Catalina 34

General Activities => Main Message Board => Topic started by: Jon W on October 23, 2015, 06:07:57 PM

Title: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on October 23, 2015, 06:07:57 PM
Getting ready for the next big event. I’ve looked through lots of info on this site and others, have copied others ideas, modified to fit my needs and attached a draft schematic to this post.

Currently I have little to no electronics installed on the boat. However, one of the next projects is to add electronics (radar, chart plotter, wind/speed instruments, depth), and auto helm. So need a design that will accommodate.

The wire and fuse sizes in the attached are a blend of what I found in others schematics. Not sure they are correct for my application. I’d like to take advantage of all of the experience and knowledge on this forum, and get feedback on the attached first draft. What did I miss, where am I over or under designed? Thanks for all of your help and insight.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on October 23, 2015, 08:14:21 PM
Jon,

Very nice job.  Well done.

You forgot the starter off the C post.

No comments on wire sizes or fuses.  With everything in the "Electrical Systems 101" topic, you should be able to and most likely have done that.

Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on October 23, 2015, 08:32:05 PM
The start solenoid label off the C post of the 1-2-B switch is meant to represent the starter.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on October 23, 2015, 09:48:16 PM
The start solenoid label off the C post of the 1-2-B switch is meant to represent the starter.

Sorry, I missed it.

Doh...:D
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on October 24, 2015, 01:54:35 PM
*I'd really like to see all battery wiring 2/0

*Alt fuse is too small, should be 150% of alt rating

*Battery fuses are a bit on the small side for engine starting, I like to see 250A minimum

*SmartGauge should ideally be wire across house bank not just off first set

*30A fuse on 4GA starter cable won't last very long. Start cable should be protected by the battery fuses this is why 2/0 is important all the way through the system so it can be well protected by the bank fuse

*I'd prefer to see some consolidation of the negatives. Perhaps home run start and engine ground to batt compartment busbar

*You could probably do away with the start battery positive busbar and just place Echo and feed to switch on load side of ANL fuse and SG on battery post side or battery post....

Looks like a very good diagram overall...!
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on October 24, 2015, 02:04:51 PM
Thanks for the quick response. What about the alternator output to the house bank?

"all battery at 2/0" would include from the house bank and reserve bank buss's to the 1-2-B switch, and from the starter to "C" post on the 1-2-B switch? What do you mean by "home run" start for negatives?

I need to look closer at length of runs to match 3% voltage drop and where to run them, but not sure all that large 2/0 wire has room to be run.  Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on October 24, 2015, 05:25:52 PM
...................What about the alternator output to the house bank?

"all battery at 2/0" would include from the house bank and reserve bank buss's to the 1-2-B switch, and from the starter to "C" post on the 1-2-B switch? What do you mean by "home run" start for negatives?

I need to look closer at length of runs to match 3% voltage drop and where to run them, but not sure all that large 2/0 wire has room to be run.  Jon W.

Jon,

Here's a discussion Maine Sail & I had over on co.com about wire sizing.

http://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/alternator-b-to-starter-post-or-combine-post.170778/page-2 (http://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/alternator-b-to-starter-post-or-combine-post.170778/page-2)

The basic concept is BOTH voltage drop AND fusing.  You might want to read both pages of that link.

That is covered well in the referenced Blue Sea tables, available in their reference library.

Here's another one (scroll up to the top and then down to read Main Sail's excellent contributions):

http://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/old-battery-cable.135133/ (http://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/old-battery-cable.135133/)

Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on October 25, 2015, 02:13:23 PM
Jon,
Great work so far. I designed an electrical retrofit for my brother who owns a C34 in San Diego. In the process I engaged in lots of discussions with other forum members including MaineSail and Stu and am happy to share that.

Couple comments below:
Your #4 AWG wire from the alternator output to the House Battery busbar is undersized with regards to voltage drop for efficient battery charging if using an internally-regulated alternator. The output wire from an internally-regulated alternator has to meet a much tighter spec than other wiring. That is because even a small (0.3v) change in charging voltage significantly impacts charge time/efficiency.

It is extremely important that your alternator deliver the proper charging voltage all the way to the actual batteries. Any uncompensated-for drop will result in slow/undercharging of your batteries, which is the leading cause of premature failure.

There are two ways to address:

  1) Run sufficiently heavy wiring from the alternator to the batteries on both the positive and negative (ground) side so that the voltage delivered to the batteries is extremely close to what comes out of the alternator (within 0.2v). If your alternator outputs 80amps (sustained*) and the round-trip path is 20’ (10’ positive and 10’ negative), then you would need to use #1 AWG wire to keep the total drop to 0.2v volts. Even that drop will reduce the bulk charge rate somewhat.

  2) Use a regulator that supports “External Sense” and run the necessary additional sense wire back to the House battery busbar. The sense wire can be very small gauge as it carries almost no current; it’s just used by the regulator to detect the actual voltage at the battery so that the regulator can tell the alternator to increase its output to compensate for the drop across the charging wire from the alternator to the battery. In some cases, where your negative return is undersized, you may need to run the regulator negative back to the battery to get the equivalent of a negative sense lead. See further below for details.

If you implement solution #2 (my recommendation), it’s okay to use your #4 red wire from the alternator to the batteries, as the regulator will adjust the alternator output to produce the proper charge voltage at the battery. However; you still need to address the negative return side. The preferable approach is to make sure the negative cable is heavy enough to introduce less than 0.1v drop at your max sustained charging current (likely 80-90 amps or less). Since you already need to run heavy (at least 1/0) cable from the engine to the batteries to handle the starter current, it’s trivial to run a 1/0 cable from the alternator to the lug/busbar at the engine end of the negative battery cable.
If for any reason, you don’t have a low-enough resistance negative path to maintain its drop to less than 0.1v, you can run the regulator’s negative lead directly to the battery negative (instead of to the alternator). With a 1/0 negative return and carefully implemented connections, however, you should not need to do so.

If you are willing to spend the money and do the proper installation/configuration, I strongly recommend an external regulator that supports external sense, such as the Balmar MC-614. It could easily end up paying for itself in longer battery life. If you go that route, you should install the optional alternator and battery temperature sensors and triple-check that you enter the right configuration parameters for you battery type, etc.

* For this case we only care about the alternator current that will be sustained over many minutes. That’s because it’s about the efficiency of battery charging, not wire heating/safety. A 105A alternator is unlikely to output over 80-90amps for more than a few minutes due to both rising battery voltage and alternator heating.

Notes:
1. The negative path from the Alternator to the Battery negative terminal is at least as important as the red-wire positive path, yet the negative is often overlooked, sometimes relying on the case of the alternator being in electrical contact with the engine block.  It is important that there be a good heavy-gauge wire run from the alternator’s negative output (there should be a bolt on its case) back to the battery (via a busbar or other heavy-duty cable-to-cable connection post is fine).
2. For reference, at 80amps a #4 wire will drop ~0.2v for each 10’ of length.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on October 25, 2015, 10:44:13 PM

Couple comments below:
Your #4 AWG wire from the alternator output to the House Battery busbar is undersized with regards to voltage drop for efficient battery charging if using an internally-regulated alternator. The output wire from an internally-regulated alternator has to meet a much tighter spec than other wiring. That is because even a small (0.3v) change in charging voltage significantly impacts charge time/efficiency.

It is extremely important that your alternator deliver the proper charging voltage all the way to the actual batteries. Any uncompensated-for drop will result in slow/undercharging of your batteries, which is the leading cause of premature failure.

2. For reference, at 80amps a #4 wire will drop ~0.2v for each 10’ of length.

J-Sail,

Is it not true that the OEM internal regulator is simply an on-off switch? 
In other words, it puts the alternator into an "output"  or "no output" condition -- it doesn't control the output current?

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on October 26, 2015, 06:12:29 AM

Couple comments below:
Your #4 AWG wire from the alternator output to the House Battery busbar is undersized with regards to voltage drop for efficient battery charging if using an internally-regulated alternator. The output wire from an internally-regulated alternator has to meet a much tighter spec than other wiring. That is because even a small (0.3v) change in charging voltage significantly impacts charge time/efficiency.

It is extremely important that your alternator deliver the proper charging voltage all the way to the actual batteries. Any uncompensated-for drop will result in slow/undercharging of your batteries, which is the leading cause of premature failure.

2. For reference, at 80amps a #4 wire will drop ~0.2v for each 10’ of length.

J-Sail,

Is it not true that the OEM internal regulator is simply an on-off switch? 
In other words, it puts the alternator into an "output"  or "no output" condition -- it doesn't control the output current?

kk

Ken,

The regulator does essentially control the output current by controlling the duration the field is energized vs. de-energized. This is called PWM regulation and solar controllers and battery chargers do the same. By varying the width (time) of the on and off pulses we get a regulator that holds voltage very, very steady. In early absorption the pulsed on time is much longer than at very high SOC's. The only time it will go to zero output, for long enough for a human to see it, is if another source is driving the limit voltage above the regulators set point. Even at high SOC the PWM time is so fast that even the best and fastest DVM will still show a steady voltage.


I think the main point being made was about voltage drop and everyone only tends to focus on the wire, but terminations, switches, fuses etc. all add to the voltage drop so calculating for wire does not tell the whole "as installed" story...

I tend to use 0.00025 Ohm per connection.... If we count the connections in the typical factory wiring, and include a fuse for house bank wiring, we have about 14 connection points plus the drop across the switch and the fuse..

If we just use the connections we have an approximate 0.0035Ω of additional resistance (this is with near perfect terminations) and then add the fuse and switch and we are looking at roughly 0.004Ω +/- of additional resistance beyond the wire itself... If we assume this is correct, or close, then the terminations switches etc. are adding another .32V of drop at 80A of charge current and even at just 30A we are still dropping an additional 0.12V.

Oh and I've only calculated for the positive side because calculating for the rusty engine block, well......... D'oh.....!!!  :D This is why I hear both pro's and DIY's complain their voltage drop calculations did not work correctly, after they measure the actual voltage drop "as installed". The wire is only part of the problem....

 
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on October 26, 2015, 08:13:18 AM

Ken,

The regulator does essentially control the output current by controlling the duration the field is energized vs. de-energized. This is called PWM regulation and solar controllers and battery chargers do the same. By varying the width (time) of the on and off pulses we get a regulator that holds voltage very, very steady. In early absorption the pulsed on time is much longer than at very high SOC's. The only time it will go to zero output, for long enough for a human to see it, is if another source is driving the limit voltage above the regulators set point. Even at high SOC the PWM time is so fast that even the best and fastest DVM will still show a steady voltage.


RC,

Agreed it's essentially a very, very fast on/off switch, varying the on/off width.  Let's assume a given that the negative connections, etc., are optimized to the point we can't do any more, and that the Alt frame is directly connected to the negative cable (which Jon's is.)   

So we're talking about constant voltage charging -- where primarily the battery controls how much current flows?   

Where I am going with this is, the varying battery resistance (plus obviously the other resistance sources you mention) control the current, and thus the bulk charge time.  Granted you wouldn't want to charge with a 10 awg cable (well Universal wanted us to  :cry4`) but the V drop in the #4 cable is for a limited period, and is decreasing as soon as the battery begins taking on a charge -- resistance begins to increase, and current (and therefore voltage loss) begin to drop.  So, the cable size influences how long it takes to get to bulk charge, but the battery is the throttle after a given period of time?  And the regulator V setting controls whether the battery eventually gets undercharged, or conversely overcharged (This of course ass/u/mes that the battery SOC / available charge time / Alt capacity are such that the bank can reach full charge.)

If one only day/evening sails, has efficient nav lighting, etc., isn't running a 1000 watt boom blaster, no microwave, etc etc, and is back on shore power in a couple hours -- then a #4 should be way sufficient. If one is on a hook, extensively cruises, is relying on the Alt to return all the energy used, then the size of the charge cable is more important.  But because of the other voltage loss sources you noted, an adjustable voltage regulator, which Jon's is (to a limit of course) or a better externally sensed regulator becomes more important than upping the charge cable size.

**aside rant** - all marine/RV alternators should be externally sensed -- hell it's only providing a post and a jumper that one can chose to use or not use!

I maintain that one can't properly pick any single component of an integrated system, unless one has the complete picture -- and in the case of energy use/return (batteries, cables, alternator, shore charger), one has an accurate power and charge budget? Otherwise one might be way over spending or way under providing compared to the needs?

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on October 26, 2015, 09:40:10 AM
Ken,

If you tie to a dock after each sail the alternator performance is really nowhere near as important is when you are out cruising or you reside on a mooring and a dumb regulator can work pretty well for the weekender.

The problem of voltage drop becomes a time, performance & battery health issue. As the battery terminal voltage, at the battery end suffers from votlage drop, you hit absorption voltage considerably earlier in the SOC curve and the charge duration can extend rather dramatically.

A battery that may hit absorption voltage at 82% SOC at 14.4V may hit it absorption at 55% SOC at 13.8V. Once the limiting voltage is attained at the alt end the alt will begin cutting back because it believes it is at target absorption voltage all due to voltage drop.

By the time you get to the high 90's the voltage will have crept up, as current trended down, and will be "almost" good enough but now you have shortened the time in which you are at optimum absorption voltage, though you have theoretically been at it, at the alt end, for a long while already.

This leads to a capacity walk-down effect with each repeated cycle where you don't get back to full and the PSOC walk down will be considerably worse than what you will see with accurate voltage sensing. By the time you shut your engine down you have been robbed of sufficient time at 14.4V - 14.8V, for optimum battery health, as well as leaving considerable Ah's on the table not returned to the battery. If you tie back up to a dock at the end of a day, no big deal, if you don't your batteries will suffer....

For those who have not read it this article delves into why voltages sensing is important if you want optimal charging performance and optimal battery health.

Voltage Sensing - Why It is Important (http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing)


.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on October 26, 2015, 03:59:06 PM
Thanks for the feedback and support in helping me navigate through this. I appreciate the compliments, but the foundation of my schematic is heavily based on the design work originally done by Noah and his brother Jeremy. They deserve the credit and "aata boys" not me.

2/0 is very expensive wire, and very large. I’m curious what path did others use to route it in their boat? I don’t think the conduit under the shower pan has enough room for a couple of these 2/0’s and the wires already in there. Did anyone route between the head and hull then through the hanging locker to the Nav Station? How about enlarging the bilge drain opening in the front of the engine compartment sideways and routing through there? Drill a couple more holes in the engine mount floor near where the water hoses to the head, and hoses to/from the heater come through?

The schematic modifications suggested by your feedback are attached in the revised copy below. I think I’ve captured it correctly. (I also added future place holders for electric windlass and solar).

Jon W
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on October 26, 2015, 04:48:47 PM

2/0 is very expensive wire, and very large. I’m curious what path did others use to route it in their boat? I don’t think the conduit under the shower pan has enough room for a couple of these 2/0’s and the wires already in there.

I agree that route is useless to use for anything else.  It's full with one or two #4s.  We have a Freedom 15, mounted on the outside (hull) wall under the nav station.  It came with two 2/0 wires connected to it (1998 model, rather than the "newer" ones with echo chargers built in where you had to supply your own 2/0 wires).  I drilled two holes in the aft end of the settee wall and ran those suckers under the macerator pump, across the bilge aft end to the forward point of the water heater.  Because of the "defined" length of the wires that came with the Freedom 15, I put a Power Post Plus in the wall of the heater area for the negative, and made that my NDP, and put a fuse on the positive side, then extended those into the battery compartment with more 2/0.

Having had a long discussion with the infamous Captain Al Watson who was doing the same thing to his 1986 C34 back in Connecticut, we determined it was pretty much the only way to run those huge cables on our boats.

Did anyone route between the head and hull then through the hanging locker to the Nav Station?

The only route I'm aware of is to go high.  Up and over the small sliding door cabinet, where the wiring to the cockpit panel goes.  One of our other infamous contributors, Steve Dolling, aka waterdog, ran his diesel heating system air duct UNDERNEATH the head mirror cabinet, an ingenious approach, since he says you never see it.  Think about it...:D  Very clever.

How about enlarging the bilge drain opening in the front of the engine compartment sideways and routing through there?

No, don't do it.  If you want to route anything there, go UNDER that pan directly from under the aft end of the heater.  After all, that's where the hoses to your head sink go anyway.  Two metal coat hangers are long enough to make that trip to pull wiring.  That's the route I used for our new alternator wiring.

You want to keep that pan as intact as you can, to catch drips.  Ours has a small hole that I can cork with a cork if there's any major leak, otherwise, it drains right to the bilge and is very handy.

From your hull #493 and the title of this post, you have an '87, right?  Should be the same stuff on yours as on ours.

Drill a couple more holes in the engine mount floor near where the water hoses to the head, and hoses to/from the heater come through?

I don't follow.  What more holes need to be drilled?  It's all open under there.



Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on October 26, 2015, 05:46:45 PM
Yes I have a 1987.

The “more holes” would be to route the alternator to the house battery box, the starter to the 1-2-B switch “C” post, the reserve battery 2/0 positive to the "2" position on the 1-2-B switch, and the 2/0 negative from the house battery box to the engine ground from the water heater area. Need to come up from below the sub-floor somehow/somewhere. The reserve positive to the "2" position is the one I was considering running between the head and hull through the hanging locker to the distribution panel.

Currently slots are drilled in the pan about ¾-1" wide by 3" long each side of the forward engine mount between the engine mount pedestal and the engine compartment bulkhead. This part of the pan is at floor level. On the port side, the hot and cold water lines come from the water heater area, up through the slot then aft to go around the corner to the head. On the starboard side, the water heater hoses route from the heater area up through the slot then connect to the engine. Sorry no pics, but think we are talking about the same path.

When you pulled the wires under the pan where did they come up to attach to the engine?

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on October 26, 2015, 06:08:41 PM


When you pulled the wires under the pan where did they come up to attach to the engine?



From the back end of the engine, what you see if you remove the opening in the aft cabin.  Just forward of the stuffing box, below the transmission/shaft coupling.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on October 26, 2015, 06:50:01 PM
Jon- I am still in the yard, unfortunately dealing with some frustrating yard BS/scheduling delays and semi-incompetence, (giving them the benefit of the doubt on that one),  but I pshould be back at my slip this weekend. You are welcome to come by and look at the routing I took for my wiring.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on October 26, 2015, 07:09:06 PM
Hi Stu, no hole in that area on my boat. There is a pass through to starboard that the water hose from the aft tank routes through to get to the galley sink area. Your area would be a simple path to fish wires through. Might be worth drilling a pilot hole to put my borescope through and take a look.

That would be great Noah thanks.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on October 27, 2015, 09:57:16 AM
Hi Stu, no hole in that area on my boat. There is a pass through to starboard that the water hose from the aft tank routes through to get to the galley sink area. Your area would be a simple path to fish wires through. Might be worth drilling a pilot hole to put my borescope through and take a look.


Jon,

Here's the back of the engine with the space underneath.

The red wire on the right is my new alternator + to the house bank.

The hoses on the left are the new hot & cold lines to the head sink that I pulled last year.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on October 27, 2015, 10:23:09 AM
Ken,

 If you tie back up to a dock at the end of a day, no big deal, if you don't your batteries will suffer....

For those who have not read it this article delves into why voltages sensing is important if you want optimal charging performance and optimal battery health.

Voltage Sensing - Why It is Important (http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing)


Thanks RC that's a great explanation and article - really explains it with no fog involved. 

Do you carry the conversion for an external regulator on the 51 amp 8MR Moto alternators?
Could a shop convert the 8MR from a self- to external-sense?

Thanks
kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on October 27, 2015, 10:36:07 AM
Ken,

 If you tie back up to a dock at the end of a day, no big deal, if you don't your batteries will suffer....

For those who have not read it this article delves into why voltages sensing is important if you want optimal charging performance and optimal battery health.

Voltage Sensing - Why It is Important (http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing)


Thanks RC that's a great explanation and article - really explains it with no fog involved. 
kk

Ken,

That article has been on our Electrical Systems 101 topic for a long time:

Alternators & Voltage Sensing (by Maine Sail):

http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing (http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing)
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on October 27, 2015, 10:43:16 AM
Ken,

 If you tie back up to a dock at the end of a day, no big deal, if you don't your batteries will suffer....

For those who have not read it this article delves into why voltages sensing is important if you want optimal charging performance and optimal battery health.

Voltage Sensing - Why It is Important (http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing)


Thanks RC that's a great explanation and article - really explains it with no fog involved. 
kk

Ken,

That article has been on our Electrical Systems 101 topic for a long time:

Alternators & Voltage Sensing (by Maine Sail):

http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing (http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing)

And Kudos also for putting that great article on the site.   :wink:

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on October 27, 2015, 10:46:46 AM
Hi Stu, Completely different construction from what I have. Gives me hope that I may be able to use that space after drilling a few holes. Thanks for the photo.  Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Craig Illman on October 27, 2015, 12:12:56 PM
Ken - I got my 8MRxxxx, conversion kit, and pulley from http://www.ase-supply.com. It was easy to do the conversion from internal to external following RC's instructions on http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/alternator_conversion

Craig
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on October 27, 2015, 01:05:46 PM
I purchased my 90 amp Leece alternator and external regulator conversion kit from Spyder Marine in FL.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on October 27, 2015, 01:59:37 PM
Thanks Craig and Noah -- I have a kit dialed in...
I thought that RC had a kit for sale at one time and would have preferred to give him the cash.

Cheers
Ken
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Craig Illman on October 27, 2015, 02:15:59 PM
The kit was only about $14
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: patrice on October 28, 2015, 05:26:58 AM
Hi Jon,

Not sure why you need to drill holes for your wires.

From the back of engine, under the bed, you have access to the head cabinet, then you can access under the shower pan to bilge.  From there you can go to the settee by the nav station and up to electrical panel.

This how I ran the cable for my solar pannel to panel.

I'd rather not having to drill holes.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on October 29, 2015, 05:30:53 PM
Hi Patrice, that area is very crowded with thru hulls and both my bilge hoses pass through to get to the transom. Worth looking at again though. In the second attached photo you an see both bilge hose passing under the aqualift muffler from the head.

Hi Stu, I've attached photo's of the back of the engine, same angle as yours showing that it is closed off. You’re lucky you can run both wire and hoses through those openings. I want to add a second bilge pump but finding a path to run the second hose is a challenge. The third attached photo shows the starboard side of the engine where my aft tank water hose runs to the galley. It looks promising for the cable but not as big a space as the hole would make you think. More looking tomorrow.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on October 29, 2015, 06:23:51 PM
Jon, it appears obvious to me that someone (a PO) ADDED that "enclosure" 'cuz it simply ain't factory OEM.

Drill away.   :clap :clap :clap
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on October 29, 2015, 06:48:26 PM
Don't let the spots of fresh white bilgekote fool you. I did that a few months ago. No factory boats this vintage came this way? Great news for me if that's the case.  Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on October 29, 2015, 06:58:27 PM
Don't let the spots of fresh white bilgekote fool you. I did that a few months ago. No factory boats this vintage came this way? Great news for me if that's the case.  Jon W.

Just from comparing photos it sure looks like it 'belongs there' -- not an add on.  No evidence of it being tabbed on or scabbed on.  More like someone fell asleep and forgot to make a few cuts. :-)

k
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on October 29, 2015, 07:08:02 PM
Looks a bit similar to my 1990. I would post some pics but I am having some issues with uploading photos from my Mac after the new Forum software upgrade (some confusion over .jpeg vs .jpg formats as well as sizing. I had a formula that worked before but no more.. so I will try and post some pics this weekend after I figure out a workaround. Meanwhile, Jon maybe swing by my boat this weekend to see. I have some cleaning up to do after the boatyard, so I'll be there.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on October 29, 2015, 07:10:40 PM
Looks a bit similar to my 1990. I would post some pics but I am having some issues with uploading photos from my Mac after the new Forum software upgrade (some confusion over .jpeg vs .jpg formats as well as sizing. I had a formula that worked before but no more.. so I will try and post some pics this weekend after I figure out a workaround. Meanwhile, Jon maybe swing by my boat this weekend to see. I have some cleaning up to do after the boatyard, so I'll be there.

before you upload, change your jpeg files to jpg extension.  I had the same problem because some of my photo editing software saves as jpeg, and the upload doesn't recognize that file extension.

k
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on October 29, 2015, 07:16:38 PM
Thx Ken. Need to go to my desktop machine for that. I am spoiled by my IPhone and iPad UNTIL I run into snags like this one.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on October 29, 2015, 07:37:18 PM
Don't let the spots of fresh white bilgekote fool you. I did that a few months ago. No factory boats this vintage came this way? Great news for me if that's the case.  Jon W.

The bumps at the bottom and sides seemed to "imply" it was added on. 

Yup, the paint fooled me!  :shock:

I can't speak for other boats, 'cuz I never had the nerve to ask another owner to let me go back in his aft cabin and look!   :D :D :D

All I can show you is what I have.   :clap

Anyways, it's a cosmetic piece that you should be able to drill without any issues.  ITWMB, that's what I'd do.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on October 29, 2015, 07:46:58 PM
Thought I'd post the current thinking of the charging system upgrade project. Was having trouble visualizing what was crossing where, so drew boundaries around each section. Keep in mind this is still a work in progress, nothing is firmed up yet, and I’m on a steep learning curve.

Biggest changes are moving the 1-2-B switch from the nav station distribution panel to the battery box area (with shorter wires may use 1/0 instead of 2/0) and creating a spot under the sette near the stbd water tank to put most of what would have been in the battery box. Current goal is to see if I can empty the box of everything needing service/access except the batteries. In the schematic it shows the 1-2-B switch as connected to the box, I may look to an area near but not in the battery box to keep it away from the fumes.

As always feedback/ideas are welcome.   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: patrice on October 30, 2015, 06:19:41 AM
Hi Jon,

Ok, looking at your picture, you don't have the space I have on this side.
my Aqualift is more to starboard, so I have space between engine compartment and the aqualift.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on November 01, 2015, 01:21:14 PM
Jon,

1.   It appears to be your choice to move the 1-2-B switch from the electrical panel.  If your reason for doing so is ONLY wire sizing, then I continue to offer the approach that 2/0 and 1/0 wire is dreadful overkill.  I understand I differ with Maine Sail about this, see my links on page one in Reply #6.  Even #2 (NOT 2/0) would be a vast improvement over the #4 OEM.  Of course, this is your boat and your choice.  My #4 OEM wiring has been working just fine for the 17 years we’ve had the boat, but I recognize it could be considered too small.  The starter load is high, but essentially instantaneous.  If I was rewiring my boat, I’d use #2, not #4 and not 1/0 or 2/0 unless you have a honkin’ big inverter.  Only YOU can make that choice for you.

2.   There is an inconsistency in the wire sizing as drawn.  You show 2/0 from the house bank to the PDP and then 1/0 from the PDP to the #1 post on the switch.  Same on the negatives.

3.   Solar is shown going to the C post of the switch without a controller.  As drawn, you would need to leave the switch in the on position for any battery bank to be charged to have the solar work, and a controller is necessary (see the Electrical Systems 101 topic for Maine Sail’s excellent explanation).  You should run the solar output to the house bank PDP with a controller.

4.   Alternator output (AO) is shown as #1.  You will have difficulty connecting this heavy wire to the back of the alternator without strain relief.   Maine Sail shows how to on his website.  I maintain that for the distance and the amperage, #2 wire is sufficient for this service with a 100A alternator. 

5.   The alternator negative is shown going to a Power Post and then to a bus bar and then to “Ships’ Ground.”  That is simply the engine.  The negative wiring as shown doesn’t make sense.

6.   Are you using the internal regulator or are you moving to an external regulator?

7.   The wiring shown in the blue box “Underneath settee by fwd water tank” is unclear.

8.   If you are using the Smart Gauge (SG), what purpose is served by the shunt on the house bank negative? 

 



Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 01, 2015, 06:01:38 PM
6.   Are you using the internal regulator or are you moving to an external regulator?

Jon,

I'd suggest it's better to put $$ into an external multi-stage regulator (NOT just for voltage loss) than putting $$ into heavy copper that's a bear to manage.  The rest of the post makes more sense if you go with an ExR. 
A start battery near the engine alleviates the need for huge oversized size cables to it (voltage loss when cranking.)

1.   ...............  My #4 OEM wiring has been working just fine for the 17 years we’ve had the boat, but I recognize it could be considered too small.  The starter load is high, but essentially instantaneous.  If I was rewiring my boat, I’d use #2, not #4 and not 1/0 or 2/0 unless you have a honkin’ big inverter.  Only YOU can make that choice for you.

I must echhooooo Stu about the cable size.  00 is a BEAR! I did complete new 00 wiring for a C30 and the owner was so sorry he ever did it.  Plus he didn't measure well and has like 6 feet extra that's he had to bury somehow along the way.   It's so heavy and unmanageable that you need to be very careful setting the lugs on short jumpers (his battery box).  You can't twist the cable to align the lugs if one is off 90-degrees.

4.   Alternator output (AO) is shown as #1.  You will have difficulty connecting this heavy wire to the back of the alternator without strain relief.   Maine Sail shows how to on his website.  I maintain that for the distance and the amperage, #2 wire is sufficient for this service with a 100A alternator. 

There's not an issue using lighter pos/neg cables at the Alt - sized for the load and with short jumps to the power posts -- voltage loss becomes moot because (1) the external regulator compensates and (2) it's such short runs.  Your current 4 awg that we did is a-ok.

I suggest on your schematic, adding the voltages at leu points for (1) high-rate charging, starting, and typical house use.  Might be very enlightening.

5.   The alternator negative is shown going to a Power Post and then to a bus bar and then to “Ships’ Ground.”  That is simply the engine.  The negative wiring as shown doesn’t make sense.

Harness negative conductor should also be shown running to the neg busbar (Mates, don't rely on the engine block.)
I'd show your jumper from the neg power post to a starter bolt (Mates - don't rely on the engine block or bell housing for the high-load negative - cable it direct to the starter.)
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 01, 2015, 08:49:59 PM
You will have difficulty connecting this heavy wire to the back of the alternator without strain relief.   Maine Sail shows how to on his website. 

Stu,

Ok as self-sufficient as I've tried to be, I need help -- I've used up what little brainpower I had tonight trying to find the web content with the strain relief on the alternator.  :oops:  Was it on pbase or SBO website?

HELP!  A link, s'il vous plait :?:

Thanks,
Ken
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 01, 2015, 08:58:17 PM
Stu,
Nothing is firm for the 1-2-B switch location. For example I just redrew another version with the switch back in the nav station distribution panel replacing all 1/0 with 1 AWG. ABYC chart shows 1 AWG good for up to a 20ft pos/neg run to carry 120A to meet 3% voltage drop.

The wire gauge is evolving, I’m in the concept phase, not detail design phase. I've found lots of variation the more I read. Examples -  Jim Moe used 4 AWG on the house batteries and 2 AWG on the starting battery with 150 A fuses, Mark Elkin used 1 AWG and a combination of 100A and 150A, you suggest 2 AWG, Mainesail says 1/0 or 2/0 and 250A minimum on the battery bank.

Solar, windlass, auto pilot (currently missing) are only shown to have room to connect in the future. That is why neither a controller nor the solar panels are shown at this time.

“Negative wiring doesn’t make sense” - On the boat today the negative from the alternator is 4 AWG going to the newly added power post (part of harness upgrade). The busbar (also newly added with the harness upgrade) has 8-10 small gauge negatives and a single jumper from the busbar to the power post. The power post is connected to the engine with 4 AWG. I'm calling that "ships ground" in the schematic. What doesn’t make sense?

Currently using the existing internal regulator installed. I read Mainesail conversation that there is value to external regulation, but it is minimal with flooded batteries. AGM and other more exotic batteries is a different story. With external regulator I would also need to add temp sensing of the batteries and alternator to avoid over driving and burning up the alternator.

The wiring under the sette near the stbd water tank is concept only while trying to minimize what is in the battery box and prepare for future additions.

The battery monitor is shown as a SmartGauge, and per their wiring diagram does not need a shunt. However I may be using a LinkPro which identifies a shunt in their diagram. The reason - I currently have an old Link 10 installed. Was thinking to get a new LinkPro connect it to the house, and the old to the reserve. That way I get more info than just voltage on the reserve.

Ken,

I didn't show the harness neg because I need to stop somewhere. Otherwise I'd be showing the fuel pump, level gauge, blower motor etc. negatives. Not sure that is needed in light of what I'm attempting to do.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 01, 2015, 09:21:28 PM
there is value to external regulation, but it is minimal with flooded batteries. AGM and other more exotic batteries is a different story. With external regulator I would also need to add temp sensing of the batteries and alternator to avoid over driving and burning up the alternator.

Ken,

I didn't show the harness neg because I need to stop somewhere. Otherwise I'd be showing the fuel pump, level gauge, blower motor etc. negatives. Not sure that is needed in light of what I'm attempting to do.

As long as you have enough drive in the alt V adjustment -- I guess that's second best (to overcome V loss in favor of lighter cables.)

I was thinking showing the harness neg ("now that you mention it" actually one line listing them all) was for the next guy in line  --

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 01, 2015, 09:32:56 PM
Now that you mention it that is a good idea. Maybe even make subset diagrams of the engine compartment house battery bank, etc..    Jon W
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on November 02, 2015, 04:50:39 AM


 I read Mainesail conversation that there is value to external regulation, but it is minimal with flooded batteries. AGM and other more exotic batteries is a different story. With external regulator I would also need to add temp sensing of the batteries and alternator to avoid over driving and burning up the alternator.


Jon W.

The main point of that article is really your USE and battery choices determining the choices you make. You have chosen quality 6V deep cycle batteries not cheap auto batteries with a deep cycle sticker slapped on.

If your use is essentially weekends and are then then connected back to the dock with a shore charger then the IR set to a high enough point can suffice and work fine so long as we are not seeing much if any voltage drop between alt and batteries.  Every battery being charged on a boat will benefit from battery temp compensation but you don't have to add it...... If you choose to pay for AGM or GEL batteries then you really should be upgrading the charging system or the money will really be wasted..

If you bought an inexpensive bank it becomes "disposable" compared to more expensive batteries and the hit in life won't be a big deal compared to the expense of upgrading the charging system..
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on November 02, 2015, 12:18:47 PM


“Negative wiring doesn’t make sense” - On the boat today the negative from the alternator is 4 AWG going to the newly added power post (part of harness upgrade). The busbar (also newly added with the harness upgrade) has 8-10 small gauge negatives and a single jumper from the busbar to the power post. The power post is connected to the engine with 4 AWG. I'm calling that "ships ground" in the schematic. What doesn’t make sense?

Jon,

The Power Post in addition to the term strip, and the reserve bank separately connected to the engine ground.

Either use the PP or the term strip to "land" all negatives and run one wire to the ground.

Sorry I wasn't clearer before.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 02, 2015, 07:10:14 PM
Jon,

The Power Post in addition to the term strip, and the reserve bank separately connected to the engine ground.

Either use the PP or the term strip to "land" all negatives and run one wire to the ground.

Sorry I wasn't clearer before.

Stu,

This is the setup that we talked about on the phone (putting a PP on the side of the stringer, and a neg busbar on the side of the engine compartment.  You gave me the measurements - 18" and 18" jumpers I believe.

Here's why we did it that way. 

Jon has #4 negs from the starter bolt, from the battery bank, from the alt ground.   You cannot have everything terminate at one place with the battery neg (i.e. on a starter bolt.)  Hence the negative power post (is 'power' and 'neg" a contradiction in terms?  :donno: )   and the batt neg runs right to the starter bolt where it should -- where you need the high draw connection for starting.  That bolt is jumpered to the 3/8" PP to pick up the #4 Alt neg.

But we needed a place to tie other lightweight negs (say, harness neg, bilge pump, fuel pump -- whatever negs Jon wants to have there.)  The rusty engine block shouldn't be used as a negative buss -- we need a good clean, easy access connection point.  You can't run lightweight cables (16, 14, 12, 10) to a 3/8" or 5/16" PP.   The terminals made for those light awgs and for large diameter posts are pure crap.  They bend, break and the darn rings are no larger for larger posts -- they use the same amount of material, but make the hole larger.  Hence, where you really need protection and strain relief, it is lacking.  I just won't do things that way. 

I considered the PP that has the ring of #8s terminals around the post -- but decided against it.  The post is quirky with all those small screws -- the heavy cable lugs need to be removed to access the #8s below if adding/servicing/removing a negative.  I just wouldn't do it that way / use that PP --  so I didn't want Jon to either. 

The PP I chose was a single post, and thus ran a #8 to a neg busbar (not a terminal strip as you say) and all the lightweight negs are on that negative bus, jumpered to the 3/8" PP.  It leaves an easy accessible point to tie any future negs to.

Does explanation that make more sense?

Ken

Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on November 02, 2015, 09:30:33 PM

Does explanation that make more sense?



Yes, senior moment on my part. :D  It's been a while.  Thanks.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: britinusa on November 03, 2015, 04:17:04 AM
Ken, a pic says a thousand words.

Just so that the language translation is out of the way(American to British  :?) , can you post (no pun intended) a pic of what you describe. ie. A pic of how it should be done.

 :santa

Thanks.
Paul
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 03, 2015, 05:54:37 AM
Ken, a pic says a thousand words.

Just so that the language translation is out of the way(American to British  :?) , can you post (no pun intended) a pic of what you describe. ie. A pic of how it should be done.

 :santa

Thanks.
Paul

Paul,

Basically how (I think) you already installed w/ the cables and appendages that I sent?

batt neg cable
    |
    V
STARTER BOLT
   |
4 awg cable
   |
   V
NEG POWER POST - 8 awg -> NEG BUSBAR - "light" negatives (harness, fuel pump, ...... etc)
   |
4 awg cable
   |
   V
ALT NEG POST

One remaining issue (as you know) is sometimes not having a good engine ground at the oil switch, temp sender, and hi temp switch.  Oftentimes it's related to corrosion on the ports and or bolts on the thermostat cap  By rights that should have all been 2-wire senders, not relying on the crappy grounds and threads.  I'm working on some kind of a kit to ground those directly.

Cheers
ken
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 03, 2015, 06:15:53 PM
Dropping down to a more detailed design level from the previous 30,000 foot level. Numerous changes. Still a work in progress, but getting closer. If folks have time to review the attached I'd appreciate the feedback.

Question - Can a MRBF type fuse like the ones used on the battery terminal be attached directly to the Alternator output post? Vibration make this not a good idea? Currently showing a midi fuse in a Blue Sea System holder in the engine compartment. Thinking how to simplfy/reduce the connections. Thanks for the help.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 03, 2015, 06:42:02 PM
Question - Can a MRBF type fuse like the ones used on the battery terminal be attached directly to the Alternator output post? Vibration make this not a good idea? Currently showing a midi fuse in a Blue Sea System holder in the engine compartment. Thinking how to simplfy/reduce the connections. Thanks for the help.

Jon W.

Why would you want a MRBF or MIDI there?

Ken
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 03, 2015, 07:43:41 PM
It is a 150A fuse on the alternator output. Moved it to the engine compartment to be closer to the source instead of the end of the wire at the battery box positive bus.  Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: britinusa on November 04, 2015, 03:49:06 AM
I hope you guys keep going with this thread.

My daily reading of the forum topics is like attending class. I'm learning so much about  these concepts in general and about my boat in particular.

I'm curious. Is it your intent to gut the existing electrical connections entirely and rebuild, as per your diagram, starting from scratch, ie. Starting from just the equipment sans wire?

I presume you're going to label everything as per Mainesail's technique (http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/wire_labeling) or at least something similar.

Paul
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on November 04, 2015, 06:22:32 AM
No fuse at alt end! The battery bank is your "source"... Fuse at batt end not alt end...
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 04, 2015, 07:25:55 PM
Hi Paul,
The plan started out as just a battery upgrade, but as I’ve learned more the project expanded. The project is now removing everything and then rebuild per the diagram.

Hi Mainesail.
Thanks, I have moved the fuse back to the battery box near the house bank. Speaking to Ken offline I now understand that my mistake was thinking the alternator is the source I’m protecting the wire from. The true source the wire needs to be protected from is the battery.

To others in the learning mode like me, here is what I learned in class today -

My 105A alternator, like all alternators, is current limited, meaning it can only put out its rating of 105A in perfect conditions. In reality it probably won’t reach 105A. As long as the alternator output wire is rated for this current/amperage, you can’t exceed the wire capacity with the alternator so no reason to put a fuse there. However, the fuse is needed at the battery side of the wire. The reason is if the alternator output wire were to get damaged/fall off the alternator terminal it could contact/land on the engine block. If that were to happen, it would create an electrical connection that the battery bank would try to feed. Being a 450A battery bank, all that amperage could flow in the wire which exceeds the rating of the wire and a potential for a fire now exists.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on November 05, 2015, 06:16:41 AM
The reason is if the alternator output wire were to get damaged/fall off the alternator terminal it could contact/land on the engine block. If that were to happen, it would create an electrical connection that the battery bank would try to feed. Being a 450A battery bank, all that amperage could flow in the wire which exceeds the rating of the wire and a potential for a fire now exists.

Jon W.

Just a quick point of clarification.

Your bank is not 450A it is 450Ah. This means that when new, and fully broken in, it should be able to support a 22.5A load for 20 hours at 77F before hitting a terminal voltage of 10.5V. This is the 20 hour AMPERE HOUR rating. Deep cycle batteries are rated in ampere hour capacity and occasionally CCA, MCA and Reserve Minutes. Ah capacity is what we use for long slow discharges and CA or cranking amp ratings for starting the engine..

Amps is not the same as ampere hours. 1 amp for 1 hour = 1 Ah.

What we are protecting from, with fuses, is short circuit current. Short circuit current is even shorter in duration than CA, CCA (0F) or MCA (32F).

A 450Ah bank of GC batteries can easily deliver 1300 - 1600 cranking amps at 0F. CCA is a 30 second duration test performed at 0F and is cut off at 7.2V.

The short circuit current can be MUCH, MUCH higher and for a bank like yours could easily exceed 8000A. Many battery manufacturers do not publish "short circuit current" ratings but those that do show that this can be amazingly high. For instance a single Group 31 Odyssey AGM is capable of 5000A of short circuit current.

This bank is capable of 20,000A of short circuit current however it is only rated at 400Ah. This is why it is the battery bank we are afraid of!!

(http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/image/143197864.jpg)

 
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 05, 2015, 07:57:25 AM
RC,

Is there a rule of thumb for short circuiting vs another measure of capacity, or simply do the math based on say the 20 rate?  While driving to nc last night I was thinking how to (err, "adjust") Jon's misnomer but didn't know how to estimate a s-c rate w/o knowing internal resistance.  In any event that kind of flow might instaneously weld a cable end to something.

Is there a general factor to estimate dead-short current assuming we know, say, the cca or 20-hour rate or..?  Or just do the math and ass/u/me a few second time period?

Ken
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: britinusa on November 05, 2015, 08:00:07 AM
Jon,
may I suggest a physical layout schematic also, similar to the schematics in the Catalina 34 Manual.

That would help identify the lengths of cable (and confirm cable sizing) but also identify where you need holes and panel locations.

Eximius' electrical wiring seems to be a hodgepodge that has evolved over the past 28 years, some of it appears to have been during a major electrical refit (includes a Freedom Inverter/Charger) plus the few things I have added/removed.

One common point made in many of the threads in this forum is about learning what you have installed and why it's installed (and that leads to understanding of how it should be installed). Having a physical schematic would help a lot.

Paul
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: britinusa on November 05, 2015, 08:01:05 AM
Ken, I'm not so certain I would be concerned about the short circuit current. I don't want it to ever get up there.
The fuse would ensure that.

Paul
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 05, 2015, 07:54:07 PM
Hi mainesail,
Thank's for the clarification. Just when I think I got it, I don’t. Amazing the amount of current potential these battery banks can generate if not handled properly.

Battery label now says 232 AH instead of 232 A, and moved the 150A MIDI fuse into a SafetyHub 150 located in the house bank battery box.

Hi Paul,
I’m showing an implied mechanical layout of the components with the blue boxes. A formal mechanical layout is a good idea and it will be one of the next steps. I have my hands full at the moment getting and understanding a proper and safe electrical design.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on November 06, 2015, 10:18:01 AM
Paul,
Actually Ken is correct to be concerned about the max short-circuit current. While a simple view of a fuse is that it will fail long before that, reality is not so simple. When the instantaneous current is high enough, some fuses can fail in other catastrophic ways, such as arcing and/or exploding instead of simply opening.  AND circuit breakers can instantaneously weld closed from the massive flow of current and then fail to open. All fuses and circuit breakers have an "interrupting rating" (IR) or "breaking capacity"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_capacity
http://www.cooperindustries.com/content/dam/public/bussmann/Electrical/Resources/solution-center/technical_library/BUS_Ele_Tech_Lib_Interrupting_Rating.pdf

One cannot predict the maximum short circuit current from a battery by simply knowing its AH capacity. AH capacity relates to the total energy stored in the chemistry when consumed over a number of hours. Instantaneous short circuit current (if shorted right at the battery) is mostly a function of the battery's voltage divided by its internal resistance. The former is 12v, but the latter is rarely specified (small number of milliohms). The Cold-Cranking-Amps gives one some sense of the answer; the short circuit current is always much higher than the CCA. Once you connect to the battery via wires the max current is reduced due to the resistance of the wire between the battery and the location of the short. I suggest asking a licensed marine electrician (e.g. MaineSail) but in general fuses for protecting heavy gauge wires connected to batteries should have a "interrupt capacity" of at least 5,000 amps, preferably much higher. A BlueSea MRBF has an Interrupt capacity of 10,000A.
https://www.bluesea.com/products/5189/MRBF_Terminal_Fuse_-_250A
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on November 06, 2015, 12:43:51 PM
Spot on!!

I have blown literally hundreds of fuses in testing for the Lithium battery committee I am on and seen plenty unsafe failures. I have even seen an ATC fuse fail unsafely in a bilge pump circuit. In fact it is sitting right on my desk.

The only fuses for primary battery bank protection are ANL, MRBF and Class T.

While The ABYC AIC standards are simply unrealistic for banks over 500Ah's it is forcing more battery manufacturers to publish short circuit ratings.

ABYC E-11
11.10.1.2.2 For batteries or battery banks with a rating of 2200 CCA or 500 amp hours or less, battery overcurrent protection shall have a minimum ampere interrupting capacity (AIC) rating according to Table IV-A.

11.10.1.2.3 For batteries or battery banks with a CCA rating greater than 2200 CCA, or 500 amp hours, battery overcurrent protection shall have a minimum ampere interrupting capacity (AIC) rating at least as great as the battery manufacturer’s short circuit rating or 100 times the battery’s nominal amp hour (Ah) rating.


If you do the math this means a 600Ah bank needs an AIC rating of 60,000A AIC.... Best to call your battery manufacturer to get a short circuit rating.


Please, please, please do not be tempted to buy cheap Chinese car stereo ANL fuses. They are NOT safe!!
(http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/image/154642612.jpg)
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: britinusa on November 06, 2015, 04:27:31 PM
Thanks mainesail & j_sail, that makes a lot of sense.

Is the image a pic of the type of fuse to use or the type of fuse to not use?

(Sorry folks, I'm British and ambiguity is a toughie for me.)   :cry4`

Paul
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 06, 2015, 04:45:12 PM
Thanks mainesail & j_sail, that makes a lot of sense.

Is the image a pic of the type of fuse to use or the type of fuse to not use?

(Sorry folks, I'm British and ambiguity is a toughie for me.)   :cry4`

Paul

That's an anal (ANL) fuse and holder, which is fine -- the point was to buy reputable products (holders and fuses) not Chinese knock-offs that may fuse together or blow apart (the example shown) on high AIC and do not provide proper marine protection.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 07, 2015, 07:19:14 PM
Another update to my proposed system upgrade, but still going back and forth on the external regulator. Hopefully I'm now close to a :thumb:.

I’ve reverted back to the SmartGauge battery monitor after reading mainsails write up, and finding out that the LinkPro and LinkLite come with a shunt, but not the wires. Add the cost of wires and the Link system would cost more than the SmartGauge which is apparently both simpler and more accurate than the LinkPro/LinkLite.

The alternator fuse is back in the battery box. I have it slated as a 150A MRBF connected to the positive busbar. I asked if MRBF was an issue on the alternator output wire, but received no comments so drew it up. I also moved the backup bilge pump manual/off/auto switch/breaker to the distribution panel which will get power in either position #1 or #2. This is in case the house bank fails, I will still have an electric bilge pump.

Follow on question – If there is a catastrophic failure in the house bank, I can switch to #2 start the engine and power the distribution panel. However, the windlass would not receive any power in this scenario as currently drawn. What have others done to ensure power to the windlass?

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on November 07, 2015, 09:32:22 PM
It's shaping up nicely, with the physical locations shown, etc.  Couple of comments:
1. There should be a 20amp fuse in the wire from the Echo Charge to the Reserve battery within 7" of battery-end of the wire. The 250amp fuse at the battery won't protect the 12 gauge wire, and the one shown in the Settee is at the wrong end of the wire to do so. I would discard the fuse they provide with their 2' harness and add a 20amp fuse at the battery end. It can go on either side of the 250A fuse.

2. I don't see any electrical/performance issue with using a MRBF on the bus bar for the alternator wire, but since I have more theoretical than hands-on experience installing them I can't comment on any mounting tradeoffs compared to ANL fuse blocks. Maybe MaineSail will comment.

3. The bilge pump wiring shown is slightly inaccurate (for both pumps in different ways). For each there should be a single fused wire going to the on/off/auto switch and then two wires from there to the pump (one to its float-switch, the other direct to motor). Then, in addition, there is a negative from the pump back to ground.

4. It looks like you are leaving the 1-2-Both battery switch at the AC/DC Master Distribution Panel vs moving it to (or near) the battery box. Although the existing panel has a space for it, the advantages of moving it are several:
   a) Shorter cable lengths resulting in less voltage drop
   b) Easier routing of cables; eliminates heavy cables to/from that panel and in fact allows you to reuse the #4 that goes there today so that you don't need to pull any wires at all to/from the panel. The only heavy cables go to much easier destinations thru easier routes.
   c) Allows you to connect other loads such as the windlass to the C-terminal of the battery switch, solving your issue of the windlass running only from the house battery.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 08, 2015, 02:45:15 AM
Jon

a couple comments:

There's no problem using a MRBF on a bus -- I must have missed that question. :-(
apologies to RC for hijacking these photos....
http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/image/131742930
http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/image/149747336
http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/image/124282533

What's your current ProMariner charger?

Where I have light conductors vs. heavy cables (no rule of thumb there, just intuition) I tend to physically tie down heavy cables near to minimize transferring rotation movement to the terminal/bolt/etc.  e.g., a 16 awg is flexible enough that it isn't going to impart a force to a #8 screw, but a 8 awg might (or a heavy, inflexible battery cable.)   See photo example below.
 
Overcurrent protection needs to be on the supply side of switches (bilge pump).  i.e., OCP feeds the switch, not the switch feeding the OCP device.

To reduce voltage loss and excess wire, I tend to run negatives to the nearest bus (back to the battery box may be longer than to the eng compartment?)

kk



(http://)
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on November 08, 2015, 05:56:33 AM
Ken,

If you click on (http://c34.org/bbs/Themes/core/images/bbc/img.gif) and then add .jpg to the end of my pic address they will show up as a photo as opposed to a link...

There were a bunch of MRBF's off a busbar in this massive LiFePO4 install..
(http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/image/153389582.jpg)

This is a much more simple boat...
(http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/image/151097147.jpg)
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 08, 2015, 07:44:39 AM
Hi Jsail,
I'll move the fuse to reflect 7" from the reserve battery and correct the b/u bilge pump negative connection.

The benefits of the 1-2-B at the house battery box make sense, but there is also a convenience to having it centrally located at the navigation station. It may be a sealed switch, but the back of the switch being exposed to fumes inside of battery box is a concern to me. I looked at nearby locations, but not happy with them. This is one of the reasons I spent time moving as many fuses out of the box as I could. Nothing is final yet.

Hi Ken,
My current charger is a ProSport 20, 2 bank. I looked at the boat today, and the current bilge pump diagram reflects the way the boat is today. I just realized you were probably talking about the future b/u bilge pump which shows an inline fuse after the switch/cb on the panel. It seems to me the switch/CB at the panel should protect the wire to the pump/level switch so will be deleting the inline fuse. Jon W
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 08, 2015, 02:17:36 PM
Ken,

If you click on (http://c34.org/bbs/Themes/core/images/bbc/img.gif) and then add .jpg to the end of my pic address they will show up as a photo as opposed to a link...


Yeah, but then your descriptions below on some of them don't show...  !
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 08, 2015, 02:24:37 PM
Was using a laptop and it doesn't let me take a screen shot the size needed. I will post a better view tomorrow. Any suggestions for the reserve maintenance free reserve battery size and brand? I looked at US Battery to be consistent with the 4 GC 6vots, but they don't list a maintenance free battery. Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 08, 2015, 02:29:33 PM

Hi Ken,
My current charger is a ProSport 20, 2 bank. I looked at the boat today, and the current bilge pump diagram reflects the way the boat is today. I just realized you were probably talking about the future b/u bilge pump which shows an inline fuse after the switch/cb on the panel. It seems to me the switch/CB at the panel should protect the wire to the pump/level switch so will be deleting the inline fuse. Jon W

Yep, if fed from a breaker on the panel, can be deleted.

You might as well factor in a new ProMariner ProNautic charger.  The ProSport 20 charger will soon fry with that battery bank -- I learned a lesson (after the fact) from MaineSail that those waterproof series aren't appropriate for our use -- mine fried just out of warranty on three grp 31 flooded batteries.  For your bank you'll want (RC may correct me on this) a model 1240P, or probably a 1250P.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 08, 2015, 04:04:46 PM
Jon, a couple more....

Bilge pumps -

    TBD - I use awg 10/3 cable for bilge pumps, water pumps, etc. no matter the amps, just to minimize V loss.  When I ran my neg elsewhere, I used 10 awg red and brown single conductor.  I also get 10/2 bonded tinned wire in any colors, but it's 19 strand, not 41 strand.

Reserve battery -
 
   The 12 awg "connect to load side of (MRBF?) fuse" - has to be fused w/in 7" of the MRBF.
   
   Unsure where the cut off RED feeds are going, but depending on wire size, it might be neater to jumper one wire (fused for the lightest feed) from the reserve MRBF to a positive bus, and then run the feeds from the bus.  Unless you're going to do a bus bar right on the pos terminal?

Alternator -

     Unsure of the purpose of the 150a fuse - the entire bus is already fused  (i.e., the cable is no different than the 1 awg to the Safety Hub.))

Windlass -
    Why a TBD breaker on the windlass (it's already fused at the Safety Hub)?

Echo - questions - (I'm not an EchoCharge user so Maine Sail is better suited to address these.)

    Why 20A fuse at echo end? (already fused by the Safety Hub)
    Is this the right unit? (per Xantrex "both banks must be the same .... type")
    Although limited to 15a, I would probably use 10 awg "just because" and to limit voltage loss.

ken

Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 08, 2015, 04:18:51 PM
Ken,

If you click on (http://c34.org/bbs/Themes/core/images/bbc/img.gif) and then add .jpg to the end of my pic address they will show up as a photo as opposed to a link...

Rod,

Aahhhhh Ha.  I thought that when I clicked (http://c34.org/bbs/Themes/core/images/bbc/img.gif), I had to attach a saved photo, didn't know that I could link to a photo URL as well. 

WOW.  :party Live and learn.  Thanks for the head's up!  :thumb:
 
ken
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 08, 2015, 05:09:08 PM
The 20A was moved to be next to the reserve battery per JSail's feedback. Just haven't posted the new diagram yet. There is a 250A MRBF at the reserve battery and also at the house battery bank.

The cut off wires are 2 from the AC charger to the reserve battery, one from the SmartGauge to the reserve battery (3A fuse), and one (going to the left side of the diagram) goes to the future fluxgate compass. Anything related to the solar system and autopilot are only for me to remember to consider something will be required. Types and brands have not been investigated.

The 150 A fuse on the alternator output wire was moved from the engine compartment to the house bank battery box per the feedback from yourself, Mainesail and JSail. I asked whether a 150A MRBF would be applicable for this purpose and the feedback was that it is. Several photos were posted in support of this idea. I chose the MRBF terminal type fuse instead of ANL or MIDI to reduce connection points and wire inside the battery box.

The windlass has a breaker based on feedback from this message board. The purpose as I understand it is if you want to turn the power off to the windlass you can.

As evidenced by 5 (now 6) pages of conversation to this post, I'm not an expert in any of this. The 20A fuse on each end of the Echo charger is per its' online wiring diagram.

Both banks are flooded type which should be acceptable to use with the Echo charger. The difference between the house and reserve bank is the reserve is a maintenance free/sealed battery. I was asking for suggestions for CCA size and brand for this type battery since US Battery does not seem to carry a maintenance free flooded type. I plan to use US Battery brand for the 4x 6V GC batteries.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 08, 2015, 09:28:27 PM
The 20A was moved to be next to the reserve battery per JSail's feedback. Just haven't posted the new diagram yet. There is a 250A MRBF at the reserve battery and also at the house battery bank.

Ahhhh OK, I hadn't checked that post yet.

The 150 A fuse on the alternator output wire was moved from the engine compartment to the house bank battery box per the feedback from yourself, Mainesail and JSail. I asked whether a 150A MRBF would be applicable for this purpose and the feedback was that it is. Several photos were posted in support of this idea. I chose the MRBF terminal type fuse instead of ANL or MIDI to reduce connection points and wire inside the battery box.

Yep, I hadn't thought about the entire positive bus already being protected by the MRBF, and of course the alt cable size is sufficient for the fuse.  I suppose it's just redundant so not an issue, simply that it seems unnecessary unless I'm missing something (does happen   :oops:, so many eyes does help catch things.)

The windlass has a breaker based on feedback from this message board. The purpose as I understand it is if you want to turn the power off to the windlass you can.

I hadn't thought about a shut off -- good idea!  :-)   :thumb:

As evidenced by 5 (now 6) pages of conversation to this post, I'm not an expert in any of this. The 20A fuse on each end of the Echo charger is per its' online wiring diagram.

Yeah, I'm no Echo user, but maybe Maine Sail can chime -- possibly the schematic is generic in the event that a source isn't already protected?   :donno:

Both banks are flooded type which should be acceptable to use with the Echo charger. The difference between the house and reserve bank is the reserve is a maintenance free/sealed battery. I was asking for suggestions for CCA size and brand for this type battery since US Battery does not seem to carry a maintenance free flooded type. I plan to use US Battery brand for the 4x 6V GC batteries.

USB has a "low maintenance" one.  I'd think a Penn/Deka 27 (or 29) starting battery would provide enough MCAs - or an aftermarket Penn (WallyWorld, sears, etc) would be fine since you don't need a true deep cycle 


Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 08, 2015, 10:07:17 PM

The 150 A fuse on the alternator output wire was moved from the engine compartment to the house bank battery box per the feedback from yourself, Mainesail and JSail. I asked whether a 150A MRBF would be applicable for this purpose and the feedback was that it is. Several photos were posted in support of this idea. I chose the MRBF terminal type fuse instead of ANL or MIDI to reduce connection points and wire inside the battery box.


OK, I see where that may have grown legs.  Noah's schematic has that cable as a #4, and the battery cables are 2/0.  So a smaller fuse was needed on the alt cable, than is on the battery cables.   Some things just keep on giving, even after other items get changed (as did your battery cable sizes.)

Ken
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on November 08, 2015, 10:19:22 PM
Yes, Ken nailed it. It's true that Jon can eliminate the 150A alternator fuse since the wire is already protected by the 250A battery fuse. And, the battery fuse can indeed be 250A so long as entire path from the battery is always at least #1 wire rated at 90C or higher. (#1AWG @ 90C has an ampacity of 170A if passing thru engine spaces and using the 150% rule gets you just barely to 250A). Using wire with insulation rated at 105C would improve the safety margin and would be a good idea. I probably inadvertently contributed to Jon putting that fuse in, because at one point I told him that if he used an external regulator he could get by with less than #1 AWG to the alternator so long as it was appropriately fused at the battery end. That's what I did when designing my brother Noah's layout. Then when a fuse appeared at the alternator end in Jon's diagram I told him to move it back towards the battery, without noticing that it was unneeded due to the heavier wire used.

The Echo Charger indeed comes with a fuse at the end of each positive lead and that's sufficient if they are long enough. If you lengthen them you need to move the fuse to what becomes the new end of the wire, which is what Jon is now effectively doing.

As Jon noted, a "maintenance-free" sealed battery is typically still a flooded design, not AGM and probably has similar enough charging characteristics to work fine on the Echo Charger (and besides, the reserve battery rarely sees any use). Ken is right that a starting battery is a better choice for the reserve than a deep cycle and is also cheaper.  The expert on battery characteristics, though, is MaineSail and I defer totally to him.

Wire Ampacity table below:
(http://m5.i.pbase.com/o9/84/622984/1/135787605.O6lVqK4W.ZABYCTableVI1.jpg)
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on November 09, 2015, 10:43:52 AM
Regarding your preference to avoid putting the battery switch at the battery compartment:
The benefits of the 1-2-B at the house battery box make sense, but there is also a convenience to having it centrally located at the navigation station. It may be a sealed switch, but the back of the switch being exposed to fumes inside of battery box is a concern to me. I looked at nearby locations, but not happy with them. This is one of the reasons I spent time moving as many fuses out of the box as I could. Nothing is final yet.

I checked with BlueSea and they said it's fine so long as you avoid putting the switch directly over the batteries without any ventilation (note, their switches are well sealed, some lesser competing products may not be). Also, the ABYC standards call for the battery switch to be as close as possible to the batteries. I have communicated separately with MaineSail and suggested he weigh in for the benefit of the larger C34 community.

So long as there is decent access to see/replace them, I would probably keep the fuses in the battery compartment as well and use some protectant on the exposed surfaces. Moving them out is fine, too, but not at the expense of longer cable runs to them or reduced access.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on November 09, 2015, 01:25:51 PM
The ABYC standards actually prefer the switch to be located with the shortest wire runs possible and also to have easy access. Catalina has rarely met the ABYC standard for "as close as practicable"... One could easily argue they have grossly ignored the ABYC standards with regards to battery switch location and they should instead be using remote battery switches if they continue to insist on placing battery switces in the AC/DC panel.

As an example our 2005 C-310 had battery cables that went from port settee, through the bilge, over to starboard then up to the switch panel (near the toe rail). Of course another 2/0 cable then ran all the way back to center-line and onto to the engine starter. Meanwhile the batteries were less than 3' from the engine and a switch could have easily been mounted flush in the settee bulkhead...... Pretty absurd and a huge & needless waste of 2/0 wire....

11.6.1.2.2 A battery switch shall be mounted in a readily accessible location as close as practicable to the battery.

Blue Sea switches all meet ABYC, CE & UL1500 and SAE J1171 Marine Supplement for ignition protection. They are also IP66 rated for water resistance. Take one apart and you'll find o-rings keeping them sealed.... The also use tin plated copper for the terminals not bare brass like cheaper switches.. Provided the battery compartment is ventilated, to ABYC standards, and you use a good terminal grease, there really should be no corrosion.

Ignition protection is really only required for devices inside an LPG locker or on a gasoline powered boat. IP is not technically required for battery compartments though it is never a bad idea to use IP components in a battery space, which the Blue Sea battery switches are..
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 11, 2015, 08:13:48 PM
For what its worth -

The comment about ABYC approved ventilation caught my attention. I found a definition in an old thread on the Cruisers Forum. Paraphrased it said -

“ABYC E-10.7.10 states:
A vent system, or other means, shall be provided to permit the discharge from the boat of hydrogen gas released by the battery. The CONSERVATIVELY required number of air changes per hour (A) during bulk charge conditions is given by the following formula:

A = (0.045 x N x I) / V

Where:
N = Number of cells in the battery
V = Volume of compartment in cubic metres
I = Charge rate in Amperes”

With a rough calculation I got ~ 140 air changes per hour required for 12 cells. If it must be discharged overboard, maybe AGM batteries are a better choice?

Have been trading E-mails with ProMariner Tech reps to understand why a ProSport 20A 2-bank charger will not last with the new much larger house bank. The answer was it is undersized for the duty, will work too hard and overheat. Typical sizing for a charger is 10% of the bank AH’s. They recommended a ProNautic 1250 (12V 50A) or 1260 (12V 60A). Seems like a 1240 (12V 40A) would be close enough and less money.

Have also been trading E-mails with Balmar Tech reps about the Balmar MC-614 external regulator with battery and alternator temp sensing. I asked if the harness(s) could be extended beyond 54” long? Their response – the 20 foot battery temp sense harness is the same as the 54” alternator temp sense harness except for length. The regulator harness can be longer than 54” with no impact to performance. When I suggested 15 feet, they responded that might be the limit, but no reason why. Still waiting for a response to whether the “special Balmar connectors” are available if I make my own harness. Now I know the regulator can safely be moved up to 15 feet from the alternator giving more options on where to put it.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 11, 2015, 08:37:44 PM
The ProSport manual says it all.....

If your application is for 4D or 8D large capacity batteries, please refer to ProMariner's website
www.promariner.com and view our ProNauticP Hardwired Charger Assortment for a model that is
correct for this group size of batteries.


Consider also your starting battery, which may also need charging while your house bank is charging.  The 50 amp would also provide better longevity (working less hard) than the 40.  I know it's a tough bullet to bite for a larger charger, but probably worth the additional capacity.

k
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 11, 2015, 08:47:17 PM
Seems like a 1240 (12V 40A) would be close enough and less money.\
Jon W.

What's the cost on both -- percent increase?

k
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on November 11, 2015, 09:25:51 PM
Jon— I think you are overworking the air exchange/venting issue.  Not sure how your boat ventilates, but as you have seen on my boat, I have a large grill vent in the battery box into the salon, two Dorades in the salon, a solar vent in the aft cabin, that are all constantly moving air—that's even if I keep all my ports and hatches closed—which is rare.  Lots of folks have used the same setup as me; four 6v flooded batteries in main salon battery box and one maintenance-free 12v starter/emergency battery under the aft bunk, or in the engine compartment, and haven't had any problems with venting. I wouldn't sweat it if I were you.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on November 12, 2015, 04:13:03 AM
For what its worth -

The comment about ABYC approved ventilation caught my attention. I found a definition in an old thread on the Cruisers Forum. Paraphrased it said -

“ABYC E-10.7.10 states:
A vent system, or other means, shall be provided to permit the discharge from the boat of hydrogen gas released by the battery. The CONSERVATIVELY required number of air changes per hour (A) during bulk charge conditions is given by the following formula:

A = (0.045 x N x I) / V

Where:
N = Number of cells in the battery
V = Volume of compartment in cubic metres
I = Charge rate in Amperes”

With a rough calculation I got ~ 140 air changes per hour required for 12 cells. If it must be discharged overboard, maybe AGM batteries are a better choice?

Have been trading E-mails with ProMariner Tech reps to understand why a ProSport 20A 2-bank charger will not last with the new much larger house bank. The answer was it is undersized for the duty, will work too hard and overheat. Typical sizing for a charger is 10% of the bank AH’s. They recommended a ProNautic 1250 (12V 50A) or 1260 (12V 60A). Seems like a 1240 (12V 40A) would be close enough and less money.

Have also been trading E-mails with Balmar Tech reps about the Balmar MC-614 external regulator with battery and alternator temp sensing. I asked if the harness(s) could be extended beyond 54” long? Their response – the 20 foot battery temp sense harness is the same as the 54” alternator temp sense harness except for length. The regulator harness can be longer than 54” with no impact to performance. When I suggested 15 feet, they responded that might be the limit, but no reason why. Still waiting for a response to whether the “special Balmar connectors” are available if I make my own harness. Now I know the regulator can safely be moved up to 15 feet from the alternator giving more options on where to put it.

Jon W.

This is the problem with the net.... ABYC E-10 does not include what you posted above for air turn-over and there is no requirement for air turn over. ABYC E-10 has been around since 1968 and I suspect we've learned a bit since then. The poster was likely posting an antiquated version of the standard which no longer applies.

This is the current standard as it applies to battery venting:

ABYC E-10 July 2011 (Current Standard)
"10.7.9
A vent system or other means shall be provided to permit the discharge from the boat of hydrogen gas released by the battery.

10.7.10
Battery boxes, whose cover forms a pocket over the battery, shall be vented at the uppermost portion of the cover.

NOTE to 10.7.9 and 10.7.10: These requirements also apply to installations of all batteries whether they employ removable vent caps, non-removable caps, are “sealed” or “maintenance free” batteries, or have pressure regulated valve vent systems with immobilized electrolyte (gel and AGM batteries)."
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 12, 2015, 02:15:58 PM
I have two dorades in the salon area which are always open, and added vents in the battery box to the wiring diagram last week. I'm going to look into Ron's idea of teak vents. I may be over thinking, but it seems to be driving good conversation and answers to my rookie questions.

Glad I posted the formula and info from the Cruisers Forum. Debunking information and keeping folks on the right path is one of the great things about this site and its' participants.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on November 12, 2015, 02:54:39 PM
I may be over thinking, but it seems to be driving good conversation and answers to my rookie questions.

Jon,

Not at all.  This is the perfect place for it, and a wonderful example for others.  Keep up the good work.   :clap :clap :clap

Many times, on this and other boating forums, folks come in only AFTER having major issues because they didn't ask first.   :cry4`  Go figger... :abd:
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 12, 2015, 06:11:06 PM
Thanks Stu. Lots of views on the topic, hopefully others are benefiting as much as me.

Hi Ken,
   Depending on where you price the two chargers, the difference seems to be $40 to $120.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on November 13, 2015, 12:22:00 PM
If the various amperage capacity models within the ProNautic line are properly/conservatively designed with temperature-controlled fans and thermal limiting, then picking a size should only impact how rapidly they can charge a large battery bank, not how many years the charger will last before failure (other than perhaps a slight difference in fan life if a smaller unit runs its fan for more hours). I realize those assumptions for proper design are all "IFs'", but I would not automatically assume that a more expensive 60a unit will last any longer than the 40a unit. Perhaps one could put that direct question to ProMariner support (though they may not actually know without asking their design team).
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 13, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
If the various amperage capacity models within the ProNautic line are properly/conservatively designed with temperature-controlled fans and thermal limiting, then picking a size should only impact how rapidly they can charge a large battery bank, not how many years the charger will last before failure (other than perhaps a slight difference in fan life if a smaller unit runs its fan for more hours). I realize those assumptions for proper design are all "IFs'", but I would not automatically assume that a more expensive 60a unit will last any longer than the 40a unit. Perhaps one could put that direct question to ProMariner support (though they may not actually know without asking their design team).

I put it to a ProMariner insider.  Basically, if the total bank is at 465 AH (plus starting) would one expect a 50a charger to last longer than a 40a charger, because the 40a is working harder and longer?   :think

The reply was (paraphrased) 'Theoretically yes, it's like a 6 cyl vs an 8 cyl pulling your 5,000 lb boat, the tranny in the 6 cyl will wear more/faster.  The larger you can afford in $ and space, the longer it should last.'   

I guess everything is "within reason" of course -- whether an extra 10 amps 40 makes that much difference, only time would tell, using N = much greater than 1.0 unit.    :nail

I think the key is "properly designed" and whether the rule-of-thumb ends up to be 9%, 10%, or 11% of AHs.  It may not make that much difference.

I will say that my ProSport 20+ had failed with a combined approx 220 ah for some time and 330 ah for a while.  (I lived and learned the hard way (but and didn't even get the T shirt!))   :x

k
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on November 13, 2015, 03:11:39 PM
Ken--try this link to get yourself a proper T-shirt made! :abd: :shock: :clap :clap
http://www.weekendrproducts.com/
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 13, 2015, 03:15:46 PM
Ken--try this link to get yourself a proper T-shirt made! :abd: :shock: :clap :clap
http://www.weekendrproducts.com/

Do they carry the "My ProSport 20+ deep-sixed, and all I got from Davey Jones was this lousy Tee shirt" model?

k
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on November 13, 2015, 04:27:15 PM
You're going to need an XXXL for that!!! 8)
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 14, 2015, 09:07:48 AM
I am looking at the Blue Sea custom panels and see there is a digital DC Multimeter you can add to the panel. Am I thinking correctly that adding the Blue Sea digital DC Multimeter to the panel and having the SmartGauge Battery Monitor would be redundant? The description isn't very clear, but it appears the Blue Sea digital DC Multimeter provides a readout of volts and A's, not sure if it monitors one battery or two batteries and 1 circuit current. I'll will call them and ask, but thought I'd ask some owners first.

Anyone have experience with PanelTronics AC/DC panels or comments vs Blue Sea panels?

Thanks for the help.   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on November 14, 2015, 10:02:19 AM
Jon, they are both very good panels.

The Electrical 101 topic has a discussion of how ammeters work.  So, the answer to your question is, partially, "How is the digital ammeter wired?"  Generally, panel ammeters only measure the amperage in the panel, i.e., the loads you are using on your DC system, only what your panel is using.  They rarely measure total charging amperage, which can only be done at the main negative of the battery bank itself.   Why?  Because an ammeter requires the use of a shunt, and the shunt can only measure the "juice" that is running through it, it has to be in series with the load.  And shunts are sized to range of the amperage to be measured.  So a panel ammeter will have a range of maybe 0 to 30 or 50.  But if your charger is a 60 amp charger, it would blow the ammeter, it needs a larger shunt and the shunt has to be at the bank to measure BOTH in & out.

This brings up the interesting features and advantages and disadvantages of the Smart Gauge compared to a Coulomb counter (i.e., Victron, Link, etc.) battery monitor.

They each do different things.

The Smart Gauge has the advantage of set-it-and-forget-it to tell you the SOC of the bank.  It will NOT tell you the amount of amps coming or going.

As I noted in the Battery Acceptance thread  (http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,4787.0.html (http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,4787.0.html)): 

What goes OUT of your house bank becomes easy to learn from the Energy Budget previously discussed and posted. It's what goes back IN that most people are missing, and relates to the state of charge of your house bank in a very direct manner.

The only instrument that will actually show you the actual amount of amps going back IN is a Coulomb counter.  The SG doesn't do that.  From Maine Sail's SG writeup (also in the Electrical 101 topic:  The Smart Gauge is plain & simple, it has no ammeter and only shows battery SOC for the house bank and voltage for an AUX bank.

The cc requires a tad more knowledge of battery systems and programming.  While it has disadvantages, noted in Maine Sail's writeup of the SG, it has the BIG advantages of showing you what's comin' & goin' and isn't that hard to program or reset.  You learn how to work the instruments or don't bother installing them.  Too many people didn't understand or bother to learn how the work.

So, they're not really redundant, they do two different things, depending on how you want to run and manage your system.

Neither are comparable to the panel ammeter.

The panel meters (usually) don't do what either the SG or cc meters do.

Follow the wires.   :D :D :D



Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 14, 2015, 01:56:41 PM
Thanks Stu. The Blue Sea custom panel website has very little information about the DC multimeter and no wiring diagrams. It does reference compatibility with a programmable shunt, but again no details. I'll call or Email them next week.  Jon W
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on November 14, 2015, 02:42:09 PM
Jon, BS makes a System Monitor:  https://www.bluesea.com/products/1801/Vessel_Systems_Monitor_VSM_422

From Maine Sail's and others' inputs, it's not as good as a Victron BMV, included in detail in the E101 Wiring a Battery Monitor thread.

This also is not the built in panel digital meter you mentioned.  I'll noodle around the Blue Sea site, but don't remember seeing anything that would mount on a panel that would "be" a real monitor.  Most of them, custom panel or regular panel, get "built" with the ammeter shunt that is usually within the ammeter unit as discussed in the aforementioned E101 Ammeters & Shunts 101 topic.

There's also this:  https://www.bluesea.com/products/1830/M2_DC_SoC_Monitor  I haven't seen it before since it's new.  I just read the instruction manual and it looks like a nightmare.

The simpler digital ammeters come with shunts.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on November 14, 2015, 07:54:18 PM
Jon,
Noah's boat has a BlueSea Custom panel w Multimeter and he has a SmartGuage. I spec'd the multimeter (which uses a shunt in the neg of the house battery) so that he could always know the current being consumed (or charge rate) at any time. It reads current being used by anything drawing from the house battery, not just the panel load. It is not a coulomb counter (it does not keep a running total of amp-hours). It's a useful complement to the SmartGuage, which does not tell you instantaneous current draw (nor instantaneous battery charger charging current into the battery). Not mandatory, but nice. It's called a multimeter because with the push of a button it reads voltage instead.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on November 14, 2015, 08:00:53 PM
Regarding a larger battery charger lasting longer, the metaphor of a car engine is not valid. Unlike the mechanical failures of a car engine, the failure of a battery charger's electronics is not due to wear and tear on moving parts. Electronics may fail sooner if they are run at a higher temperature but a well designed charger should last 20+ years regardless. The smaller one *may* turn on its fan more often, but that's about it. The ProSport is a different story as it has inadequate cooling and apparently improperly implemented over temperature protection. I can't say if the ProNautic is well designed or not, but if it is, size shouldn't significantly affect life expectancy.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on November 14, 2015, 11:19:51 PM
Couple clarifications on Stu's post:

Generally, panel ammeters only measure the amperage in the panel, i.e., the loads you are using on your DC system, only what your panel is using.  They rarely measure total charging amperage, which can only be done at the main negative of the battery bank itself.   Why?  Because an ammeter requires the use of a shunt, and the shunt can only measure the "juice" that is running through it, it has to be in series with the load. 

A long time ago, it may have been true that panel ammeters rarely measured total amperage at the battery, but these days battery shunts are fairly common. A battery shunt generates a small voltage that's proportional to the current thru it. That voltage can be used by a panel meter mounted remotely to display amps (current) or can feed a more complex battery monitor that tracks the average amps over time as amp-hours (aka a coulomb counter) to determine battery state-of-charge. The SmartGauge determines battery state-of-charge without tracking the amp-hours (and therefore does't need a shunt), but as a result it cannot display instantaneous current into or out of the battery either.


The only instrument that will actually show you the actual amount of amps going back IN is a Coulomb counter. 

I think Stu meant to say "The only instrument that will actually show you the cumulative total of amp-hours that have gone back IN is a Coulomb counter."

An ammeter, such as the BlueSea panel-mount multimeter that Jon asked about, will indeed show your the "the actual amount of amps going back IN" at any instant in time, just not the cumulative amount over time.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on November 15, 2015, 09:44:31 AM
Couple clarifications on Stu's post:

1)   
Generally, panel ammeters only measure the amperage in the panel, i.e., the loads you are using on your DC system, only what your panel is using.  They rarely measure total charging amperage, which can only be done at the main negative of the battery bank itself.   Why?  Because an ammeter requires the use of a shunt, and the shunt can only measure the "juice" that is running through it, it has to be in series with the load. 

A long time ago, it may have been true that panel ammeters rarely measured total amperage at the battery, but these days battery shunts are fairly common. A battery shunt generates a small voltage that's proportional to the current thru it. That voltage can be used by a panel meter mounted remotely to display amps (current) or can feed a more complex battery monitor that tracks the average amps over time as amp-hours (aka a coulomb counter) to determine battery state-of-charge. The SmartGauge determines battery state-of-charge without tracking the amp-hours (and therefore does't need a shunt), but as a result it cannot display instantaneous current into or out of the battery either.


2)   
The only instrument that will actually show you the actual amount of amps going back IN is a Coulomb counter. 

I think Stu meant to say "The only instrument that will actually show you the cumulative total of amp-hours that have gone back IN is a Coulomb counter."

An ammeter, such as the BlueSea panel-mount multimeter that Jon asked about, will indeed show your the "the actual amount of amps going back IN" at any instant in time, just not the cumulative amount over time.

1)  A shunt is a shunt.  The location and capacity of the shunt is important in terms of what you want to measure.  Jeremy's post about how he spec'd Noah's panel is just one of the options I mentioned.  Panel ammeters usually, but not always as Jeremy designed his differently, just measure amps at the panel, not the system.  That's why I finished by saying "Follow the Wires."

2)  Yes, most cc's will show both cumulative and instantaneous amperage.   But they don't actually show cumulative amps in, but rather start off with the negative amp hours of the bank, and start counting backwards (+ charging means less - on the meter).  How they work is covered in "The Gotcha" artivcle about the algorithms in cc's in the E101 topic.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 15, 2015, 09:56:38 AM
Regarding a larger battery charger lasting longer, the metaphor of a car engine is not valid. Unlike the mechanical failures of a car engine, the failure of a battery charger's electronics is not due to wear and tear on moving parts. Electronics may fail sooner if they are run at a higher temperature but a well designed charger should last 20+ years regardless. The smaller one *may* turn on its fan more often, but that's about it. The ProSport is a different story as it has inadequate cooling and apparently improperly implemented over temperature protection. I can't say if the ProNautic is well designed or not, but if it is, size shouldn't significantly affect life expectancy.

I took his reply as "similar to (for a layman)", not "exactly the same as."   Isn't MTBF of components based on operating time, not calendar time?  More work, harder work, more hours, less time between failures.  Maybe I just have too much faith that components are guaranteed to fail (but that's from experience N=2 chargers - a 15a Guest and a 20a ProSport.)

If tied to a dock and therefore all night (or all week) to charge, I still wouldn't spec a 10 amp charger.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 16, 2015, 08:22:09 PM
Been making more changes, I think this is version 10 or 12.

I've recently been thinking to do this in phases. The first phase will be the batteries/charger/regulator, then phase 2 is upgrade to a new AC/DC Distribution Panel and battery monitor. The reason is I like what Noah did by adding some lighting CB's at the binnacle instead of all at the panel by the nav station. The problem is I haven't figured out what to do about electronics, which affect the pod at the binnacle.

As a result the attached is a bit of a hybrid between new and next new. The SmartGuage is shown, but may not be there with the first phase. My existing Link 10 is shown floating in the battery box with a note that it's at the nav station. Too many wires to run in a small space so took the easy way out. I'm also showing dual bilge CB's in the distribution panel which won't be there until I get the new panel.

I really like the terminal block MRBF fuse set up. Fewer wires and less space required. So have a question -

In what cases does the importance of being able to quickly/easily remove a fuse without creating a loose dangling wire offset the mounting convenience of the MRBF. For example,  protecting a wire to the alternator or protecting a circuit providing always-on power to critical devices?

I was originally thinking about putting the MC-614 in the salon area by the stbd water tank, but have changed my mind and now have it in the locker under the head sink. I think this is the more traditional spot.

Appreciate everyones help so far. Think I'm finally getting near the end with the attached.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 22, 2015, 03:25:38 PM
Have two questions -

In my setup when the engine runs, the alternator will charge the house bank and via the Echo charger will also direct some current to the reserve/start battery. When the AC charger is on and charging, won't the Echo charger perform the same role and direct some of that current to the reserve/start battery? If so, does the AC charger need to be connected to the reserve/start battery at all since the Echo charger redirects current to keep it topped off? I ask because it would allow me to remove ~ 25 feet of 4 AWG.

In what cases does the importance of being able to quickly/easily remove a fuse without creating a loose dangling wire offset the mounting convenience of the MRBF. Example - pull the fuse from the holder and wires remain connected, vs disconnect the wire to remove the MRBF.

Thanks.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on November 22, 2015, 03:31:53 PM
When the AC charger is on and charging, won't the Echo charger perform the same role and direct some of that current to the reserve/start battery? If so, does the AC charger need to be connected to the reserve/start battery at all since the Echo charger redirects current to keep it topped off? I ask because it would allow me to remove ~ 25 feet of 4 AWG.

Yes, the echo charge works with both.  No, don't bother running the shorepower to the reserve bank.  That's what the echo charger does, for ALL single source charging sources that go to the house bank.

Any VSR will permit current to flow based on the acceptance of the battery at any given voltage.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 22, 2015, 04:08:11 PM
Thanks. Good and bad news. Good - less wiring and fuses, bad - lots of charger for one bank.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on November 22, 2015, 04:58:10 PM
bad - lots of charger for one bank.


Not really.  Our 390 ah house bank, when deeply discharged, will take 75A from our Freedom 15 I/C for only a short amount of time.  It levels out quickly below 60A and then starts dropping.  I don't think it's an issue.  And anyway, you ARE charging two banks with one charger, right?  Even though the reserve bank is almost always full.  It will do what the bank demands.   
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: tgsail1 on November 22, 2015, 07:32:47 PM
Jon- Looking at this topic, I noticed that you are running 12 GA from the echo charger forward of the forward water tank to the start battery. Since all of the reserve battery charging will now come through that wire you might want to beef it up a bit. The wire, as you have it, is fused for 20A. The Echo charger is capable of 15A. At 15 A the drop to the battery will be more than 1V(for 25 ft). While Xantrex allows 12GA, it also warns against long runs. The effect is to limit the voltage, and thus the current to the start battery making it take longer to charge. My Yandina VSR recommends 10 or 8 GA for long runs.  I think most people mount the Echo charge near the 1-2-B switch (even on it with the switch always on "house") to avoid this altogether. Not a really big deal either way, but since you are rewiring and you have fuses, the extra 5 bucks for the wire might be worth it.   BTW as far as I can tell, the Echo charge is not a VSR but a voltage sensitive "follower". A VSR would allow current to run either direction (the Yandina certainly doesn't care) . The Echo charge does not. Of course that could be as simple as VSR with an in-line diode or as complicated as a buck-boost converter with a digital charge controller (for the technically oriented)- I couldn't find a circuit diagram or even a wiring diagram for that matter.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 23, 2015, 07:41:45 AM
Have two questions -

In my setup when the engine runs, the alternator will charge the house bank and via the Echo charger will also direct some current to the reserve/start battery. When the AC charger is on and charging, won't the Echo charger perform the same role and direct some of that current to the reserve/start battery? If so, does the AC charger need to be connected to the reserve/start battery at all since the Echo charger redirects current to keep it topped off? I ask because it would allow me to remove ~ 25 feet of 4 AWG.

In what cases does the importance of being able to quickly/easily remove a fuse without creating a loose dangling wire offset the mounting convenience of the MRBF. Example - pull the fuse from the holder and wires remain connected, vs disconnect the wire to remove the MRBF.


Thanks.

Jon W.

Jon the fuse question is like red vs green delicious.  It isn't a big deal either way if you're doing maintenance and need to disconnect one fuse nut/cable, or two nuts.  You're splitting very very fine hairs here so you likely won't exactly "half them" anyway.  If the extra wiring and space of the mounted fuse block are important, then go MRBF.  If you have the space, then wiring the fuses is a one-time shot.

It's like I always say about cables, going up size is a one-time expense and incremental copper is a decent deal, so go for it -- until it elevates to the point of:
1) Spending boat bucks to replace something that is perfectly good (like the 4 ga alternator neg.) or
2) Getting becoming burdensome (dealing with extra 2/o cables, fuse block) in a tight spave.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on November 23, 2015, 07:49:12 AM
Jon.

Note that RC says there's really no reason to have a "starting" type battery as your reserve.  That a 12v "deep cycle" works just as well or better.  That's contrary to what I was "brought up with" and always figured the dedicated batt should be a starting type.  His tests of current draw on a deep cycle during starts proves otherwise.  I believe that test is linked in the "101 electrical".

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 23, 2015, 07:57:16 AM
Thanks Ken, better to ask now.

tgsail1,
    Thanks for the comments. The owners manual for the Echo Charger says to use a 20A fuse in each line to the battery banks. If lines are extended then use 12 AWG. The Echo Charger will be mounted on a "breadboard" near the midship starboard water tank under the salon sette. From there the wire travels aft to the aft cabin where the start/reserve battery is currently planned to go. The distance is ~10-12 feet. The 1-2-B switch will be moved to the battery box ~ 6 feet away from the Echo Charger. If the wire can be connected to the #2 position on the 1-2-B switch that would make the install a lot easier, but the distance will be longer albeit with 1 AWG wire from the switch to the start/reserve battery. Is this a better solution than running direct with smaller wire?

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: tgsail1 on November 23, 2015, 08:32:52 AM
Thanks Ken, better to ask now.

tgsail1,
    Thanks for the comments. The owners manual for the Echo Charger says to use a 20A fuse in each line to the battery banks. If lines are extended then use 12 AWG. The Echo Charger will be mounted on a "breadboard" near the midship starboard water tank under the salon sette. From there the wire travels aft to the aft cabin where the start/reserve battery is currently planned to go. The distance is ~10-12 feet. The 1-2-B switch will be moved to the battery box ~ 6 feet away from the Echo Charger. If the wire can be connected to the #2 position on the 1-2-B switch that would make the install a lot easier, but the distance will be longer albeit with 1 AWG wire from the switch to the start/reserve battery. Is this a better solution than running direct with smaller wire?

Jon W.

I can't see why that wouldn't work. The AO goes right to the house bank so it should charge no matter the switch position.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on November 23, 2015, 09:33:52 AM
Don't know if you saw this one, Jon.

An echo charger and the 1-2-B switch:

http://www.c34.org/wiki/index.php?title=Catalina_34_Electrical_System_Upgrade (http://www.c34.org/wiki/index.php?title=Catalina_34_Electrical_System_Upgrade)

It starts off with:

Now includes changes to the Echo Charger wiring that moved from the switch to the individual banks (Stu October 2009)]
NEW wiring diagram by Walt Tunnessen  March 2010 
VERY IMPORTANT MODIFICATION discussed here on the message board:
  http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,6225.0.html (http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,6225.0.html)

Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 23, 2015, 09:54:01 AM
Thanks Stu. I did read both Jim Moe and Mark Elkins write ups, and have 8 wiring diagrams from various C34 threads or the Tech Wiki. I should have remembered I crossed this bridge. No excuse other than too much info through a fire hose.   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on November 23, 2015, 11:04:17 AM


1,,,,and have 8 wiring diagrams from various C34 threads or the Tech Wiki.

2.  I should have remembered I crossed this bridge. No excuse other than too much info through a fire hose. 

1.  Only 8?!?   :D :D :D

2.  Info overload, always a good thing compared to the alternative.   :clap  I'm glad I remembered that one.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Ken Juul on November 23, 2015, 12:20:58 PM
chiming in late.  One of the diagrams you downloaded is probably mine.  I have the charger and alt directly charging the house bank.  Use a BS ACR to keep the starting battery under the aft cabin charged.  I left all the 1-2-B wiring original, but added a seperate start battery off on switch in the aft cabin.  I chose to do it this way for redundency.  I normally have the start battery on and the 1-2-B in the 1 position.  This gives me start and house power with the two banks seperated.  Should either bank fail, I can still start with the house bank using the 2 or B position, or power the house with the start battery with the same switch selection.  Hope to never have to use it.  I chose to go with a dedicated start battery rather than a reserve because I was tired of loosing chart plotter/radar/radio from a momentary low voltage caused by the starter draw.  Blue Sea is a great company, first ACR failed during the first spring commissioning.  They replaced it for free and sent return postage so they could figure out why it failed.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 25, 2015, 06:05:17 PM
Yep I think yours is one of the many I've been looking over. Thanks for making it available.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 29, 2015, 04:52:15 PM
I have been doing the final identification of all the wires large and small gauge, where they terminate, and what type of connector.

The SmartGauge, BMV-700, and MC-614 external regulator all want a direct connection to the positive post on the house battery.

Adding in the AC charger, and bilge pumps, that can add up to 7 wires from 16 AWG to 6 AWG connecting to the one post plus the main 1 AWG. Seems like too much to stack up, if they will fit and can be tightened correctly.

Do I split the terminations between where the terminal block attaches directly to the battery post and where the MRBF fuse and the 1 AWG will be?

Thanks for the help.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on November 30, 2015, 07:16:57 AM
I have been doing the final identification of all the wires large and small gauge, where they terminate, and what type of connector.

The SmartGauge, BMV-700, and MC-614 external regulator all want a direct connection to the positive post on the house battery.

Adding in the AC charger, and bilge pumps, that can add up to 7 wires from 16 AWG to 6 AWG connecting to the one post plus the main 1 AWG. Seems like too much to stack up, if they will fit and can be tightened correctly.

Do I split the terminations between where the terminal block attaches directly to the battery post and where the MRBF fuse and the 1 AWG will be?

Thanks for the help.

Jon W.

Jon,

This is where an always on/charge bus, switched bus, and even volt sense bus can really be helpful. The only one of those items that really needs to be directly on the battery terminals is the Smart Gauge. The Balmar v-sense can be a short ways from the batt terminals on the neg & positive busbar provided voltage drop is minimal between the batt post and the always on/charge bus... Everything else should really be on busbars, not on the batteries. ABYC allows for a maximum of four terminals per stud or screw or terminal.

From L-to R - Always on bus, switched positive bus and negative distribution bus.
(http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/image/156531504.jpg)

Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on November 30, 2015, 03:07:59 PM
I have a 250A positive busbar connected to the house bank after the 250A MRBF fuse. The alternator output and a jumper to the 1-2-B switch #1 post are connected to this busbar.

Would I be better off connecting the alternator output directly to the MRBF fuse on the house bank, then run the house bank from the MRBF fuse directly to the #1 position on the 1-2-B switch? Then change the 250A busbar to a smaller 150A connected to the house bank before the fuse for these devices plus the bilge pumps so they would always be on?

OR

What do you think about the Blue Sea ST fuse block (pn# 5024) that attaches to the battery with 4 ATC type fuses?

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on December 01, 2015, 01:46:31 PM
Jon, this link sounds a little bit, perhaps, like what you are discussing.

http://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/anl-fuse-busbar-vs-dual-mrbf-and-plain-busbar.175922/#post-1257208 (http://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/anl-fuse-busbar-vs-dual-mrbf-and-plain-busbar.175922/#post-1257208)

Scroll up to the top.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on December 02, 2015, 07:43:05 PM
Thanks, the link answered the questions.

I think (I hope) I'm finally done. Tried attaching the final version with a combined Excel wire detail and a better quality graphic, but Excel isn't allowed. So attached a lesser quality graphic with no wire detail like I had done previously.

For the Leece-Neville external regulator conversion kit I found an online supplier named ASE-Supply.com. Do these folks sell quality stuff and reputable? I may follow Noah's lead and use the supplier in Florida, but thought this may be quicker.

Thanks to all for the comments, corrections, guidance, and ideas. As always feedback is welcome.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Craig Illman on December 02, 2015, 07:48:40 PM
I bought an alternator, pulley and regulator conversion kit from ASE Supply and was very satisfied. I found a new Balmar AR-5 regulator kit on eBay for $200.

Craig
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on December 03, 2015, 05:52:01 AM
Thanks Craig. I just placed the order.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on December 03, 2015, 08:57:41 AM
..............I found an online supplier named ASE-Supply.com. Do these folks sell quality stuff and reputable?

Jon, yes, they're good.  I spoke with them a year or so ago, talked to a gentleman named Bob (they have two!!!), very helpful, also suggested he give me the model # but I buy online for better pricing than phone.  Also I found them based on the advice from Maine Sail on his Leece Neville thread right here on this site, you're probably still on info overload, right?   :D
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on December 03, 2015, 12:07:22 PM
I got as far as the "How to" link, which is where I got the part number. I didn't see the next link which recommends ASE-Supply.com. So close.

Any idea what size ring terminal is needed for the BMV-700 shunt?

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on December 03, 2015, 01:34:11 PM
3/8" lug for the Victron shunt..
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on December 03, 2015, 07:28:05 PM
Thank You.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on December 10, 2015, 06:25:14 PM
Questions about ABYC code compliance -

Is there a required distance between a positive busbar and a negative busbar if they will be mounted near each other? Example - if mounted near each other there must be a gap of x" between the nearest points to avoid an arc flash.

Is there an issue if the positive busbar is mounted several inches above the negative busbar?

Thanks for the help.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on December 13, 2015, 04:21:42 PM
I heard from Ken the other day, so to close the loop on this question the answer is - they can be next to each other. Good practice would be to use a cover on the positive bus so there's no chance of shorting to any of the terminals. I'll be using the Blue Sea 2300 busbar's which have a cover.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on December 15, 2015, 10:00:45 AM
You are correct that there is no risk of flashover at 12v (even at 1 micron the flashover voltage is over 12v). I would add, though, that in addition to using a cover, it is good practice to space/arrange busbars so that you can add/remove connections without excessive risk of accidental contact with the wrong busbar. A couple inches is usually enough to meet that requirement.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Dancrosswis on December 16, 2015, 11:16:49 AM
Just a quick thank you note.  My electrical upgrade plans closely parallel Jon's.  I've been lurking as this long thread has evolved.  Today, I reviewed the entire thread again and updated my own schematic and notes.  Jon's great evolving diagrams, accompanied by everyone's thoughts, have been truly educational.  I've been schooled  :clap.

Dan
Ennui Went #159
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on December 16, 2015, 12:31:16 PM
  I've been schooled  :clap.

Dan, glad this helped.  Jon's done a yeoman job.  One of the things that Jon did was immerse himself in the Electrical Systems 101 topic, don't know if you've had the chance yet.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on December 16, 2015, 06:05:07 PM
Hi Dan,
I'm glad this has been helpful. 2 months of sifting through all the data, asking questions, and then pulling it together has been worth it.

The plan is to start doing the actual work right after Christmas. However, I'm now considering installing the reserve battery in the storage area under the fwd salon sette by the table. With the battery installed fore and aft direction and tucked outboard on a shelf,  it will take up little usable storage space and be far more accessible. I realize the fore and aft orientation is not the preferred method and the negative cable will be longer, but being a little used reserve battery the compromise for the other benefits seems worth serious consideration for me. I need to make a decision in the next few days.

Attached is a pretty detailed schematic of Rev H with reserve battery under the fwd salon by the table. Tried attaching Rev G with the reserve under the aft berth for comparison, but get an error that posting both is too large.

If I can keep the energy level up, I'm thinking of documenting the carpentry work, creating a bill of material with parts, terminal connectors, and quantities, documenting wire lengths/color/gauges, voltage drop, with photo's and posting in the projects link. So future folks can have a complete work packet to review and reference.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on December 16, 2015, 06:48:15 PM
Jon- was going to communicate offline but decided it was worth a group posting/discussion. I would recommend your (maint-free) starting/reserve battery be "buried" in aft cabin or beside engine, instead of in main salon, for a number if reasons. Here are some.
1. Shorter cable run.
2. Your second considered location, in salon, is prime accessable storage space--don't waste it on battery.
3. Limit weight forward of mast (OK, this is probably of minimal consideration).


Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Ralph Masters on December 17, 2015, 09:24:34 AM
I put my start battery under the berth in the aft cabin tucked in on the starboard side of the stuffing box. Real short run for the cables.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Joe Holmes on December 17, 2015, 02:27:14 PM
For what it's worth, I put a start battery on a shelf in the bottom of the port hanging locker between the head and the nav station.  Very easy to access and short cable run. Also mounted the ACR in there.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on December 17, 2015, 06:20:31 PM
A quick note about my boat - the refridgerator compressor is installed at the end of the stbd water tank underneath salon. This area is not really available for storage. Quick measurements show the space is comparable to under the aft berth for mounting a group 24 battery. The battery box will not have the top in either case because of limited height. The difference in the salon area is better access with no gymnastics to get to it, and a group 27 could be installed which is ~1/2" lower in height.

Did a little why-why-why exercise - Asked why the increased length of the negative? Why put the shunt and negative busbar in the OEM battery compartment? By moving the busbar and shunt to the board the echo charger will be installed, I shorten length of the negative to the reserve and the main engine ground. Result is voltage drop now ~4% compared to ~3% if under the aft bunk. This is based on my length estimates which I've erred on the long side. Another plus is the Echo Charger to the reserve is now ~10 feet shorter and connects directly to the reserve positive post.

The attached is a better visual to see the considered battery location. It will be under the corner covered section where the outboard long cushion back of the table meets the short forward cushion end of the table. There will be a 2-4" gap between the end of the battery box and the refridgerator compressor. I moved busbar, shunt, and battery graphics around in the attached schematic to give a better visual if interested.

Right now nothing to lose since everything ordered is for installing under the aft bunk. If I go this route, the extra wire can be used for the electric windlass. Won't hurt to try.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on December 17, 2015, 07:07:58 PM
Jon- guess I should have come over and looked at your boat before conjecturing. I should know that no too boats are the same. I am surprised at your reefer compressor location. Most are under the helm seat, I believe. I suppose I could really shake it up if I recommened that you also MOVE the compressor out of that prime real estate space, too!!!
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on December 23, 2015, 07:04:49 AM
Reserve battery question before I buy -

I've found a group 24 RV/Marine battery described as Maintenance Free Deep Cycle, DC24MF, Group Size 24, CCA 650, Amp Hours 80. One brand label is Centennial, the other brand label says Battery.com 619. Price difference between the two is $10.

Any issues with this type battery rating starting the Universal M25XP and being a temporary back-up for systems in an emergency? Thanks.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on December 23, 2015, 07:39:23 AM
Jon,

Have you studied mainesail's posts on 12v " deep cycle" batteries, power used for starting (ie a "starting type" battery)?

When I first got P.I. I put in a new 24, and I wasn't happy with the oomph -  so went to a 27.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Roc on December 23, 2015, 08:44:44 AM
I have a West Marine group 24 labeled as a maintenance free "starting battery" that I use as a reserve, and not everyday starting.  My house bank (4 golf cart batts) is for house loads and all the time starting.  The WM 24 starts the M35B with no problem.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on December 23, 2015, 08:53:35 AM
Hi Ken, I have read the deep cycle vs starting and starting amp draw threads. The start draw tops out with a momentary 132A. Seems 650 CCA's will cover the need. Wondering why your group 24 didn't have enough power?   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on December 23, 2015, 10:00:02 AM
Jon,

Everything was
OEM, and I hadn't had the benefit of all the experience with the cty and universal electrical issues and all the good online stuff (pre Al Gore).  The 4 awg cables were a major contributor.

That said, as I've said to you before a one-time purchase/upgrade is often well worth the cost - especially if it's for 'emergency' use.  I now use 3 gp 29a or 31s.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Roc on December 23, 2015, 10:39:51 AM
If I remember correctly, the WM battery I have comes in different CCA's.  I bought the higher of the two.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on December 31, 2015, 06:12:22 PM
My two cents - quality matters enormously and it's hard to ensure quality when buying a battery from a company that just buys the cheapest ones they can get and slaps their own label on them. Specs only matter to the extent that the product actually meets them. I would stick with well-known brands, and even then some of them are re-labelers (but at least they have a larger reputation at stake).

If the battery is in a relatively accessible area and not too heavy, then buying an inexpensive one and replacing it more frequently is an option, but even then, you need to be able to trust a reserve battery to be there for you when you need it.

That said, Costo can be a good source in your area.

P.S. For a reserve battery you do NOT need to use a Marine or Deep Cycle model. They are fine, but absolutely not necessary.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on January 01, 2016, 09:42:23 AM
Some will find this interesting..

How To Murder Batteries In Half A Year (http://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/how-to-murder-batteries-in-half-a-year.175669/)
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Roc on January 02, 2016, 10:08:39 AM
I have (4) golf cart 6 volt batteries as the house bank which also starts the engine.  Bought them at Sam's Club for about $75 each in 2009.  They still are being used.  They are marked "Energizer" brand and in the small print Johnson Controls seems to be the manufacturer.  I also have a WM starting battery, group 24 as a reserve battery.  I believe it's the 650 CCA model.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Ekutney on January 03, 2016, 06:05:56 AM
Jon,

I like the details you added to your drawing, very useful.  I am looking at rewiring and plan to use a very similar configuration.  Could you provide a copy of the drawing in original format because I lose resolution when I tried to print a hard copy and have trouble reading some of the details.  It would save me time instead of starting from scratch to modify per my exact configuration.  Also do you have a key for the numbered items in circles?

I lived in SD during the 80's while stationed at North Island, loved the year round sailing weather.

Thanks much,
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 04, 2016, 07:57:26 PM
Hi Ed,
    I couldn't find an E-mail address so just sent you a message from the forum. If you send me an E-mail address I can send a copy of the Excel file I have with a much better graphic for the schematic and the wire ID numbers as well as voltage drop and preliminary wire lengths. I used Visio to create the schematic, not sure if you have the software.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 04, 2016, 08:10:12 PM
A couple photo's as I make my way through the project. Long way to go still.

First is an example of the battery cables I'm replacing.

Second the battery box with vents and in the upper background you can see the echo charger, shunt by the water tank.

Third is inside the battery box with the eggcrate to keep the batteries separated.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on January 04, 2016, 08:34:14 PM
Hi Ed,
    I couldn't find an E-mail address so just sent you a message from the forum. If you send me an E-mail address I can send a copy of the Excel file I have with a much better graphic for the schematic and the wire ID numbers as well as voltage drop and preliminary wire lengths. I used Visio to create the schematic, not sure if you have the software.

Jon W.

Ed & Jon,

Why not exchange this info via the personal messages feature?  Use the My Messages tab on the top.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 04, 2016, 08:45:01 PM
I didn't see a way to add attachments. Jon W
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 04, 2016, 11:23:21 PM
Jon if you email me the viso I'll send you a small size pdf to post.

Kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on January 05, 2016, 10:10:07 AM
I didn't see a way to add attachments. Jon W

Jon, the concept was to use the pm to exchange email addresses.  Don't post email addresses here on the forum.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Ben H. on January 05, 2016, 12:42:34 PM
Jon, Thanks for sharing all this information.

I have a question regarding the Positive Bus Bar in the battery box and the extra fuses in a few places for "always on" devices. From what I can see now you have 4 Fused devices coming right off the battery and 2 fused bilge pumps with inline fuses off the bus bar. The charger feeds through the bus bar too.

Might it be simpler to install a 6 or 12 port fuse block from blue sea like 5028 or 5029 and eliminate the positive bus bar and consolidate fuses into one place?
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 05, 2016, 07:52:56 PM
The mfg preferred connection point for the Smartguage, positive sense from the external regulators is at the positive battery post.

I started out with a fuse block but changed my mind and went with the 5024 fuse kit. There is little room left in the battery box with the 4 6V golf cart batteries installed. I took the direction I did to give myself as much quick and easy access to the different fuses and connections as possible, and to have an "always on" busbar. This is also the reason I located the negative busbar and shunt for the battery monitor out of the battery box.

The "always on" busbar allows for future expansion. For example it will make adding power for a stereo/entertainment system pretty simple.  The charger feeds to the busbar to streamline the wiring, (at least in my mind).

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 07, 2016, 06:09:55 PM
I thought the original Master Control Panel looked bad from the outside!!!

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: britinusa on January 08, 2016, 11:56:40 AM
What's up with that? I don't see any wire nuts or gooey electrical tape connectors.

 :D :D

Paul
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 08, 2016, 06:36:04 PM
I didn't see any wire nuts or electrical tape behind the panel yet, but every battery connection (positive and negative) had electrical tape (with corrosion) instead of any type of heat shrink. Come to think of it I haven't found any connection on the boat with heat shrink at the terminal except the ones I'm doing.   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on January 08, 2016, 07:15:21 PM
I was almost tempted to say that's simply because they hadn't invented heat shrink when they built your boat (or mine!).   :D

The fact that most of the circuits still work is a testimony (however you want to take it) of the basic quality of the OEM installation.

Sure, we've all found "problems" in our systems.  The MAIN ones for me were the basic "backbone" and the incorrect use of the 1-2-B switch because of using the C post for charging as well as use.

Other than those, covered extensively in the "Electrical Systems 101" Topic and elsewhere here on this forum and the tech wiki, the electrical system was pretty good for it's time.

Absent complete neglect and/or water intrusion (another form of neglect), they were pretty good to begin with.  I bought our boat in 1998 and our PO hadn't done anything with the basic system.  We ripped out the yucky charger and put in an inverter/charger, but spent time over the years upgrading the engine charging system as we accumulated knowledge, pre-internet days, too.

What folks like Jon and Noah are doing for their boats is admirable, and follows in the footsteps of those of us who have come before.  Their attention to detail and understanding of the basics and details is really important to understand --- they "get it."   :clap :clap
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on January 08, 2016, 08:40:44 PM
Thx Stu. I looked a long time before I decided on a 1990 C34, with it's "good bones and good looks", and fortunately found one that was well taken care of at a fair price. Then, I did a lot of research on this site and others and have gotten lots of good advice, help, and inspriation. I have, and continue to, spend lots of enjoyable (albeit sometimes frustrating) time working on, sailing and learning aboard my boat. Yeah, I have undoubtably spent more money, time and effort upgrading, than I will ever conceivably get back. However, I am fortunate enough to afford it (for now). Besides, I'm thinking about sailing, not selling.  It's the doing, and doing it right, that I find rewarding.

I recall a story about Ted Turner years ago when he was having financial troubles and selling assests. A reporter asked him if he was broke. He responded, "When I start selling my boats, that's when you'll know I'm broke." 

A man (or woman) and their boat, is a hard bond to break.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 08, 2016, 08:53:43 PM
I was almost tempted to say that's simply because they hadn't invented heat shrink when they built your boat (or mine!).   :D


Stu, I woudn't be so quick to give 'em a pass.

HST was used (though not extensively) way before our boats were on the drawing board and early household wiring was tinned to protect it from being corroded (by the insulation, believe it or not -- tinning ceased when insulation materials improved.)  With no regulations and standards to protect buyers, and the pressure of cranking out that volume of boats in the 70s, I fully believe that every boat manufacturer cut corners where/when they could get away with it.  Some just could get away with more cutting than others.  And I believe that, when our wiring withstands the elements, it's despite of, not because of their techs.  I've come across more questionable electrical work on my boat than I've found "good" work -- at least to my standard.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on January 08, 2016, 11:35:24 PM
No one who knows me would ever think of me as an apologist for the basic electrical systems produced on our boats or those of our vintage by this builder.  Far from it.  A pass? Hardly.

Just askin', for comparison sake, if any other boat builder, ANY, was doing that in those days.  30 years ago.

While there has been some questionable wiring I've seen on my boat, those cases had to do with the main + & - #4 ga. lug ends on the mains.  We've been beating that dead horse for three decades on this forum and the tech notes.

The rest still works:  i.e., all the circuits from my electrical panel to the services.

All I am suggesting for new owners who read these kinds of threads:

1)  The C34 has a basically robust and well designed electrical system

2)  The basic electrical system regarding charging is antiquated because of the wire harness connections (trailer Gummy bears), the ammeter in the cockpit panel, and the alternator output going through the C post of the 1-2-B switch

3)  Corrections to these shortcomings have been documented well & repeatedly on this website so you shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel when you're considering enchancements
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Ron Hill on January 09, 2016, 01:09:19 PM
Jon : Your picture of the negative #4 battery wire. May be too late now, but I wouldn't have replaced it!!

I would have soldered that ring connector to the wire for a better electrical connection.  Then I would have used a piece of Anchor heat shrink, slid it over the exposed wire and used a heat gun to shrink it.

I specified Anchor, because all heat shrink is not the same!  Anchor is bit more expensive, but it has a substance on the inside that when heated melts and forms a water seal for the inside of the heat shrink.  Never use a flame with heat shrink, as it's way too hot and can/will burn the heat shrink.

A few thoughts
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 09, 2016, 05:52:44 PM
Hi Ron,
    Thanks for the tip but I'm changing from 4 AWG to 1 AWG cables. I'm using the adhesive lined HST Ken sells, not sure of the brand.

    I finally found some heat shrink terminals on the macerator pump/motor wiring that the PO installed just before I bought the boat. Unfortunately he forgot to heat shrink them.

Ben H., Ed,
    I'd recommend that when you do your electrical upgrade project, that you pay attention to all of the wires. Not just the ones you are changing or re-routing. The attached photo is the positive wire from my new macerator to the main panel as an example why I suggest this extra work.

Ben H.,
    In the second and third photo's I tried to get you a perspective of how tight the spacing is with 4 6V GC batteries installed. I haven't installed the small gauge wires or temp sensor wires yet, but all 1 AWG, busbar, MRBF fuses, and the fuse block are.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 09, 2016, 06:36:46 PM
Forgot to mention as I was following wires behind the panel I was surprised to find that the main negative/ground from the panel was only 10 AWG. Lots of stuff including a wheel pilot for only 10 AWG. Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on January 09, 2016, 06:54:43 PM
Looking very good Jon! There IS light at the end of the tunnel! Discovery is half the fun :shock: 8)
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 09, 2016, 08:25:30 PM
No one who knows me would ever think of me as an apologist for the basic electrical systems produced on our boats or those of our vintage by this builder.  Far from it.  A pass? Hardly.

Just askin', for comparison sake, if any other boat builder, ANY, was doing that in those days.  30 years ago.

While there has been some questionable wiring I've seen on my boat, those cases had to do with the main + & - #4 ga. lug ends on the mains.  We've been beating that dead horse for three decades on this forum and the tech notes.

The rest still works:  i.e., all the circuits from my electrical panel to the services.

All I am suggesting for new owners who read these kinds of threads:

1)  The C34 has a basically robust and well designed electrical system

2)  The basic electrical system regarding charging is antiquated because of the wire harness connections (trailer Gummy bears), the ammeter in the cockpit panel, and the alternator output going through the C post of the 1-2-B switch

3)  Corrections to these shortcomings have been documented well & repeatedly on this website so you shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel when you're considering enchancements

Stu -- cant swear 100% but I know i've seen HST on older boats (CRS).  As I said - they will get away with whatever they could.  and still do -- worked on a J/120 recently and the main 120v receptacle (GFCI) at the nav station.   All the negatives (3-4 cables in this box!!!) were twisted together and taped, not even a wire nut -- that was OEM install.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 10, 2016, 05:22:30 PM
A couple more in work photo's in case anybodys interested. The first shows the reserve battery on the new bracket, and small tool bag next to it. The last is the ProNautic charger mounted under the Nav Station. I thought running the case ground over the charger was a way to keep it out of the way, but after looking at it I may re-route to follow the other wires. Time will tell. Still lots more to go.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on January 10, 2016, 06:02:40 PM
Nice work!!  :D
When you are done, how about come on over and slap some of that pretty white paint around my lockers too!! :shock: 8)
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 10, 2016, 07:06:11 PM
Sure, but I don't know if this project will ever end. Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 13, 2016, 07:08:09 AM
Question on the location for the positive sense wire for the Balmar MC-614H.

The manual says it can be connected to either the alternator output, the common post of the battery switch, or the positive post on the house bank battery being charged. It would be easier to connect to the alternator output, but recall someone saying the more accurate connection was the positive post on the house bank battery being charged. Is the house bank the better connection point? Thanks for the help.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 13, 2016, 09:07:41 AM
Question on the location for the positive sense wire for the Balmar MC-614H.

The manual says it can be connected to either the alternator output, the common post of the battery switch, or the positive post on the house bank battery being charged. It would be easier to connect to the alternator output, but recall someone saying the more accurate connection was the positive post on the house bank battery being charged. Is the house bank the better connection point? Thanks for the help.

Jon W.

There's two issues.
1) voltage drop (which says sense at the battery, right?)
2) sensing the battery bank you are actually charging and not the other one - (i.e., if using the 1-2-B selector switch you want to be sensing the battery you are actually charging.)

Look at and digest RC's MaineSail article on external regulation so you are clear on what can happen when sensing one battery (connected to batt +) and charging another thru the 1-2-B. 

Look at what the V loss is between the Alt+ to the 1-2-B (i.e., with your huge cables is there a practical difference?)

kk


Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on January 13, 2016, 09:49:42 AM
Question on the location for the positive sense wire for the Balmar MC-614H.

The manual says it can be connected to either the alternator output, the common post of the battery switch, or the positive post on the house bank battery being charged. It would be easier to connect to the alternator output, but recall someone saying the more accurate connection was the positive post on the house bank battery being charged. Is the house bank the better connection point? Thanks for the help.

Jon W.


Jon,

From this:

Basic Battery Wiring Diagrams  This is a very good basic primer for boat system wiring: http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,6604.0.html (http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,6604.0.html)

is this:

Important Reminder:

Once you do either of these changes, make sure that the BATTERY SENSE wire from your regulator goes to your house bank.  The instructions with external regulators gives you an option to connect it to the back of the alternator.  This will NOT work, since it will be reading almost if not more than a volt LESS than if it was properly placed at your house bank.

1/13/2015 - Maine Sail just published this:   Alternator Regulator Voltage Sensing  http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing (http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing)

Also:

from this:

Alternator Regulator Wiring Diagrams - all three http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,4548.0.html

is this:

{4/15/2012}  Battery sense wire since removed from alternator and run directly to the house bank: VERY important - Stu

I'm sure you've read these, but probably a while ago.  :D There is a LOT there, right?  No one can remember it all. :D :D :D

Keep up the good work. :clap
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 13, 2016, 10:54:40 AM

make sure that the BATTERY SENSE wire from your regulator goes to your house bank. 


Stu,

It very much depends on if/how you use the switch. 

If you sense one battery and charge thru the 1-2-B switch to the other, how will the above wiring work correctly?  For instance, if your house voltage is "up" (that's what the Balmer senses so no charge.)  But you are trying to charge the start battery that is "down," so....... no (or incomplete) charge takes place, right?

RC's article that you reference labels that hookup method as one of his "Fail" hookups.

Quote
1/13/2015 - Maine Sail just published this:   Alternator Regulator Voltage Sensing 

http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing (http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing)


Volt Sense Blunder - FAIL !!!!!
(http://m7.i.pbase.com/g9/84/622984/3/158792397.5mqqPbFL.jpg)

Take the basic (stock) battery/charging (very simplistic) system, how do you charge the 2nd battery correctly if you sense ONLY the 1st battery?  Mustn't you sense the battery that you are attempting to charge.   If you never use the 1-2-B switch, that's a different situation.

What am I missing here?

Ken
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on January 13, 2016, 11:47:01 AM
If you never use the 1-2-B switch, that's a different situation.

What am I missing here?


Ken, the answer is in the links, as well as Maine Sail's discussions of the 1-2-B switch included in the Electrical Systems 101 Topic.  We have our AO going to the house bank, the battery sense is on the house bank and the reserve bank gets charged by our combiner (or for others their echo charger or Blue Sea VSR).  We leave the battery switch on the house bank.

...and charge thru the 1-2-B switch to the other...  is ancient history.

That diagram shows the 1-2-B switch with the AO going to the C post of the switch.  Of course it's a fail, for two reasons.  :D
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 13, 2016, 01:00:44 PM
If you never use the 1-2-B switch, that's a different situation.

What am I missing here?


Ken, the answer is in the links, as well as Maine Sail's discussions of the 1-2-B switch included in the Electrical Systems 101 Topic.  We have our AO going to the house bank, the battery sense is on the house bank and the reserve bank gets charged by our combiner (or for others their echo charger or Blue Sea VSR).  We leave the battery switch on the house bank.

...and charge thru the 1-2-B switch to the other...  is ancient history.

That diagram shows the 1-2-B switch with the AO going to the C post of the switch.  Of course it's a fail, for two reasons.  :D

Stu,
Gotcha, " If you never use the 1-2-B switch, that's a different situation"  Using the 1-2-B is "so 80s"   :rolling  But, remember that if the echo were to fail, emergency charging using the 1-2-B is also "so yesterday."   :shock:

So with Jon's specifically, what's the voltage difference between the AO and the HB?  Say, worst case, HB down, bulk charge, short-term, etc.  w/ 16' of 1 AWG cable / 105-amp charge (BTW, will never see all that) the difference from AO to HB is like 0.2 volt.  Under a 50-amp charge, the difference is 0.1v.  Significant?   :donno: YBYD(ecision.)

Not that's it's important, but if one were to sense at the 1-2-B, what's the voltage difference?   (In reality, he'd have a 1 awg "sense wire" to the HB, with only the house load going thru it.)  The voltage difference with, say for instance a 20-amp house load, is 0.04 volt.   Significant? :donno:

This obviously ignores loss thru terminals, switch, etc.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on January 13, 2016, 01:22:59 PM
Ken, the voltage drop can be significant.  Both Maine Sail & I have noted this, and yes, connections do play a (large) part.

I appreciate you mentioning these basics for others to read, which are included in what could be termed the most three basic links of information that anyone doing this work would/should have read related to charging systems in the Electrical Systems 101 Topic.

Like this one: http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,4949.msg44149.html#msg44149 (http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,4949.msg44149.html#msg44149)

If the echo charger fails you use the B position on the switch WHEN CHARGING, also discussed many times.  I call it B for Backup!   :D

And the sense wire runs from his MC-614 to the HB, not from the alternator.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on January 13, 2016, 01:47:22 PM
If I had a dime for every time I have read;

"Your alt will cut back in a few minutes anyway even with a high performance alternator."

Sadly this is a result of either;

A) Murdered sulfated batteries

B) A poorly set up & poorly installed "performance alternator"

It is not at all uncommon for me to measure -0.6V to -1.2V+ of drop between the alternator and battery banks even after someone has paid big bucks for a high performance alternator system and then installed it in a poor fashion which murders performance. Remember a 3% voltage drop at 14.4V results in 13.97V at the batteries HOWEVER this does not take into account any terminations, fuses, switches, busbars etc.. Sizing for 3% in the wire quite often nets you 4% to 5%+ as installed..

While one of my images was referenced I would urge everyone to read it and let it sink in. The drop in that example made HUGE differences in charging performance that would also translate into major health benefits for the battery bank.

Regulators & Voltage Sensing - Why? (http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/regulator_voltage_sensing)

These are the results and they are rather shocking and this only represents a 0.6V drop and I see far worse;

This was a race boat and light and fast was the game. As such the bank was designed to be cycled to approx 35% SOC as opposed to 50% most cruisers would do. The cost of the batteries was not the issue for this owner. Battery weight and getting as much energy back into them, in the shortest time, was the main goal. He chose TPPL AGM's (thin plate pure lead) for their ability to take a high charge current rates yet he was not happy with how long his batteries were staying in bulk.

With a .5C charge capability on-board (.5C = 50% of bank Ah capacity) and Odyssey TPPL AGM batteries he should have been doing better than he was. I ran his alternator in bulk charge and measured a .73V drop from the alternator end to the battery end. Not a good find on a boat demanding the utmost in fast charging.... I fixed this issue by addressing the placement of the voltage sensing wires and beefing up both the positive and negative alternator output wires.. Performance increased, and all was good..

For this article I took a brand new Odyssey PC2150 battery (Group 31 12V AGM), that I had just tested at 100.2Ah's of capacity at the 20 hour rate.. I then discharged the bank down to 11.85V at 77F and the 20 hour rate of 5A. This left the battery at 35% SOC or about 65% discharged. The battery was then recharged with an approx .7V drop at 50A. I set the charger for a 14.7V absorption voltage. The results are in the graph above. Click on the graph to make it larger.

Points to Ponder:

*In 1 hour of charging, at a .5C charge rate, the battery never exceeded 14.3V.

*At just 14.0V, measured at the battery terminal's, the charger began limiting voltage. When measured at the charger end, it was seeing 14.7V and it began holding the voltage steady.

*Once the voltage is held steady current tapers off and charging speed reductions are happening.

*Maximum bulk time was limited to 30 minutes at 50A, due to the voltage drop. This resulted in just 41.93 Ah's delivered to the battery in the 1 hour recharge period.

Voltage not sensed at battery:
(http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/image/158869365.jpg)



Sensing voltage at battery:
*In 1 hour the charge source delivered 49.37 Ah's to the battery. This is an improvement of 7.44 Ah's in just a short 1 hour charge cycle. This equates to a percentage increase in charge performance of approx 17.7%, just by moving two small wires.

*Bulk charge at 50A increased by 20 minutes to a full 50 minutes of bulk charging. Remember this was a 100Ah battery charged at 50A or .5C for just 1 hour. It spent a full 50 minutes of that hour in bulk before attaining 14.7V a much healthier voltage point for these batteries to get to.

*The battery actually attained the absorption voltage set point of 14.7V. In a PSOC environment this is far healthier for the battery than stopping at 14.3V. Even getting to 14.7V for just 10 minutes is far healthier than ever even getting there and it can help limit some of the effects of sulfation, even in a short 1 hour recharge..

*In the previous timage, with no on battery voltage sensing, that battery would suffer performance issues considerably faster due to never even attaining the 14.7V target with daily 1 hour recharges.

Voltage sensed at battery terminals:

(http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/image/158869366.jpg)


Proper voltage sensing directly impacts charging performance & battery health in the short-run / PSOC environment we abuse our batteries in..
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 13, 2016, 02:16:57 PM


I ran his alternator in bulk charge and measured a .73V drop from the alternator end to the battery end.

RC, Why?  Were the cables sized properly, bad connections, questionable terminations? In Jon's case, with his cables, running the numbers (theoretically) the wire drop is 0.20v. 

Ken
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on January 13, 2016, 02:36:45 PM


I ran his alternator in bulk charge and measured a .73V drop from the alternator end to the battery end.

RC, Why?  Were the cables sized properly, bad connections, questionable terminations? In Jon's case, with his cables, running the numbers (theoretically) the wire drop is 0.20v. 

Ken

Why? Real world.... The owner sized for 3% which is already a -0.44V drop at 14.7V, not ideal for a performance charring system without voltage sensing, but that 3% sizing is WIRE ONLY. People often forget that the charts for wire sizing ignore all the other things that add voltage drop. For most circuits 3% is fine but it is not adequate for performance charging system and it did not meet his design expectations for offshore racing. That is when I was called in... 

Real world also means that when the wires were finally run the length, according to the owner, "was a tad longer." The wire passed through multiple lugs/terminals, a fuse, switch, busbar etc. and each and every connection adds more voltage drop to the wire loss..

I don't know Jon's wire lengths but I do see approx 16 connection points on the negative side and approx 6 on the positive side as well as a fuse. I tend to use 0.00025Ω per connection point as the resistance. Each lug is; wire to lug as #1 and lug to XX point as #2. Two connection points per lug. This 0.00025Ω seems to bear out quite often. It would be really stellar to see a 1.37% voltage drop (-0.2V @ 14.6V) but as installed that rarely happens.

Let's run the numbers on just the connection points at 80A:

22 *Connection points at 0.00025 = 0.0055

80A X 0.0055 = -0.44V

*I am assuming the connections are clean, tight and not made with a dime store crimp tool...
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 13, 2016, 03:40:58 PM
That's what I was thinking I read, just wanted to be sure. Thanks Stu.

I count the 6 positive connection points, but only count 12 connection points on the negative. Where do you see the other 4? The best I've been able to capture is my current total circuit from alternator to house bank, through all the jumpers, and back to engine ground is 36.84 feet. If I've done this right (remember I'm new to all this) at 80A and 1 AWG cable resistance of .000124, I end up with .365 voltage drop (3.04% excluding connections).

I can't remember the exact brand name of the crimper I've borrowed, but think T&B was on the case. When the crimp is made, it stamps a number on the lug. Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on January 13, 2016, 10:21:44 PM
Jon,
You wrote:
Question on the location for the positive sense wire for the Balmar MC-614H.

The manual says it can be connected to either the alternator output, the common post of the battery switch, or the positive post on the house bank battery being charged. It would be easier to connect to the alternator output, but recall someone saying the more accurate connection was the positive post on the house bank battery being charged. Is the house bank the better connection point? Thanks for the help.

Jon W.

To give the short answer in case everyone else's was too long a read for some:
IN YOUR DESIGN IT MUST GO TO THE HOUSE BANK.

I believe that's where your diagrams showed it.

The whole purpose of the remote sense wire to sense the voltage being delivered AT THE BATTERY. Anything short of that defeats the purpose, which is to compensate for the voltage drop on the charge cable at high amperage charge rates, where even 0.1v makes a difference. (MaineSail has thoroughly addressed this nicely)

On a separate note, if you have not already permanently installed your four main batteries, it would be nice to install some sort of built-up edge to the exit hole in the bottom of the battery box so that an acid spill won't drip down that hole. A surface mount plastic pipe flange would be great if you can find and mount one there that still allows all the cables thru. I don't recall what Noah eventually did, but he and I discussed it when he did his retro, so you may want to ask him. I it's too late, don't sweat it.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 14, 2016, 06:33:10 AM
I will run it to the HB like shown. Looks like the negative goes there as well, I didn't notice that until now. I have it connecting to the engine ground.

Noah and I talked about covering the holes in the bottom of the battery box. Thanks for the help. Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 14, 2016, 12:05:14 PM
Stu,
     I was searching on AC grounding and found this thread "Electrical Systems - Grounding for DC, AC, SSB and Lightning". It references a West Marine site and article, but when I click on the link it takes me to the WM website not the article. Is that article available? Thanks.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 14, 2016, 02:02:01 PM
Finally have the new master panel from Blue Sea panel. Come to find out the power connection for both bilge pump 1 and 2 is bussed together so I re-purposed the bilge pump 1 power to be the VHF. Also moved the Balmar Ext Reg negative to the HB battery #4 negative, added the Pronautic temp sense wire, the AC bus to connect the Pronautic case ground and a jumper from it to the DC negative busbar. Up to 56 wires now. Hopefully the attached is a much clearer graphic that you can zoom into to see details. As always thanks for the patience and help.   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on January 14, 2016, 03:08:26 PM
Stu,
     I was searching on AC grounding and found this thread "Electrical Systems - Grounding for DC, AC, SSB and Lightning". It references a West Marine site and article, but when I click on the link it takes me to the WM website not the article. Is that article available? Thanks.

Jon W.

WM changed the link when they redid their website since that was posted here in 2008.  Here it is, I fixed the link, too, thanks.

http://www.westmarine.com/WestAdvisor/Marine-Grounding-Systems (http://www.westmarine.com/WestAdvisor/Marine-Grounding-Systems)

The Advisors should be on everyone's bookmark list.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 14, 2016, 04:42:52 PM
Thanks Stu. Without a galvanic isolator before the panel does the AC ground bus still get connected to the DC negative bus back to engine or only with a galvanic isolator in the AC circuit? Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 14, 2016, 06:51:27 PM
Finally have the new master panel from Blue Sea panel. Come to find out the power connection for both bilge pump 1 and 2 is bussed together so I re-purposed the bilge pump 1 power to be the VHF. Also moved the Balmar Ext Reg negative to the HB battery #4 negative, added the Pronautic temp sense wire, the AC bus to connect the Pronautic case ground and a jumper from it to the DC negative busbar. Up to 56 wires now. Hopefully the attached is a much clearer graphic that you can zoom into to see details. As always thanks for the patience and help.   Jon W.

Jon

So do I see this right - VHF powered off your always-hot pos buss?  Why not off a breaker on the new panel?

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 14, 2016, 07:00:53 PM
Without a galvanic isolator before the panel does the AC ground bus still get connected to the DC negative bus back to engine or only with a galvanic isolator in the AC circuit? Jon W.


Jon

The ABYC standard is bond the AC ground to the DC negative, regardless. 
However, there is controversy about that.  Understand precisely what the result of that bonding does (or potentially could do) to your boat, and what the (potential) upside of doing that is.  Then make an informed decision whether to do that.

Related - you concentrated on the DC side - besides the SmartPlug are you making any changes to the AC side?  An ELCI (hopefully)?  I saw your shore/gen switch.  What's your genset?

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 14, 2016, 08:48:10 PM
I'm routing the VHF to the always on bus to minimize failure points so there is minimal risk to losing the radio.

What is ELCI? If it is the same as a GFCI I believe I have at least one. If not it will be added. No genset yet just a future option.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 14, 2016, 09:39:50 PM

What is ELCI? If it is the same as a GFCI I believe I have at least one. If not it will be added. No genset yet just a future option.

Jon W.

Jon

An Equipment Leakage Circuit Interrupter is essentially a "whole boat" RCD (residual current device) -- similar to a GFCI that's also an RCD (that protects typically a single circuit.)  i.e., the ELCI trips with leakage anywhere past the main breaker -- the GFCI trips with leakage only in the circuit behind the GFCI.   There's other specific differences, but that's the basic bottom line. 

The presence or absence of an ELCI is germane to the AC-DC bonding controversy.

Where's your master breaker?   In new builds, an ELCI main breaker is typically used in place of the former over-current-trip-only main breaker. 

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 15, 2016, 06:01:28 AM
The main breaker for the AC is on the master panel as an off plus 2 position rotary switch. Off, Shore, Gen.   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 15, 2016, 06:48:32 AM
The main 30 amp circuit breaker, not the source selector?
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 15, 2016, 03:29:54 PM
I thought the switch was also a breaker, but turns out it isn't a breaker. I'm looking into the cost of getting a breaker to replace the switch.   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 18, 2016, 02:44:15 PM
MaineSail, Ken,
      Question on ELCI breakers. I've heard an issue with ELCI breakers is nuisance trips. In talking to Blue Sea, they said the breaker trips due to an electrical leak the breaker has identified and not due to a sensitive/poor quality breaker. Most common culprits are an inverter followed by the water heater. I don't have an inverter, so just the water heater and electrical outlets. In your experiences how frequent does tripping of an ELCI occur? Does the breaker require labratory conditions? In other words if faulty items are corrected, does time factor in causing this to be a regular maintenance item? Would it be better to go with a traditional 30 amp 2 pole breaker for a 29 year old boat with minimal AC loads?  Thanks for the help.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 18, 2016, 05:14:51 PM
MaineSail, Ken,
      Question on ELCI breakers. I've heard an issue with ELCI breakers is nuisance trips. In talking to Blue Sea, they said the breaker trips due to an electrical leak the breaker has identified and not due to a sensitive/poor quality breaker. Most common culprits are an inverter followed by the water heater. I don't have an inverter, so just the water heater and electrical outlets. In your experiences how frequent does tripping of an ELCI occur? Does the breaker require labratory conditions? In other words if faulty items are corrected, does time factor in causing this to be a regular maintenance item? Would it be better to go with a traditional 30 amp 2 pole breaker for a 29 year old boat with minimal AC loads?  Thanks for the help.

Jon W.

Sure there always some issues with trips, but more so in the past with my experience.   RC? what say you?

Personally speaking, I WOULD NOT go with anything but an ELIC. 

IIWMB and I was rewiring/a new panel.  I'll put up with a few nuisance trips for the safety of those aboard.  I'd feel real bad if someone got dead or worse from leaky equipment and it was because I didn't care to reset the breaker on a trip.

If you're rewiring and NOT installing an ELCI, you might have an insurance issue -- better verify if you go that route.

Note that a GFCI trips at 5 ma, and ELCI at 30 ma.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 19, 2016, 04:08:47 PM
I may regret this, but have just ordered the ELCI breaker for my panel.

In case I have trip issues with the water heater AC wires, I looked behind the removable panel on the water heater where the wires enter. They disappear behind some insulation. I didn't move the insulation. Does anyone know how to get to the terminals to disconnect the AC wires?   Thanks for the help.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on January 19, 2016, 04:26:38 PM
Just pull the insulation out to expose the connections.  The metal in the third picture covers the connections for the hot & neutral.  IIRC, there's no insulation in the new heater.  First two pictures are the old one.

Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 19, 2016, 04:46:55 PM
Thanks Stu. Hopefully I won't need to change anything. Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on January 19, 2016, 10:46:25 PM
Presumably you are putting the heater on its own breaker in your new panel. Even if it has leakage issues, they shouldn't cause problems when its breaker is off.


**** Update ****
I wasn't considering all possible cases and paths in the statement above. Although in the vast majority of the cases, turning off the water heater breaker will stop it from causing nuisance trips, it will not 100% eliminate it as a source. Even with the breaker off the heater's neutral is still connected to both the heating element and boat's AC neutral bus. If the heater has leakage between its element and the water, that will result in a leakage path from any neutral on-board to the AC safety grounding wire and/or the water (branch circuit breakers open only the hot, not the neutral). That means that current consumed by other appliances on-board has an alternate path rather than returning back thru the the ELCI's neutral circuit. The current will divide up between all possible paths proportionally to how low resistance those paths are. IF the leakage to ground is severe enough AND the neutral connection back through the dock is not very good, then enough current could take the route thru the ground to trip the ELCI. Remember, the ELCI trips if there is an unbalance greater than 30ma between the current in its hot wire and its neutral wire that lasts longer than 100ms. If any of your neutral wires downstream of the ELCI have a leakage path to ground then such an in-balance can occur. Such a scenario of leakage back thru the heater's neutral would not likely cause enough imbalance to trip the ELCI unless you had a very poor neutral connection back to the dock or the dock's neutral voltage rose due to problems dockside. AND unless the cracks in the heating element were right at the neutral end of the element, turning on the heater would cause far more ELCI trips than with the breaker off. Thus the far more likely scenario would be that any leakage in the heater element would create problems ONLY when the heater breaker is on and the heater is actively heating up. BUT it is theoretically possible for a leaky heater element to cause trips with its breaker off in just the right conditions.

A relatively quick check for leakage in your system from neutral to ground that does not require special instruments (though unsafe if not done carefully) is to disconnect the neutral at the output of the ELCI (must be at the output not input because the ELCI circuitry needs power), connect shore power, turn on the ELCI with all other breakers off, then try turning on each of your AC load breakers. If any of then have a leakage path to ground, the lack of a neutral wire path will magnify the effect and should cause the ELCI to trip. I have not tried this test personally and it may produce a false positive with some appliance's noise filters, so I'd be interested in commentary from MaineSail or others who may have tried it. Keep in mind, it is UNSAFE to normally operate without both the neutral and ground wires connected, so be sure to properly re-connect the neutral when the test is completed.


*** Stu - Was the bottom photo taken during installation? It looks like not-yet-shrinked heatshrink tubing over the three AC connections.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on January 19, 2016, 11:19:35 PM
1.  Presumably you are putting the heater on its own breaker in your new panel. Even if it has leakage issues, they shouldn't cause problems when its breaker is off.


2.  *** Stu - Was the bottom photo taken during installation? It looks like not-yet-shrinked heatshrink tubing over the three AC connections.

1.  Of course he should.  :D

2.  Good eyes.  Yes, exactly.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 20, 2016, 06:20:30 AM
The water heater, charger, and outlets each have their own breaker with one spare. Jon W
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on January 20, 2016, 11:30:50 AM
MaineSail, Ken,
      Question on ELCI breakers. I've heard an issue with ELCI breakers is nuisance trips. In talking to Blue Sea, they said the breaker trips due to an electrical leak the breaker has identified and not due to a sensitive/poor quality breaker. Most common culprits are an inverter followed by the water heater. I don't have an inverter, so just the water heater and electrical outlets. In your experiences how frequent does tripping of an ELCI occur? Does the breaker require labratory conditions? In other words if faulty items are corrected, does time factor in causing this to be a regular maintenance item? Would it be better to go with a traditional 30 amp 2 pole breaker for a 29 year old boat with minimal AC loads?  Thanks for the help.

Jon W.

Sure there always some issues with trips, but more so in the past with my experience.   RC? what say you?

Personally speaking, I WOULD NOT go with anything but an ELIC. 

IIWMB and I was rewiring/a new panel.  I'll put up with a few nuisance trips for the safety of those aboard.  I'd feel real bad if someone got dead or worse from leaky equipment and it was because I didn't care to reset the breaker on a trip.

If you're rewiring and NOT installing an ELCI, you might have an insurance issue -- better verify if you go that route.

Note that a GFCI trips at 5 ma, and ELCI at 30 ma.

kk

ELCI's have had a bumpy ride getting off the ground.

#1 Early ELCI's checked for a neutral to ground bond on the SOURCE side. Under marine standards the "source" must be neutral to ground bonded. If this bond was not detected the ELCI tripped. Marina's are horribly notorious for dropped grounds and thus this created many nuisance trips. Current versions have dropped the SOURCE side neutral/ground bond check. ELCI's will also trip if there is a neutral to ground bond on-board, also called a bonded neutral. Many, many, many boats in the US are IMPROPERLY wired and have bonded neutrals on board. This can be from folks simply not understanding marine wiring to the wrong charger (auto chargers), inverter, appliances with internal neutral/ground bond, an improperly wired source selector or even an improperly wired reverse polarity light. Bottom line is that on an improperly wired boat or boat using non-marine compliant appliances, chargers or inverters, you will have issues if you add an ELCI.

Sadly a metric $hit-ton of DIY's and yard employees believe they are smarter than the standards organizations and thus create dangerous issues they are completely unaware of. In my experience only about 3 out of 10 boats is properly wired for AC....  Heck I measured 84V AC on a battery last fall due to an owner who wired a cheap inverter into his ships AC panel. He was unfazed by it..... :shock:

Obviously a V.1 ELCI will not work with a floating neutral generator, not that these devices should be used on boats to begin with, but that's a different Darwin Award discussion for another day, like the two blokes down under killed by carbon monoxide a few weeks ago from a gas generator. Oh and just today a guy on SBO wanted to install a portable gas generator below deck........ :?

Inverter transfer switches were also causing occasional nuisance trips as the relay contacts were not always "making" at the exact same point in time and in V.1 this was recognized as an open ground/neutral fault. In some rare instance the EMI filtration in inverters was also causing nuisance trips but in V.2 I think this is behind us.. Non-marine inverters wired into a boat also cause ELCI trips because they are NOT proper marine inverters that bond neutral to ground. They put out 60V and 60V not 120V and 0V. Of course the installation of non-marine inverters, wired into the ships AC system, is also another Darwin Award situation waiting to happen.. In short the V.1 & V.2 ELCI's have exposed a lot of the problems with US dock wiring, boat wiring, inverters, chargers, appliances and generators.

Old V.1 versions look like this:
PBD-X019

New V.2 versions look like this:
PBD-X021

#2 Until we fix our horribly outdated shore power plug standard there will continue to be nuisance trips. I hesitate to install an ELCI without also installing a Smart Plug it is just a poor decision to do so because I will see nuisance trips. A high resistance situation in a shore plug can create situation which creates an imbalance which can also lead to nuisance trips. The heating and embittlement of wire jackets, resulting in cracks, and melting and moisture can all potentially lead to this.

#3 Some early V.1 ELCI's could be tripped by "noise" such as keying a VHF. This is no longer an issue.

ELCI's are a great safety device, now mandatory for new boat builders, but they need to be installed in boats with compliant systems and wiring and ideally I don't believe they should be paired with our outdated twist lock plugs. Even without the neutral/ground check on newer V.2 ELCI's a floating neutral generator can still nuisance trip them...
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 20, 2016, 12:02:44 PM
Were PBD-X019 and 021 meant to be links?

The ELCI I'm buying is the Blue Sea 1502 that I will install in my new Blue Sea main panel. Pdf of the panel is attached (the blank label should say ELCI). The new main panel came with a 5 screw dual busbar, but I'm adding an additional 10 screw dual busbar to completely replace the terminal block currently installed.

I purchased the Smartplug, but have not installed it yet. The plan was to complete this project, take a short break then install it. Guess I need to add it to the punch list for this project.

Thanks for the reply.   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on January 20, 2016, 12:48:23 PM
That is the Carling model # on the back of a toggle style Blue Sea ELCI 3106100. This is the most common ELCI I retrofit. The last of the V.1 were over a year ago..
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on January 20, 2016, 01:15:30 PM
This is comical.....

http://www.sailmagazine.com/cruising/cruising-tips/how-to-avoid-shore-power-problems/?utm_source=sail-enewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=textlink&utm_campaign=enewsletter

Not even a mention of the SmartPlug - who is in whose pocket?
A Typical Sail magazine piece of do-do -- the best use of the paper it arrives printed on, is cleaning up do-do.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on January 20, 2016, 04:34:54 PM
Thanks jsail. Very helpful information, I gave you a little karma for that one. Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on January 20, 2016, 11:24:45 PM
Thanks - MaineSail. I recalled that open grounds on the source side would trip ELCI's, but when looking earlier this week could not find any documentation for them that supported my recollection. Now I know - they changed the design between ver 1 and 2 and updated the online documentation to eliminate the mention of the removed annoying functionality. 

Warning - techie stuff to follow:
Regarding your statement that, "A high resistance situation in a shore plug can create an imbalance which can also lead to nuisance trips." If the only issue was a high resistance in the shore power plug, one should just see a low voltage to the load. One explanation for a high resistance neutral causing a nuisance trip, though would be a pre-existing high-resistance leakage path from an on-board neutral to ground. That could be a poorly designed noise filter on a device, an leaky heater element that is close the neutral end of the heater element, or a leakage path from either the hot or neutral side of circuit whose breaker is off (opening just the hot side). If it was high-resistance and from neutral to ground it would normally not trip the ELCI. As long as the shore power neutral is in good shape, virtually all the current would go back via the neutral, the voltage across the leakage path is only a volt or so, and the ELCI would be balanced. With a high-resistance neutral, though, some of the current would be forced to return via the leakage path to ground as the voltage across the leakage path rises, and the ELCI would trip. That is the situation that my proposed test exposes. By artificially opening the neutral at the ELCI input output you put the full 120v line voltage across any leakage path and force it to be used as the exclusive return. If there is a path the ELCI would trip
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on January 21, 2016, 08:17:11 AM
Thanks - MaineSail. I recalled that open grounds on the source side would trip ELCI's, but when looking earlier this week could not find any documentation for them that supported my recollection. Now I know - they changed the design between ver 1 and 2 and updated the online documentation to eliminate the mention of the removed annoying functionality. 

Warning - techie stuff to follow:
Regarding your statement that, "A high resistance situation in a shore plug can create an imbalance which can also lead to nuisance trips." If the only issue was a high resistance in the shore power plug, one should just see a low voltage to the load. One explanation for a high resistance neutral causing a nuisance trip, though would be a pre-existing high-resistance leakage path from an on-board neutral to ground. That could be a poorly designed noise filter on a device, an leaky heater element that is close the neutral end of the heater element, or a leakage path from either the hot or neutral side of circuit whose breaker is off (opening just the hot side). If it was high-resistance and from neutral to ground it would normally not trip the ELCI. As long as the shore power neutral is in good shape, virtually all the current would go back via the neutral, the voltage across the leakage path is only a volt or so, and the ELCI would be balanced. With a high-resistance neutral, though, some of the current would be forced to return via the leakage path to ground as the voltage across the leakage path rises, and the ELCI would trip. That is the situation that my proposed test exposes. By artificially opening the neutral at the ELCI input you put the full 120v line voltage across any leakage path and force it to be used as the exclusive return. If there is a path the ELCI would trip.

I should have been more clear on "a high resistance situation can create"...

When the plug or terminal gets so hot that it heats the wire and makes the wiring brittle near the plug it can create a neutral to ground leakage. This is something a regular 30A breaker would not notice and with current flowing on the green we now have an imbalance. Sometimes the melting on shore power plugs is not always visible and happens internally especially where the wires may be twisted around one another.....

An ELCI can trip where a standard breaker would not because on the source side ground and neutral are bonded at shore anyway.. With the high resistance in the neutral and the jacket damage due to melting current may begin to flow on the ground. I have had a few shore cord sets where I can actually measure continuity between neutral and ground with it unplugged. Granted IIRC these have almost always been in DIY installed replacement cord-ends rather than factory molded units but it could still happen...

Here is an example of where the high resistance caused the wire jacket to become very hot then very brittle and crack. This was a hot but I see it between neutral & ground too and that would not create a trip with a standard breaker but can with an ELCI. The Smart Plug eliminates this heating and high resistance that can lead to in-plug wire damage.
(http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/image/153751477.jpg)
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on March 05, 2016, 09:14:07 PM
Hi Folks,
   I was going to let this post drift off, but noticed over 1000 views the past month so thought I’d give an update. Very little progress made in February due to life and waiting for the battery temp sense wire from ProMariner.

To date:
   I’ve spent ~ 110 hours working on the boat. Nothing is straight forward the first time around. Required lots of decisions each
        step of the way.

   All in all 85 wires ranging in size from 16 AWG to 1 AWG have either been installed new, or existing wires re-routed, or re-terminated.

   Batteries are not connected waiting for the inspection noted below. Bilge pump is direct wired    to the reserve battery temporarily
        just in case.

   External regulator will not be connected until after the inspection and first start with the new system. Why – everything is new
        and want to limit problem areas.

   Powered up the AC system with new ELCI breaker. No false trips for heater or outlets with heat gun and work light switching on
        and off. Charger not turned on since batteries not connected.

   In the spirit of checking everything as I went, I found the Nav station desk bolts were about to fall off and 3 of 4 macerator
        pump mounting screws were loose. All are tight now.

   Attached pictures of the new Blue Sea panel (with ELCI breaker) propped in place for the photo with new teak fascia,
        SmartGauge and BMV-700 installed; back of the panel with it’s wiring; plus a picture of the external regulator installed and
        waiting to be hooked up. It may look buried, but is very easy to get to and use the reed switch.

Next Step:
   Contact Alan Katz (a local expert here in San Diego), to have my work inspected before    connecting the house bank,
        programming the charger/SmartGauge/BMV-700 and first start up.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Ted Pounds on March 07, 2016, 10:00:09 AM
Looks like an AMAZING job!   :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on March 12, 2016, 11:32:58 AM
Thanks Ted. I'm happy with the way everything turned out, but couldn't have done it without the help from all the folks on this great forum. Inspection is scheduled for the morning of March 25. :clap   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Ekutney on March 13, 2016, 06:10:18 AM
Jon,

I have been following this post very closely & plans to use much of what you have done as a template.   I"d suggest to provide as a project with lots of pictures.  Stu should recommend the best place to post.

I"d like to see lots of pics if possible.

Where did you mount hour battery charger, I plan to buy the same unit & am thinking of the best place to mount it.  I assumed it is close to your house bank but the Visio you provided shows it in the Nav Station Area.  A pic would be great if possible.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on March 13, 2016, 11:01:56 AM
Hi Ed,
    There is a photo of the battery charger installed on page 12 of this thread. The charger is mounted under the Nav Station desk on the vertical bulkhead shared with the hanging locker. It is out of the way when sitting at the Nav station, is easy to access, mounts vertically, and is well ventilated. The photo is taken leaning over the holding tank looking aft under the desk. In the photo you can also see that the wires run through the port bulkhead not the hanging locker.   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Ron Hill on March 13, 2016, 01:18:22 PM
Jon : You did a fantastic job.  Congratulations, it looks VERY professional!!    :clap
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on March 13, 2016, 02:25:01 PM
Stu should recommend the best place to post.

This has been a great thread.  I've put a link to it in the Tech wiki, under Electrical; Electrical Panel, Wiring & Lighting section.

If Jon so chooses, this could be a great start to developing a Tech Notes for publication in Mainsheet magazine.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on March 13, 2016, 03:23:58 PM
Not shown, do you

have a green bond wire on the cap bolt of the Hx?
have, nor not have the DC negative bus bonded to the AC ground bus? If so, I'd consider investing in a fail-safe GI so your boat isn't the sacrificial lamb of your neighbor's leakage. 
Now that you have an ELCI protected boat, the bond is unnecessary.

k
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on March 13, 2016, 07:51:16 PM
Hi Ken,
I added a ground wire from the hx to the engine compartment ground buss when I did the harness upgrade. I did not connect the AC ground buss to the DC ground buss. I read somewhere that it was not necessary if using an ELCI main breaker.   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Ron Hill on March 14, 2016, 02:57:47 PM
Jon : You haven't mentioned it, but the 1987 C34s did not come with a GFI 120/115AC receptacle/s for your shore power wiring.

I'd highly recommend that you add one or two.  The reason I said two is because I believe that the 1987s may not have been wired in a single run (like the 1988s and subsequent).   Anyway, Check it out!!

A thought
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: lazybone on March 14, 2016, 03:29:09 PM
That's sexy.  You should mount it on clear plexi.  Its a shame to hide it.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on March 14, 2016, 06:12:28 PM
Hi lazybone,
    I did get a few Tim the Toolman grunts out of it.

Hi Ron,
    I have a GFCI outlet at the Nav station with a nice LED feature that lets you know when it's on. There are two circuits run to the four outlets in the cabin/head. Both circuits are tied together at a dedicated outlet dual buss (the small one on the right in the photo above). The power to the dual buss comes from the GFCI so all outlets are protected. This is a simple arrangement, and the original way I found it. The down side is I can only have a few things on at a time to avoid tripping the GFCI. Something to address at another time if it's a problem.   Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on March 31, 2016, 06:02:52 PM
Wednesday afternoon the entire system was inspected by a local boat electrician named Alan Katz. The inspection went very well. We turned everything on, and it all worked like it was supposed to.

Unfortunately one of the 6VDC batteries in the house bank may be bad based on voltage spread compared to the other 3. So everything was turned off. Saturday morning I need to charge the batteries with the AC charger for a few hours, check to see what the voltage is for each of the four batteries, then call Alan to give him the results. Hopefully this turns out to be a non issue.

Saturday morning I will make the following corrections –
1)   Add an in line 10A fuse for the 12VDC outlet at the Navigation Station.
2)   Add a piece of MIL Spec heat shrink tubing to one of the battery negatives (I must have looked in there 100 times, but didn't notice it missing).
3)   Move the external regulator negative from the house battery to the negative busbar after the shunt.

When the 3 corrections are made, he'll sign the schematic. I’ve attached a copy of the schematic with the corrections for reference.

Thanks to everyone for the help.
Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on April 01, 2016, 04:50:17 PM
Regarding your possibly bad 6-volt battery and your plans to charge it for a few hours and then measure the voltage...
Generally the batteries need to be left for 12-24 hours with no load after charging for the "at-rest" voltage to give a good indication of the state of charge, though you may get some useful info from an immediate measurement if it differs excessively from its mates.

Unfortunately the only reliable way to determine battery health is to fully charge them and then run a controlled discharge test.  MaineSail has written some good materials on the subject, including an analysis of the failings of the fancy impedance testers that many electricians have to come to rely on for rapid battery condition analysis.
http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/battery_state_of_charge
http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/impedance_testers
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on April 03, 2016, 06:12:59 PM
Checked Saturday afternoon and got the green light that the batteries are good as is. I let the now cold refrigerator run with temp set in the middle range overnight with no AC. According to the BMV-700 ~12 hours later, the fridge used ~25A. What a great addition. Another great result is the SmartGauge and BMV-700 read within .03 - .04V's of each other. Voltage drop from the house to the distribution panel is almost zero. I'll be checking house to starter voltage drop next weekend.

The engine started on the house bank immediately. I then shut it down, switched to reserve battery, same result. My reserve may be at the low end, but a Group 24, 12VDC, 80Ah, 650 CCA starts the M25-XP just fine.

So Della Jean is now put back together. Next weekend I install the external regulator, add House or reserve labels to the battery selector switch and BMV-700. Some final photos attached.

Except for posting the write-up of this project in the Tech WIKI, I think this brings this project to a close. Thanks everybody, couldn't have done it without all the help.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on April 03, 2016, 06:17:55 PM
NICE!


Bravo!!!  :clap :clap

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on April 03, 2016, 06:29:27 PM
Excellent! Congrats my friend. Well done, you should be proud!
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on April 03, 2016, 06:38:15 PM
Great job.

So, when are you gonna remove the Micrologic 8000?  :D :D :D
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on April 03, 2016, 08:16:29 PM
It goes when I upgrade the instruments, autopilot, add radar, and get new standing rigging later this year. For now I plan to go sailing for a couple of months, and use my roll and half of butyl tape to re-bed the chainplates, the drains and opening portlights in the cockpit.  Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on April 03, 2016, 10:46:32 PM
Jon,

That sounds like a right good plan.  I was, of course, just kiddin', my PO had one of those, cleverly hidden behind the sliding black door just forward of the nav station!  I finally removed it and thrashed it.  Maybe shoulda saved it for an electronics museum!  :D  The programming steps on it were so complicated that I had to write my own "How To" manual!!!  :cry4`  Something that must have come out of the original B52 designs.  The West Marine V2.0 Loran I had on my Catalina 25 was far simpler and more intuitive to operate, and worked better to boot!
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Rick Allen on April 04, 2016, 10:04:50 AM
Great Job Jon!!!!!
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Noah on April 04, 2016, 07:21:59 PM
Micrologic was "The King" in its day...Some oldies age, and/or hang on tighter than others. I am amazed to see Signet Instruments still advertising in the Catalina Mainsheet! That's a blasted from past, too. They were hot stuff during my 1980's IOR racing days.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on April 11, 2016, 06:22:22 PM
Thought I'd give one more update after hooking up the external regulator and voltage check I did.

On Saturday I set the regulator to FDC (flooded batteries), belt level 4 (20% reduction), and long display. Started the engine. At idle the alternator was putting out 7-8A to the house bank. I brought the engine up to 1,500 rpm, checked the display and the alternator is now putting out ~82A to the house bank, alternator temp was 32 deg C, and the house bank was 18 deg C. Just like advertised!

Today I went to the boat to compare voltage between the battery and the alternator for the house bank, and starter for both house and reserve. I used a voltmeter purchased at Sears that lists a +/- 1.5% accuracy. The AC charger was off, no other loads on.

Turned the battery selector switch to position 1. The house was 13.21 VDC which matched the BMV-700. When I measured the alternator it was 13.21 VDC. I then measured the starter it was 13.21 VDC.

Turned the battery selector switch to position 2. The reserve was 13.18 VDC. When I measured the starter it was 13.18 VDC.

If this method is correct, my voltage drop at rest is between .2 VDC (-1.5%) and zero VDC depending on how you want to look at the voltmeter.

Is this the correct way to take this measurement? Thanks for the help.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on April 11, 2016, 11:43:00 PM
Jon,
I am doing this reply quickly without re-looking at your schematic, but my recollection from having studied it in the past is that you have the alternator output connected to the house battery and use an EchoCharge to charge the starting battery. Thus with the battery selector set to the Starting battery, it has load on it, but is being charged by the EchoCharge rather than the alternator. The output voltage of the EchoCharge is likely slightly different than that of the alternator.  It's not that there is a voltage drop per se, it's that the circuitry in the EchoCharge has its own idea of what an ideal output is, and there is no reason to expect it to be identical to what the Balmar external regulator has decided on for the alternator.

In other words, all is fine.

Jeremy

If I have mis-recalled anything about your design, I may need to revise my answer, but until then, don't worry, and enjoy the results of your great work!
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on April 12, 2016, 06:14:24 AM
That's the set up.

By no loads I mean engine off, all AC and DC accessories are off.

I measured the voltage of the house battery and it was 13.21 VDC. Then I measured the voltage at the positive cable connection at the starter and the engine ground and got 13.21 VDC. Similar story for the reserve battery measurement. I read this to mean I'm getting the full voltage available from the battery to the starter. So no voltage loss/drop.

Is this a correct interpretation?

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on April 12, 2016, 07:03:26 AM
That's the set up.

By no loads I mean engine off, all AC and DC accessories are off.

I measured the voltage of the house battery and it was 13.21 VDC. Then I measured the voltage at the positive cable connection at the starter and the engine ground and got 13.21 VDC. Similar story for the reserve battery measurement. I read this to mean I'm getting the full voltage available from the battery to the starter. So no voltage loss/drop.

Is this a correct interpretation?

Jon W.

That's a correct interpretation -- if the amperage is the near zero that your meter draws.   You need to measure voltages with the load applied for which you want to know the voltage drop.  i.e., your mileage is basically infinite with your idling in your driveway, but you know it;s not so at 65 mph.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on April 12, 2016, 07:13:59 AM
Would that mean I need to measure while I'm starting the engine?

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on April 12, 2016, 07:46:56 AM
Would that mean I need to measure while I'm starting the engine?

Jon W.

When you did your spreadsheet of amperages, looses, and required cable sizes -- the size(s) you chose to minimize V loss wasn't based on only LED lighting on, right?  It was based on the amperage draw for whatever you would have on.   So, to verify that assumed or calculated loss, you want to have the same things running (drawing the same amperage as you assumed.)  So, if you want to know the loss for amperage of lighting load, you need lights on.  If you want know the loss while charging, or starting, preheat, and so on and so on......you need to have the charger on --- or so on and so on.  The starter motor is obviously going to be your highest amperage draw and result in the greatest voltage loss thru that circuit/cable.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on April 12, 2016, 08:10:14 AM


Is this the correct way to take this measurement? Thanks for the help.

Jon W.

No..

** Set DVM to DC Volts and 12V Range
** Place one lead on the alternator B+ terminal (alligator lead required)
** Place the other lead on the House bank + terminal
** With no current flowing ( 0A ) the reading should be 0.00V DC
** Fire up alternator to full output (apply a heater or hair dryer via inverter if battery is full)
** What voltage is now displayed on the DVM screen?
** This voltage is your positive side voltage drop at XX or XXX amps

** Repeat for negative side and add positive and negative together as total voltage drop at XX or XXX amps.

You can also just measure across the back of the alt B+ and alt case or isolated ground then do the same at the battery end. This only tells you the total voltage drop not how much is occurring in pos or neg leg. For example if you read 14.21V between alt B+ & B- and then 13.26V between battery + & -, with both measurements taken at 82A, then you have a 0.95V total drop and you'll now want to check each leg anyway.

In order for voltage drop to occur you must be passing CURRENT through the wires.....
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on April 12, 2016, 10:15:35 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it but...

As MaineSail said, "for voltage drop to occur you must be passing CURRENT through the wires". The Voltage drop is the Current going thru the wiring multiplied by the Resistance of the wiring (V=Amps * Ohms). It's usually easiest to measure total drop (i.e. source voltage minus delivered voltage*), but as MaineSail pointed out, by carefully measuring the individual drops for the positive lead and the negative lead you can better identify the source of any problem.

Do keep in mind, though, that you should not try to measure drop from the alternator to your starting battery, as it is effectively isolated by the EchoCharge.

Jeremy

* In the end, you really only care that the necessary voltage is delivered to the load when needed, but minimizing the voltage drop is an important part of that (and something you invested time and money in), so measuring it upon initial commissioning to confirm installed quality is a great idea. 
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on April 12, 2016, 12:22:35 PM
Alternator B+ is the positive output from the alternator correct? Is there value in measuring the starter, and if so how is that done?

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on April 12, 2016, 12:42:31 PM
Alternator B+ is the positive output from the alternator correct?

Is there value in measuring the starter, and if so how is that done?


1.  Yes.

2.  Maine Sail has measured this many times.  I can't find his specific topic on this right now, but here's a link with his results:  http://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/ammeter-wiring.155237/&highlight=measuring%20starter%20current (http://forums.sailboatowners.com/index.php?threads/ammeter-wiring.155237/&highlight=measuring%20starter%20current)
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on April 12, 2016, 12:52:00 PM
Jon

I'm confused - maybe not others.  What are you trying to do and your goal.   What do you mean 'measure' the starter.   Specificity would help answer your
Q?s.

Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mark_53 on April 12, 2016, 12:56:06 PM
Is there value in measuring the starter, and if so how is that done?

Jon W.
It's an academic question since you have a starting battery with relatively short cables you should not have a problem starting that little engine.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on April 12, 2016, 01:33:48 PM
Hi Ken,
Throughout this thread there has been lots of discussion about voltage drop. I've captured each run in a spreadsheet and used the information to estimate voltage drop. I would like to see how the actual compares to the estimate. Example estimate says the alternator to house bank round trip voltage drop is 2.85% (w/o connections) or 5.35% (with connections). Is it?

Hi Mark,
In one sense it is an academic question, in another it is learning how to properly troubleshoot the system so think it's a worthwhile exercise. My reserve battery is not under the aft cabin, it is forward of the starboard water tank. No problem starting the engine with either reserve or house.

Jon W.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on April 12, 2016, 02:30:53 PM
Hi Ken,
Throughout this thread there has been lots of discussion about voltage drop. I've captured each run in a spreadsheet and used the information to estimate voltage drop. I would like to see how the actual compares to the estimate. Example estimate says the alternator to house bank round trip voltage drop is 2.85% (w/o connections) or 5.35% (with connections). Is it?


Jon, of course voltage drop matters.  However, if your calculations and wire sizing were correct, unless you have poor connections, you should be just fine, because most sizing ends up using the "next biggest" size wire 'cuz if you're on the cusp you pick the biggest one.  In addition, alternator output, even with external regulation, drops off rapidly after the first few minutes of charging.  Finally, proper voltage sensing from the regulator, in my experience (documented in the Electrical Systems 101 topic) gets the voltage properly to the house bank, the current follows.

PS - if you add your name to your signature you can avoid having to type Jon W. with all your posts.   :clap :D
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on April 12, 2016, 09:59:59 PM
Hi Ken,
Throughout this thread there has been lots of discussion about voltage drop. I've captured each run in a spreadsheet and used the information to estimate voltage drop. I would like to see how the actual compares to the estimate. Example estimate says the alternator to house bank round trip voltage drop is 2.85% (w/o connections) or 5.35% (with connections). Is it?

Hi Mark,
In one sense it is an academic question, in another it is learning how to properly troubleshoot the system so think it's a worthwhile exercise. My reserve battery is not under the aft cabin, it is forward of the starboard water tank. No problem starting the engine with either reserve or house.

Jon W.

Jon,

Got it.  You want to verify your assumptions (some were 'laws' like V=IR but still may want to prove them to yourself, and verify your work (very rewarding.)  So you know what each voltage drop *should* be between various connection points based on your spreadsheet -- but only under a specific amperage (current) flow.   BUT, you used the law V drop = I current x R resistance -- and that doesn't change.  Ever.  So if you measure resistance, you are essentially proving out your spreadsheet assumptions without having to actually pass thru the cable, the exact current that you had assumed in the spreadsheet.   I think what I would have done (time/situation allowing?) would have been to measure/record R for each completed (or at least major) cable to satisfy myself that my crimping work was up to snuff.  That would give you a baseline dataset, and if a leg now had higher R, then you would look to something in the bolted (or whatever type) connection.  There's not much you can do with those, except use a dielectric (preventing corrosion) and torque them down (and of course use the rules for layering multiple lugs on a stud.)

Tho as you say it's academic, what the starter draws is interesting to search out, to say the least.  You'd use the clamp-on to measure peak starting current.  Also, I've always wanted to measure the pull-in and hold-in current for the solenoid switch -- I don't believe the numbers a rebuilder gave to me.

You have two critical paths -- voltage to the batteries while charging AND voltage at the starter lug when cranking.  I'd measure and verify those both as a start.  Voltage at those points being what you did all the work for in the first place.  As RC said, you need to look at voltage drop between the sources and two end points, or the isolated voltage at those end points to verify that it meets what your goals were.

confusing?

Ken
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mark_53 on April 13, 2016, 10:59:43 AM

Hi Mark,
In one sense it is an academic question, in another it is learning how to properly troubleshoot the system so think it's a worthwhile exercise. My reserve battery is not under the aft cabin, it is forward of the starboard water tank. No problem starting the engine with either reserve or house.
Jon W.
I applaud your quest for knowledge but it seems like if you know the wire size, length, and expected load, voltage drop is a matter of looking at published values that have been around for years. Are you trying to prove them wrong or just verifying your spreadsheet. If the latter, easier to double check your spreadsheet but I understand if your from Missouri.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: J_Sail on April 13, 2016, 12:07:11 PM
If you are inclined to spend the time, I think measuring a couple key voltage drops to verify that the connections are robust is a good idea and it could be a fun academic exercise to verify that the assumptions were all correct. As stated by others, the two that really matter are the drop from the battery to the starter while cranking the engine and the drop from the alternator to the battery while supplying high charging current (or simulated equiv load by attaching some sort of load to the battery). Neither is trivial to measure due to possibly needing more than two-hands at once, long meter leads, or other complexities, but it might be fun and enlightening if you are interested. Conversely it might be an unnecessary chore if it has no appeal. If you want to proceed, then MaineSail's approach is best. I can provide addtl details if desired.


By the way, contrary to what one might think, measuring the resistance with a meter and then calculating voltage drops is not exactly the same as verifying the drop under actual loads, due to critical non-linear behavior of bad connections. I've had two cases of failed 125A winch/windlass circuit breakers, where internally damaged/degraded contacts measured fine with the tiny currents used by meters, but would instantly convert to a high resistance when the motor drew full current. The physics are complex, but the results speak for themselves. So while I agree that measuring wiring resistance can be useful, the real test is voltage drop under real-life load.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on April 13, 2016, 12:08:59 PM
Do anyone know of any published guides for voltage drop across switches, corrosion, fuses, fuse blocks, lug to wire by crimp type, rusty engine blocks, terminals, lug to busbar etc. etc..??

Knowing the installed voltage drop is not a bad thing and quite often can highlight issues before they become a problem. Installed voltage drop simply doesn't line up with the "wire-drop" calculators because they only account for the wire-drop not all the other items that also have resistance.

That said if you want to measure starter VD then you need fast tools, or tools specifically designed for this that can measure circuit resistance during cranking. Most run of the mill DC clamp meters and volt meters don't have the resolution nor speed to do this. You can close the seacock and pull the stop lever and set the meter to capture peak low volts, if it has it, but it will only be a rough guide because starter motor current is not stable.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on April 13, 2016, 12:09:09 PM
Not trying to prove anyone or anything wrong. Just curious how close the estimates are to the actuals. I also think it's valuable to know how to troubleshoot on a "good" system so I know what to do if something goes wrong in the future. I'm still a novice in all of this.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on April 13, 2016, 12:26:56 PM
Not trying to prove anyone or anything wrong. Just curious how close the estimates are to the actuals. I also think it's valuable to know how to troubleshoot on a "good" system so I know what to do if something goes wrong in the future. I'm still a novice in all of this.

Jon,

You're on a good path.. As I mentioned the as installed voltage drop simply won't line up with the voltage drop calculators because they don't and can't take into account each and every termination, fuse, switch busbar etc. etc...
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mark_53 on April 13, 2016, 01:14:06 PM
Jon,

You're on a good path.. As I mentioned the as installed voltage drop simply won't line up with the voltage drop calculators because they don't and can't take into account each and every termination, fuse, switch busbar etc. etc...
Good point about the other items that effect VD. I stand corrected in that regard. but, if it requires specialized expensive tools that won't line up with his estimates, and there is no problem with the starter actually starting the engine, to me that would be a wild goose chase.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on April 13, 2016, 07:47:11 PM
I'm not so curious to go buy expensive equipment that will rarely be used. When I compare the voltage at either battery to the voltage at the starter or alternator it is identical. So I have confidence in my crimps, and knowing I used the correct boat cable and lugs.

I didn't think to measure the resistance of each cable, but seems easy enough to do so I will start with that for the cables from battery to starter and battery to alternator.

Then run the engine and 1) measure between the alternator B+ and the house positive; 2) measure between the alternator B- and house negative per MaineSails steps.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: mainesail on April 14, 2016, 08:24:18 AM
I'm not so curious to go buy expensive equipment that will rarely be used. When I compare the voltage at either battery to the voltage at the starter or alternator it is identical. So I have confidence in my crimps, and knowing I used the correct boat cable and lugs.



Without current flowing this tells you nothing and should not add to or yield any confidence unless current was at or close to design max load & flowing when you take the measurement. Remember, there is NO VOLTAGE DROP with NO CURRENT FLOW...
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on April 14, 2016, 08:45:33 AM
I'm not so curious to go buy expensive equipment that will rarely be used. When I compare the voltage at either battery to the voltage at the starter or alternator it is identical. So I have confidence in my crimps, and knowing I used the correct boat cable and lugs.


Without current flowing this tells you nothing and should not add to or yield any confidence unless current was at or close to design max load & flowing when you take the measurement. Remember, there is NO VOLTAGE DROP with NO CURRENT FLOW...

Jon,

Bring it on home - With no wind blowing, there's no friction on the shaft bearings of a wind turbine. 
When the wind blows -- the blades turn, and the friction is proportional to the speed.  If the wind never blows it all looks good, but it doesn't mean a dry bearing won't burn out when it does blow.

kk
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on April 29, 2016, 06:40:41 PM
In the final analysis -

The actuals were a little better than the estimates in the spreadsheet. For reference - the estimates used the standard resistance for the wire/cable gauge(s), and mainesails resistance estimate for each connection in the total circuit. I can check that off  :clap.

The SmartPlug is now installed with a new shore cable. I can check that off, safe at last  :clap.

I found my RACOR had a 2 micron filter element. I changed it to a 10 micron element. I can check that off   :clap

I completed the summary write-up for this whole project and posted in the Tech WIKI. I'm trying to get the name changed from the original placeholder. If interested in reading it (my apologies it's very long), you can find it under the Electrical category and is currently named - Electrical System Upgrade - Winter 2015-6 - A very thorough redesign of a Mark I system by Jon W, Della Jean

It contains text with 80 photos. Attached at the end are two Excel spreadsheets. The first spreadsheet has three tabs. A tab for the wire detail with wire ID#/gauge/color/length/terminal connections, etc; a tab with estimated voltage drop calculations; and a tab with the complete DC schematic of my new system. The second spreadsheet has a complete parts list of parts used, and from where with part numbers. I can check that off   :clap

Now I can go sailing on a short shakedown cruise (hopefully nothing goes wrong) Sunday. Let's see if I remember how to do it :shock:
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on April 30, 2016, 08:32:26 AM
In the final analysis -

* The actuals were a little better than the estimates in the spreadsheet.

* I'm trying to get the name changed from the original placeholder.

* I found my RACOR had a 2 micron filter element. I changed it to a 10 micron element. I can check that off   :clap


Hey Jon,

Congratulations, especially on being SAFE now!

2 Q?s...   

When you say the actual losses are lower - what did you do to verify that?  Not for every cable/connection - I just mean "general procedure" to verify?

What did you switch from the "2u" Racor to "10u" Racor? 
I put those in " "  because neither are actually what Parker labels ('er I mean markets) them as.

Re the name change - what are you trying what to what? 
Also, you can link directly to the files, rather than to the page placeholder where you upload/revise the file(s).  (just saves a step)

Cheers
Ken
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on April 30, 2016, 04:25:50 PM
Hi Ken,
I followed the steps mainesail listed earlier in this post.

Racor says not to use a 2 micron for the primary filter (with caveats about better water removal with 2 micron). I decided on 10 micron.

Re-name the name in the topics section from "Electrical System Upgrade - Winter 2015-6 - A very thorough redesign of a Mark I system by Jon W, Della Jean" to "1987 MK 1 Catalina 34 Electrical System Upgrade".
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on April 30, 2016, 08:18:03 PM
Hi Ken,
I followed the steps mainesail listed earlier in this post.

Racor says not to use a 2 micron for the primary filter (with caveats about better water removal with 2 micron). I decided on 10 micron.

Thanks Jon,

I'll have to look back - I think I missed that post of his.  I guess what I'm wondering is if and how you "synthesized" the peak amperages and how close the measured ended up being v. the design (considering the +/- accuracy of meter?   Were you close?

Interesting on the 2u - I hadn't realized Racor recommended against the 2u for marine.   A while ago I did a desk study of fuel filter efficiencies -- looking for the best final filter -- and asked mfgrs to supply their beta ratios (incl Racor because I wanted a comparison to the primary.)  It turned out that for all practical purposes, Racor's "2u" filter was really a "4u" filter.  It was rated 99% or better @ 4u, not @ 2u.  Wondering if I had misinterpreted something, I reached out to Parker engineering directly.  This was the reply:

“From what I understand, the 2 micron branding on our filters is a leftover from pre NIST counting standards (from before Wally started here in 1981) and is more of a marketing name than a designation based on test data.” –Parker Hannifin, Racor Division 8/8/2012 email.  I took that to mean "our marketing/branding is misleading."

Incidentally what I found, was that I couldn't buy a better final filter than Fleetguard -- what my local Kubota dealer had recommended (Fram was 2nd best.)


Cheers
Ken
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on May 01, 2016, 08:28:01 AM
They recommend it for marine applications, but not as the primary filter element.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on May 06, 2016, 07:57:08 PM
If interested in reading it (my apologies it's very long), you can find it under the Electrical category and is currently named - Electrical System Upgrade - Winter 2015-6 - A very thorough redesign of a Mark I system by Jon W, Della Jean

Jon,

I just edited the Electrical "page" and removed the link to this topic and included "Winter 2015-6..."  The link to your complete article works.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: britinusa on May 07, 2016, 06:01:09 AM
the 'Electrical Page' ??? Which one?

Paul
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on May 07, 2016, 06:28:19 AM
the 'Electrical Page' ??? Which one?


The one in the tech wiki:  http://www.c34.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electrical (http://www.c34.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electrical)

Jon's excellent article is right there.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on May 07, 2016, 05:44:43 PM
Hi Stu,
      Thanks for the edit. A more complete title is better.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: britinusa on May 08, 2016, 06:47:53 AM
the 'Electrical Page' ??? Which one?


The one in the tech wiki:  http://www.c34.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electrical (http://www.c34.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electrical)

Jon's excellent article is right there.

Thanks Stu.

Any chance the final wiring diagram could be included in the wiki article.

Paul
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on May 08, 2016, 08:24:23 AM
Any chance the final wiring diagram could be included in the wiki article.


It IS there.  You have to open the XLSX spreadsheet, it's in one of the tabs.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on May 08, 2016, 10:22:43 AM
Reply #258 above I tried to describe what is in each of the two attachments. I put the schematic and wire detail in the same spreadsheet so all info is in one spot.

In talking to Ken just now, I'll add a pdf as a stand alone copy of the schematic. Keep in mind, you'll still need the Excel wire detail to cross reference the wire ID#'s, gauge, etc.. with the schematic.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: britinusa on May 08, 2016, 12:15:41 PM
Thanks Jon,
I was unable to open the xlsx doc on my laptop, but could on my PC. (opened with Open Office) and from that I created a PDF just so that I could have the diagram on my tablet for when I'm at the boat.

Paul
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Stu Jackson on May 08, 2016, 07:02:12 PM
Thanks Jon,
I was unable to open the xlsx doc on my laptop, but could on my PC. (opened with Open Office) and from that I created a PDF just so that I could have the diagram on my tablet for when I'm at the boat.



Could simply be that you didn't have the Microsoft converter on your software.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: Jon W on May 09, 2016, 01:07:19 PM
Hi Paul,
I just completed updating the write up to have both Excel and PDF formatted files for the schematic, cable planner, and parts list. I've also added a graphic of the schematic in jpg format to the beginning of the write up in the background section. Thanks Ken.
Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on May 09, 2016, 01:42:33 PM
Cool Jon,

I hadn't noticed that ProMar 20 amp charger before -- it is meant for a "fishing boat" not the demands we put on house banks!
They burn up over use we put them through (I know, but don't ask!   :shock: )  Unfortunately Promar is very scant in the info/documentation they provide about that prior to purchase.

Ken

Title: Re: 1987 MK 1 Electrical System Upgrade - Feedback Requested
Post by: KWKloeber on May 09, 2016, 01:54:23 PM
Oh also  -- Something else I found about wiki -- for others posting files --  :idea:

You can put the link directly to a file, in an article -- vs -- the link to the mediawiki page where the file is "administered" (I guess is the term.)  It cuts out one step in the viewing process -- i.e., the file will open directly) and it also kinda keeps folks out of the file area so that it may tend to stay intact (someone not upload a file in it's place or.....  )

Confusing,   :think    ..... maybe an example will explain better than my rambling?

The Cable Planner link is to:
http://www.c34.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:Cable_Planner_H4.pdf   opens the file admin page.

When you open the file however, its address itself is:
http://www.c34.org/wiki/images/8/8a/Cable_Planner_H4.pdf

So in articles once a file exists, we can go back and substitute back in the address of the file -- and it will open right up or download (depending on your browser.)

Also I know there's a way in a link to force a file to open in a new window (or tab depending on your settings) but how I CRS.  Maybe Stu or someone else.... remembers how>