Shore Ground NOT Connected to Isolation Transformer

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

It’s not safer.

Agreed, isolation transformer is the safest option around for a grid hookup. I’m not even gonna discuss reasons anymore, it’s all been done multiple times on the forum.

It’s not just safest for the crew, but also for swimmers around the boat and for the boat itself. Promoting a galvanic isolator as equal protection is madness, no use to waste time on.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Agreed, isolation transformer is the safest option around for a grid hookup. I’m not even gonna discuss reasons anymore, it’s all been done multiple times on the forum.

It’s not just safest for the crew, but also for swimmers around the boat and for the boat itself. Promoting a galvanic isolator as equal protection is madness, no use to waste time on.

There’s not a paper width in our disagreement here Nick

Any method that re-references boat side protective “ ground “ wire (perhaps we should dream up a new name , like “fault current return “) to earth is actually compromising safety not improving it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Pfff… why don’t you show how a non metal, insulated toroidal transformer can create a short to the case and show me how this then puts people at risk. Unless you are able to do so, right here, not by posting links, then it is you who doesn’t understand this. But I already see, you’re one of the ABYC financial contributors let me guess, you’re gonna want to see a shield around the primary winding of the isolation transformer, right? Just like ABYC describes? Show me how to do that with toroidal transformers.

If you folks had prefaced every one of your mentions of "isolation transformer" with "non-metal-cased toroidal", I'd be 99% in agreement with your and GBN's stand re not linking grounds. But you haven't, so your advice re safety is flawed, and could be dangerous to some with the more usual metal-cased isolation transformer.

And your ABYC-hating, even though they sort of agree with you already. Wow. Did they steal your lunchmoney at school?

There are two things that have to occur to turn a boat into a shock hazard (eg ESD):

1. a fault that puts hot shorepower AC onto boat metal
2. no connection between boat metal and shorepower ground

You're advocating for voluntarily satisfying #2, so you need to be extra sure that the risk of #1 is very low. Which it would be with your non-metal-cased toroids.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Any method that re-references boat side protective “ ground “ wire (perhaps we should dream up a new name , like “fault current return “) to earth is actually compromising safety not improving it.

Can you prove that?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you folks had prefaced every one of your mentions of "isolation transformer" with "non-metal-cased toroidal", I'd be 99% in agreement with your and GBN's stand re not linking grounds. But you haven't, so your advice re safety is flawed, and could be dangerous to some with the more usual metal-cased isolation transformer.

And your ABYC-hating, even though they sort of agree with you already. Wow. Did they steal your lunchmoney at school?

There are two things that have to occur to turn a boat into a shock hazard (eg ESD):

1. a fault that puts hot shorepower AC onto boat metal
2. no connection between boat metal and shorepower ground

You're advocating for voluntarily satisfying #2, so you need to be extra sure that the risk of #1 is very low. Which it would be with your $$$ toroids.

There are loads of unprotected hazards on a boat.

Personally I’ve no problem connecting the metal case of a isolating transformer AS long as that case is in no way connected to the boat side “ protective fault current return “ wire.

I would say that risk can be mitigated by fitting a RCD ( ELCB) to the incoming shore mains. With this I would not connect the shore earth to anything as the RCD mitigates any situation where the shore side live makes contact with anything metal in the boat , however unlikely that is. In Europe with the universal use of RCBOs in marina pillars that risk is actually accounted for.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you folks had prefaced every one of your mentions of "isolation transformer" with "non-metal-cased toroidal", I'd be 99% in agreement with your and GBN's stand re not linking grounds. But you haven't, so your advice re safety is flawed, and could be dangerous to some with the more usual metal-cased isolation transformer.


And your ABYC-hating, even though they sort of agree with you already. Wow. Did they steal your lunchmoney at school?


There are two things that have to occur to turn a boat into a shock hazard (eg ESD):

1. a fault that puts hot shorepower AC onto boat metal
2. no connection between boat metal and shorepower ground

You're advocating for voluntarily satisfying #2, so you need to be extra sure that the risk of #1 is very low. Which it would be with your $$$ toroids.

The Victron isolation transformers have always used toroidal transformers and the absurd call for shielded primary winding very much hints at specifically targeting it as being the worlds most used isolation transformer on boats. It is fully certified for the rest of the world.

The reason I hate ABYC is not because they try to help their paying members with safe installation practices… it is how they create these documents. The Victron isolation transformer is EN60076 certified, which is proper IEC certification.

IEC is -the- international standards organization. Whenever ABYC is diverting, you can suspect politics and power games are behind it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...cal_Commission

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

The reason I hate ABYC is not because they try to help their paying members with safe installation practices… it is how they create these documents. The Victron isolation transformer is EN60076 certified, which is proper IEC certification.

IEC is -the- international standards organization. Whenever ABYC is diverting, you can suspect politics and power games are behind it.

The ABYC is an insignificantly small organization of marine industry companies who stepped in to fill a void in the N American pleasure boat market for safety standards. I doubt if there's even 10 people on their payroll. I'd have thought that a gummint-distrusting guy like you would find favour with the industry self-regulating themselves.

Anyway, as you said earlier...pfbptffsfft.

Going sailing.

[goboatingnow]

The ABYC standard mentions “ electro static shields ) but if you talk to transformer companies they will tell you this shield unless specified as a safety shield is designed for a different task

I just put one of these on a plastic box

https://airlinktransformers.com/prod...ange-cm2000172

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

The Victron isolation transformers have always used toroidal transformers and the absurd call for shielded primary winding very much hints at specifically targeting it as being the worlds most used isolation transformer on boats. It is fully certified for the rest of the world.



The reason I hate ABYC is not because they try to help their paying members with safe installation practices… it is how they create these documents. The Victron isolation transformer is EN60076 certified, which is proper IEC certification.



IEC is -the- international standards organization. Whenever ABYC is diverting, you can suspect politics and power games are behind it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...cal_Commission

The IEC 61558 standard is more applicable and usually followed for safety transformers

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The ABYC is an insignificantly small organization of marine industry companies who stepped in to fill a void in the N American pleasure boat market for safety standards. I doubt if there's even 10 people on their payroll. I'd have thought that a gummint-distrusting guy like you would find favour with the industry self-regulating themselves.

Anyway, as you said earlier...pfbptffsfft.

Going sailing.

So are you actually saying that ABYC is better than IEC? I noticed you stopped short of that

Do you really believe that when the “industry” sends their expert volunteers to write these documents, that those experts will write documents that disqualifies the products from their companies? You see no possible conflicts of interest?

It is very hard to find truly independent experts that have no agenda of their own. I think I am one of them because I am retired but of course I won’t volunteer to participate in that. I’ve been in many similar committees and it’s even worse than politicians.

[CharlieJ]

@s/v Jedi #39:

It is very hard to find truly independent experts that have no agenda of their own. I think I am one of them because I am retired but of course I won’t volunteer to participate in that. I’ve been in many similar committees and it’s even worse than politicians.

I named some of the 29 volunteers on the ABYC Electrical Committee recently on another thread on this forum that include Nigel Calder, Steve D'Antonio (both members) and Rod Collins, an interested and involved party. So comments about the "industry experts" and "conflicts of interest", implying whatever it is that you are implying, is unfounded and false.

It is very hard to find truly independent experts that have no agenda of their own. I think I am one of them because I am retired but of course I won’t volunteer to participate in that.

Wow!

[sandy stone]

I have a question. If the transformer primary coil shorts to the case, isn't the assumption that the shoreside breaker will trip?

[shimari]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

It is very hard to find truly independent experts that have no agenda of their own. I think I am one of them because I am retired but of course I won’t volunteer to participate in that. I’ve been in many similar committees and it’s even worse than politicians.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

@s/v Jedi #39:
I named some of the 29 volunteers on the ABYC Electrical Committee recently on another thread on this forum that include Nigel Calder, Steve D'Antonio (both members) and Rod Collins, an interested and involved party. So comments about the "industry experts" and "conflicts of interest", implying whatever it is that you are implying, is unfounded and false.

I've been on three different international standards bodies over the course of three decades. You're both right.

I was one, of many, who participated on the bodies as an independent contributor. I didn't have a horse in the race other than to see things done right. Vendor participants usually far out numbered the independents.

Something was done 'right' only when it aligned with the "politics". We independents would fight hard, but we had to pick our battles. We would win some times, but not often. Although, over time I've seen things converge to right. It just takes a long time.

[Lake-Effect]

We're back. It was nice til the wind died.

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

So are you actually saying that ABYC is better than IEC? I noticed you stopped short of that :biggrin

Duh. Of course not. So why didnt the American marine industry embrace IEC?

Do you really believe that when the “industry” sends their expert volunteers to write these documents, that those experts will write documents that disqualifies the products from their companies? You see no possible conflicts of interest?

oh ffs. manufacturer level membership in ABYC is US$425 annually. That's keeping Victron out? Give us ONE credible example of a marine company or product shut out of the market by the ABYC.

It is very hard to find truly independent experts that have no agenda of their own. I think I am one of them because I am retired but of course I won’t volunteer to participate in that. I’ve been in many similar committees and it’s even worse than politicians.

:eyeroll: Again, show us ONE example where the ABYC has muscled out a viable technology or product. Have you ever met or talked to anyone from, or involved with the ABYC? They're not HYDRA...

And this is miles off-topic, other than to show how a misconception is driving an opinion.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sandy stone

I have a question. If the transformer primary coil shorts to the case, isn't the assumption that the shoreside breaker will trip?

Well that's central to the issue. IF the iso transformer has a metal case, and IF that case is connected to the shorepower ground, then yes.

IF the case is only connected to boat ground, and there's no connection between shorepower ground and boat ground, then no, the boat ground could become hot and no breaker would trip.

RCD breakers might help IF there is a current imbalance detected.

And once again, such faults are very rare in a proper installation of an ABYC compliant iso transformer.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

@s/v Jedi #39:


I named some of the 29 volunteers on the ABYC Electrical Committee recently on another thread on this forum that include Nigel Calder, Steve D'Antonio (both members) and Rod Collins, an interested and involved party. So comments about the "industry experts" and "conflicts of interest", implying whatever it is that you are implying, is unfounded and false.


Wow!

I wrote “independent experts”. All the names you drop have a business in that particular field or related to it.

I know I have more knowledge than many of the people working there and while I wasn’t independent during my career, now that I am retired, I am.

The simple thing is that I also have lots of experience in these kind of committees and know how it is. I wouldn’t even go for $250 an hour, let alone volunteer.