nicknorman

Well, it will tell you to take appropriate measures to deal with a fault overcurrent condition. If you are a competent installer you will know how to achieve that, and then (for that aspect at least) you will have a safe system.

Isn't that an RS232 device? ie a single wire +/-5v (or up to +/- 12v or somesuch). Whereas Canbus is differential - 2 wires that either both sit at around 2.5v, or split so one is high (5v or so) and one is 0v or so. I suppose you might be able to see the data if you use the Can Lo line, but you wouldn't be able to send anything. Whereas with the device I mentioned you can see "proper" Canbus signals and send data (if you can work out what to send!)

I’ve used a cheap CANBUS to USB adapter to reverse engineer the Masterbus CANBUS system on our boat, eg https://www.amazon.co.uk/Converter-Analyzer-Canbus-Adapter-Support/dp/B0BZXTH2G5/ref=sr_1_23 but I haven’t looked at the Empirbus bus. Masterbus runs at 250kb/s but IIRC Empirbus runs at 100kb/s. The software with the interface is a bit chinglish but I managed to work it out! But this is only going to prove which bit is not working, but not why or allow you to fix it. I think you are going to have to pay up for the Empirbus interface even though it hurts! Well unless you can get Empirbus Config programme to look at the cheapo usb-CANBUS interface above. I haven’t tried that.

The nature of such standards documents is often to set the aim, not necessarily the means of achieving it, since the latter can eg evolve with new technology etc. In this case “preventing overcurrent conditions” is usually achieved by fusing, but there are other possibilities. But if whatever you have done prevents overcurrent conditions, you have satisfied the standard.

Do you see reaction when you press any of the other buttons? If so it would seem to be a membrane panel issue with that button. I don’t know if the button always sends CANBUS data and the configuration just determines how it’s used and or what type, or if doesn’t send any data unless that channel is configured. Either way it looks like an input problem rather than an output problem. Is the panel exposed to the elements or inside?

When you say “panel 1” is this a membrane panel thing? And what about the blown fuse indicator and reset? If you have a CANBUS analyser of some sort, can you see activity when you operate the water pump button?

The BTS6143D isn’t a thyristor, it’s an IC containing a high side MOSFET switch with current sensing. So a logic level input on the control pin turns (via a charge pump) the high side MOSFET switch on. The amount of current flowing through the MOSFET is reported by the sense line and is what EMPIRBUS uses to activate the “virtual fuse” and the under-current alarm. It doesn’t switch the + and -, it just switches the +. All the - terminals on the board are connected together. Now I come to think of it the fuses are an option to be compliant with ABYC rules. Empirbus supplied that version to me by default, but I guess not in your case. It seems pretty unlikely that the config could “forget” a particular channel - never happened to me in 12 years, but it might be possible. On the subject of fusing, does your layout have means to detect a blown “virtual fuse” and to reset it. Normally done via a membrane keypad. I don’t know if a virtual fuse trip is “remembered” through a power down but it might be. Low battery voltage = water pump takes more current = virtual fuse blows? The diode will be easy to test with a meter (set to “diode test”!) and anyway will just be a Schottky with 15A or so rating. How is the water pump channel switched on? Looks like it is turned off by the master switch and turned on by another switch. Are you sure the waterpump switch is being detected by the relevant input channel (A6)?

You can get foam tape sticky on both sides eg https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/372461327648 One application is to stick number plates onto cars so I think it is quite strong.

Which is much better than being normal - aka boring! Anyway I don't think it is that unusual, we have a 45A engine (starter) alternator, a 175A domestic alternator and a Travelpower (300v ac) alternator. The last one is an optional extra with a Beta 43, the first 2 are standard. I don't think it is an alternator "of sorts", it is an alternator. One with high voltage windings and external regulation, but still an alternator.

I for one have not accused you of anything based on the production and content of the report. My accusation of egotism/narcissism was based solely on your inability to treat even mild suggestions for change with any courtesy, instead translating them into personal attack and criticising me for having the temerity to offer feedback. I did not accuse the group of being corrupt, what I did point out was that you expose yourselves to such accusations from people with an axe to grind, and even though it would be totally unfounded, mud sticks. For someone who purports to be fairly intelligent I find it amazing that you don't understand the difference. Anyway, your routine flounce is noted.

Our boat has 3 alternators.

Let’s hope they sleep downstairs! Obviously just because there is a BS standard doesn’t mean that a cowboy installer will comply with it! Or possibly his installation predates the BS?

Yes, SMD is “surface mount device”. You can measure the fuse but also it will visually look different from the other 7 if it has blown.

Although a microwave uses a lot of power, it isn’t on for very long so the energy used is not much. Let’s say it’s an 800w (output) microwave which perhaps uses 1kw. Which is about 100A. So if we think an average microwave meal for 2 takes 5 mins that is 8Ah. Which out of 330Ah nominal is not a lot. But 330Ah lead acid batteries can usually end up as a small fraction of that after just a moderate amount of use, especially if they are not fully charged each day.

I’m sorry I can’t remember exactly the size, it was over 10 years ago!, but they are surface mount fuses. Probably 1206 size but could be smaller. I think 8A rating would be appropriate. We live in Aberdeen, UK but boat is in Midlands, UK about 600km away so I can’t quickly check. Not sure if you are aware what a surface mount fuse is, sorry if you do! But it is a very small chip thing that is soldered directly onto a PCB. 1206 means 0.12” x 0.06” which is about 3.2mm x 1.6mm. To solder and unsolder you really need to use a hot air rework station, but you can get these cheaply eg on eBay or AliExpress. You just direct a small nozzle blast of hot air at around 250c onto the item to melt the solder, then remove with tweezers. New one is applied with a tiny amount of solder paste from a syringe (again, from ebay etc) and heat up with the hot air rework gun until the solder melts. I think you would be struggling to do it with an ordinary soldering iron.

But only when he gets a bit sweaty.

I am pretty sure I have the adapter. USB plugs into laptop, other end is CANBUS. But I am not sure it will help as it sounds like a hardware fault. Is D5 an output? If so worth bearing in mind that the output cards have surface mount fuses on the card which can blow with a short circuit. In theory the output MOSFET should shut down on overcurrent detection before the fuse blows, but on ours in the early days an installer error caused a short which blew this fuse. Empirbus apologised and said that a change to the MOSFET manufacturer’s spec meant that this could happen. They sent me a new card. So I would suggest having a look at that card in the module. If the fuse has blown it changes colour slightly, goes a bit yellow IIRC. Could be an easy fix just replacing the SM fuse. Where abouts are you? Loaning the interface is a possibility but not selling it. Oh and FYI 14 years later the system is still working perfectly.

However it still applies to LiFePO4 batteries, and from my limited research most house batteries have that chemistry. So would you describe Ian’s incendiary behaviour as being NMC-like or LIfePO4-like? Well here’s a clue, complete submersion in water doesn’t stop NMC from being incendiary!

And possibly more opaque as to the battery chemistry involved. We have recently fitted a solar system and 10kwh battery to the house. There are various manufacturers of lithium house batteries with Tesla Powerwall being a prime contender. It transpires that whilst the current generation of Powerwalls are LiFePO4, the first 2 generations were NMC. Personally I wouldn't have an NMC battery anywhere near my house, and certainly not inside it. So it pays to check the details. Incidentally, the battery is installed in a granite "outbuilding" (although still attached to the house, but with no direct access) so at least we will be saved from being gassed if the LiFePO4 goes mad. But probably not from any possible fire. I would be uncomfortable having it installed within the main part of the house. On another tack there is of course the BS 7671 and PAS 63100:2024 which relate to installing Li batteries in houses. I can only access the intro, which says: Electrical energy (battery) storage forms a key part of renewable energy strategies. Given the benefits of electrical energy storage systems (EESSs) to consumers and electricity providers, and their ability to maximize the effectiveness of renewable energy technologies such as solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, it is expected that there will be a sharp rise in the number of EESSs being installed. This specification aims to help installers manage fire safety related hazards associated with EESSs in homes in the United Kingdom. The provisions are intended to reduce the risk of batteries in dwellings becoming a source of ignition, and limit the impact of a battery fire should one occur. Regarding battery location, the basic premise is that the best place for storage batteries is outside dwellings and away from habitable rooms. Where it is not practicable to locate batteries outdoors, some basic requirements are provided for locations containing storage batteries, based on the principles that: • batteries are separated from habitable rooms, and means of escape for inhabitants, by suitable fire compartmentation; • fire detection is provided for the battery location, interlinked to a fire alarm system to warn inhabitants of a detected fire; and • means of escape for inhabitants are not inhibited. Whilst battery fires, at the time of writing, are low frequency, they have a high impact due to their behaviour in fire. Since some batteries can exhibit focussed jet-like flaming, a higher degree of fire compartmentation should be considered. Fire compartmentation requirements might need to be assessed in future editions of this standard, as there are currently gaps in the knowledge of how fire compartmentation resists lithium battery fires. This specification is also based on the premise that electrical energy storage systems competent persons are defined in accordance with the Building Regulations Approved Documents of England or the relevant devolved national equivalents in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. So in summary, you can't put an Li battery in your house in livingrooms, bedrooms or corridors that are fire exits. I guess there is no reason why it should be different for boats.

Errr yes of course matters are debatable. That's the point! Well my point is that whilst a LA battery can explode due to hydrogen build up within the battery, the rate of release of H2 from the battery into a boat living space is never going to be fast enough to cause a problem. An exploding LA battery makes a horrendous mess locally, but it doesn't spread throughout the cabin and currently the regulations require LA batteries to be kept in a ventilated battery compartment, they are not allowed to be kept in a living space. With LA, only the actual battery can explode, not the entire cabin! Whereas with Li, although it is highly unlikely, it is possible for the entire cabin to explode because the rate of emission of the gasses under fault conditions outdoes the cabin ventilation system's ability to disperse it below explosive concentrations.

I get all, or most, of that. You and your group are slightly going out on a limb by presenting this guidance uninvited, however I am not saying that is a bad thing, in fact the opposite. But when a self-appointed group produces something that can have significant national and financial consequences, it would be normal to put the document out for comment from non-members who nevertheless understand the issues. Which is what I thought you were doing. So with that in mind I did you the courtesy of spending some time carefully reading the document, and produced a few comments on points which I felt, and still do feel, could be improved. But all I got back was rage at having the timerity to not "like" it all 100%, making out that the few points I brought up were some sort of personal attack. This casts you in a poor light and makes others worry that you shouldn't have any power in this sort of area. Which is a shame because in the main I think your intentions are good, but you allow your ego to get in the way. It is down to the rate at which the gases are generated. In an LA battery, the rate is very slow, hydrogen is the smallest molecule, very light, and finds its way out of the tiniest holes in inclosures. So it is highly unlikely verging on impossible that an explosive mixture could build up in a boat cabin. An explosive mixture can certainly build up within the battery of course. Whereas with Li, once pressure has built up inside and the emergency pressure relief port has ruptured open, the rate of emission is very high. Maybe 1000 times faster (guess! it's probably even more). So it is much easier for an explosive and/or toxic concentration of the emissions to build up within a cabin.

It was a question. I consider it to be a reasonable question because as far as I am aware, only one manufacturer supports the tech that is being recommended. So yes my question had a motive, and it was to point out that either the authors were corrupt (highly unlikely under the circumstances) or that they had not considered the ramifications of creating recommendations that only one manufacturer supported.

The irony is so blatant that surely even you as a fairly intelligent bloke can see it … well everyone else can! There has only been one of us that has initiated personal attacks and that is you. Talk of libel, obnoxious twat, troll. I just accused you of being a fantasist in response to your veiled threat about libel action. I think I need to modify that. Narcissist is more appropriate.

As usual you are a fantasist. I have not made any digs as to the motives of the authors. But if you think I have libelled them then please feel free to sue me on their behalf. And see how far you get! Or if you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is, then closing your mouth would be a good thing to do. This is the problem with this sort of thing. People like you get involved and it turns into an activity where ego is the primary driver. "Data protection" I would guess.

So the doc is saying that only high-end Victron kit is acceptable. Do the authors have shares in a Victron by any chance? I expect that the target audience of the doc would consider that 2 batteries connected by a big fat wire were not “electrically separated”.