Messages

The shore power should not run straight to the bus powering the circuits.

Ok, I'm not educated on what a PO did or your particular panel (post a pic?) but, generally, the shore power cable runs to the panel main breaker, which feeds the bus that feeds the various breakers/circuits/equipment (like water heater.) 

That's "generally" - on my '84 panel for instance there's no bus; the 30a Main feeds to the Pos and Neutral terminal strips and individual fuses are wired to the Pos terminal strip. 

Guys : Before you start tearing things apart - spend a few $$ on a heat detection gun and see what the temperature of the engine really is!!   

A thought

Ron

Perhaps you can post a link to your info about the engine cover grounding out the Temp switch.  I could not locate it.  Given what was explained so far that's the only explanation I see that makes any sense.

Edit - I've said it previously in this thread but will again. Tie down the wires so that harness movement doesn't get transmitted to the oil pressure switch terminals.  They fail too many times on the B engines. Wb doesn't put a spring-coil of wire on the sender wires to absorb vibration/movement. 
***

David where exactly where the two ends disconnected?  Were they quick-disconnect terminals?

Does she still have the black rectangular Westerbeke plugs on the harness near the back of the engine?

When did the fuel gauge stop working?

I would be rethining my choice of a mechanic if one claimed that I didn't need a harness ground wire connected!

[***]

EDITED

Craig this makes no sense to me. Pinning high is due to zero resistance at the gauge S terminal and you have 970 ohms there.  The R measured on the S wire should be very close to the R of the sender (depending on what gauge S wire you ran.)  However, you are measuring the two Rs by referencing two different grounds (directly to the engine block vs. the path back to the gauge G terminal, therefore, that could account for the difference***. (That might mean your ground up to the panel needs checking/ohm-ing/attention.)  ***Remember when you are measuring R using that method, you are measuring R of the entire circuit (i.e., from the panel, S wire to the sender, the sender, through the engine block to wherever the connection is for the ground wire going up to the panel, through the panel wiring, and to the gauge G terminal.  70 ohms difference corresponds to about 30 feet of 14 AWG stranded wire, so you are definitely in the ballpark given the theoretical resistance of the S wire and return circuit.

Still, the gauge should read a little lower (not pin high) if the R is higher at the gauge than at the sender.

You saw my questions about your engine cover?

After removing the S wire from the gauge, the resistance from the S wire to the panel ground (checked using the G post on the temp gauge) IS 970 ohms.  Checking the resistance at the sender again (cold this AM) is 900 ohms.

When the gauge started displaying inaccurate readings it was sporadic with it going from "pinned" high to reading normal.  Then the frequency diminished until it always reads >240.

This morning with the engine cool, when I engerize the panel the gauge reads ~170'F.

Not sure it this tells you anything...

Thanks,
Craig

When the gauge goes high, is the engine cover closed? 
Do you have foil insulation on it **(terminal shorting out)**
(see Ron's previous warning about that!!) 

If it is not already, insulate the temp sender terminal with a small BlueSea terminal cap.

I to G terminals is 12.5V. 
No wire on the "S" terminal, gauge rests below 120'F.
"S" and "G" terminals are connected, gauge reads >240'F.

It APPEARS that the gauge is OK

resistance of the sender is 435 ohms at 97'F.

That APPEARS reasonable for that temp.  That was with the S wire disconnected from the sender correct?

I ran a new wire directly from the sender to the "S" on the gauge.  Gauge still shows >240'F.

Based on #3 on the troubleshooting guide, is the sender shorted (0 ohms)?

What #3 refers to is:  "If you short out the terminal on the sender, the gauge will (**should**) read >240.
You measured the sender (said it was 435 ohms -- so no, the sender itself appears to not be shorted out.)

I don't think they are around any longer.

Along with nearly all other manufacturers (Guest, Ancor, etc, etc,) Teleflex gauges have been gobbled up by SeaStar Marine.  I doubt they can help much beyond what is in the troubleshooting steps.

Remove the S wire from the gauge.  Check the resistance from that wire to panel ground.
  It **should** read the same as the temp sender resistance

[The harness should have two wires on one terminal (red/white and ?blue?)]

thanks for your continuing interest Ken.
Oil switch is an open circuit with the engine off and closed circuit with the engine running.

My current project is the reconnect all of the leads from the engine to the harness that runs aft to the instrument panel.

@d

Did your mechanic do any troubleshooting (before or after replacing the switch and alarm)?

Your switch is operating correctly.  (The closed switch when you have oil pressure is supposed to power the fuel pump.)

With the key switch on, check the voltage at both switch terminals to ground.

Then we are going to take the switch out of the equation so we can test with the engine off (no oil pressure):

• Make up a short male-to-male jumper
  (or get a male-to-male adapter at the auto parts)

  
  
  

 
https://shop.advanceautoparts.com/p/dorman-disconnect-interior-adapter-assortment-85412/22141457-p

• Jumper together the two terminals.

  
  
  

• Tape it so it can't short out to the engine.
  
  

  
  
  

There should be TWO wires on one of the terminals, so check around to ensure there's nothing loose.  
Something appears to be abnormal on your harness because there **should** be a third wire (probably blue) running from the switch (your yellow terminal) to the alternator EXCITE terminal.

With the switch terminals jumpered and key on, listen for the fuel pump clicking.  
Does the alarm sound?  Faint or loud?


Report back!

The harness should have two wires on one terminal (red/white and ?blue?)

Testing the new oil pressure switch..engine stopped, open circuit  from both tabs to engine ground.
    "                    "          engine running, open circuit from both tabs to ground.

The switch is between the two terminals.
Not the terminals to ground. 
Recheck the switch.

no tachometer reading, no fuel gauge reading and the temperature gauge reads ~ 200 F after engine running for 1 minute.

I presume with the items still disconnected as you described below?

[@d]

To check the switch, remove the 2 wires to the switch, short the female terminals together (for a good connection I suggest a jumper wire w/ 2 male quick connect terminals, rather than taping terminals together.)  If your alarm problems go away, the switch has filed FAILED and replace it -- if not we'll dig deeper.

Should I do this?

@d

That's not the OEM Wb wiring that I have seen when I replaced a "B" harness.  So from afar it might be difficult to tell what you have there or if the PO modified it.
Wb typically installs harnesses before painting the engine so all the wiring is Ice Blue color.  Even if not, the OEM wiring had one terminal crimped with two wires (one being red/white stripe) and the other terminal had one wire.  And those are not Wb terminals or Wb crimps.

I went thru the wiring on the forum and checking the voltages at different points with another owner.  If you can't locate that old post with a search I may be able to find it.

Did you look for that?

is it the oil switch or the temp switch that is alarming?

did he {mechanc] use the wiring schematic to understand why it is alarming?

I missed it if you previously answered this.

Disconnect the two wires.
See what the alarm does.
Verify whether the oil switch is open or closed (w/ engine off and running) using your ohm or continuity setting on your multimeter.

Report back!

-Ken

I'm not sure if the image was attached to my last posting. I'm new to this board.

Nope, no pic.
You can always verify by signing onto the forum.  Attachments and embedded images are not included in the emails send out.

Ron mon ami, are you saying that you have personally witnessed your smile occurring "in one second"?   All I have heard is that it was always claimed to occur over off-season storage, not "immediately."

I wonder how CTY's would square its explanation of the cause with the smile on my keel being at the aft end?  Too much weight on the nose of the keel perhaps?  More CTY fantasy.

I agree that it probably doesn't take an M.E. -- in order to deduce that the hefty hull/keel stub box-beam section (below) between the nose and the first bolt, will not bend in the short distance in front of the first bolt. 

(M.E.s deal with moving objects, eivil/structural engineers deal with
mechanics/statics/strength of materials and stress/strain/bending under load.)
.

Mark

Just for context 'fer others I think you are referring to
https://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,11903.msg97457.html#msg97457

not
https://c34.org/bbs/index.php/topic,11903.msg97563.html#msg97563
(which links pertain to deterioration aft, not a fwd smile (which I did not have,) and my prior experience rebedding the keel joint material.)

-ken

Previous info about my "no aft smile" and the loose aft nut (in no particular order):

I think that the only way you will really know the answer to this question is if you have a mechanical engineering friend. Knowing that type, turn it into some kind of bet and offer them a case of their favorite beverage so they do a "Finite element analysis" of the keel/hull joint blocked in the front or blocked fore and aft.

Logic dictates that the bolt isn't stretching, but the piece of keel that sticks out forward of the forward most keel bolt can bend. I'm not saying it does bend, I'm saying it "could". FEA (finite element analysis) would tell you exactly how much force you would need to create a "smile"

Mark
Mola Mola

[The mobile version has no links to jump elsewhere but you can click these:]

The mobile version has no links to jump elsewhere but you can click these: (opens a new tab in your mobile browser)

C34 HOME
https://c34.org/

TECH NOTES
https://c34.org/tech-noteswp/

TECH WIKI
https://c34.org/wiki/index.php

[I EVEN NEED TO]

@High Anxiety

The aft-most nut was so loose my thumb turned it

I've previously posted about my same experience re: the fingertight aft nut and keel bedding so many times that my head hurts every time I repost about it.

The washers were set into the original gelcoat, which formed a surprisingly poor seal;

Are you thinking that CTY bolted-up the keel nuts/washers into wet gelcoat?  Doesn't seem logical to me.  What does, is the known issue on C-30s of torquing the nuts so many times that the washers compress the glass and bury themselves in the gelcoat.

Whether or not that underlying bedding is still intact is the (hopefully less than) $64,000 question.

hemming and hawing over whether to drop the keel. 

IIWMB my hem/haw would not be whether to drop the keel -- rather, my first step would be to decide WHEN to determine if I EVEN NEED TO drop the keel.  That is, answer that question right now — OR just go sailing now and answer it in fall '24 / spring '25. 
Nothing is going to change before then and the keel will not fall off if you put off finding that out.

Like engines, plumbing, electrical, and other systems: one should not play Whack-a-Mole and willy-nilly replace/fix before one troubleshoots, Troubleshoots, TROUBLESHOOTs.
(Then play "more-informed" Whack-a-Mole.)

possible damage from and difficulty with separating it, and I'm placing a lot of trust in the yard to do everything right

Removing the keel is also a costly job that could lead to more costly jobs on a 34 year old boat. 

Removing the keel is lightyears distant from being rocket science.
If I did it with no previous experience in dismembering the appendage, (IMO only) any other idiot like me **should** also be able to.
It's nasty, laborious (but not "difficult") work. 
Reattaching it takes brain power (unfortunately I learned that the hard way.)

That said I'm unsure whether I would trust the yard with anything.  Someone who blocks jack stands with 2x4s has (IMO only) questionable knowledge/conscientiousness and at worst doesn't care about their customers' yachts.  Gimmeabreak -- don't they have lumber yards in ME?

check torque often.

See above for (IMO) the danger of too-often and too-tighting of the keel nuts.
Keel nuts that are 40 ft-lbs shy do not cause the Catalina smile.

Previous info about my "no aft smile" and the loose aft nut (in no particular order):

https://groups.io/g/Catalina30/search?d=0&ev=0&p=recentpostdate%2Fsticky%2C%2C%2522keel%2522+AND+carbide%2C20%2C2%2C0%2C0&ct=1&startdate=&enddate=

https://www.sailnet.com/posts/2051801875/
https://www.sailnet.com/posts/319785/

https://c34.org/search_gcse/?q=%22kwkloeber%22%20%22keel%22%20joint%20OR%20bedding%20OR%20carbide

https://c34.org/bbs/index.php?msg=97345
https://c34.org/bbs/index.php?msg=82156
https://c34.org/bbs/index.php?msg=81134
https://c34.org/bbs/index.php?msg=74413
https://c34.org/bbs/index.php?msg=71726
https://c34.org/bbs/index.php?msg=67529

My saga about reattaching the keel:
https://c34.org/bbs/index.php?msg=67822

water coming FROM inside.

That's what attacks and eats up the "mung" keel bedding!
Been there, done that. 
Got the Tee shirt (and N-95 respirator.) 

Looks to me like water intrusion into hull, any blisters anywhere else? Was the hull sealed with an epoxy barrier coat?

The owner didn't say anything about blisters.  The whole area was peeling paint (and possibly barrier?) which led to him investigating it and grinding it back.

Sounded like an inside-out rather than an outside-in situation. 
But even if it was blistering due to intrusion, it wouldn't have been immersed in pink antifreeze to have that now dripping back out.
Odd!