Honda EU2200ic Companion reverse polarity

[Thumbs Up]

I am hoping to fuel this discussion, I find it fascinating and now we have an AYBC "expert" joining in. I don't have time right now to write a well worded informed post though. The consensus in these situation is always that you need to hire a certified professional to tell you if your system is correct or safe. The AYBC standards as I understand have evolved to be more inline with European standards that require RCD, ELCI, GFI, GFCI type devices. But these are the for new boats. So is an AYBC electrician only required to approve boats that meet the requirements for when they were built? Shouldn't all boats be required to have ground fault protection devices installed in their circuitry? And shouldn't these "standards" be available to the public for free? If I want to read the current AYBC standards it looks like I will have to pay $500.. If I want to see if a house is wired correctly I just consult the latest NEC (national electric code) for free. I have never understood how the safety ground (green wire) on a boat makes anything safer. The standard explanation that the return path to ground will trip a breaker doesn't make sense to me. You pretty much need a dead short to trip a breaker. Most shorts will be partial or intermittent. You could probably electrocute yourself many times over or easily start a fire for the amount of current it takes to trip a 20 amp breaker. The recommendation to connect this "safety ground" to your bonding system seems to present more hazards than it solves. What happens when there is an intermittent short between the live wire and the bonding wire? (The water around the boat becomes energized, that's what). Or what if your neighbors boat has a fault and the current travels through the water to your perfectly grounded (to the electrical grid) boat. What if your shore power cable is accidentally partially severed by a metal object while someone is in the water nearby. I think that the new recommendations for marina's in the US is "no swimming" signs. (That is no solution, marinas should be required to install current sensor alarms in the water, right?) Even at full rated current it takes normal circuit breakers several seconds to trip. How many electric shock drownings occur because the green wire was connected to the bonding system? I could go on and on. I get it though, that the average boat owner is not going to understand these things and can be dangerous thinking that they do. RCD devices on all boats and docks seems to be the solution. If you have that why can't you safely dispose of the "safety ground" all together? I agree with those that say a portable Honda generator is safer with a "floating" ground. But if you have a model with no GFCI outlet on it, I think that it is easy enough to install one. Also the standard GFCI receptacles found in homes can be through wired to protect the rest of the circuit downstream of it. They trip when they detect a ground fault of more than 5 milli-amps or an overcurrent of more than 15 or 20 amps (both are available). RCD breakers trip at 30 milli-amps which is above the threshold for electric shock drownings. As a DIY solution to most small boats and even bigger boats and only costing $20. every boater can afford this protection.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Steve DAntonio

Many years ago a client asked me to install a radar on his sailing vessel...on the deck. His vessel had an un-stayed rig and he was understandably unwilling to have holes drilled in the spar. An on deck installation would place the radar's beam at eye-level for those in the cockpit, and the eyes are among the most sensitive to electromagnetic radiation. Beyond that, the proposed location was in clear violation to the radar manufacturer's installation guidelines. I was young, owned my own service business and didn't want to turn away work, but I knew this was wrong, and I told him this, showing him the section in the installation manual where this location would be prohibited. He offered to sign a waiver. My brother is a trial attorney who specializes in insurance litigation, he reviewed it and said, "This is worthless, as a professional you can't knowingly allow a layperson to sign away their safety and then expect to not be held accountable". I refused to do the installation (I offered a stern mounted mast option, but he didn't want that) and he found someone else to install the radar. A few years later he died of a brain tumor, which almost certainly had nothing to do with the radar. That is no sea story, it is the absolute truth.

I relate this story in lectures, and to those in the marine industry for whom I consult, explaining this key element to them, 'you are the professional, you are expected to know better, you have to say no when something is wrong, and in the eyes of the law you have a fiduciary duty to not put profits over safety, regardless of what ever the customer is willing to sign'.

Try making the hold harmless case, while sitting on a witness stand, saying, "I knew the ABYC Standards prohibited this, but I did it anyway because the owner...", attorney interrupts, "...who was an accountant before he was electrocuted by the wiring you installed, and knew nothing about electricity" you continue, "yes...and because the owner signed a waiver". Attorney, "And if you didn't do what he wanted he might not have not paid you, going somewhere else for the work, is that right?", You, "Yes", Attorney, "And how much did you get paid for this modification?", You, "106.29". Attorney, "So you sacrificed your customer's safety, and life in this case, for the equivalent of dinner for two at a nice restaurant, is that right?"

Amateurs and DIY's can make foolish, uninformed mistakes and may not be held responsible, it's usually called incompetence. Professionals, on the other hand cannot, and easily get away with it, it's usually called negligence, and waivers or hold harmless agreements do not absolve them of that responsibility.

You missed the point that the hold harmless would be for my own personal vessel

But what in any way does your post have to do with a floating ground on a portable generator .
The ABYC even states they have no opinion as to portable generators other than they should ( I repeat should) be plugged into the vessel via the ships shore power connection.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The ABYC even states they have no opinion as to portable generators other than they should ( I repeat should) be plugged into the vessel via the ships shore power connection.

Damnaggit you mean the ABYC acknowledges that it is not allowed to enforce their will on portable genset manufacturers? Electrocution, we’re all gonna die!

[AKA-None]

A couple of comments: there is another thread where people are discussing installing a portable generator as a built in
And while a set of recommendations may only be recommendations there isn’t anything preventing a legal entity from codifying them as law

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

A couple of comments: there is another thread where people are discussing installing a portable generator as a built in
And while a set of recommendations may only be recommendations there isn’t anything preventing a legal entity from codifying them as law

The people doing that have bigger problems than a bonding wire. IMHO they play a game of Russian roulette. The Honda is designed for portable use and that includes it’s exhaust system, fuel storage and delivery system and it’s electrical output. All of those require major modifications and I don’t think it will conform to codes and standards even then.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

The people doing that have bigger problems than a bonding wire. IMHO they play a game of Russian roulette. The Honda is designed for portable use and that includes it’s exhaust system, fuel storage and delivery system and it’s electrical output. All of those require major modifications and I don’t think it will conform to codes and standards even then.

1) there are no codes or standards to conform to its a portable generator .
2) if you have personal issues with its exhaust system or the onboard fuel storage and delivery system orso the way that the Honda electrical engineers designed the electrical system just don't use one on your boat .

[Steve DAntonio]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You missed the point that the hold harmless would be for my own personal vessel

But what in any way does your post have to do with a floating ground on a portable generator .
The ABYC even states they have no opinion as to portable generators other than they should ( I repeat should) be plugged into the vessel via the ships shore power connection.

You brought up the hold harmless, I was making it clear that those offer little protection if the signers know the scenario they cover is potentially dangerous.

Because of their increased popularity, at the last Standards review meeting in January, the ABYC Electrical Project Technical Committee agreed to begin creating standards for portable generators.

[CharlieJ]

@Steve DAntonio #82: +1.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by newhaul

1) there are no codes or standards to conform to its a portable generator .
2) if you have personal issues with its exhaust system or the onboard fuel storage and delivery system orso the way that the Honda electrical engineers designed the electrical system just don't use one on your boat .

The Honda stops being a portable genset when it is permanently installed and used inside a space instead of out in the open.

[Steve DAntonio]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Steve, I have so many issues with your post that I’m having a hard time deciding where to start.

I think you are intentionally misreading what I post so as to be able to find a way to argue with me. Let me tell you why I think that: I make a case for shore power inlets being designed solely to accept grounded, polarized shore power. You then write that shorepower is not always polarized and not always grounded because there can be wiring mistakes in the pedestal. Really? How can you not understand what I write? I even continue explaining how the reverse-polarity indicator diagram on many boats, works for shorepower but fails to recognize the possibility of connecting something like a portable Honda, while other designs actually do work for both situations. So even if you missed what I mean initially, you should have caught that here where I explain circuitry to detect the kind of wiring errors that you claim exist! Yeah, duh!

Next you continue to describe how an ungrounded power source provides safety for it’s users and so I’m in doubt about your intentions again and think that may be I am just not good enough in explaining the design criteria for a shore power inlet. So for now I will act in line with that and try to explain why your next part, the fault description, is flawed.

You state that when a neutral to ground fault is presented plus also a hot to (grounded) chassis, that we then get a short circuit, with danger of fire.

So many issues with that. I’ll address them one by one:

- you describe a situation with two faults occurring simultaneously. Stacking of faults always (-always-) leads to dangerous situations. The exact same scenarios exist for what we consider safe, up to code shore installations.

- you describe risk of fire but you do not mention risk of electrocution. Does this mean that you agree with me that a person can not be electrocuted by connecting a portable Honda genset to their shore power inlet? I think you do but just can’t get yourself to enter the words, being an ABYC approved installer

- you describe how a short circuit current, runs through the hot to chassis appliance metal housing, through the ground conductor, through the faulty ground to neutral short back to the power source. Do you realize that this is exactly how ground protection is supposed to work?! The ground conductor shall at all times be able to carry full current required to trip the breaker. This is how ground wiring is designed and this is how you describe what could happen. You describe how the protection still works, not how it is disabled by the “bad Honda”.

- You state risk of fire. This is wrong. You will need a third fault to stack on top of the two already there before you can get a risk of fire and this is exactly how it works within code as well. You need to have used wiring too small diameter for the installed breaker (hot, neutral and ground conductors must all be able to safely carry breaker rated current) before it can overheat and start risk of fire.

- you state you don’t want voltages on exposed metal. This is wrong, it is exactly what we do all the time. Power lines are exposed metal and we put high voltage on those on purpose. Birds still sit comfortably on top them. We drive copper rods into the ground, creating an electric path and then connect that to all kinds of exposed metal surfaces. Next we connect power sources to that... crazy! So here’s the thing: you try to come up with a situation where a power source conductor comes in contact with the metal housing of an appliance, while at the same time you promote connecting a power source conductor to the metal housing of an appliance (neutral to ground to metal housing). Don’t you see that what you describe as a fault is actually what your codes do on purpose and that the result is exactly the same: ground wiring protects in case a second fault occurs. But in your case it already needs to act when one single fault occurs, because you created the other one on purpose by connecting a conductor to the metal surface to start with.

- you state that the ELCI protection on the boat inlet does not protect against the fault described. This is correct. The same would happen with a grounded neutral in the genset. The ELCI has nothing to do with ground, it’s mode of operation was invented to protect where ground protection is not available, like ungrounded outlets.
Now hold on, I know there are scenarios where ELCI on the boat inlet does provide protection. But this only happens when connected to shore power, the scenarios are impossible when connected to a portable Honda instead of shore power.

- Also, if the appliance with hot to metal housing fault would have been connected to a GFCI protected outlet, then that protection would have triggered and prevented the breaker from flipping. All the while the user has been fully protected from electrocution.

In another thread about seacocks I found another good example on how ABYC even when it doesn’t do harm, is not always right. when you screw a valve on a skin fitting, then it fails the ABYC test of 500 pounds sideways loading for 30 seconds. You can get such loading when you step on it or the connected hose. Still, European boats use the skin fitting and valve while being completely safe. They do this by designing it so that a person can’t step onto it. It can be argued that by eliminating the possible scenario for fault, the end result is better than trying to cope with that fault actually happening. Preventing is better than curing.
What we have here is the same: a boat does not need a polarized power service. By eliminating it we can actually create a safer environment. For land based power utilities this is impossible to do because many power sources need to be combined into one homogeneous utility service, a complexity irrelevant for a boat.

If I didn't understand your meaning, it's because...I didn't understand your meaning. Trust me, I don't need to look for reasons to disagree with the opinions of others, my day is filled with that.

Perhaps you missed it, however, I did concede "You are correct, in the scenario created by this genset, because it is essentially fully insulated, an electrocution scenario almost certainly isn't possible."

Fires can and do occur as a result of circuits that are protected by proper over-current protection. High resistance creates heat, but not a short or overload, without which the breaker will not trip. If you've ever seen a heat-damaged shore cord end, you have witnessed this effect. The breaker doesn't "know" where the wattage is going, to run a hair dryer or a high resistance connection, which then becomes the source of a fire.

I'll continue to contend that a grounded neutral, and polarized system, is safer because you can't envision every possible electrical fault scenario. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

I've made it clear on several occasions that I don't always agree with ABYC Standards. The Standards are in constant flux, they are modified, improved, refined on a regular basis, and I often contribute to that change process through participation in Project Technical Committees (I sit on three, Hull Piping, which includes seacocks; Engine and Powertrain; and Electrical). Rest assured, however, any suggested change is thoroughly scrutinized and often vigorously debated (much like we are doing here) by and with other committee members, all of whom are experienced, learned industry professionals. Again, that doesn't mean the Standards are perfect, but they are not written in a vacuum, in an ivory tower by proverbial pencil pushers and engineers. Their requirement for a grounded neutral, IMO, makes good sense for 99.99% of the scenarios, into which a portable genset may not fall. It is for this reason that portable gensets are now being addressed by an ABYC Electrical Project Technical Sub-Committee.
For those who are interested, more on onboard grounding here https://www.cruisingworld.com/how/in...unding-system/

ABYC seacock standards are reasonable in stating that the installation must be robust, as the consequences of a failure are often catastrophic, i.e. flooding and sinking. The thru-hull fitting, what you and many Europeans refer to as a skin fitting, attached to a ball valve scenario will usually fail to comply with ABYC Standards for two reasons, they often won't endure the 500 lb 30 second test, and they often utilize incompatible threads, thru-hulls are NPS, straight or parallel threads, and valves are usually (there are exceptions) NPT or tapered. I encounter NPS-NPT assemblies on a regular basis, on newly built vessels. As an aside, because they are used in a wide range of other applications, many inline valves, are either brass, or nickel plated brass, neither of which are suited for raw water use. A proper, flanged seacock is far more likely to be made of corrosion resistant bronze.

Here are the ABYC requirements, for those who are interested...

27.5 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
27.5.1 All thru-hull fittings or hull penetrations designed to accept pipes, hoses or valves, terminating below the
maximum heeled waterline, shall be equipped with a seacock to stop the admission of water in the event of failure.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Boats that conform to the level flotation performance criteria of ABYC H-8, Buoyancy in the Event of
Swamping,
2. Hull penetrations that discharge above the waterline in its static floating position and below the
Maximum Heeled Waterline and meet the requirements of H-27.5.3.
3. Shafting systems.
4. Jet and stern drive propulsion with integral components from intake through the discharge.
5. Inflatable boats that comply with H-28, Inflatable Boats.
27.5.2 For exhaust system installations see ABYC P-1, Installation of Exhaust Systems for Propulsion and Auxiliary
Engines.
27.5.3 Hull penetrations that are not equipped with a seacock shall use reinforced piping or hose that resists
kinking and collapse.
27.5.4 Seacocks shall be designed and constructed to meet ANSI/UL 1121, Marine Through-Hull Fittings and Sea-
Valves.
27.5.5 Thru-hull fittings shall be designed and constructed to meet ANSI/UL 1121, Marine Through-Hull Fittings and
Sea-Valves.

In the last committee meeting, I proposed a change that would better define "reinforced hose" as I believed it to be too vague.

27.6 INSTALLATION
27.6.1 A seacock shall be securely mounted so that the assembly will withstand a 500 pound (227 Kg) static force
applied for 30 seconds to the inboard end of the assembly, without the assembly failing to stop the ingress of water
(see Figure 1).
27.6.1.1 The installation shall prevent any movement of the assembly.
27.6.1.2 Thru-hull fittings and seacocks shall be connected directly.
EXCEPTION: If space constraints prevent meeting H-27.6.1.2 then one non-flexible component may be
installed.
27.6.2 Threads used in seacock installations shall be compatible (eg. NPT to NPT, NPS to NPS).
27.6.2.1 Thru-hull fitting and seacock manufacturers’ recommendations shall be followed regarding thread
engagement requirements.
27.6.3 Seacocks shall be readily accessible as installed, and oriented that their handles are easy to operate.
27.6.4 If a flanged seacock is used, its flange shall be securely mounted to the hull structure.


Is protection of a seacock equivalent to a seacock that meets the above ABYC standard? Perhaps, but by what measure do your then evaluate the protection, how much load should it endure, and from which directions, and for how long? Indeed, there are many ways to achieve the goal, but all must be measured by some standard. More on seacock material, thread compatibility requirements, and installation here https://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/mag...-waterline.asp

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Steve DAntonio

Fires can and do occur as a result of circuits that are protected by proper over-current protection. High resistance creates heat, but not a short or overload, without which the breaker will not trip. If you've ever seen a heat-damaged shore cord end, you have witnessed this effect. The breaker doesn't "know" where the wattage is going, to run a hair dryer or a high resistance connection, which then becomes the source of a fire.

Everything you write above is correct. But it is irrelevant because it is valid for both polarized and floating service. We’re talking about bad crimps, contact corrosion etc. And ELCI doesn’t “see” that either. For this, temperature and smoke alarms are required.

I agree with you that this occurs often. People are amused when I offer to check their install, then they are shocked when my laser/IR gun finds a hot spot in seconds. I don’t understand why people don’t check their gear.

I'll continue to contend that a grounded neutral, and polarized system, is safer because you can't envision every possible electrical fault scenario. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

But I can because I studied this incl. it’s history from Nikola Tesla up to today. I’m one of those crazy people that were educated to create the standards, plugs, receptacles, power distribution networks and appliances of tomorrow. I was a traitor, switched to microelectronics and chip design... but I didn’t forget any of it. I’m nothing special, there’s tens of thousands like me. I recognize them when I open a Victron inverter/charger (guy must have been in my class with my teacher) but also when I check out that Honda genset and find the floating output. There is no struggling design team who ff’d up on that... there’s a true designer engineer behind it who signed it off as being as safe as a portable gas powered genset can be. The thing is genius because that engineer is carrying the knowledge of the geniuses who came before and taught others what they know.

Everything that can happen has happened. There is no secret killer problem left that we must create safeties for. How would you even know how to fix it when you don’t know what it’ll be... you may even enable it to happen while doing nothing would have saved the day.

We ground electric power not to be safer, we ground it so that power generating stations can reference their output to the same level in the most convenient way.
The problem with that is that we have now created a potentially lethal return path from our outlets and appliances, via earth, ground, back to the power source. For this we created safeties. But if we had not created that bond to ground then we would have had no need for those safeties and that would have been safer. This is why a tech that needs to repair an appliance that potentially has a fault around it’s grounding is using an isolation transformer. He is feeding it floating power so that there exist no return path via ground. He does this to be safer, not to run more risk. Instead of an isolation transformer, he could use a Honda portable genset

So in the end this is why I am so certain of the Honda being safe as it is. That it needs no fixing. That boats who get alarms should re-engineer their flawed alarms or their ground isolation fault (tripping ELCI example of SailorBoy1). It’s not the Honda causing those problems, it’s fault or flaws somewhere else.

On ABYC going to address portable genset: sure they want that. I’m sure they would love to regulate electric cars as well. In the past they have proven to be lacking, to be paper pushing bureaucrats without any affinity with new insights and inventions and it’ll take many years of flawless performance before they regain any respect of the designer engineers in this world.

[Steve DAntonio]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

I am hoping to fuel this discussion, I find it fascinating and now we have an AYBC "expert" joining in. I don't have time right now to write a well worded informed post though. The consensus in these situation is always that you need to hire a certified professional to tell you if your system is correct or safe. The AYBC standards as I understand have evolved to be more inline with European standards that require RCD, ELCI, GFI, GFCI type devices. But these are the for new boats. So is an AYBC electrician only required to approve boats that meet the requirements for when they were built? Shouldn't all boats be required to have ground fault protection devices installed in their circuitry? And shouldn't these "standards" be available to the public for free? If I want to read the current AYBC standards it looks like I will have to pay $500.. If I want to see if a house is wired correctly I just consult the latest NEC (national electric code) for free. I have never understood how the safety ground (green wire) on a boat makes anything safer. The standard explanation that the return path to ground will trip a breaker doesn't make sense to me. You pretty much need a dead short to trip a breaker. Most shorts will be partial or intermittent. You could probably electrocute yourself many times over or easily start a fire for the amount of current it takes to trip a 20 amp breaker. The recommendation to connect this "safety ground" to your bonding system seems to present more hazards than it solves. What happens when there is an intermittent short between the live wire and the bonding wire? (The water around the boat becomes energized, that's what). Or what if your neighbors boat has a fault and the current travels through the water to your perfectly grounded (to the electrical grid) boat. What if your shore power cable is accidentally partially severed by a metal object while someone is in the water nearby. I think that the new recommendations for marina's in the US is "no swimming" signs. (That is no solution, marinas should be required to install current sensor alarms in the water, right?) Even at full rated current it takes normal circuit breakers several seconds to trip. How many electric shock drownings occur because the green wire was connected to the bonding system? I could go on and on. I get it though, that the average boat owner is not going to understand these things and can be dangerous thinking that they do. RCD devices on all boats and docks seems to be the solution. If you have that why can't you safely dispose of the "safety ground" all together? I agree with those that say a portable Honda generator is safer with a "floating" ground. But if you have a model with no GFCI outlet on it, I think that it is easy enough to install one. Also the standard GFCI receptacles found in homes can be through wired to protect the rest of the circuit downstream of it. They trip when they detect a ground fault of more than 5 milli-amps or an overcurrent of more than 15 or 20 amps (both are available). RCD breakers trip at 30 milli-amps which is above the threshold for electric shock drownings. As a DIY solution to most small boats and even bigger boats and only costing $20. every boater can afford this protection.

You've posed some excellent questions. Assuming I'm the ABYC "expert" to whom you are referring, here are some answers to your questions.

"So is an AYBC electrician only required to approve boats that meet the requirements for when they were built?"

ABYC Electricians don't approve or disapprove boats per se, however, they should identify faults that are inconsistent with current, rather than legacy standards. When I carry out a vessel inspection, I don't care much about whether the vessel was compliant when it was built, an electrical fault is an electrical fault, and if it can start a fire or electrocutes someone, that's what counts.

"Shouldn't all boats be required to have ground fault protection devices installed in their circuitry?"

ABYC has mandated, for compliance with the Standards, use of GFCI receptacles in heads, galley, engine room/engineering spaces, bilge areas and on weather decks for decades. But, as others have pointed out, ABYC Standards have no force of law, so they are not "required". In 2008 the Standards were amended to include the use of ELCI ground fault protection for shore inlets (there are some exceptions), thereby offering whole vessel ground fault protection, as well as protection for those in the water.

"And shouldn't these "standards" be available to the public for free? If I want to read the current AYBC standards it looks like I will have to pay $500.."

For free? This debate has been covered on the Forum previously, however, if they were free who would pay to write and administer them? They are not required by law, if they were, they would have to be made available to anyone without charge. The cost of an individual membership is not $500, from ABYC...

www.abycinc.org/recreationalboaters is a great resource for …
• Finding out what are the Standards and how they apply on boats
• Boat system & safety checklists
• Finding a ABYC certified technician for repair and/or marine surveyor who is verified ABYC member.
• DIY projects & basic boating videos

On the homepage, by selecting the tab “Join ABYC”, boaters can access membership information – either join with a free 5-day trial membership or a recreational boater membership $180/annual dues. This level of membership is perfectly geared toward the boating consumer. Our main website (www.abycinc.org) is home to the member login, the Standards platform, ABYC education information, and other levels of ABYC membership for marine businesses and boating manufacturers.

"I have never understood how the safety ground (green wire) on a boat makes anything safer. The standard explanation that the return path to ground will trip a breaker doesn't make sense to me. You pretty much need a dead short to trip a breaker. Most shorts will be partial or intermittent. You could probably electrocute yourself many times over or easily start a fire for the amount of current it takes to trip a 20 amp breaker. The recommendation to connect this "safety ground" to your bonding system seems to present more hazards than it solves. What happens when there is an intermittent short between the live wire and the bonding wire? (The water around the boat becomes energized, that's what)."

The grounding system does enhance safety, of that there's no doubt, if it didn't the whole electrified world could save a lot of money and copper by eliminating that wire. An incomplete short is a problem, as you note, it would be cleared by a GFCI or an ELCI. You can read this short column for an explanation of the importance of grounding https://www.cruisingworld.com/how/in...unding-system/ and https://stevedmarineconsulting.com/e...cis-explained/ and https://stevedmarineconsulting.com/e...-prevention-2/

"Or what if your neighbors boat has a fault and the current travels through the water to your perfectly grounded (to the electrical grid) boat."

This is common, I measure it often, and nothing happens, at least to your boat, it serves as the return path, unless you have an isolation transformer. More reason to not swim in a marina.

"How many electric shock drownings occur because the green wire was connected to the bonding system?"

I don't have a statistic at hand on that specific scenario. Instead I'd ask, how many electrocutions and ESD's are prevented because the bonding system and AC safety ground are connected? The answer is almost certainly countless. If a hot, AC wire chafes into something that is not bonded, a tank for instance, the tank remains energized. You then touch the tank and and battery charger enclosure, which is bonded, and you complete a path and receive a shock, or worse. If the tank is bonded, as soon as the wire chafes to it, the breaker trips. If the bonding system isn't connected to the AC safety ground, the bonding system can become energized, and the fault will not be cleared as the breaker will not trip, and current would leak into the water. That's a recipe for an onboard electrocution, ESD and fire.

"RCD devices on all boats and docks seems to be the solution. If you have that why can't you safely dispose of the "safety ground" all together?"

Because none of these systems are infallible, especially in a marine environment, and that's also the reason we don't rely on marina shock guard monitoring systems to allow people to swim.

"RCD breakers trip at 30 milli-amps which is above the threshold for electric shock drownings."

It's as much about the trip threshold as it is about the time it takes to trip. ELCI's will trip in 30-70 milliseconds, rending the the fault safe so quickly that no injury will occur. Anything under 30 mA for whole boat protection tends to create nuisance faults as a result of collective leakage, which would be counter-productive. The fact is 30mA will almost certainly save you, I've unintentionally tested this. This article explains more on this subject https://www.proptalk.com/electric-sh...ion-prevention

"As a DIY solution to most small boats and even bigger boats and only costing $20. every boater can afford this protection."

For GFCI's, I agree, easy and cheap to install, ELCI's are more complex and expensive, and beyond most DIYers.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

The Honda stops being a portable genset when it is permanently installed and used inside a space instead of out in the open.

I agree with your statement however it was never stated in this thread about being " installed " that was thoroughly hashed out in true thread about building a permanent enclosure for a portable generator. ( I forget the exact title of the thread)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Steve DAntonio

You brought up the hold harmless, I was making it clear that those offer little protection if the signers know the scenario they cover is potentially dangerous.
.

categorically incorrect.
They are used every day to protect companies that intentionally engage in what would be considered "dangerous" activities.

Those contracts are held up in court every day as well.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I agree with your statement however it was never stated in this thread about being " installed " that was thoroughly hashed out in true thread about building a permanent enclosure for a portable generator. ( I forget the exact title of the thread)

Well you missed it then. In post #81 you even quote me discussing it with the one who brought it up