E-13 -- cells that comply

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

THANK YOU! And Sailorboy, too.


You read, and ponder, and read, and then sleep, and then read... and some of it starts to fade away. This is a HUGE revelation. There are two driving forces in my design -- one is to make a system I am happy with, the other is to ensure that what makes me happy also makes the insurance company happy. Hence my question about meeting UL or IEC standards for my cells -- now that there is a E-13, I want to be 100% sure that I fully comply with the standard. My insurance company (BoatUS) not only doesn't mention LFP in the policy, but they periodically publish stories on thoughts and considerations for an LFP installation -- and if they prohibit LFP on their insured boats, that would be an odd conflict!



High on my list of BMS to use is the Electrodacus. The problem is that while I believe that the pre-disconnect low voltage alarm is critical (if I'm aboard, I want to be both notified and have time to take action -- if I'm not aboard, then, well, whatever....) and I can implement it with the features and controls provided by Electrodacus. The pre HIGH voltage alarm is a problem. I can't implement it on the Electrodacus, due to software limitations. The Electrodacus at under $200 meets all my other requirements, I have to get to BMS in the $600-$800 range to get a pre-HV (or pre HT and LT) alarm. I don't actually CARE about the HV alarm, because I will forcibly open all charging sources at 100%, and a HV disconnect is by design impossible. Your point on the "notes" makes the fact that I'm not getting an alarm a "note" and not a "violation."


As far as the BP, it doesn't know (except maybe in a 100% Victron system) about impending disconnects from cell imbalance. You could have one cell critically low (and about to trigger a shutdown) while still meeting pack voltage limits.

It might be worth pointing out that a recommendation in a note, is not an ABYC requirement. If you have alarms for LVD but not HVD, you have not only met, but exceeded the E-13 requirements. You can meet the E-13 requirements with neither.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

From your experience, it would seem that the lack of certification is more accurately described as a lack of easily determined certification on their web pages. I think I will leave that issue aside until final choice of batteries is made, and then just confirm with the supplier.

That may well be. Most web sites only convey happiness, with no actual information. All you know is that you will be happier, younger, and more attractive if you buy the product.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by crayiii

You really need to remember that battery manufacturers had a lot of influence on E-13. It is pretty weak.

Again, that's simply not true. I'm struggling to think of a single battery manufacturer who was active in the process. The closest was Torquedo, and I don't think they were arguing for watering anything down.


I will say that I was personally arguing for what some might consider "watering down", and it wasn't for the sake of battery manufacturers, it was for boaters, in particular all those with LFP system that are from good manufacturers, properly installed, etc. Requiring 1973 would have rendered practically every LFP installation non-compliant, and with no demonstrable reason to do so. There were some people who wanted to completely prohibit drop in batteries. Maybe drop-ins aren't the most technically superior approach (I don't care for them), but they are the reality of the market, and again, there is zero field data to support banning them. So I think everyone who has been early with LFP, whether drop-in, one of the excellent home made systems, or top of the line Victron or MG should say "thank you" rather than accuse battery manufacturers of having a hand on the scale. Because every one of you would now have an un-insurable boat if 1973 had been required, as it was at one point in the draft process.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by crayiii

My insurance requires the battery be a US manufacturer and installed by a US installer. My underwriter told me that they are looking at the UL1973 standard for future policies and that’s why we chose to buy batteries that meet that standard.

You really need to remember that battery manufacturers had a lot of influence on E-13. It is pretty weak.

This was the position of one insurer before E-13 was released, and was a pretty biased and ill-considered set of requirements. Hopefully they have evolved.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Curious who made your battery. Very few drop in batteries can be used in an ABYC compliant installation, as most have very little communication outside the battery. Kilovault for instance is incapable of giving an advanced alarm before disconnect.

I believe Victron batteries might, but since I am not interested in a prepackaged solution, I haven't investigated.

The requirement for an advanced alarm is an example of "watering down", as some would put it. It is NOT required in E-13. It is suggested, and I would consider it a shot across the bow that it might become required in the future. It's another example of a capability that if required, would have rendered the vast majority of installations and available product non-compliant.

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

I've taken a look at the ULProsepector site, and signed up for a free account. Lots of information. But, unfortunately, it adds more doubt than solutions.


I looked up several prospective mainstream cells. All the manufacturers are listed, with many model numbers -- but none of the ones I'm looking at.


This could mean that the actual UL listed models are unrelated to the "Marketing model," or it could mean that the commercial cells are listed and the cells we can buy retail are not listed.


Here are some sample cells.
CALB CA-280 and CA-230
CATL (Contemporary Amperex Technology) CATL-280 and CATL-302

EVE LF280K and LF304
Gotion LFP-150 and LFP-340


That's 8 cells I've looked for, all from mainstream manufacturers. Has anyone actually seen a UL Listing for the cell models they have? We often hear about insurance companies being ultra-focused on LFP banks, has any insurance company (or surveryor, or ABYC electrician "approving" the bank) ever asked to see the UL certification?


Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? I do that.....

My cells are Calb CA100. They are listed. And working backwards, I had no problem finding model numbers that are listed for sale at retail. (for example Calb L173F280A)

You might be searching for the wrong part numbers. I don't believe CALB has a CA280 or CA230 Model. CA model cells are the older plastic case cell, and the newer calb 280Ah cells are aluminum case.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by crayiii

From the standard: ...

... 2. If a shutdown condition is approaching, a battery system 'should' notify the operator with a visual and/or audible alarm before disconnecting the battery from the DC system...
... The “notes” are recommendations and are not the same as the requirements contained in the main body of the standard...

FWIW:

“As used in a standard, “shall” [must] denotes a minimum requirement, in order to conform to the specification. “
Whereas:
“should” denotes a recommendation, or that which is advised, but not required, in order to conform to the specification.”

Apparently, many U.S. federal documents are being revised, by replacing “shall” with “must”, to indicate a requirement. In the Plain Writing Act of 2010, the government recommends the use of the word “must”, in place of “shall”, to refer to a legal obligation.

[crayiii]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

Again, that's simply not true. I'm struggling to think of a single battery manufacturer who was active in the process. The closest was Torquedo, and I don't think they were arguing for watering anything down.


I will say that I was personally arguing for what some might consider "watering down", and it wasn't for the sake of battery manufacturers, it was for boaters, in particular all those with LFP system that are from good manufacturers, properly installed, etc. Requiring 1973 would have rendered practically every LFP installation non-compliant, and with no demonstrable reason to do so. There were some people who wanted to completely prohibit drop in batteries. Maybe drop-ins aren't the most technically superior approach (I don't care for them), but they are the reality of the market, and again, there is zero field data to support banning them. So I think everyone who has been early with LFP, whether drop-in, one of the excellent home made systems, or top of the line Victron or MG should say "thank you" rather than accuse battery manufacturers of having a hand on the scale. Because every one of you would now have an un-insurable boat if 1973 had been required, as it was at one point in the draft process.

Menno Ligterink from Mastervolt, Jochen Czabke from Torqeedo and Denis Phares from Dragonfly Energy

You sure you were there Peter?

[crayiii]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

This was the position of one insurer before E-13 was released, and was a pretty biased and ill-considered set of requirements. Hopefully they have evolved.

Another way to look at it is that it was 100% of the insurers that I surveyed. [emoji23]

It was also AFTER E-13 was released. Regardless, my batteries are UL 1973 certified.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by crayiii

Menno Ligterink from Mastervolt, Jochen Czabke from Torqeedo and Denis Phares from Dragonfly Energy

You sure you were there Peter?

The meeting minutes will reflect attendance, so it's not a matter of opinion. I mentioned Torquedo. You are correct about Mastervolt, but they were not pushing any form of "watering down". And if anything, they would have benefited as a company if the standard were more stringent because they offer a more sophisticated product. And Dragonfly wasn't active until after E-11 was in it's final form.



But more important to your accusation is not attendance, but behavior. I have participated in standards development where vendors were working their own agenda as hard as they could. ABYC is surprisingly free of that, at least in the electrical part. And there was definitely not a voice from the three above trying to dumb down the standard. I fact I was surprised that Dragonfly wasn't more vocal about some things in TE-13, that might have been problematic for them.


So please stop making stuff up.

[crayiii]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

The meeting minutes will reflect attendance, so it's not a matter of opinion. I mentioned Torquedo. You are correct about Mastervolt, but they were not pushing any form of "watering down". And if anything, they would have benefited as a company if the standard were more stringent because they offer a more sophisticated product. And Dragonfly wasn't active until after E-11 was in it's final form.



But more important to your accusation is not attendance, but behavior. I have participated in standards development where vendors were working their own agenda as hard as they could. ABYC is surprisingly free of that, at least in the electrical part. And there was definitely not a voice from the three above trying to dumb down the standard. I fact I was surprised that Dragonfly wasn't more vocal about some things in TE-13, that might have been problematic for them.


So please stop making stuff up.

I point you again to the comment from Bruce. He was on the committee. You should check yourself a little.

You make assertions and I am simply pointed out that you are incorrect on a number of them. Did you have a say in the development of the standard? Were you involved in 100% on the conversations?

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by crayiii

I point you again to the comment from Bruce. He was on the committee. You should check yourself a little.

You make assertions and I am simply pointed out that you are incorrect on a number of them. Did you have a say in the development of the standard? Were you involved in 100% on the conversations?

I think you are reading more into Bruce's comments than are there. "manufacturer's and installers" covers probably 90% of the committee, where maybe 5% are battery manufacturers. I would count myself as part of Bruce's group, and I am not a manufacturer or even a professional installer. I am primarily a boat owner and user of LFP, just like most everyone here. My goal is to represent boaters, not any manufacturer or business.


And for the record, I have been an active participant in 100% of the Lithium battery meetings since Jan 2020, prior to the release of TE-13, through the release of E-13, and active today. Mastervolt and Torquedo have also been actively involved, though Torquedo's representation is in transition. I have great respect for Dragonfly and Ocean Planet as companies and for their principals, but their participation during my time has been spotty. Attendance at the meetings is all public record in the meeting minutes. I can't comment on who made what contributions prior to when I got involved in Jan 2020.


But if you want to believe it's a battery manufacturer conspiracy, then I'm sure there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

[crayiii]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

I think you are reading more into Bruce's comments than are there. "manufacturer's and installers" covers probably 90% of the committee, where maybe 5% are battery manufacturers. I would count myself as part of Bruce's group, and I am not a manufacturer or even a professional installer. I am primarily a boat owner and user of LFP, just like most everyone here. My goal is to represent boaters, not any manufacturer or business.


And for the record, I have been an active participant in 100% of the Lithium battery meetings since Jan 2020, prior to the release of TE-13, through the release of E-13, and active today. Mastervolt and Torquedo have also been actively involved, though Torquedo's representation is in transition. I have great respect for Dragonfly and Ocean Planet as companies and for their principals, but their participation during my time has been spotty. Attendance at the meetings is all public record in the meeting minutes. I can't comment on who made what contributions prior to when I got involved in Jan 2020.


But if you want to believe it's a battery manufacturer conspiracy, then I'm sure there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

Again, I’ll take Bruce at his word and I don’t need any of your convincing. It’s a weak standard and I’m not the only one that understands that. Even Phares (dragonfly) believes it’s too weak and will be made more stringent. I’ll stop trying to help you figure that out since you seem to be stuck in your blissful belief. Happy charging skipper.

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by crayiii

Again, I’ll take Bruce at his word and I don’t need any of your convincing. It’s a weak standard and I’m not the only one that understands that. Even Phares (dragonfly) believes it’s too weak and will be made more stringent. I’ll stop trying to help you figure that out since you seem to be stuck in your blissful belief. Happy charging skipper.

Well, I don't disagree that it's a minimal standard, which was precisely the intent. It's nearly identical to the corresponding ISO draft (not yet a standard), so others seem to agree that it's a good starting point. Perfect? No.


I also agree that it will get tightened up over time. But keep in mind that standards are meant to be a minimal safety spec, not a tutorial on how to build to the best current practice.


I'm not sure what blissful belief you are referring to. The only thing we really seem to disagree on is whether it was battery vendors who "watered down" E-13.



What would be much more constructive would be suggestions on what you would like to see added to E-13, and why. And only say UL 1973 if you have actually read that standard along with UL 1642 and can say what's different and why it's needed. Not why it's better, but why recreational boat power systems are unsafe without it, and it should be forced on everyone. E-13 is up for revision, so now's a good time for input.

[crayiii]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

And only say UL 1973 if you have actually read that standard along with UL 1642 and can say what's different and why it's needed.

Do you realize how patronizing that sounds? Thankfully, you don’t make the talking rules. [emoji1787]

I’ll save my comments for those on the committee that actually make the decision. /smh/