On my fourth Alternator?

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

True the exact paragraph is

“
4.9 In normal operation, different battery chemistries should not be connected in parallel or in series. Combining/automated charging relays should not be used between systems using different chemistries.
“

Hard to know who cut and pasted but the specs are similar and both overlook LFP safety.

Seeing as I have been on the ABYC Lithium committee since its inception in 2013 and TE-13 was out long before the ISO it is pretty clear most of what is in ISO is derived from TE -13..

[Rumrace]

Exactly. Much like the merger of UL and CSA codes. Helps international trade when governing bodies with qualifications agree on things.
I was on the CSA committee for lighting in the merger. We are still miles apart in CE but all Fed up with fake labels.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Q Xopa

Interesting, sorry for getting further off track.

I assume you mean mechanical Relays? But SSRs are ok?

This sounds like Blueseas ACRs are going to be a thing of the past, now in Europe and maybe soon elsewhere?

I guess Argo FETs and the like, and B2Bs are what is being preferred?

Does this extend to Battery switches like the BlueSeas Remote battery switches which are also relays that take similar currents.

For that matter what about Windlass relays?

No ISO does not support any form of electrical connection between Li and LA banks irrespective of how the technology achieves it, ie mechanical or solid state

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

No ISO does not support any form of electrical connection between Li and LA banks irrespective of how the technology achieves it, ie mechanical or solid state

And rightly so. DC-DC converters/chargers are readily available.

[Rumrace]

My anchor windlass is 24V which draws a half the amps off the bow batteries.a 12V would It’s all relays

[Rumrace]

Well I am sorry for that.
Most of the so called “ approved “ tech is fraud.

[Q Xopa]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

No ISO does not support any form of electrical connection between Li and LA banks irrespective of how the technology achieves it, ie mechanical or solid state

Good to know thanks.

Did someone say they did?

My question was why ABYC do allow it and one answer was the Charge Relays. And hence why the Charge relays seemed to be an issue.

But seeing you are talking about ISO, does this mean all the boats European boats that have fitted Lithiums charging them and the Lead Start batteries, even through a DCDC ("irrespective of what technology achieves it"), from the same source is not allowed?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Q Xopa

Good to know thanks.

Did someone say they did?

My question was why ABYC do allow it and one answer was the Charge Relays. And hence why the Charge relays seemed to be an issue.

But seeing you are talking about ISO, does this mean all the boats European boats that have fitted Lithiums charging them and the Lead Start batteries, even through a DCDC ("irrespective of what technology achieves it"), from the same source is not allowed?

Dc dc converter connections are allowed. It’s just direct electrical connections of both chemistries are not allowed and that’s right and proper

[Q Xopa]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Dc dc converter connections are allowed. It’s just direct electrical connections of both chemistries are not allowed and that’s right and proper

Good explanation- some devices are allowed, others are not, because "that's right and proper".

I admire your sense of certainty.

I'm not saying you are not correct, but it would be good to see an actual technical explanation rather than 'trust me because'.

It doesnt seem, (we haven't seen it, as it isn't yet issued), ABYC share that thinking. It seems as though ABYC have formulated the bulk of the guidelines for this technology.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Q Xopa

Good explanation- some devices are allowed, others are not, because "that's right and proper".

I admire your sense of certainty.

I'm not saying you are not correct, but it would be good to see an actual technical explanation rather than 'trust me because'.

It doesnt seem, (we haven't seen it, as it isn't yet issued), ABYC share that thinking. It seems as though ABYC have formulated the bulk of the guidelines for this technology.

A DC-DC converter does not connect the two together. Think of a regular battery charger: it doesn’t connect your battery to the AC outlet either.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Q Xopa

Good explanation- some devices are allowed, others are not, because "that's right and proper".

I admire your sense of certainty.

I'm not saying you are not correct, but it would be good to see an actual technical explanation rather than 'trust me because'.

It doesnt seem, (we haven't seen it, as it isn't yet issued), ABYC share that thinking. It seems as though ABYC have formulated the bulk of the guidelines for this technology.

The point stems from the ISO prohibition regarding paralleling the two chemistries. Such a paralleling could be done mechanically or via solid state switching , neither are supported by the standard

It’s not a good idea to parallel different chemistries . Using a DC DC converter isolates one chemistry from the other so that’s fine. This assumes of course that the load busses are separate.

[Q Xopa]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

A DC-DC converter does not connect the two together. Think of a regular battery charger: it doesn’t connect your battery to the AC outlet either.

Hmm I guess this all comes down to definition of connection.
AC to DC charger obviously has to rectify, and change voltage before the DC charging current is outputs.

The DCDC, say 12-12 has only to regulate, ie switch off output when outside the desired voltages. So within parameters it can be said input current is finding it's way to the output.

This seems to be what the device is doing posted in the up thread video.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Q Xopa

Hmm I guess this all comes down to definition of connection.
AC to DC charger obviously has to rectify, and change voltage before the DC charging current is outputs.

The DCDC, say 12-12 has only to regulate, ie switch off output when outside the desired voltages. So within parameters it can be said input current is finding it's way to the output.

This seems to be what the device is doing posted in the up thread video.

Just to be clear dc-dc converters are power conversion devices. They transform DC inputs into different DC outputs providing explicit or implicit isolation along the way. Currents from one battery system cannot intermingle with the other

Whereas any form of charging that creates a direct connection , in essence allowing uncontrolled bi directional current flow under certain conditions , is not allowed under the ISO spec. Whether this is enabled electronically or otherwise is rather irrelevant.

The whole point is LA and Li chemistries are not basically compatible for several reasons and potential serious failure modes are exposed if they are uncontrollably paralleled.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

Seeing as I have been on the ABYC Lithium committee since its inception in 2013 and TE-13 was out long before the ISO it is pretty clear most of what is in ISO is derived from TE -13..

Hard to say that ISO Technical Commitee 188 is the backbone of most <24m standards and has a large active membership including the USA via ANSI


https://www.iso.org/committee/54258.html
https://www.iso.org/committee/54258....=participation

It was created in 1983 so who knows who developed what first. The ISO spec is actually formally published whereas the ABYC has only just done so.

Perhaps a question to the secretariat would clarify

[Q Xopa]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The point stems from the ISO prohibition regarding paralleling the two chemistries. Such a paralleling could be done mechanically or via solid state switching , neither are supported by the standard

It’s not a good idea to parallel different chemistries . Using a DC DC converter isolates one chemistry from the other so that’s fine. This assumes of course that the load busses are separate.

So you are saying that "such paralleling could be done mechanically or via solid state switching".

Which seems to be what is being done in this video.

Previously you said "that's the way it should be", ie that it is bad and thus not allowed.

So now you seem to be saying it could be done, but the Industry Advisory guys dont support it.

It is yet to be officially determined but word on the street is ABYC will allow it.

I am much more familiar with ABYC Guidelines, although in this case the Lithium guidelines are not yet issued.

Getting back to Industry Advisory 'support'.

What I do know about ISO is that they are mostly quite similar to ABYC.

As yet, until TE-13 is issued soon, ABYC dont officially support Lithium batteries.

Do ISO support Lithium batteries?

Rumor is that ABYC are going to support Lithium batteries, but within certain guidelines like Aural, or Visual indication of a pending battery disconnect event. This will require some interface, ie a CAN bus o something, between the batteries BMS and the boat. To my knowledge there are only a couple of Lithium battery manufactures that have this sort of feature.

No doubt this will put a lot of boats, outside Industry Advisory body supported guidelines.

Interesting times ahead.