dmr

I'm installing the Zeus now, but while I have access am doing some wiring upgrades and tidy up first. I needed to contact Arco yesterday via email. The good news is that they responded quickly. They pointed out that the battery ground and battery negative sense must go to the exact same location (identical voltage). It is Not ok to connect the ground to a busbar and the sense to the battery terminal as any voltage difference can damage the Zeus. The installation instructions are ambiguous on this and do sort of infer that its ok.

I'm busy today, doing wiring upgrades and then hopefully starting to install the Zeus. CANbus was electronic geeky stuff but is now becoming something that some boaters (and many car owners) are going to have to get to grips with, especially if the hybrid-lithium scheme falls out of favour. Rather than diverting this thread I propose that we start a new CANbus thread, I will do this this evening if nobody else get their first.

This is the impression that I get. I'm very new to CANbus (but have lots of experience of old stuff like GPIB) but it does appear to be just an electrical and "bit level" standard. So here is a chance for you to make a name for yourself, after all JSON was pretty much a one man effort (only joking here) 😀. A problem with standards is that various manufacturers and other organisations have to get together and it sometimes all takes years to sort out. Maybe if somebody like Victron published a set of default messages that they would read then it could all happen quickly. "Compatible with Victron" does appear to be the current gold standard. Another issue is that most batteries are using various Chinese BMS systems that are very poorly documented, with little chance of finding out what they do on CANbus.

I feel that UARTs and RS485 etc etc are of little use to the average user (or even me and I know what they are 😀). CANbus is probably the best as it is slowly becoming a boat standard but is not available on most batteries. A very simple "alow to charge" signal (a relay drive type thing) from the batteries that could be progammed (via bluetooth) to switch at 90% or whatever (well before the internal disconnect) would be a very useful solution for those who don't want a full CANbus or VEbus system. Zeus and some Victron DC-DC converters etc are able to respond to a simple allow to charge signal.

Have just had a quick look at the BT840 specs, you may well be correct that this is also providing the brains. The Allow to Charge looks to me to be the neatest way to easily implement a safe lithium installation, but do any common lithium batteries support this? I find no mention of it even with the more advanced batteries that support CANbus.

Interesting stuff, thanks. I think when most people refer to Red Oxide they are really thinking of Zinc Phosphate primer. Some Zinc primers, like Bondaprimer, are red rather than grey and I suspect this is only because a red pigment is added as older users have fond memories of red lead primers. Proper red oxide is I assume lead based primer rather than rust particles???? .....and I note that red lead powder is still available if you want to make your own lead primer. I personally think that this is a bit anti-social as a future owner or boatyard might sand it down and not expect to encounter lead.

Also it means that something bad has happened, maybe a wire goes through the hull without a proper gland or whatever and has chaffed. Its better to blow a fuse than for a latent fault to remain undetected.

It won't blow, thats likely why people think its a good idea to bond the negative to the hull. So, the starter negative must bond to the engine as it takes the starter current, it should also bond to the hull because it probably does anyway by the exhaust or whatever. The domestic negative bonds to the hull for improved safety, but this must be done from the "non battery" side of the shunt otherwise the alternator current will not go through the shunt (unless you have an isolated ground alternator but thats a whole new discussion.)

As long as there is no connection between domestic battery negative and the boat hull (or engine) then it will be ok. Trouble is most people reckon its a good idea to bond the negative to the hull (at one location only). So, your system MIGHT work, but if you do it properly it WILL work.

The rule is that there should be one thick wire going from the "battery" terminal of the shunt directly to the domestic battery negative, and Nothing else should connect to this, nothing at all. Hence no matter what is going on elewhere you can be sure that ALL of the current from the domestic batteries is going through the shunt. .....but for the pedants, there is just one exception, if you have a Smartgage or anything else that needs to accurately sense battery voltage then this can connect to the batery terminal. These devices only take very small currents so bypassing the shunt is acceptable. and a negative busbar is of course fine as long as nothing else connects to it 😀

I reckon the micro-controller must be hidden under the bluetooth module. There are a lot of tracks heading that way and as the Bluetooth likely only needs power and a serial bus connection then there is a lot else going on. I wonder why they choose to do it this way? must be a concious decision to hide their choice of controller? On the subject of water-protection of the CAN RJ45, I have very little knowledge of these things, but if there is a mating connector cap that is not easy to get then we need to suggest to Arco that they should include one with the Zeus, especially those shipped to Europe.

But you were doing a one-off. Isn't it a bit like writing software? Its good (but time consuming) to do as much low level stuff in house as you can, if you are too dependant on third part technology and that chip goes obsolete at the worse possible moment then you are in a spot of bother?? But I confess I am probably a bit out of date in my approach and get too bogged down in detail. Most software these days looks to be just an evenings worth of glue code to link up various off the shelf sub-components. The Adverc works for me as the alternator regulates at 14.4 and the Adverc cycles it up to the 14.8 that the Trojans need. Its sad that the Adverc did not evoilve into something like the Zeus but they wanted nothing to do with micro=controllers and embedded software. The Adverc cycling is interesting and can be a right pain but I suspect it actually solves a few problems by accident. We might be at cross-purposes with Nicks post. We are not discussing what the alternator controller (Zeus) does but how much of that is implemented in micro-controller software and associated hardware, and how much is done within a dedicated "automotive" IC linked to the micro-controller.

It was a bit of an interogation when getting red at my local garage after the recent changes in regulations. A few garages will sell for boats but I assume that strictly they should collect the propulsion duty if they know its for a boat????

I'm still not convinced about needing an alternator control chip, I reckon Adverc did it with just a transistor and an op amp and it worked ok. Not sure about the op-amp as they shave the numbers off. Plus, most alternator regulators are just a few trannies anyway (oops, musn't say that anym more). The Zeus was developed at breakneck speed so maybe it was decided to stick with a micro-controller that they knew and accept the slight overhead of an external CAN controller? I can't see the through hole resistors are you sure? I agree that supporting only P type alternators would make sense, but it might cost a few sales for people doing a quick Adverc upgrade? I think P type are standard in USA but N are more common in europe? I intend to stick with the N arrangement but disable the internal regulator. This should keep the ignition light working.....or do I need to think harder about this? ============================================== I note that the Zeus needs fuses in its power supply lines, and the field if its N, but not in the battery positive sense, or alternator (positive) shunt if fitted. This suggests that the fuses are there to protect the Zeus itself rather than the cables, and this forum always says fuses are to protect cables? Should the wire to the alternator W be fused ? 😀

Thanks, thats very useful info. Glad you conclude that its well made as I ordered one first thing this morning. I have downloaded the pdf installation manual and its mostly good but I do have a number of technical questions so I will be testing out the technical support quite soon. A forum of some sort would be nice, or at least a facebook page where info can be shared. I was going to start my own thread here but I propose that we share this one?

Yes Yes and Yes. A few boaters even boast about using red in their cars. If you have an old banger that you can afford to loose, and can pay the fine, and won't be ruined by a criminal record then its probably a good gamble, the chances of getting caught are fairly low. I have only once seen a roadside check taking place. I am very surprised that customs and excise do not target canalside car parks in places popular with liveaboard boaters.

Yes but... Up the Oxford (pint in the Folly?) GU to Warwick (Cape of Good Hope) Up Hatton and North Stratford into Brum (a couple of decent pubs) Back out and down Tardebigge, (via the Weighbridge), Droitwich down to the Severn and a couple of locks up to Stourport (maybe the Black Star). Whole length of the lovely S&W up to the T&M. Several beers in Stone (probably the Swan) and then the Holy inadequate. Through the big tunnel into the almost North then up the Macc. Down Marple (if its ever fixed) then the Ashton down into Manchester, a first taste of Northern Urban locks but at least they are narrow. A night in New Islington and beer at Cask. (MtB will feel at home here as its Southern prices). A quick dash up the Rochdale(!!!) and beer at the Golden Lion. Better than the back of a lorry 😀

That is more or less the going rate and CRT valuation for a Northern Mooring, though Arthur is not really proper North. The beer is cheaper and better but the weather can be a bit dodgy, and that much sought after "lock free cruising" is not always available, in fact the locks can be a bit big and hard work. Luckily the southerners are willing to pay a lot more for a mooring otherwise CRT would be in even worse financial trouble. Three weeks of pleasant cruising and you could be up here, maybe only two if you really tried.

Read the next post that I did 😀The vast majority of boats are in marinas where CRT get about 10%. EoG moorings are relatively rare. "Farmers Field" moorings are a bit more common but still much less than marinas. As far as I can tell the % paid to CRT from farmers fields is a bit variable but 50% will be the upper limit.

I expect CRT also thought long and hard (I hope) about not reducing income by forcing too many boaters to give up. CC'ers really are sitting ducks, its their home and lifestyle so hard to give up. For some leisure boaters its just an expensive hobby and a new hobby could be found, or maybe a return to hiring. For many the economics must be pretty marginal anyway without huge price increases,

That works out well and was roughly the quick mental calculation that I did. As mtb says, there are CRT owned moorings where they get the lot, EoG moorings where there get 50% with no real outgoings on their part, all sorts of farmers field moorings where the CRT percentage likely depends on various historic arrangements, so in general I expect the CC surcharge is probably a little less than the CRT mooring cut, but your equality is a good first approximation. The surcharge has the added bonus that it might deter a few "cheap housing/not really interested in boating" future CCers, while hopefully not forcing some of the interesting canal characters off the cut. Thats the downside, its a lot of grief, possible bad publicity, potential legal challenges, and other expenses for not a very big extra income, but maybe lots of extra little incomes might be the only way to save the system.

CRT say its to reflect the increased use of the system but maybe thats just how their PR people chose to spin it. Looking at the figures I estimate that the surcharge comes out moderately close to what CRT would get from a boat with a home mooring

Do you mean the same CC surcharge? Not sure but probably not. This is a potential loophole but as the business licence costs a bit more anyway and there is a requirement for additional insurance the savings from CC'ers becoming pretend rovers traders would be minimal at best.

CC'ers do use the system more and this includes using the rubbish bins more which is a significant cost to CRT. But in addition home moorers use the system less but also pay more to CRT because some (or all) of the mooring fees goes to CRT. The way the surcharge is set is mostly asking CC'ers to pay as much into the kitty as home moorers rather than to pay more for increased use of the system, so its still a bargain.

or maybe we have to acccept that exponential, like many other buzzwords, has two meanings, "a^b" to engineers and mathematicians, and any increase of reasonable size to everybody else. I don't want to even think about decimation, much too gruesome.