layman know if their Smart Plug has a auto reset? Was your bulk purchase for C34 members "old-style" or "new"?
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 03, 2017, 02:33:10 PM
The new style has an "NT" (no thermal breaker) in the product number. (e.g., "BM30NT" for the 30 amp inlet, "B30ASSYNT" for the kit.) No NT (e.g., "B30ASSY"), no thermal breaker.
Did you perhaps intend to end that line with, "No NT (e.g., "B30ASSY"), means it HAS a thermal breaker."?
Thanks Ken. I will take a look at the serial number before I RIP OUT ALL MY WIRING! :abd: LOL!!!
A crowbar and a chainsaw works best!!! :sick :sick :sick
Ooops!! Yes thank you for the correction!!!
What piece of aluminum are you seeing? I see fiberglass and wood.
Jon
Maybe you have a good eye!! It looks like a pc of aluminum that's bent into 2 flanges. Zooming in it's hard to tell for sure? Maybe a sharp or ragged edge tabbing in a block?
kk
Quote from: Jon W on February 03, 2017, 04:49:58 PM
What piece of aluminum are you seeing? I see fiberglass and wood.
Jon, on the right side of the picture. See my reply #16.
I didn't look far enough to the right of the photo. On my boat that is the back of the AC outlet in the head. I don't have the metal cover, just an exposed back of the outlet. Speaking of codes.
Jon
We have a similar situation on the C-30 that I wanted to make better. I'm sure it isn't the absolutely approved method LOL but I didn't want to go through ripping out what was there so took an old work box and screwed it to the back side of the bulkhead, putting a small notch for the cables to pass through the corner of the box. Much easier than putting in a new box from the galley side. Common sense fix.
Hi,
If it was my boat and was doi g this mod, read improvement in changing the powe plug.
Investing in a new inlet that is not cheap. And wondering if a splice is ok ?
Why not install a new wire full lenght. Would it be possible to use the existing wire to pull the new one?
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 02, 2017, 07:52:15 PM
Examples:
This type splice is used and approved for direct earth burial, but the identical type splice on a boat has to be enclosed in an enclosure? There's more of a shock hazard on a boat than in the moist soil?
(http://www.rona.ca/images/0399055_L.jpg)
This type splice is also approved for junctions in NM cable (ie "Romex") in dry locations OUTSIDE any type enclosure/box.
(http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/productImages/1000/eb/eb5c2c92-8cd2-4d0a-a4e9-334ed06d8df3_1000.jpg)
Would I ever make a splice like above. NOT in my house, even if it's code.
ie. apply a strong dose of "common sense."
kk
You do realize that underground splices are protected by being encased in 18" of dirt?
I'm not opposed to replacing the whole length of wire. However, it looks like that may be relatively difficult depending on how well the current wire it secured in unreachable locations along the way.
The red line I drew on the bellow picture show's where I think the path of the wire runs. On another note, the green circle I drew shows what's on the other side of the aluminum backing asked about in some of the previous posts. I can only assume the previous owner put that there to keep things from coming in contact with the backside of the AC outlet in the head. FYI, that outlet was replaced just before we purchased the boat (after the below picture was taken) with a GFI outlet per the surveyors recommendation.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/481/31896683773_eb12e124f7_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/QAAQPF)
Does it matter how the current wire runs? Just cut it, abandon it, and run a new wire. Remove the toilet paper cabinet for easier access.
<<<You do realize that underground splices are protected by being encased in 18" of dirt?>>>
The argument against the boat splice was that"it's a shock hazard " while the splice on a UF cable is not. Splice on UF cable has to be assumed to be in a submerged condition with no leakage to the earth. The fact that it's surrounded by soil is irrelevant as far as leakage or a shock hazard is concerned. If a UF cable splice isn't going to leak when submerged, it's not going to leak in a locker. Common sense.
If the argument is that the splice is physically protected by the soil, then the code would have to be to encase such a splice in an enclosure or conduit. Heavy equipment running across the cable could exert forces on the soil, shift the cable, etc. But the approved splice is as, or more robust than, the UF cable itself. So, that argument doesn't "hold water " so to speak. :-)
If the point is that the soil protects the splice from something like an anchor hitting it if in a locker, then....
FACT, not opinion: a splice protected by a double layer of mil spec HST, is more robust and resistant to cutting, etc., than the NM cable sheath on boat cable. ie, drop the same anchor on a boat cable, and on one protected by 2x mil spec HST and see which survives. Naturally the splice would be clamped down on either side per ABYC (and common sense) so there's no strain on the connection. So it's no more (actually less) susceptible to getting caught than the remainder of the of the boat cable because it has to be clamped only every 18".
If the argument is that the splice isn't "good" or "secure" then there shouldn't be any such type connection allowed at all on a boat anywhere or buried. But that ain't the case.
The fact is the only viable argument why it's ok on UF cable but not on boat cable, is "because." And the fact that ABYC still approves use of twist lock inlets, points to the fact that, while the organization does much much. much good for the industry it's also also wrought with hypocracy. And common sense occasionally gives way to politics.
kk
Quote from: Navigaards on February 04, 2017, 01:06:39 PMOn another note, the green circle I drew shows what's on the other side of the aluminum backing asked about in some of the previous posts. I can only assume the previous owner put that there to keep things from coming in contact with the backside of the AC outlet in the head. FYI, that outlet was replaced just before we purchased the boat (after the below picture was taken) with a GFI outlet per the surveyors recommendation.
Russ, you may want to revisit this. I have an OEM A.C. outlet in my head, perhaps a tad higher than your photo shows yours to be, but it is definitely further outboard than the aluminum cover plate shown in your earlier photo inside the port locker.
For instance, in your second photo, the left side of the head door lines up with the port side of the companionway steps, which, up in the cockpit, are the almost inside edge of the vertical wall of the port cockpit seat. Your outlet, down below, is much further outboard to port, than the aluminum inside your locker. It just seems that way to me, I could be wrong, but I would check.
As far as your red line, I also think not. I believe it continues to run above the mirror door cabinet. Take another look.
Good luck.
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 04, 2017, 02:49:56 PM
<<<You do realize that underground splices are protected by being encased in 18" of dirt?>>>
The argument against the boat splice was that"it's a shock hazard " while the splice on a UF cable is not. Splice on UF cable has to be assumed to be in a submerged condition with no leakage to the earth. The fact that it's surrounded by soil is irrelevant as far as leakage or a shock hazard is concerned. If a UF cable splice isn't going to leak when submerged, it's not going to leak in a locker. Common sense.
If the argument is that the splice is physically protected by the soil, then the code would have to be to encase such a splice in an enclosure or conduit. Heavy equipment running across the cable could exert forces on the soil, shift the cable, etc. But the approved splice is as, or more robust than, the UF cable itself. So, that argument doesn't "hold water " so to speak. :-)
If the point is that the soil protects the splice from something like an anchor hitting it if in a locker, then....
FACT, not opinion: a splice protected by a double layer of mil spec HST, is more robust and resistant to cutting, etc., than the NM cable sheath on boat cable. ie, drop the same anchor on a boat cable, and on one protected by 2x mil spec HST and see which survives. Naturally the splice would be clamped down on either side per ABYC (and common sense) so there's no strain on the connection. So it's no more (actually less) susceptible to getting caught than the remainder of the of the boat cable because it has to be clamped only every 18".
If the argument is that the splice isn't "good" or "secure" then there shouldn't be any such type connection allowed at all on a boat anywhere or buried. But that ain't the case.
The fact is the only viable argument why it's ok on UF cable but not on boat cable, is "because." And the fact that ABYC still approves use of twist lock inlets, points to the fact that, while the organization does much much. much good for the industry it's also also wrought with hypocracy. And common sense occasionally gives way to politics.
kk
Thanks for all the facts but fact is it wouldn't pass inspection even in my tool shed.
PS: consider this common sense critique of the enclosure section. If the "anchor" argument is to hold any water, then the code should not allow any boat cable in a locker like as shown, any such cable would have to be in conduit where there's any chance it could be "gotten to" and used for storage, etc.
Also, the reason the enclosure provision is there, is for open connections like term strips and buss bars where errant fingers could contact the studs, screws, etc. that's the reason behind the need for "hand tools" to get the cover off. Unlike open terminals, alternately a completely covered splice, and it was in an enclosure, has no inherent reason to require hand tools to access it. It's not a "finger hazard." Common sense.
The point of all isn't to say it's the "best way" - merely that's it's "as good a way" as if the original cable itself.
The best way, as I said originally, would be to invest in an ELCI in the locker.
kk
Quote from: Navigaards on February 04, 2017, 01:06:39 PM
I'm not opposed to replacing the whole length of wire. However, it looks like that may be relatively difficult depending on how well the current wire it secured in unreachable locations along the way.
The red line I drew on the bellow picture show's where I think the path of the wire runs. On another note, the green circle I drew shows what's on the other side of the aluminum backing asked about in some of the previous posts. I can only assume the previous owner put that there to keep things from coming in contact with the backside of the AC outlet in the head. FYI, that outlet was replaced just before we purchased the boat (after the below picture was taken) with a GFI outlet per the surveyors recommendation.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/481/31896683773_eb12e124f7_o.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/QAAQPF)
I looked at mine today as I am going to do the exact same thing. The wire runs from the plug into the head and behind the upper trim in the head. I don't believe it will be an issue to replace.
My AC cable runs along the top of the cabinet in the head and through to the top of the cabinet by the navigation station. It doesn't run the path of your red line as you've drawn.
Hi,
Mine too run thru the cabinet. It's hung in the top.
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 03, 2017, 09:41:10 AM
These are all FACTS:
As of today, the old SPs were (and will remain) non-compliant.
As of June 2009 Bob White of Imanna Labs tested the SmartPlug inlet and cordset, both with the thermal switch, and deemed it fully ABYC, UL817, USCG CFR 33 and NFPA 302 compliant. I have a copy of the internal letter on my hard drive and unfortunately, for obvious reasons, I can't share it publicly.. Imanna Labs is one of the largest testing facilities for marine use products including USCG certified navigation lights. The ABYC does not certify anything it is up to the manufacturer to "self certify" using organizations such as Imanna Labs.
If we read the ABYC standards, which are
performance based, they do not include for nor do they exclude
thermal switches. The ABYC standards include over current circuit breakers & fuses which trip on over current and GFCI and ELCI devices which trip on imbalances in AC wiring. A thermal-switch does not trip on over current nor on an imbalance in the AC wiring, it trips on a
thermal event. This is something that is
additional protection and something that is going above and beyond what E-11 actually covers & requires.
Definitions:11.4.20 Overcurrent Protection Device - a device, such as a fuse or circuit breaker,
designed to interrupt the circuit when the current flow exceeds a predetermined value.
Circuit breakers trip on
over-current, on that I think we can all agree. An ELCI or GFCI trips on an imbalance in the current carrying conductors, on that I think we can all agree. Circuit breakers and ELCI's ir GFCI's are different and on that I think we can all agree.
A
thermal switch is not an over-current circuit breaker, fuse, GFCI or ELCI by the ABYC's own definitions. A thermal switch opens based on temperature not over current and E-11 does not define that nor does it address thermal switches anywhere in E-11.
11.4.33 Trip Free Circuit Breaker - a resettable overcurrent protection device designed so that the
means of resetting cannot override the current interrupting mechanism.
By E-11 definition, a thermal switch is operating on a thermal event such as over-heating due to high resistance, a lack of cooling, an overload in the equipment or an internal fan that may have stopped working, is not a auto-resetting circuit breaker..
There are many, devices out there that have internal thermal switch protection, inside them, that are not tripping on over current, but rather on over heating and these are fully allowed under E-11.. The two types of protection, over-current and thermal protection are entirely separate types of safety protection. To argue that the SmartPlugs thermal switch did/does not meet ABYC, based on over-current circuit breakers, is calling a Buick a Ford. Thermal switches are simply not covered in the ABYC E-11 standard and any boat installing a SMartPlug should already be in full compliance with the overcurrent protection section..
Beyond the definitions we have this:
In DC the term integral overcurrent protection is described as such:
11.10.1 OVERCURRENT PROTECTION -
11.10.1.8 Integral Overcurrent Protection Devices - Integral overcurrent protection devices without a manual reset may be used as an integral part of an electrical device provided the rest of the circuit is protected by circuit breaker meeting E-11.10.1.6 or fuses meeting E-11.10.1.7The AC Over-Current section then describes this (after Integral Over-Current has been described previously under DC)
11.10.2.1 Circuit breakers shall meet the requirements of UL 489, Molded Case Circuit Protectors For Circuit Breaker Enclosures, or UL 1077, Supplementary Protectors For Use In Electrical Equipment, or IEC 60898, Circuit Breakers for Overcurrent Protection for Household and Similar Installations Part 2 Circuit Breakers for AC and DC Operations, or IEC 60947-2, Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear – Part 2: Circuit Breakers or IEC 60934, Circuit Breakers for Equipment and
11.10.2.1.1 shall be of the manually reset trip-free type, and
11.10.2.1.2 shall be capable of an interrupting capacity in accordance with TABLE IV -B.
EXCEPTION to 11.10.2.1: Integral overcurrent protection in electrical devices.If one is going to argue that the SP does not meet ABYC because the thermal-switch is teh same as a an over-current circuit break, a huge stretch, and that it automatically resets and that's an issue, then they have clearly missed the EXCEPTIONS in E-11 which do allow for automatically resetting breakers inside electrical devices. The Thermal switch resides "inside" the device but it is still not a
circuit breaker despite even this being allowed under E-11..
Here are some other
facts to consider if one is worried:
#1 The ABYC has never published an RFI (request for interpretation) stating the SmartPlug with thermal-switch does not meet E-11. This has not stopped
some individuals, one or two really, from
surmising, on their own, that it does not meet the standard. If you're wondering
why there has been no official ABYC RFI published in regards to the thermal switch examine what I have shown above.
#2 Imanna Labs tested the SmartPlug, even with the thermal Switch, and emphatically states that it meets the ABYC performance standards of E-11 as well as NFPA 302 and UL 817 w supplement SA and USCG CFR 33 Chapter 1 Section 183.
#3 Ed Sherman ABYC VP & head of education has been a very vocal proponent of the SmartPlug and this his statements are well publicized on this topic.
Quote = Ed Sherman ABYC VP 2011:
"The newest type of shore power plugs and sockets are available from Smart Plug. Now's a good time to upgrade your current setup!"Quote = Ed Sherman ABYC VP 2012:
"The SmartPlug also incorporates several features not found on other shore-power connectors: a built-in single-pole opening thermal switch. But ABYC requires double-pole opening for circuit interruption to ensure power is off even with reverse polarity, which means a standard-compliant boat would still need double-pole protection on-board."Every boat should already have a double pole main breaker. What he is saying is that the only way your boat would be non-compliant would be if you lacked a double pole main breaker. You'd also be non-compliant with a twist-lock so in reality the thermal-switch did not change anything and you still need double pole overcurrent protection...
#4 The SmartPlug has also been tested by ETL to UL performance requirements and is CE certified..
Exceeded 2000 Character Limit to be continued:
Second part:
Quote from: KWKloeber
As of today (until ABYC changes 11.13.3.2 and Figure 12,) even the "current" (no pun) SP is non-compliant
11.6.2.2 SHORE POWER
11.6.2.2.1 Shore Power Cable
11.6.2.2.1.2 Except where the shore power cable is permanently connected to the boat, the boat end of this cable shall be terminated with a locking and grounding female type connector to match the boat power inlet (see FIGURE 12 and FIGURE 13).
11.6.2.2.1.3 The shore power cable shall be flexible cord with the minimum properties of Type SOW, STW, STOW, SEOW, or STOOW, and shall be suitable for outdoor use. The shore connection end of this cable shall be fitted with a locking and grounding type plug with the required number of poles and shall comply with Article 555 of the National Electrical Code (see FIGURE 12 and TABLE VII-A).
The green portion of these sections are the "performance based" parts of E-11 for shore cords or the
requirements. There is no requirement (shall, must etc.) for the cord end
at the vessel to twist-lock or be of twist-lock type nor to match FIGURE 12. The statement in 11.6.2.2.1.2 (See FIGURE 12) are examples based on when the standard was last updated. Examples are not performance based requirements. Because the ABYC can not promote a product, and the SmartPlug is proprietary, they can't show the pin configuration. The standard also can't exclude it hence the image #12 for the boat end is only showing "examples" and they are not part of the performance requirement. This is whey there is no "shall" or "must" for the
boat end like there is for the shore end, which currently needs to comply with NEC/NFPA. When we drop down to 11.6.2.1.3 the key here is that the "shore end" needs to comply with land based standards hence the term "shall comply". SmartPlug is still working on the shore end and is working with NFPA and the NEC on this front. Right now it is only boat end.
The E-11 performance based requirements for the cord and inlet at the
boat end are:
* flexible cord with the minimum properties of Type SOW, STW, STOW, SEOW, or STOOW, and shall be suitable for outdoor use
* the boat end of this cable shall be terminated with a locking and grounding female type connector to match the boat power inlet
The SmartPlug meets all the
performance based criteria above and both Dave B. at ABYC and Ed Sherman, ABYC VP, have both confirmed this. There is no requirement for the locking mechanism to "twist" just that the inlet and cord end lock, have grounding be a female cord end and match.
Quote from: KWKloeberTo pass a "good" survey, very technically speaking, the old SP MUST be removed and replaced with a twist-lock. Then, after ABYC changes 11.13.3.2 a breaker-less SP can be installed.
See above...
Quote from: KWKloeberAccolades were sung about and X-number of (10? 20? 30? x?) SmartPlugs were installed when, although they were 'better', they were CLEARLY non compliant at that time!!
Website write ups and in a plethora of blog posts, never stated "These dang things are non compliant and are not recommended <wink>, but if you think they are for you it's YBYC, and go for it if you want to be non-compliant <wink>."[/color]
Why would that need stating when Imanna labs, ABYC VP Ed Sherman & the verbiage in the standard are all not suggesting there is an issue? When we actual examine the verbiage in the standard it would be a grievous stretch, inclusive of "definition manipulation", to come to the conclusion the thermal switch is not compliant. This is shown above using actual standards text. Thermal switches are simply not covered, they are also not overcurrent protection devices.
If we are attempting to re-define a thermal switch, to be an overcurrent breaker, then even an auto-reset circuit breaker is allowed under the EXCEPTION to 11.10.2.1.. If the E-11 committee wanted to issue a written RFI stating otherwise, they do have the ability to over-ride their own written words. Hypocritical if they did? Probably... So far this has not been done, so all we can go on are the words we have on paper which don't address thermal switches nor exclude them.
Quote from: KWKloeberI'm not turning this personal and have bit my tongue until now, BUT.... one cannot fight to the death that "the way it's written on paper" is the "only way it shall be done." Yet recommend that owners should buy and install a non-compliant product, because "it's better." As you say, non-compliance is non-compliance period.
But when we don't interpret the standard based on how it's written we run a risk of incorrect conclusions. Again, there has been no RFI issued on the SmartPlug and the committee, I suspect, would have a very hard time reading their own verbiage and coming to that conclusion. Regardless, SmartPlug removed the thermal-switch and the 50A never even had one so the question, at this juncture is pretty much moot...
Quote from: KWKloeberYes, SPs were and are better, and yes, it made sense, but a non-compliant product was still installed in clear non-compliance with ABYC. I'd say you'll have a busy winter with big economic loss removing and replacing all those with a breaker-less model that they sold to customers!! <wiknk, wink>
See above...
Quote from: KWKloeberOr will they be replaced only if the boat fails an insurance survey? Or not at all?
What if more AC work is done on the same boat -- will the old SP get ripped out and a new installed?
Any surveyor has plenty of evidence that the SmartPlug is safe and compliant. The ABYC's VP is out glowingly advocating for the product (including mentioning it in my last ABYC CE course). So all one has to do is point to that or the standard which, as written, does not exclude it.
Quote from: KWKloeberThat would be erring on the safe side because the auto-resets are, and will continue to be not allowed. Or, will old SPs be left in place because common sense says the auto reset is okay and economically it make no sense at all? There goes that common sense sneaking in again. Should everyone else who installed a SP themselves remove theirs? No, because it doesn't make "sense."
If you examine what I wrote above including the "exceptions" I think you'll see why there has never been an RFI stating the SmartPlug is non-compliant. Sure there have been a few individuals stating such, without verifiable merit, but no official RFI from the electrical board.
Quote from: KWKloeberPS, And I'm not sure the old SP is "better." One could conjure up scenarios where an auto reset could be an a problem, without a telltale to identify an issue.
Ah the Darrell & Darrell scenario the one or two guys who are against the thermal switch talk about. I discuss this in my article but I'll post it here.
The argument against SmartPlug's thermal switch, while made with good intention and without verbiage to back it up, 100% ignores, and looks the other way on "auto-transferring inverters" as well as other examples of thermal protection or autor resetting breakers in devices that are allowed under E-11.
The argument against the thermal switch:Boat owner Darrell, & his other brother Darrell, wake in the middle of the night to find no AC power? Darrell & Darrell find no electricity at the AC panels AC volt meter. Darrell #1 opens the AC panel at the same exact moment the thermal switch cools and re-sets. Darrell #1 gets zapped.
While, in theory, this could
possibly happen, we should remember that at least Darrell & Darrell were still alive to actually open that AC panel before a twist-lock shore cord burned them alive in their sleep & before it moved onto engulfing the rest of the marina.
In a situation like this the first step in trouble shooting is to always unplug from shore power before opening the AC panel. The argument, statistically, is very low level and would be extremely rare compared to numerous other situations which we currently allow to continue without a; "does not meet ABYC" statement from certain individuals all this while lacking an official RFI.
I have seen a similar type of scenario created with numerous worn or corroded sockets on shore power cords presenting intermittent AC power as the boat rocks back and forth. I have physically dealt with this on a number of occasions yet the standard has no way to prevent this. In many cases, when I unplug, I find the shore cord or inlet physically melted & close to starting a fire.
What about auto-transfer Inverters & human safety?: The same argument used in the above scenario, by one or two people in the ABYC, to suggest that the SmartPlug is not compliant with E-11, can also be used with auto-transfer inverters.
An automatic transferring inverter can create the same exact Darrell & Darrell scenario painted above. The potential for the same type of situation, that has been used by one or two guys against the SmartPlugs thermal-switch, occurs every day with thousands upon thousands of installed auto-transfer inverters yet this gets ignored completely? Why? Beccause standards are not perfect and never will be.
If it is unsafe for a shore cord to resume operation after it shuts down on a thermal event (see AC Exception), while already being protected by a pedestal breaker and a double pole on-board breaker, and this occurs due to a thermal switch that E-11 does not technically cover, why is it "safe" for an inverter to create AC power automatically when the shore cord is physically unplugged from the vessel. Should this not also be a mandatory manual transfer switch over?
I believe those few ABYC individuals are acting grossly hypocritical to the SmartPlug when they try to discredit it based on incorrect use of definitions and failing to accoutn for allowed EXCEPTIONS to the auto-reset rule.
There is however one major difference between the two scenarios previously described. In the SmartPlug scenario Darrell & Darrell had to forget to physically unplug from shore power. With an auto-transfer inverter Darrell & Darrell can physically un-plug and thus may "expect" no AC power behind the panel when in fact the inverter has automatically inverted.
Sadly there are far too many boat owners out there who have zero clue how their inverters work or that they automatically transfer for that matter. Is this safe? I suspect this is arguably less safe than the thermal protection device in the SmartPlug, which would arguably save more lives than it would ever endanger.
Of course all of this
surmising assumes the SmartPlug would actually get to 200F (failure #1) then Darrell & Darrell would forget to unplug (failure #2) then at the exact moment the thermal switch re-engages Darrell would have his fingers across a live AC junction (failure #3). That's a lot of what if assumptions.
I have had some inverters take me, not just a boat owner, 10-15 minutes to figure out how to shut off the auto invert feature then a few weeks later I get a call that it is auto-inverting again. Safe? Heck I do this every day and some of this info is buried so far in menus that it's absurd.
While we are on the "what if scenarios" here's another: Darrell #1 goes to the dock pedestal and UNPLUGS the shore cord. He yells down to Darrell #2 "Okay it's unplugged!" Darrell #2 opens the AC panel, and ZAP (failure #1) !!!! Oooops the inverter transferred AUTOMATICALLY.
I find it really odd for one or two members of the ABYC to argue against the Smart Plug 30A (the 50A never had one but this was never stated by these one or two individuals, just "not compliant") without also arguing against auto-transfer inverters, or the many other devices out there that have thermal protection built in which meet the DC and AC exceptions.?
Lets Look At A-31:31.4.3 Automatically Controlled - Controlled within the design specifications and parameters with no operator intervention and/or allows the operator the ability to change the operating parameters of the device to provide output that does not exceed the design specifications.
Under A-31 inverters are automatically allowed to invert when shore power is unplugged. This type of "automation" only requires a small warning placard. If the one or two guys out there stating what is arguably misinformation about the SmartPlug with thermal breaker, do you suppose they considered suggesting the same treatment, a small placard??
If it is okay for an inverter to auto transfer when the shore cord is disconnected and a small "warning placard" suffices it is simply a hypocritical argument to not suggest equal treatment for the SmartPlug? Of course any of the anti SmartPlug
agenda hinges on incorrect interpretations of the actual verbiage in E-11 to begin with and as stated no RIF has ever been issued..
Quote from: KWKloeberAnd we always must err on the safe side when there's an option. Well then ABYC needs to make a wholesale switch away from twist locks, correct? Is it doing that? Obviously not. So maybe ABYC isn't necessarily always "correct"?
No the ABYC is not always correct, perfect etc. nor is any standards organization. I recently fired off a multi-page document for the 2018 release of E-11. I will be lucky to see even a single change.
None of the standards organizations are perfect. Heck I have nearly three years invested into a new ABYC standard and the standard still won't be ideal when it lands. Standards are very tough to write especially with new technology popping up every day. We can't write to exclude things and we must write for performance based criteria. If we go back to the original point, the ABYC does not suggest or define what type of enclosure/box, be required nor does it require enclosure certifications etc. just that the box must be an "enclosure" and require the used of hand tools to open. Your box mounted back side satisfies this requirement because you meet the performance criteria, the wire is in an enclosure that requires tools to access.
Receptacles shall be of the grounding type with a terminal provided for the grounding (green) conductor as shown in ..... FIGURE 13.............
I think I "mistyped" -- should have been be Figure "13" for power cords/inlets.
Sounds pretty definitive to me. No leeway. No "for example, see" or "among others."
Shall be (in the case of 30 amp shore cord) a NEMA L5-30 (twist lock) end. SPs did not meet that requirement when they were installed or do they currently. But I'd still install one, with or without a thermal breaker.
It's interesting to follow how, when one believes in a code requirement, it can be defended by among other things "because it's code." But when one disagrees with a code requirement or allowance, it can be argued to the death using "common sense." I really don't want to start hiking down this path, but a Darryl/Darryl, one-in-a-million chance-of-happening, scenario could likewise be used to defend ABYC eliminating the negative buss bonding requirement, if GFCIs and an ELCI are installed.
FACT: A splice kit that is designed to be as safe and as robust (actually more robust) than the UF cable/sheath it's on, is no less safe when used on a NM cable. It's just "not allowed, because...." This has nothing to do with needing hand tools to get at it, it's a different different animal than open terminals and fingers (which the "hand tools" speaks to.) One cannot refute that fact that it's "as safe," or explain how it is more dangerous than something more easily damaging the NM cable that's right next to that splice.
kk
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 07, 2017, 09:07:53 AM
Receptacles shall be of the grounding type with a terminal provided for the grounding (green) conductor as shown in ..... FIGURE 13.............
I think I "mistyped" -- should have been be Figure "13" for power cords/inlets.
Sounds pretty definitive to me. No leeway. No "for example, see" or "among others."
Shall be (in the case of 30 amp shore cord) a NEMA L5-30 (twist lock) end. SPs did not meet that requirement when they were installed or do they currently. But I'd still install one, with or without a thermal breaker.
Read very carefully what I wrote and outlined.. You're referencing
the shore connection end" of the cordset not the boat side....
11.6.2.2.1.3 The shore power cable shall be flexible cord with the minimum properties of Type SOW, STW, STOW, SEOW, or STOOW, and shall be suitable for outdoor use. The
shore connection end of this cable shall be fitted with a locking and grounding type plug with the required number of poles and shall comply with Article 555 of the National Electrical Code (see FIGURE 12 and TABLE VII-A).
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 07, 2017, 09:07:53 AMFACT: A splice kit that is designed to be as safe and as robust (actually more robust) than the UF cable/sheath it's on, is no less safe when used on a NM cable. It's just "not allowed, because...." This has nothing to do with needing hand tools to get at it, it's a different different animal than open terminals and fingers (which the "hand tools" speaks to.) One cannot refute that fact that it's "as safe," or explain how it is more dangerous than something more easily damaging the NM cable that's right next to that splice.
Would that splice kit be allowable under NFPA 70 / NEC for an AC termination inside your house or would the NEC require a junction box? Would you make that sort of AC splice inside your own house or addition or kitchen remodel, before an electrical inspector was to visit for a CO?
You are trying to compare an underground cable splice kit to an above ground standard which has its roots firmly derived from NFPA 70/ NEC. IIRC correctly the requirements for enclosure, on AC systems, are directly derived from NFPA/NEC with some less stringent "enclosure" requirements.
I've never once said it is not safe or may be less safe just corrected your point about it meeting the standards requirements, which it does not. All this discussion over a $6.00 plastic box......
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 07, 2017, 09:07:53 AMIt's interesting to follow how, when one believes in a code requirement, it can be defended by among other things "because it's code." But when one disagrees with a code requirement or allowance, it can be argued to the death using "common sense." I really don't want to start hiking down this path, but a Darryl/Darryl, one-in-a-million chance-of-happening, scenario could likewise be used to defend ABYC eliminating the negative buss bonding requirement, if GFCIs and an ELCI are installed.
I don't believe I have ever offered any
personal opinion pro or con regarding the AC/DC bond when an ELCI is installed other than to say that it is
technically required under E-11, even with an ELCI installed.
My personal opinion or common sense matters little on this subject because the standard is the standard. It is the ABYC standard whether you or I like it or agree with it entirely or not. I can tell you there are lots of areas I disagree with the ABYC on yet I still can't ignore the standards requirements unless I am exceeding them.
In many cases where I disagree they fall short of what I consider a
safe practice so I exceed them. A good example of this is the crimp pull standard which is simply pathetic. I have been pushing for this to be addressed for a while, perhaps in 2018... I would never settle for the ABYC crimp pull numbers and choose to exceed the standard, by a lot.
The European ISO/RCD does allow for unbonding with an RCD (still required without one) but of course that code is Federal law and I am pretty certain most boat owners in the US would rather see a voluntary standard than a forced Federal code when it comes to their boats. I really don't think US boaters want that can-o-worms opened up (though rumor is Canada may be getting it as law).
I have tirelessly
explained the ABYC
reasoning behind why the ABYC chose to keep the bond. I have tried to explain this when others are advising DIY's publicly to ignore the ABYC, and it is what it is.
Whether or not I actually agree with it is inconsequential to the discussion of compliance with the safety standard. There are many ways to make a boat safe with regard to AC systems but many of them won't pass standards muster. Heck my buddy Dave has a 230 year old barn that is still standing. There is nothing about it that meets current legal building codes and he could not rebuild it the same way today, if it burned down. Does this make it an unsafe barn? Not at all it just does not meet building code. Does your splice make it "unsafe"? Nope, just means it does not meet accepted safety codes which you asserted it does. If you wanted to change that portion of the ABYC E-11 standard you'd need to challenge the NFPA/NEC and get it charged there first.
My suggestion to anyone dealing with AC systems to simply follow the accepted ABYC safety standards or to exceed them.
au contraire, mon ami.
Section 1 1 . 1 3 is PLUGS AND RECEPTACLES is NOT specific to shore power posts.
it covers both DC plugs and receptacles (so obviously NOT just shore side plugs and receptacles) and AC plugs and receptacles.
Under 11.13, is 11. 13.2 FOR DC SYSTEMS
AND
11 .. 13.3 FOR AC SYSTEMS
And in fact the "back mounted" cover box is not an approved method (as I said, but is a common sense work around alternative to ripping out the OEM installation) due to
11 .. 13.3.1 Receptacles shall be installed in boxes that meet the requirements of.............
SO, merely slapping a box on the back side of the bulkhead to cover the AC receptacle/wires IS NOT, as you said claim would be, an acceptable method.
11.13.3.2 (ie, Figure 13) Receptacles shall be of the grounding type with a terminal provided for the grounding (green) conductor as shown in FIGURE 12, FIGURE 13 and FIGURE 14.
pertains to all AC receptacles. The text doesn't differentiate between shore receptacles or boat side receptacles.
kk
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 07, 2017, 11:07:53 AM
au contraire, mon ami.
Section 1 1 . 1 3 is PLUGS AND RECEPTACLES is NOT specific to shore power posts.
it covers both DC plugs and receptacles (so obviously NOT just shore side plugs and receptacles) and AC plugs and receptacles.
Under 11.13, is 11. 13.2 FOR DC SYSTEMS
AND
11 .. 13.3 FOR AC SYSTEMS
And in fact the "back mounted" cover box is not an approved method (as I said, but is a common sense work around alternative to ripping out the OEM installation) due to
11 .. 13.3.1 Receptacles shall be installed in boxes that meet the requirements of.............
SO, merely slapping a box on the back side of the bulkhead to cover the AC receptacle/wires IS NOT, as you said claim would be, an acceptable method.
11.13.3.2 (ie, Figure 13) Receptacles shall be of the grounding type with a terminal provided for the grounding (green) conductor as shown in FIGURE 12, FIGURE 13 and FIGURE 14.
pertains to all AC receptacles. The text doesn't differentiate between shore receptacles or boat side receptacles.
kk
Ken,
The shore end of a shore power cord falls under the LAND BASED STANDARDS. The boat end does not.
The wording is very clear on this. Shore power cords have their own section beginning at 11.6.2.2 SHORE POWER..
The shore connection end is NOT the boat end...
11.6.2.2 SHORE POWER
11.6.2.2.1 Shore Power Cable
11.6.2.2.1.2 Except where the shore power cable is permanently connected to the boat, the boat end of this cable shall be terminated with a locking and grounding female type connector to match the boat power inlet (see FIGURE 12 and FIGURE 13).
11.6.2.2.1.3 The shore power cable shall be flexible cord with the minimum properties of Type SOW, STW, STOW, SEOW, or STOOW, and shall be suitable for outdoor use. The shore connection end of this cable shall be fitted with a locking and grounding type plug with the required number of poles and shall comply with Article 555 of the National Electrical Code (see FIGURE 12 and TABLE VII-A).
You know with as much time as you put in pouring over the standards you really should get trained & become a certified tech and then get on one of sub committees or email dist lists for standards dev. You'd learn a great deal about interpreting them, how they are created and how and where they stem from. You don't get paid anything but its a good experience....
Quote from: mainesail on February 07, 2017, 10:02:19 AMDoes your splice make it "unsafe"? Nope, just means it does not meet accepted safety codes which you asserted it does. If you wanted to change that portion of the ABYC E-11 standard you'd need to challenge the NFPA/NEC and get it charged there first.
Rod, I'm really confused, you have my head spinning --- you seem to have taken a 180.
First, you at least inferred that an AC splice, outside an enclosure, was a "shock hazard" (citing the ABYC language "shock hazard.") Maybe you personally didn't believe that to be true, but reinforced that with the comment that UF cable splices were at ground potential (so not a shock hazard as they would be on a boat?)
Then, that every AC splice must be in an enclosure,
ABYC E-11 standard is no different than NFPA 70/NEC standards in that any AC splice must be in an enclosure. Which is not true, and I pointed out an underground splice.
And, I take exception that using "splice" and "termination" are interchangeable. Thus:
ABYC Training Manual (Current ABYC Electrical Training Manual)
"It is still sometimes necessary, however, to make
splices in AC wire runs. When doing so, make all AC
terminations inside appropriate enclosures that can only be accessed with the use of hand tools."
I read, and you may interpret it differently, that
"splice" is generic -- (i.e., sometimes necessary to not have one complete run of wire.)
"terminations" speaks to one precise and specific method. A wire spliced according to NEC splices on UF cables is
NOT a wire termination.
Again I read, and you may interpret it differently, that am enclosure is required for "shock protection" as ABYC text clearly states, because of the possibility of contacting open terminals. The thought that it's thrust is to require enclosing an alternate, perfectly safe, method of joining wires, due to a :shock hazard" by that alternate method, is not common sense.
So (putting smart plugs aside,) what (I think, as I re-read the last post) this boils down to is that:
1) You now agree such a splice (as on UF cable) is as safe, but that ABYC just doesn't allow them. 'nuf said on that.
2) You now agree that a slapped on back cover on a receptacle does not meet ABYC.
2) You interpret the term "wire terminations" to include "splices."
3) Whereas I say, a "wire termination" is not a "wire splice."
I disagree on your interpretation, and feel that you're reading something into "splice" that is not explicitly stated in ABYC. I maintain that ABYC doesn't dissallow splices outside a box as a method -- it simply doesn't speak to the method, it only speaks to "terminating" two AC wires inside a box [joining those terminations using a boss or strip.] And I support that interpretation with "common sense" examples comparing the shock hazard of open "terminations" vs. (as you have agreed is a safe) properly done "splice," and if NEC allows it, then there's a case to be made that it should also be acceptable on a boat.
kk
Rod, even your "shore cord" citation supports exactly what I am saying....
Quote from: mainesail on February 07, 2017, 11:16:06 AM
11.6.2.2.1.2 Except where the shore power cable is permanently connected to the boat, the boat end of this cable shall be terminated with a locking and grounding female type connector to match the boat power inlet (see FIGURE 12 and FIGURE 13).
The BOAT end of a SP cable
DOES not conform to Figure 13. Change Fig 13 if you want to, but SP cable end doesn't meet what ABYC specifically requires/states.
And 11 ..
13.3.1 speaks to ALL receptacles, it does not exempt boat-side receptacles/inlets. Where does section 13 exempt that receptacle? A SP receptacle is not a 5L-30 as in Fig 13.
Let's take another tack -- Alternately, where does ABYC state that OTHER than Fig 13, and a NEMA plug/socket is acceptable?
In fact, taken together, "receptacles" and the "shore power cord" sections are complimentary (and understandable common-sense-wise, say the same thing and are not contradictory) -- the boat end has be as shown on Fig 13. e.g. a 5L-30 for 30 amp.
There's no leeway given to use a different configuration. if there is leeway, where is it stated? Forget the cable/sheath standards, that's fluff to the discussion.
If the code was silent on, or stated that the cord end and inlet has to only be "compatible," or meet some performance standard, there would be leeway to use a configuration OTHER than a NEMA (per Figure 13.)
kk
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 07, 2017, 12:08:30 PM
First, you at least inferred that an AC splice, outside an enclosure, was a "shock hazard" (citing the ABYC language "shock hazard.") Maybe you personally didn't believe that to be true, but reinforced that with the comment that UF cable splices were at ground potential (so not a shock hazard as they would be on a boat?)
Ken,
Please answer my question about NFPA 70/NEC allowing that splice ABOVE GROUND. Unless your vessel is sitting on the bottom of the ocean there is no correlation between the two and you are comparing apples to t-bone steak. Your boat is not below ground or sunk you inhabit it.
I responded with ABYC wording (below) which is very clear and is the standard regardless of the termination type you choose or how safe you deem it to be. NEC does not allow for that splice above ground and nor does the ABYC because that portion is derrived from the land based standards.
.
ABYC E-11
"11.14.4.3 INSTALLATION - AC
11.14.4.3.1 All connections normally carrying current shall be made in enclosures to protect against shock hazards."
Then, that every AC splice must be in an enclosure,
ABYC E-11 standard is no different than NFPA 70/NEC standards in that any AC splice must be in an enclosure. Which is not true, and I pointed out an underground splice.
If you really can't comprehend the difference between an underground or well type splice and why the NFPA/NEC mandates boxes in structures then I can't help you.
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 07, 2017, 12:08:30 PM"And, I take exception that using "splice" and "termination" are interchangeable. Thus:
ABYC Training Manual (Current ABYC Electrical Training Manual)
"It is still sometimes necessary, however, to make splices in AC wire runs. When doing so, make all AC terminations inside appropriate enclosures that can only be accessed with the use of hand tools."
I read, and you may interpret it differently, that "splice" is generic -- (i.e., sometimes necessary to not have one complete run of wire.) "terminations" speaks to one precise and specific method. A wire spliced according to NEC splices on UF cables is NOT a wire termination. Again I read, and you may interpret it differently, that am enclosure is required for "shock protection" as ABYC text clearly states, because of the possibility of contacting open terminals. The thought that it's thrust is to require enclosing an alternate, perfectly safe, method of joining wires, due to a :shock hazard" by that alternate method, is not common sense.
So (putting smart plugs aside,) what (I think, as I re-read the last post) this boils down to is that:
1) You now agree such a splice (as on UF cable) is as safe, but that ABYC just doesn't allow them. 'nuf said on that.
2) You now agree that a slapped on back cover on a receptacle does not meet ABYC.
2) You interpret the term "wire terminations" to include "splices."
3) Whereas I say, a "wire termination" is not a "wire splice."
I disagree on your interpretation, and feel that you're reading something into "splice" that is not explicitly stated in ABYC. I maintain that ABYC doesn't dissallow splices outside a box as a method -- it simply doesn't speak to the method, it only speaks to "terminating" two AC wires inside a box [joining those terminations using a boss or strip.] And I support that interpretation with "common sense" examples comparing the shock hazard of open "terminations" vs. (as you have agreed is a safe) properly done "splice," and if NEC allows it, then there's a case to be made that it should also be acceptable on a boat.
kk
It has become apparent that you just want to argue what you "think" or "want" the ABYC E-11 standard to be saying. I'll pm my number...
Rod,
Sorry I must have missed your specific question. for chrissake NEC allows a (WORSE!!!) virtually unprotected splice (ie a tyco splice) outside an enclosure in a an aboveground structure. I can't say whether a "protected" splice as on UF cable would be allowed. I'm not saying that I'd EVER DO a tyco splice, in fact I previously said that I wouldn't.
Look, it revolves around reading something into a code that isn't explicitly stated, which happens with virtually every law and regulation once they are issued.
There's nowhere that clearly states that a "wire termination" is the same as a "splice" or vice versa. As further evidence of terminations vs. splices the code requires DC wire terminations (i.e. on a strip) on strips where terminals cannot be physically shorted. It obviously doesn't (and wouldn't make sense to include wire splices (butt crimps) in that category of wire terminations.
And, although it's for DC, the code speaks to and differentates between a splice -- 11.14.5.3 -- ("conductor to conductor") and terminations ( "conductor to terminals") a splice is clearly called out differently than a termination. And the AC enclosure requirement is called out for terminations (wire-to-terminal, not wire-to-wire) splices.
You interpret that a "wire termination" is the same as a "splice." I do not, and if something isn't precluded, then it's allowed. \
Let's just agree to disagree? My brain is getting fried with what is a difference of opinion on something that the code does not explicitly cover or state in its verbatim text.
kk
Quote from: KWKloeber on February 07, 2017, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: mainesail on February 07, 2017, 10:02:19 AMDoes your splice make it "unsafe"? Nope, just means it does not meet accepted safety codes which you asserted it does. If you wanted to change that portion of the ABYC E-11 standard you'd need to challenge the NFPA/NEC and get it charged there first.
Rod, I'm really confused, you have my head spinning --- you seem to have taken a 180.
First, you at least inferred that an AC splice, outside an enclosure, was a "shock hazard" (citing the ABYC language "shock hazard.") Maybe you personally didn't believe that to be true, but reinforced that with the comment that UF cable splices were at ground potential (so not a shock hazard as they would be on a boat?)
Then, that every AC splice must be in an enclosure,
ABYC E-11 standard is no different than NFPA 70/NEC standards in that any AC splice must be in an enclosure. Which is not true, and I pointed out an underground splice.
And, I take exception that using "splice" and "termination" are interchangeable. Thus:
ABYC Training Manual (Current ABYC Electrical Training Manual)
"It is still sometimes necessary, however, to make splices in AC wire runs. When doing so, make all AC terminations inside appropriate enclosures that can only be accessed with the use of hand tools."
I read, and you may interpret it differently, that "splice" is generic -- (i.e., sometimes necessary to not have one complete run of wire.) "terminations" speaks to one precise and specific method. A wire spliced according to NEC splices on UF cables is NOT a wire termination. Again I read, and you may interpret it differently, that am enclosure is required for "shock protection" as ABYC text clearly states, because of the possibility of contacting open terminals. The thought that it's thrust is to require enclosing an alternate, perfectly safe, method of joining wires, due to a :shock hazard" by that alternate method, is not common sense.
So (putting smart plugs aside,) what (I think, as I re-read the last post) this boils down to is that:
1) You now agree such a splice (as on UF cable) is as safe, but that ABYC just doesn't allow them. 'nuf said on that.
2) You now agree that a slapped on back cover on a receptacle does not meet ABYC.
2) You interpret the term "wire terminations" to include "splices."
3) Whereas I say, a "wire termination" is not a "wire splice."
I disagree on your interpretation, and feel that you're reading something into "splice" that is not explicitly stated in ABYC. I maintain that ABYC doesn't dissallow splices outside a box as a method -- it simply doesn't speak to the method, it only speaks to "terminating" two AC wires inside a box [joining those terminations using a boss or strip.] And I support that interpretation with "common sense" examples comparing the shock hazard of open "terminations" vs. (as you have agreed is a safe) properly done "splice," and if NEC allows it, then there's a case to be made that it should also be acceptable on a boat.
kk
Kk, let me explained in a language I'm sure you will understand. If I hired you to wire my boat and you spliced a one foot AC extension on my boat, rather than replacing ten foot of piece of wire... I would not pay you.
If you got away with it...
Some day a surveyor is going to do an inspection. He/she is going to see your suspect splices. They are not going to be signed by the wizard who did them and they will have no tags referencing this thread.
He's going to flag it, he's going to say its a hazard and recommend it be done properly. You won't be there to argue.
That wasn't really the discussion, was it?
Of course there's a practical aspect of whether any inspector interprets any code as another one does, and challengine them when they go overboard (it does happen by the way.)
As I said, if I did that, I'd stick it inside a pc of flex conduit (and then call to the surveyor's attention how how I went overboard and protected what I thought might be a possible hazard of having an exposed NM cable in a locker, and graciously accept his accolades.) LOL!!
There's different ways to skin a surveyor and, unfortunately, half of them don't even open a locker except to say whether it's dirty and needs cleaning.
If I were getting paid for it, I wouldn't do it that way either. But that's a different animal/discussion!
kk
Quote from: lazybone on February 07, 2017, 03:37:54 PM
Kk, let me explained in a language I'm sure you will understand. If I hired you to wire my boat and you spliced a one foot AC extension on my boat, rather than replacing ten foot of piece of wire... I would not pay you.
If you got away with it...
Some day a surveyor is going to do an inspection. He/she is going to see your suspect splices. They are not going to be signed by the wizard who did them and they will have no tags referencing this thread.
He's going to flag it, he's going to say its a hazard and recommend it be done properly. You won't be there to argue.
Wow, did this topic take on a life of its own. Thanks all for the input, suggestions, and advice.
I finally got some free time to go down to the boat yesterday. It was raining the whole time which gave me perfect opportunity to look for leaks which is where most of my time yesterday was spent. It was worth it though as I finally found the source of water in the bilge!!! Because of that, I didn't finish the electrical work as I had intended. Next weekend hopefully.
So, I traced the entire run of the AC wire going from the inlet to the electrical panel. Thank you everyone for helping with that. I thought I had check inside the head cabinets be obviously didn't check thoroughly enough.
The existing wire is only 12 gauge so I'll be replacing the whole run with 10 gauge and it should not be too difficult now that I've traced the wire.
Thanks again everyone.