SmartPlug Install Wiring Question

[Jon W]

I didn't look far enough to the right of the photo. On my boat that is the back of the AC outlet in the head. I don't have the metal cover, just an exposed back of the outlet. Speaking of codes.

[KWKloeber]

Jon

We have a similar situation on the C-30 that I wanted to make better.  I'm sure it isn't the absolutely approved method LOL but I didn't want to go through ripping out what was there so took an old work box and screwed it to the back side of the bulkhead, putting a small notch for the cables to pass through the corner of the box. Much easier than putting in a new box from the galley side.   Common sense fix.

[patrice]

Hi,
If it was my boat and was doi g this mod, read improvement in changing the powe plug.
Investing in a new inlet that is not cheap.  And wondering if a splice is ok ?
Why not install a new wire full lenght.   Would it be possible to use the existing wire to pull the new one?

[lazybone]

Examples:

This type splice is used and approved for direct earth burial, but the identical type splice on a boat has to be enclosed in an enclosure?  There's more of a shock hazard on a boat than in the moist soil?



This type splice is also approved for junctions in NM cable (ie "Romex") in dry locations OUTSIDE any type enclosure/box.



Would I ever make a splice like above.  NOT in my house, even if it's code. 
ie. apply a strong dose of "common sense."

kk

You do realize that underground splices are protected by being encased in 18" of dirt?

[Sailing48N]

I'm not opposed to replacing the whole length of wire. However,  it looks like that may be relatively difficult depending on how well the current wire it secured in unreachable locations along the way.

The red line I drew on the bellow picture show's where I think the path of the wire runs. On another note, the green circle I drew shows what's on the other side of the aluminum backing asked about in some of the previous posts. I can only assume the previous owner put that there to keep things from coming in contact with the backside of the AC outlet in the head. FYI, that outlet was replaced just before we purchased the boat (after the below picture was taken) with a GFI outlet per the surveyors recommendation.

[Noah]

Does it matter how the current wire runs? Just cut it, abandon it, and run a new wire. Remove the toilet paper cabinet for easier access.

[KWKloeber]

<<<You do realize that underground splices are protected by being encased in 18" of dirt?>>>

The argument against the boat splice was that"it's a shock hazard " while the splice on a UF cable is not.   Splice on UF cable has to be assumed to be in a submerged condition with no leakage to the earth.  The fact that it's surrounded by soil is irrelevant as far as leakage or a shock hazard is concerned.  If a UF cable splice isn't going to leak when submerged, it's not going to leak in a locker.  Common sense.

If the argument is that the splice is physically protected by the soil, then the code would have to be to encase such a splice in an enclosure or conduit.  Heavy equipment running across the cable could exert forces on the soil, shift the cable, etc.   But the approved splice is as, or more robust than, the UF cable itself.  So, that argument doesn't "hold water " so to speak. :-)

If the point is that the soil protects the splice from something like an anchor hitting it if in a locker, then....

FACT, not opinion:  a splice protected by a double layer of mil spec HST, is more robust and resistant to cutting, etc., than the NM cable sheath on boat cable.  ie, drop the same anchor on a boat cable, and on one protected by 2x mil spec HST and see which survives.   Naturally the splice would be clamped down on either side per ABYC (and common sense) so there's no strain on the connection.  So it's no more (actually less) susceptible to getting caught than the remainder of the of the boat cable because it has to be clamped only every 18". 

If the argument is that the splice isn't "good" or "secure" then there shouldn't be any such type connection allowed at all on a boat anywhere or buried.  But that ain't the case.

The fact is the only viable argument why it's ok on UF cable but not on boat cable, is "because."  And the fact that ABYC still approves use of twist lock inlets, points to the fact that, while the organization does much much. much good for the industry  it's also also wrought with hypocracy.  And common sense occasionally gives way to politics.

kk

[Stu Jackson]

On another note, the green circle I drew shows what's on the other side of the aluminum backing asked about in some of the previous posts. I can only assume the previous owner put that there to keep things from coming in contact with the backside of the AC outlet in the head. FYI, that outlet was replaced just before we purchased the boat (after the below picture was taken) with a GFI outlet per the surveyors recommendation.

Russ, you may want to revisit this.  I have an OEM A.C. outlet in my head, perhaps a tad higher than your photo shows yours to be, but it is definitely further outboard than the aluminum cover plate shown in your earlier photo inside the port locker.

For instance, in your second photo, the left side of the head door lines up with the port side of the companionway steps, which, up in the cockpit, are the almost inside edge of the vertical wall of the port cockpit seat.  Your outlet, down below, is much further outboard to port, than the aluminum inside your locker.  It just seems that way to me, I could be wrong, but I would check.

As far as your red line, I also think not.  I believe it continues to run above the mirror door cabinet.  Take another look.

Good luck.

[lazybone]

<<<You do realize that underground splices are protected by being encased in 18" of dirt?>>>

The argument against the boat splice was that"it's a shock hazard " while the splice on a UF cable is not.   Splice on UF cable has to be assumed to be in a submerged condition with no leakage to the earth.  The fact that it's surrounded by soil is irrelevant as far as leakage or a shock hazard is concerned.  If a UF cable splice isn't going to leak when submerged, it's not going to leak in a locker.  Common sense.

If the argument is that the splice is physically protected by the soil, then the code would have to be to encase such a splice in an enclosure or conduit.  Heavy equipment running across the cable could exert forces on the soil, shift the cable, etc.   But the approved splice is as, or more robust than, the UF cable itself.  So, that argument doesn't "hold water " so to speak. :-)

If the point is that the soil protects the splice from something like an anchor hitting it if in a locker, then....

FACT, not opinion:  a splice protected by a double layer of mil spec HST, is more robust and resistant to cutting, etc., than the NM cable sheath on boat cable.  ie, drop the same anchor on a boat cable, and on one protected by 2x mil spec HST and see which survives.   Naturally the splice would be clamped down on either side per ABYC (and common sense) so there's no strain on the connection.  So it's no more (actually less) susceptible to getting caught than the remainder of the of the boat cable because it has to be clamped only every 18". 

If the argument is that the splice isn't "good" or "secure" then there shouldn't be any such type connection allowed at all on a boat anywhere or buried.  But that ain't the case.

The fact is the only viable argument why it's ok on UF cable but not on boat cable, is "because."  And the fact that ABYC still approves use of twist lock inlets, points to the fact that, while the organization does much much. much good for the industry  it's also also wrought with hypocracy.  And common sense occasionally gives way to politics.

kk

Thanks for all the facts but fact is it wouldn't pass inspection even in my tool shed.

[KWKloeber]

PS: consider this common sense critique of the enclosure section.  If the "anchor" argument is to hold any water, then the code should not allow any boat cable in a locker like as shown, any such cable would have to be in conduit where there's any chance it could be "gotten to" and used for storage, etc.

Also, the reason the enclosure provision is there, is for open connections like term strips and buss bars where errant fingers could contact the studs, screws, etc.  that's the reason behind the need for "hand tools" to get the cover off.   Unlike open terminals, alternately a completely covered splice, and it was in an enclosure, has no inherent reason to require hand tools to access it. It's not a "finger hazard."  Common sense.

The point of all isn't to say it's the "best way" -  merely that's it's "as good a way"  as if the original cable itself.

The best way, as I said originally, would be to invest in an ELCI in the locker. 

kk

[DaveBMusik]

I'm not opposed to replacing the whole length of wire. However,  it looks like that may be relatively difficult depending on how well the current wire it secured in unreachable locations along the way.

The red line I drew on the bellow picture show's where I think the path of the wire runs. On another note, the green circle I drew shows what's on the other side of the aluminum backing asked about in some of the previous posts. I can only assume the previous owner put that there to keep things from coming in contact with the backside of the AC outlet in the head. FYI, that outlet was replaced just before we purchased the boat (after the below picture was taken) with a GFI outlet per the surveyors recommendation.

I looked at mine today as I am going to do the exact same thing. The wire runs from the plug into the head and behind the upper trim in the head. I don't believe it will be an issue to replace.

[Jon W]

My AC cable runs along the top of the cabinet in the head and through to the top of the cabinet by the navigation station. It doesn't run the path of your red line as you've drawn.

[patrice]

Hi,
Mine too run thru the cabinet.  It's hung in the top.

[mainesail]

These are all FACTS:
As of today, the old SPs were (and will remain) non-compliant.

As of June 2009 Bob White of Imanna Labs tested the SmartPlug inlet and cordset, both with the thermal switch, and deemed it fully ABYC, UL817, USCG CFR 33 and NFPA 302 compliant. I have a copy of the internal letter on my hard drive and unfortunately, for obvious reasons, I can't share it publicly.. Imanna Labs is one of the largest testing facilities for marine use products including USCG certified navigation lights. The ABYC does not certify anything it is up to the manufacturer to "self certify" using organizations such as Imanna Labs.

If we read the ABYC standards, which are performance based, they do not include for nor do they exclude thermal switches. The ABYC standards include over current circuit breakers & fuses which trip on over current and GFCI and ELCI devices which trip on imbalances in AC wiring. A thermal-switch does not trip on over current nor on an imbalance in the AC wiring, it trips on a thermal event. This is something that is additional protection and something that is going above and beyond what E-11 actually covers & requires.

Definitions:
11.4.20 Overcurrent Protection Device - a device, such as a fuse or circuit breaker, designed to interrupt the circuit when the current flow exceeds a predetermined value.

Circuit breakers trip on over-current, on that I think we can all agree. An ELCI or GFCI trips on an imbalance in the current carrying conductors, on that I think we can all agree. Circuit breakers and ELCI's ir GFCI's are different and on that I think we can all agree.

A thermal switch is not an over-current circuit breaker, fuse, GFCI or ELCI by the ABYC's own definitions. A thermal switch opens based on temperature not over current and E-11 does not define that nor does it address thermal switches anywhere in E-11.

11.4.33 Trip Free Circuit Breaker - a resettable overcurrent protection device designed so that the means of resetting cannot override the current interrupting mechanism.

By E-11 definition, a thermal switch is operating on a thermal event such as over-heating due to high resistance, a lack of cooling, an overload in the equipment or an internal fan that may have stopped working, is not a auto-resetting circuit breaker..

There are many, devices out there that have internal thermal switch protection, inside them, that are not tripping on over current, but rather on over heating and these are fully allowed under E-11.. The two types of protection, over-current and thermal protection are entirely separate types of safety protection. To argue that the SmartPlugs thermal switch did/does not meet ABYC, based on over-current circuit breakers, is calling a Buick a Ford. Thermal switches are simply not covered in the ABYC E-11 standard and any boat installing a SMartPlug should already be in full compliance with the overcurrent protection section..

Beyond the definitions we have this:

In DC the term integral overcurrent protection is described as such:

11.10.1 OVERCURRENT PROTECTION -
11.10.1.8 Integral Overcurrent Protection Devices - Integral overcurrent protection devices without a manual reset may be used as an integral part of an electrical device provided the rest of the circuit is protected by circuit breaker meeting  E-11.10.1.6 or fuses meeting E-11.10.1.7

The AC Over-Current section then describes this (after Integral Over-Current has been described previously under DC)

11.10.2.1 Circuit breakers shall meet the requirements of UL 489, Molded Case Circuit Protectors For Circuit Breaker Enclosures, or UL 1077, Supplementary Protectors For Use In Electrical Equipment, or IEC 60898, Circuit Breakers for Overcurrent Protection for Household and Similar Installations Part 2 Circuit Breakers for AC and DC Operations, or IEC 60947-2, Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear – Part 2: Circuit Breakers or IEC 60934, Circuit Breakers for Equipment and

11.10.2.1.1 shall be of the manually reset trip-free type, and

11.10.2.1.2 shall be capable of an interrupting capacity in accordance with TABLE IV -B.

EXCEPTION to 11.10.2.1: Integral overcurrent protection in electrical devices.

If one is going to argue that the SP does not meet ABYC because the thermal-switch is teh same as a an over-current circuit break, a huge stretch, and that it automatically resets and that's an issue, then they have clearly missed the EXCEPTIONS in E-11 which do allow for automatically resetting breakers inside electrical devices. The Thermal switch resides "inside" the device but it is still not a circuit breaker despite even this being allowed under E-11..

Here are some other facts to consider if one is worried:

#1 The ABYC has never published an RFI (request for interpretation) stating the SmartPlug with thermal-switch does not meet E-11. This has not stopped some individuals, one or two really, from surmising, on their own, that it does not meet the standard. If you're wondering why there has been no official ABYC RFI published in regards to the thermal switch examine what I have shown above.

#2 Imanna Labs tested the SmartPlug, even with the thermal Switch, and emphatically states that it meets the ABYC performance standards of E-11 as well as NFPA 302 and UL 817 w supplement SA and USCG CFR 33 Chapter 1 Section 183.

#3 Ed Sherman ABYC VP & head of education has been a very vocal proponent of the SmartPlug and this his statements are well publicized on this topic.

Quote = Ed Sherman ABYC VP 2011: "The newest type of shore power plugs and sockets are available from Smart Plug. Now's a good time to upgrade your current setup!"

Quote = Ed Sherman ABYC VP 2012: "The SmartPlug also incorporates several features not found on other shore-power connectors: a built-in single-pole opening thermal switch. But ABYC requires double-pole opening for circuit interruption to ensure power is off even with reverse polarity, which means a standard-compliant boat would still need double-pole protection on-board."

Every boat should already have a double pole main breaker. What he is saying is that the only way your boat would be non-compliant would be if you lacked a double pole main breaker. You'd also be non-compliant with a twist-lock so in reality the thermal-switch did not change anything and you still need double pole overcurrent protection...

#4 The SmartPlug has also been tested by ETL to UL performance requirements and is CE certified..


Exceeded 2000 Character Limit to be continued:

[mainesail]

Second part:

As of today (until ABYC changes 11.13.3.2 and Figure 12,) even the "current" (no pun) SP is non-compliant

11.6.2.2 SHORE POWER
11.6.2.2.1 Shore Power Cable

11.6.2.2.1.2 Except where the shore power cable is permanently connected to the boat, the boat end of this cable shall be terminated with a locking and grounding female type connector to match the boat power inlet (see FIGURE 12  and FIGURE 13).

11.6.2.2.1.3 The shore power cable shall be flexible cord with the minimum properties of Type SOW, STW, STOW, SEOW, or STOOW, and shall be suitable for outdoor use. The shore connection end of this cable shall be fitted with a locking and grounding type plug with the required number of poles and shall comply with Article 555 of the National Electrical Code (see FIGURE 12 and TABLE VII-A).


The green portion of these sections are the "performance based" parts of E-11 for shore cords or the requirements. There is no requirement (shall, must etc.) for the cord end at the vessel to twist-lock or be of twist-lock type nor to match FIGURE 12.  The statement in 11.6.2.2.1.2 (See FIGURE 12) are examples based on when the standard was last updated. Examples are not performance based requirements. Because the ABYC can not promote a product, and the SmartPlug is proprietary, they can't show the pin configuration. The standard also can't exclude it hence the image #12 for the boat end is only showing "examples" and they are not part of the performance requirement. This is whey there is no "shall" or "must" for the boat end like there is for the shore end, which currently needs to comply with NEC/NFPA.  When we drop down to 11.6.2.1.3 the key here is that the "shore end" needs to comply with land based standards hence the term "shall comply". SmartPlug is still working on the shore end and is working with NFPA and the NEC on this front. Right now it is only boat end.

The E-11 performance based requirements for the cord and inlet at the boat end are:


* flexible cord with the minimum properties of Type SOW, STW, STOW, SEOW, or STOOW, and shall be suitable for outdoor use
* the boat end of this cable shall be terminated with a locking and grounding female type connector to match the boat power inlet

The SmartPlug meets all the performance based criteria above and both Dave B. at ABYC and Ed Sherman, ABYC VP, have both confirmed this. There is no requirement for the locking mechanism to "twist" just that the inlet and cord end lock, have grounding be a female cord end and match.

To pass a "good" survey, very technically speaking, the old SP MUST be removed and replaced with a twist-lock.   Then, after ABYC changes 11.13.3.2 a breaker-less SP can be installed.

See above...

Accolades were sung about and X-number of (10? 20? 30? x?) SmartPlugs were installed when, although they were 'better', they were CLEARLY non compliant at that time!! 

Website write ups and in a plethora of blog posts, never stated "These dang things are non compliant and are not recommended <wink>, but if you think they are for you it's YBYC, and go for it if you want to be non-compliant <wink>."[/color]

Why would that need stating when Imanna labs, ABYC VP Ed Sherman & the verbiage in the standard are all not suggesting there is an issue? When we actual examine the verbiage in the standard it would be a grievous stretch, inclusive of "definition manipulation", to come to the conclusion the thermal switch is not compliant. This is shown above using actual standards text. Thermal switches are simply not covered, they are also not overcurrent protection devices.

If we are attempting to re-define a thermal switch, to be an overcurrent  breaker, then even an auto-reset circuit breaker is allowed under the EXCEPTION to 11.10.2.1.. If the E-11 committee wanted to issue a written RFI stating otherwise, they do have the ability to over-ride their own written words. Hypocritical if they did? Probably... So far this has not been done, so all we can go on are the words we have on paper which don't address thermal switches nor exclude them.

I'm not turning this personal and have bit my tongue until now, BUT.... one cannot fight to the death that "the way it's written on paper" is the "only way it shall be done."  Yet recommend that owners should buy and install a non-compliant product, because "it's better."  As you say, non-compliance is non-compliance period.

But when we don't interpret the standard based on how it's written we run a risk of incorrect conclusions. Again, there has been no RFI issued on the SmartPlug and the committee, I suspect, would have a very hard time reading their own verbiage and coming to that conclusion. Regardless, SmartPlug removed the thermal-switch and the 50A never even had one so the question, at this juncture is pretty much moot...

Yes, SPs were and are better, and yes, it made sense, but a non-compliant product was still installed in clear non-compliance with ABYC.  I'd say you'll have a busy winter with big economic loss removing and replacing all those with a breaker-less model that they sold to customers!!  <wiknk, wink>

See above...

Or will they be replaced only if the boat fails an insurance survey?  Or not at all?
What if more AC work is done on the same boat -- will the old SP get ripped out and a new installed?

Any surveyor has plenty of evidence that the SmartPlug is safe and compliant. The ABYC's VP is out glowingly advocating for the product (including mentioning it in my last ABYC CE course). So all one has to do is point to that or the standard which, as written, does not exclude it.

That would be erring on the safe side because the auto-resets are, and will continue to be not allowed.  Or, will old SPs be left in place because common sense says the auto reset is okay and economically it make no sense at all?  There goes that common sense sneaking in again.  Should everyone else who installed a SP themselves remove theirs?  No, because it doesn't make "sense."

If you examine what I wrote above including the "exceptions" I think you'll see why there has never been an RFI stating the SmartPlug is non-compliant. Sure there have been a few individuals stating such, without verifiable merit, but no official RFI from the electrical board.

PS, And I'm not sure the old SP is "better." One could conjure up scenarios where an auto reset could be an a problem, without a telltale to identify an issue.

Ah the Darrell & Darrell scenario the one or two guys who are against the thermal switch talk about. I discuss this in my article but I'll post it here.

The argument against SmartPlug's thermal switch, while made with good intention and without verbiage to back it up, 100% ignores, and looks the other way on "auto-transferring inverters" as well as other examples of thermal protection or autor resetting breakers in devices that are allowed under E-11.

The argument against the thermal switch:
Boat owner Darrell, & his other brother Darrell, wake in the middle of the night to find no AC power?  Darrell & Darrell find no electricity at the AC panels AC volt meter. Darrell #1 opens the AC panel at the same exact moment the thermal switch cools and re-sets. Darrell #1 gets zapped. 

While, in theory, this could possibly happen, we should remember that at least Darrell & Darrell were still alive to actually open that AC panel before a twist-lock shore cord  burned them alive in their sleep & before it moved onto engulfing the rest of the marina.

In a situation like this the first step in trouble shooting is to always unplug from shore power before opening the AC panel. The argument, statistically, is very low level and would be extremely rare compared to numerous other situations which we currently allow to continue without a; "does not meet ABYC" statement from certain individuals all this while lacking an official RFI.

I have seen a similar type of scenario created with numerous worn or corroded sockets on shore power cords presenting intermittent AC power as the boat rocks back and forth. I have physically dealt with this on a number of occasions yet the standard has no way to prevent this. In many cases, when I unplug, I find the shore cord or inlet physically melted & close to starting a fire.

What about auto-transfer Inverters & human safety?:
The same argument used in the above scenario, by one or two people in the ABYC, to suggest that the SmartPlug is not compliant with E-11, can also be used with auto-transfer inverters. 

An automatic transferring inverter can create the same exact Darrell & Darrell scenario painted above. The potential for the same type of situation, that has been used by one or two guys against the SmartPlugs thermal-switch, occurs every day with thousands upon thousands of installed auto-transfer inverters yet this gets ignored completely? Why? Beccause standards are not perfect and never will be.

If it is unsafe for a shore cord to resume operation after it shuts down on a thermal event (see AC Exception), while already being protected by a pedestal breaker and a double pole on-board breaker, and this occurs due to a thermal switch that E-11 does not technically cover, why is it "safe" for an inverter to create AC power automatically when the shore cord is physically unplugged from the vessel. Should this not also be a mandatory manual transfer switch over?

I believe those few ABYC individuals are acting grossly hypocritical to the SmartPlug when they try to discredit it based on incorrect use of definitions and failing to accoutn for allowed EXCEPTIONS to the auto-reset rule.

There is however one major difference between the two scenarios previously described. In the SmartPlug scenario Darrell & Darrell had to forget to physically unplug from shore power. With an auto-transfer inverter Darrell & Darrell can physically un-plug and thus may "expect" no AC power behind the panel when in fact the inverter has automatically inverted.

Sadly there are far too many boat owners out there who have zero clue how their inverters work or that they automatically transfer for that matter.  Is this safe? I suspect this is arguably less safe than the thermal protection device in the SmartPlug, which would arguably save more lives than it would ever endanger.

Of course all of this surmising assumes the SmartPlug would actually get to 200F (failure #1) then Darrell & Darrell would forget to unplug (failure #2) then at the exact moment the thermal switch re-engages Darrell would have his fingers across a live AC junction (failure #3). That's a lot of what if assumptions.

I have had some inverters take me, not just a boat owner, 10-15 minutes to figure out how to shut off the auto invert feature then a few weeks later I get a call that it is auto-inverting again. Safe? Heck I do this every day and some of this info is buried so far in menus that it's absurd.

While we are on the "what if scenarios" here's another: 

Darrell #1 goes to the dock pedestal and UNPLUGS the shore cord. He yells down to Darrell #2 "Okay it's unplugged!" Darrell #2 opens the AC panel, and ZAP (failure #1) !!!!  Oooops the inverter transferred AUTOMATICALLY.

I find it really odd for one or two members of the ABYC to argue against the Smart Plug 30A (the 50A never had one but this was never stated by these one or two individuals, just "not compliant") without also arguing against auto-transfer inverters, or the many other devices out there that have thermal protection built in which meet the DC and AC exceptions.?

Lets Look At A-31:
31.4.3 Automatically Controlled - Controlled within the design specifications and parameters with no operator intervention and/or allows the operator the ability to change the operating parameters of the device to provide output that does not exceed the design specifications.


Under A-31 inverters are automatically allowed to invert when shore power is unplugged. This type of "automation" only requires a small warning placard. If the one or two guys out there stating what is arguably misinformation about the SmartPlug with thermal breaker, do you suppose they considered suggesting the same treatment, a small placard??

If it is okay for an inverter to auto transfer when the shore cord is disconnected and a small "warning placard" suffices it is simply a hypocritical argument to not suggest equal treatment for the SmartPlug? Of course any of the anti SmartPlug agenda hinges on incorrect interpretations of the actual verbiage in E-11 to begin with and as stated no RIF has ever been issued..

And we always must err on the safe side when there's an option.  Well then ABYC needs to make a wholesale switch away from twist locks, correct?  Is it doing that? Obviously not.  So maybe ABYC isn't necessarily always "correct"?

No the ABYC is not always correct, perfect etc. nor is any standards organization. I recently fired off a multi-page document for the 2018 release of E-11.  I will be lucky to see even a single change. 

None of the standards organizations are perfect. Heck I have nearly three years invested into a new ABYC standard and the standard still won't be ideal when it lands. Standards are very tough to write especially with new technology popping up every day. We can't write to exclude things and we must write for performance based criteria. If we go back to the original point, the ABYC does not suggest or define what type of enclosure/box, be required nor does it require enclosure certifications etc. just that the box must be an "enclosure" and require the used of hand tools to open. Your box mounted back side satisfies this requirement because you meet the performance criteria, the wire is in an enclosure that requires tools to access.