Bonding/grounding flexible shaft coupler

[Noah]

This is how my grounds/negative wires look behind my panel. I have a green wire to my engine block. However my,  I do have a Vetus Bullfex flexible coupler with no "cross/bridge/strap" to the shaft. Don't know if this is an issue or not?

[KWKloeber]

behind my panel.

green wire to my engine block.

Your DC negs are bonded to the AC ground (compliant.)

Have no clue why a bond wire would be run to the engine block when it's already bonded by:
Neg btty cable on engine > btty terminal > wire to bus behind the panel.  Belt/suspenders maybe?

Just a "fyi observation"...
All the yellow terminals are non-compliant and were also crimped using the wrong tool (which in itself is non-compliant (both those are not a 1990-state-of-the-art thing, they're a typical CTY crack technician thing.))  That could be a rainy day project!  The pic of the disconnected terminal evidences the result of using the wrong tool and that the resulting crimps/connections/continuities surely aren't competent (as below; courtesy Mainsail.)

[Noah]

All of those yellow crimps were original Catalina 34 wiring and were not redone when I replaced my AC/DC distribution panel with a BlueSea 360 panel and did other major electrical upgrades.. Someday, maybe I will re-crimp those...but, it is a very tight unfriendly space  to work in so it's way down on my list. Looks good from the outside, though!

[KWKloeber]

Looks not "good." Looks beautiful l!! I continue to be amazed by your upgrades.

Maybe a rainy WEEKEND terminals project?

I know what a pita that space can be and then there's the issue of enuf slack to replace them.  IIWM I'd think about salvaging the terminals and ending up with a 99% improvement, albeit not 100%.

[Jon W]

I installed that jumper when I rewired my boat. I was told on this forum, with an ELCI breaker it was not necessary, it's also "controversial" so I removed the AC ground to DC negative jumper behind the main distribution panel.

There was also lots of dialogue to connect the DC negative to the start motor bolt, and not the bell housing. If a sea water ground isn't required why terminate DC negative on the starter to engine bolt at all?

[KWKloeber]

Jon

I missed your earlier question.  No, there's no code for a "seawater ground" (DC or AC.)  In fact, a seawater AC ground would be dangerous (in the absence of a bond DC neg --> AC ground) and is why abyc calls for bonding together the two busses (ELCi discussed later.)   Why is that?  If the DC became energized w/ 120 vac (leakage or a fault) then the ground (prop shaft or whatever) can become a cattle prod to someone in the water.  Bonding the DC to the AC provides a safer, lower resistance, path for 120vac, rather than thru a person's body.

Did you install that jumper or remove that jumper when you rewired?
(you said)

No GI, and AC not connected to 12vdc negative buss

The "controversy" you mention -- is that galvanic corrosion caused by leakage from other boats at the marina is because we are connected together by the common AC ground wire (and the corrosion to our boats by the DC -> AC bond wire.)  Removing the bond eliminates that path. 

I recall the earlier discussion on ELCIs.  Apologies for not expanding on "unnecessary" back then -- but for background, a whole-boat ELCI does not remove the ABYC "(voluntary) requirement" to bond the DC neg > AC ground -- the reasoning being that an ELCI could fail (extremely rare) and the DC -> AC bond is belt/suspenders.  So, bonding is theoretically unnecessary but still required.  True, with the ELCI there's a very valid argument that the possibility of a fault making its way into the water is so VERY VERY SLIGHT so that the DC > AC bond becomes unnecessary.  The decision of whether or not to bond DC -> AC becomes a personal choice (acceptable risk.) 

Another way to think of it  -- I run a GFCI-protected circuit for a pool filter and underwater lighting -- so the ground on the pump and the underwater lighting become unnecessary.  But I wouldn't cut off the 3rd prong on the pump plug or disconnect the ground wire on the receptacle.  Or closer to home, I wouldn't cut off the ground prong on a shore cable because the ELCI will protect against electrocution on the boat.

I know an electrician who touts how sternly he follows the National Electrical Code when wiring his boat, yet refuses to follow that (voluntary) ABYC bonding requirement.  He's calculated out the theoretical chance of a fault to the nth decimal place (and I agree with his very small theoretical chance of someone getting hurt.)  His problem with it is just that he simply won't comply w/ a code that he doesn't agree with.  He could install a 100$ GI (he has enough spare bucks) and would then be both compliant and protected from corrosion, but he just ain't gonna do it because... 
He's pretty hypocritical because he'll chastise owners for not following, say, some manufacturer's recommendation (that is merely a recommendation, not a code or requirement.) 

I digressed.

If a sea water ground isn't required why terminate DC negative on the starter to engine bolt at all?

That's unrelated to a ground (earth) path -- an engine negative battery connection is necessary for the starter, glow plugs, temp gauge sender, and temp and oil pressure switches.  The reason for moving the cable is that the starter is where high power is needed so there is a better electrical connection than to the bell housing.

-k

[Jon W]

Hi Ken, thanks for the response my friend.

I don't remember if the jumper was there orignally. I don't seem to have a before photo of the AC and DC negative buss to check. As part of my electrical upgrade project, I initially installed the jumper from the AC ground buss to the DC negative buss. After discussions here, and what I read in other forums, I removed the jumper.

For reference the main AC from the dock goes through a SmartPlug then to the main breaker which is a 30A ELCI breaker for system protection. Any leakage from the water heater, or AC charger should trip the ELCI. Also lots of discussion about the risk of nuisance trips from the water heater with an ELCI. I don't use the hot water heater that often, but no trips of any kind so far. My 4 AC outlets in the boat are GFCI protected.

I've been out of the spec reading business for a while now. I recall "recommended" and "mandatory" requirements. What's meant by "voluntary" requirement?

[KWKloeber]

Jon

No agency enforces ABYC. The coast guard has its own requirements and abyc isn't one of them it requires manufacturers to follow. So, owners and manufacturers following it is 'voluntary.'  So, Catalina could build a boat and not follow that standard 100% (and still does.)
Now, an insurance company will require that aspects be followed, but they also aren't required to do that by any govt agency.

On the other hand, abyc publishes 'guides' that have examples how to meet certain CG requirements but abyc isn't the "standard" - the CG sets the standard.

Contrast that to another non-government-prepared/issued standard like the National Electrical Code.  States, cities, counties require builders to follow that code, so it's not voluntary.

[LogoFreak]

Lots to digest, main thing I took away from all the replies is I don't need to worry about somehow bonding the shaft with the engine for a dc ground. Also my question was not in regards of lightning strikes but more in eliminating as much possibility of corrosion to my prop and possibility of getting zapped. I'm a diver and clean my own bottom regularly so I don't want to create a situation in which getting electrocuted underwater is a possibility LOL.

[mainesail]

The ABYC standards are very clear on the use of flexible couplings:

"6.5.5.2 If a non-conductive flexible coupling is used, an alternative means of grounding the shaft must be provided."

[KWKloeber]

Thank you for clarifying that, Rod

What purpose does that serve?

-k

[mainesail]

The coast guard has its own requirements and abyc isn't one of them it requires manufacturers to follow.

The CFR/USGC requirements are derived in-part from the ABYC standards with some minor tweaks here and there. The USCG is directly involved in the ABYC standards development and the ABYC in aiding the USCG on the CFR standards where applicable.. There is a USCG representative in attendance at nearly every one of the PTC meetings. To say "the Coast Guard has its own requirements and ABYC isn't one of them" is an odd statement as they work in concert on a lot of it..

[LogoFreak]

Ok, so if an alternate ground is needed can I use my prop strut as a grounding point? Does grounding something "invite" extra corrosion?

[KWKloeber]

To say "the Coast Guard has its own requirements and ABYC isn't one of them" is misleading at best.

au contraire, Rod.  That statement was 100% correct. 
To imply that the CG enforces ABYC because it "participates" in developing an ABYC standard is not misleading "at best" but misleading period. The CG DOES NOT enforce ABYC.  Period.

is there a CFR citation that states that boaters must follow any ABYC standard or that vessels must comply with any ABYC standard?

Having input to an enforceable govt code does not equate to that govt agency enforcing anything other than the code it promulgates.  C'mon, you know the difference. 
If asked, "CG, do you enforce ABYC Standards or do you have your own standards?"-- you know what the response will be.

ABYC is a voluntary "trade group" standard.  That is unlike say, when a state or federal code states that an oil storage tank SHALL be inspected according to standard NFPA # xyz.
In that case, the trade group standard is enforcable.  That's not the case here.

[mainesail]

To say "the Coast Guard has its own requirements and ABYC isn't one of them" is misleading at best.

au contraire, Rod.  That statement was 100% correct.

Ken,

This will be my last response to you.

One example is ABYC A-16 navigation light certifications. ABYC A-16 is enforceable under the CFR. Why? because the Feds simply adopted (incorporated by reference) ABYC A-16 as part of the CFR requirement. This makes ABYC A-16 part of Federal law and enforceable by the Government standards.. The CFR also adopts many other standards not enforceable by law on their own such as SAE, NFPA, UL and others.

The CG DOES NOT enforce ABYC.  Period.

In the example above ABYC A-16 is fully enforceable by law under the CFR because it is incorporated into the CFR.

is there a CFR citation that states that boaters must follow any ABYC standard or that vessels must comply with any ABYC standard?

Not at all what I said. However boaters should always try and follow the ABYC guidelines when doing work on their boats. I say this not only as a boat owner, marine electrician, a member of the ABYC hull piping, electrical and Li-Ion PTC's at ABYC, but also as an expert witness in this field. 

ABYC is a voluntary "trade group" standard.

Yes, it is. 

That is unlike say, when a state or federal code states that an oil storage tank SHALL be inspected according to standard NFPA # xyz.
In that case, the trade group standard is enforcable.  That's not the case here.

It is when the Federal Government adopts/incorporates ABYC standards, or parts of them, into the CFR as in the example above. ABYC A-16 is not the only ABYC standard that has been incorporated by reference into the CFR.