Carbon monoxide (?) mystery

[Michael]

Stu:

On further thought (and listening to you, albeit slightly selectively as you will see), I think we will not try to test the Flyback20-3 for even temporary use, although I appreciated the suggestion by Randy that we do so as an interim measure.  Your pointing out some of the complexities of testing the old charger made me conclude that the time spent testing it could be better spent elsewhere.

Here in Vancouver, the TrueCharge40+ costs about $400 and we can get the XC3012 for $425.  We are inclined towards the XC3012 even though it has not been around as many blocks as the TrueCharge40+.  The XC5012, at more than $600 seems overkill...or at least over what we would like to pay.  We are keeping in mind your suggestion, which we like, of getting a battery monitor like the Link 20.

The Xantrex dealer here has used the XC3012 for a year on his boat and loves it.

We recognise that our current system does not require the XC3012 but given the small price difference and the possibility that we will mix-and-match battery types in the future (e.g., using an AGM starter battery as Jon - I think it was Jon - does), the slightly more expensive XC3012 seems justifiable.  I recognise that the motivation here is urgency and that ad hominem arguments play a larger role than understanding on my part...but that may be the way this particular decision will play out.

Yes, I have the Ample link.

Regards, and again thanks.

[Jon Schneider]

First, Michael, you get good karma for using "ad hominem" in a post.  Second, while I'm always wrong when I contradict Stu, I never learn my lesson, so here goes.  Since you have been able to leave your boat unplugged recently, I'm assuming that you don't leave the fridge on.  If you do, I think I would be tempted to spend the extra $50/owner for the Xantrex 5012, since I would also think there might be some quick turn-arounds where one owner has it for three days and someone else wants it the next day with nearly depleted batteries.  I think the extra 20 amps might help in that situation.  It also looks to me like the new Truecharge2 40 (it's only available in the same increments as the original Truecharge of 20 and 40 amps right now) actually is cheaper than the original Truecharge 40 (see www.jackrabbitmarine.com/Detail.bok?no=4447).  It'd be worth finding out from Xantrex if the new TC2 comes with a battery temp sensor and is able charge different chemistries (though, again, I don't think you will ever need this, and instead should charge the separate starter battery, when you get one, via a Duo Charge or similar combiner). 

I don't think you'd find that this new Truecharge "technology" is experimental or risky.  In fact, I'd bet that they're simply "sun-setting" the existing Truecharge technology and replacing it with similar increments of the XC platform (which don't exist in the current XC line).  So I'm betting that the TC2 is just the missing amperage increments of the existing XC platform.  And just to throw diesel on the fire, that'll mean that the old version Truecharge you buy today will be on life-support in terms of customer care in a couple of years, since by that time, it won't be "tested technology," but rather "obsolete technology." 

My one cent.

[tonywright]

I am not sure that the XC is that new. The manual dates to August 2005.

It seems to have a number of desirable features, compared to the Truecharge 40:

1) It will charge the battery with the lowest charge first, rather than dividing the power as the Truecharge does. This should bring a dpleted battery bank up more quickly.

2) It provides better protection against overcharging at warmer temperatures than the 40 does.

3) The control and readout panel can be mounted anywhere. Since the normal location is in a hard to read location under the sink, this is probably a significant advantage for those who are feeling less athletic.

One interesting note is that both charger manuals warn about use of Modified Sine Wave generators (isn't the Honda 1000/2000 one of these?). Except that the 40 seems to have more of a problem with this than the XC.

If I was to replace the Charles on my boat, I would seriously consider the XC over the 40.

Tony

[Michael]

Jon:

You are correct that we do not leave Hali's refrigerator on.

I share your trepidation about taking a position contrary to Stu's good sense...and like you will probably continue to err sometimes.

More re: refrigerators.  Given the outpouring of argument in these threads in favour of cold beer, it is hard to resist concluding that, if the "unpluggers" are correct, beer (or anything else that would tend to keep refrigerators on and shore power plugged in) may be responsible for any number of sinkings, fires, explosions, etc.  My grandmother knew this to be true without needing evidence.

The Xantrex XC5012 battery charger is about $200-$225 more expensive here than the XC3012.  Although we Hali-ites are not too price sensitive, in the absence of a compelling argument (pace beer and refrigerators) for quick charging (and recalling from somewhere here that it is not the initial but the secondary or tertiary charging that takes most of the time), I am inclined to the XC3012, with the spare change saved in comparison with buying the XC5012 going towards a battery monitor, as Stu would recommend. (The Link 20 is about $400 here by one quote.)

At this point, it doesn't seem that we will be able to wait for the new TrueCharge2 line to be available although that line does seem to fill nicely the gaps in older lines of Xantrex battery chargers.

[Tony - thx for weighiing in.  Your post seen only after I posted the above.  The XC still seems to me to have some less than perfect features: for example, the optional intelligent shunt only monitors one of the battery banks; and the charging information on the XC monitor only relates to the battery being charged (although perhaps it is user-selectable).]

[Jon Schneider]

Michael, those seem like sound reasons to go with the XC 3012.  That's what I have, but I figured four owners may stress the battery juice more than I, a single-hander, mostly day-sailor.  That said, so far, so good on the 3012.  I have it charging only my house bank, so I'm not sure about being able to monitor a second bank while it's charging another.  My 440AH four six-volt battery configuration is brand new, and I think the very first charging took two days to reach the float stage.  Now, after a couple of months, they accept are fully charged overnight, so the 3012 seems quite adequate, and hope it will be for you and your partners as well.  I haven't bought a Link monitor yet, but will soon (I think Stu gets a commission for every one sold to a C34 IA member... or should <wink>).  BTW (here comes a plug for my favor wire vendor), the factory-installed charger wire is probably woefully undersized.  I replaced it with #6 cable from bestboatwire.com.  It's Pacer wire at the best price I've ever found, about two-thirds less than Defender or WM.  Be sure to remember to get the right-sized lugs/terminals as well. 

[Stu Jackson]

Jon, NOT me!!!!  Ron;s the one among others, who for years have advocated getting the battery monitors first.  I set the procrastination record weith our Link 2000 - eight years.  Wrote it up in my Secretary's report in a recent Mainsheet.

Michael, please remember that you do NOT generally have to "worry" about your start (i.e.e, emergency back-up) bank, because unless someone leaves the 1-2-B on B, it'll always be there.  Charge it up, as John Nixon suggests, and leave it there.  If you use it to start the engine, it takes 2-5 amps - we've already HAD this conversation.  Charge it every once in awhile.

Buy the 30 A SC because a 50 A XC will still only put out what the house bank will acept, which is NOT, NOT, NOT gonna almost ever be 50 amps, or so it'll take a few more minutes to get the bulk charge phase done with, and BUY a LINK 10 and be done with it.  If you're NOT going to be changing battery types in the future, why the XC?  You could do what Jon S. has done and buy a Duo Charge later.  With your current 1-2-B switch you already have an emergency paralleling device.  OK, OK, I'll quit now...

[Randy and Mary Davison]

Michael - let a day go buy and I'm out of sych with the thread!

You're on a good course to bag testing and buy a good charger.  The pain in your wallet will be short lived and your batteries will love you for it for years.

To tie up the thread on testing - Stu said it right.  What you're testing for is how the charger manages the batteries, not what they look like after the charge.  The test is to turn the charger on and see what voltage it settles on for final float (per the voltages given earlier).  If you can be at the boat, his idea of looking at the voltage during the bulk charge isn't a bad idea although any battery will be able to handle short term, high (up to 14.5v) voltages.  What cooks batteries is a high float that boils off water until the plates are uncovered or generates high levels of heat with overcharge.  BTW, the Fluke meter is a good choice!  I'm biased by working there for almost 30 years until 2001.

Also to complete a thought in the thread - putting the charger in with the batteries is how I "proved" it was the battery gasses.  Only takes a minute in the enclosed space to sound the alert.

Finally, I leave the charger on durinng the much of the year.  We have power on the boat all winter for heaters and dehumidifiers and in the summer to run the fridge.  Boats sink because of leaks too and I like to have long term power for the bilge pump.  I suspect this is a religious type discussion like anchors and anchoring which can be argued with merit on both sides.

[Michael]

Stu:

1.  But you do love your battery monitor now.  It shows despite your denial to Jon.

2.  Perhaps we should change the name of this thread to "Carbon monoxide (?) mystery and battery charging issues" as we revert to the battery issues continually.  (Indeed, yes, I think the carbon monoxide and propane issues are now pretty much dead...and the propane can has gone back aboard.  The ladies needed it for tea this weekend.)

3.  A first cut at Hali's energy budget gives me 325 Ah available (not including charging off the engine or anything from the starting battery), daysail usage of 59 Ah, overnight usage of 89 Ah, and "at sea" usage of 205 Ah.

4.  Those figures - they require some shoving around and accept some of your figures without customizing them for Hali - make me also keen on a battery monitor.

5.  As far as I can tell (which is probably not the wisest thing to say in the circumstances), Hali's 1-2-B switch does not connect to the starting battery bank at all.  The starting battery, located aft of the stuffing box, has its own On-Off switch in the aft cabin.  We never run the battery selector switch on B.  Even days of the month, we select house battery #1.  Odd days of the month we select house battery #2.

6.  Given this configuration of Hali's batteries, would you be inclined to change your recommendation of a Link 10 instead of Link 20 battery monitor, Stu?  My understanding is that the Link 10 will monitor one battery (or battery bank) whereas the Link 20 will monitor two batteries (or two battery banks).  My preference for the Link 20 is that it would monitor individually both of Hali's house batteries, and that would accord with the way we use those batteries separately and with the way they are "banked" separately.  From what you said above, I infer that you were thinking that the two house batteries would be treated as one bank for monitoring purposes, so a Link 10 that monitors only one battery or battery bank would be enough to monitor those batteries (and there would be no need to monitor the starting battery).

Randy:

7.   I'm glad the Fluke was a good choice...and hope some of the purchase price goes towards your pension plan!

8.   We will probably watch the new charger in action as you describe.

9.   We haven't charged the batteries for days now, so haven't had an opportunity to test their gas discharge with the CO monitor.  It will be interesting to see whether a new charger also causes the batteries to tickle the monitors.

10.  Like you, we run heaters (or at least dry-stor fans) in the winter, so we will keep Hali plugged in during the winter.  Perhaps to plug or not to plug is also a seasonal thing.

[Stu Jackson]

Michael - had we not separated the threads we'd've set a new record for pages ona single thread!   

5 & 6 - Separate start bank with a split bank, while not new, is very unusual on C34s.  All I can suggest again is to go to Calder and read his discussion which recommends as large a house bank as possible and why.  I've copied that text here at least two or three times.  I'll see if I can find it again if it wasn't in my previous reference links.  See reply #8 here: http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,973.0.html  

Consider combining your two start banks into one big house bank and get a Link 10.

[Mike Vaccaro]

One point to ponder that I don't believe has been discussed in a bit...

The rule-of-thumb for calculating requirements is that the charger needs to be capable of delivering at least 6.6% of the total bank capacity in amps.  Thus, for a 440 amp bank (the typical four golf-cart 6V battery option
on the C34), a charger should be capable of delivering at least 29 amps to that bank.  Wiring from the charger to the batteries should be properly sized to ensure no more than a 5% drop (less is better, i.e., it's O.K. to over-size the wiring).  An appropriately sized fuse or circuit breaker should be installed to protect this circuit.

Another point to ponder is that the charger becomes the DC power supply when the boat is plugged in or another source of AC power is available.  Most of us tend to use electricity rather frivolously when we have an unlimited supply, but it's still possible to over-tax the system if your charger is undersized.  The best way to keep track of charger output and battery status is to be able to reliably monitor the system.  The most convenient way to do this is to install some type of battery monitor.   

Matching the charger to the system is important.  By operating an undersized charger, it ends up working too hard and like many things electrical, heat turns into the enemy, shortening the life of the equipment.  The usual tendency is to increase battery capacity, but tie into existing wiring or charging systems which may or may not be up to the task.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jon Schneider]

Mike, that's a great point about taxing the charger too much and thus creating heat and wear.  I hadn't really thought about that before.  BTW, where'd you come up with the 6.6% statistic?  I have to say that I too have the "typical 6-volt 440AH configuration" (damn, my momma didn't raise me to be typical), and I certainly haven't had a chance to stress the grid yet, but after a day's sail with fridge and energy-consuming below-decks autopilot, I haven't seen the XC 3012 go above 23 amps output.  Now, that may be because like all chargers, it's not capable of really maxing out at 30 amps (though I doubt it), but I suspect it's more about battery acceptance and need.  The charger hits the next stage (absorb?) within a couple of hours under that scenario.  So far, the only smell of smoke is coming from my cheap cigars ;)

[Michael]

Stu, thank you for Nigel Calder's "one big house bank" article...and for a particular thought that it led to.

Calder's article makes the point that battery longevity increases when batteries are discharged less on each cycle.  Therefore, the argument (from lots of points of view: economy, ecology, saving the pinkies when changing batteries less frequently,etc....) is to combine the house batteries in the biggest bank possible.

But is there, I wondered, an argument to be made in favour of not combining the batteries in order to maintain the redundancy that separated battery banks provide?  By creating one big house bank, are we putting all our eggs in one basket?  (If so, I see that the discussion could take on something of the flavour of the "plugger/unplugger" debate, with people coming to different conclusions depending on how they relate to safety, convenience, risk, etc.)

Does having a battery monitor alleviate your concern, Stu, that there will be a bank robbery of the "one big bank"?

Asking these questions led me to question whether having redundant house battery power is really an essential virtue.  In a pinch, without house batteries, we can raise the anchor by hand, eat steak before the fridge thaws, helm instead of autopilot, conn without GPS, talk on a handlheld instead of a fixed radio...

All that looked fine, until...nav lights.  On my little Vivacity, which has a sketchy electrical system, we have always carried oil lamps for navigation in case the electrical system failed; but on Hali, oil lamps weren't even on our To Get list until your reference to Nigel Calder's article triggered this line of thought, Stu.

Pending feedback from the message board, my conclusion is that for Hali a single big battery bank would be fine, if we get a battery monitor and backup oil navigation lamps.  (If Hali had radar, I would want a redundant house battery.)

Mike:

Hali's house bank capacity, at 325Ah, is well shy of the 440Ah norm that has been mentioned.  Assuming we can live with that battery capacity...and perhaps it is not so difficult to do here in the NW where we do not need air conditioners and the refrigerator does not need to work too hard...the 30 amp Xantrex XC3012 battery charger we have been discussing should have no trouble charging the house batteries beyond the 6.6% of capacity you mentioned, even at the 23 amp rate that Jon has noticed.

 

[Stu Jackson]

Michael, the third of the three reference links in Reply #17 in the (separated) Battery Charging Techniques thread covered the answer to your question about split house banks compared to one larger one:  http://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,1208.15.html, see Reply #16.

[Michael]

At the end of the long and winding road, a summary of our conclusions about the problems and a statement of what we did aboard Hali to sort them out might be in order.

To get where we are, we relied on help from this thread and related threads more often than it is possible to give credits for.

Many thanks to all of you.

1.  the propane monitor and carbon monoxide monitors aboard Hali were being triggered by hydrogen boiled off the new house batteries during charging by the old Flyback 20-3 battery charger.  We could not make any other theory fit all the known facts.  However, if the propane or carbon monoxide detector goes off again, we will try not to assume we know why.

2.   the battery charger might have been working overtime because of higher-than-necessary demands for electricity caused by unnecessary cycling of the bilge pump.  Solving the bilge pump cycling problem became important.

3.   the bilge pump was cycling on too often because we didn't do a good job of packing the stuffing box last summer: the stuffing box, both at rest and when the propeller shaft was engaged, was throwing off too much water.

4.   following Ron's advice, we re-packed the stuffing box with dripless Goretex GFO.  It took two attempts for us to get the nut-tghtening just right:  the secret seems to be to tighten the large nut barely hand tight, at least at first (although the retaining nut needs to be tight).  The bilge now stays virtually dry: water rarely covers even the bottom surface and never (so far) reaches a level high enough to activate the bilge pump.  A corollary benefit is that the keel bolts may have stopped rusting.

5.   following Ron Hill and Jon Schneider's advice here, we installed two (plastic) vents into the below-settee battery containing space, one facing forward and one facing athwartships.  Whether this will keep the concentration of hydrogen gas below Randy Davison's explosive proportions, remains to be seen.  As Stu Jackson pointed out, it might just help escape the gas to activate the alarms -- good deeds rarely go unpunished.

6.   we have held off installing Tony Wright's solar ventilator in the hatch.  Its on our "maybe" list.

7.    following advice from here and other threads, we junked the Alltech Flyback 20-3 battery charger...and are glad of it.

8.   going out on a limb, albeit following Jon's lead but before getting the comfort of John Nixon's cautious approval of the Xantrex XC3012 battery charger, we bought one.  It passed Mike Vaccaro's 6.6% test, even if we boost Hali's housebank to the more usual 440 amp hours size.  And it alternates in charging our two battery banks so quickly (about every 15 seconds according to the user manual) that there is no grounds for my previous apprehension that information about the charging of more than one battery bank would not be readily available on the charger panel.  We located the remote control/monitor panel where it can be easily seen, beside the chart table.

9.  we have started a battery log and are recording terminal voltages, the specific gravity of the fluid in each battery cell, and when we top up the cells with fluid.  This data collection is running ahead of our understanding, but the data will be there for later.

10.  we changed from using one house battery at a time to using both house batteries at a time by the simple expedient of selecting "Both" on our battery selector switch instead of 1 or 2.  But based on what was written by Stu Jackson (to whom we owe the information that led to this change), Hali's battery configuration is a bit unusual (two small house batteries treated separately and the separate starting battery not linked to the main battery selector switch) so this easy solution might not work for many others.

11.  we charge both house batteries separately, to take advantage of the ability of the Xantrex XC3012 to charge up to three separate batteries or banks of batteries.

12.  we haven't yet bitten the bullet and bought a battery monitor, but one is on the wish list.

13.  Our actual power use remains unknown, but we have taken a first crack at preparing an energy budget.

14.  Mike recommended installing a fuse or circuit breaker between the new charger and the battery.  Xantrex makes a similar recommendation.  We haven't done it yet.  My reading of the Xantrex user manual leads me to believe that the purpose of the fuse or circuit breaker is to prevent the wire (from charger to battery) from burning out if overloaded.  We are using 0/1 wire.  There was never a fuse or breaker in the old configuration.  Does Mike or anyone know more about this?

15.  we bought a magnifying glass, for use on charts and to go with the deer stalker.

Problems paired up and climbed onto the ark together.  The sounding of the alarms initially led in many directions.  Even when resolved into one direction, the line led from alarms to batteries to battery charger to bilge pump to stuffing box.

[Jon Schneider]

14.  Mike recommended installing a fuse or circuit breaker between the new charger and the battery.  Xantrex makes a similar recommendation.  We haven't done it yet.  My reading of the Xantrex user manual leads me to believe that the purpose of the fuse or circuit breaker is to prevent the wire (from charger to battery) from burning out if overloaded.  We are using 0/1 wire.  There was never a fuse or breaker in the old configuration.  Does Mike or anyone know more about this?

Ah, I had the same issue, and decided to follow Xantrex's advice but had also figured that the fuses would be better placed adjacent to the charger (versus near the batteries... we had a discussion on the board about this back in the spring).  I eventually came around to reason and placed the fuses near the battery-end of the charger cable.  You're right that the reason for the fuse/breaker is generally to protect the wire first, but it also protects the equipment.  That's why I always install a breaker sized to whichever is smaller, the line requirement or the equipment safety.  Here's the reason why I fused the circuit between the battery and the charger: While I recall that there is an internal breaker in the Xantrex unit which should protect it, it is not user-serviceable.  Therefore, I don't ever want to trip it (and frankly I don't trust anything I can't see and fully understand from a schematic POV).  If the internal breaker did trip, that would mean that I would probably have to send the unit to a warranty center, and it would probably be out of service for weeks.  That's something I obviously want to avoid. 

BTW, you mention 1/0 cable.  Really?  I thought I was the king of over-sized wiring, but that is some pipe you put in.  How long's the run?  Was that the original cable that came with the boat when you bought it?