![]() I had the same observations that Charlie Johnson reported, so I won’t repeat. I do have concerns with this particular piece. I apologize in advance for sounding critical. As an aside, the Victron Isolation Transformer uses a toroidal transformer with a proper shield and N > G bonding on the secondary. I have been waiting for Bridgeport Magnetics to develop a compliant transformer. > The N and G are required to be bonded together at the secondary of the isolation transformer (and all sources of power on board). Since there is no shield, there is no redundant path back to the shore source. > A “standard” isolation transformer is required to have a safety ground connection between the electrostatic shield and shore safety ground. > There is no apparent electrostatic shield between the primary and the secondary windings. The puck isolation transformer is not compliant with ABYC Standard E-11. Correction is easy: take the B+ from the fuse block end of the bank and the B- from the far end.Ģ. The batteries furthest away from these connections will be under utilized under load and take longer to charge. > Both the B+ and the B- takeoffs from the battery bank are from one end of the paralleled batteries. > There are several B+ terminals and busses that have no insulating boot or cover on them. > The batteries are not secured IAW ABYC Standard E-10 Your Battle Born battery bank is well executed with the following exceptions: In your latest posting I saw some issues.ġ. I enjoy your articles and the meticulous manner in which you do your modifications. ![]() Scroll down to participate in SeaBits Discussions, our new interactive forum attached to each article. These are read only comments from the old system. Otherwise, I would suggest looking at traditional isolation transformers from Victron and other manufacturers. If I get updated information from the manufacturer, I will be sure to post it here. At no point was it outlined that this product does not fully conform to all necessary ABYC standards.Īs such, I do not recommend the product at this time, and have removed it from use on my boat. I also contacted the manufacturer and asked questions about the product. I consulted with an ABYC electrician prior to purchasing, and during the install of this product. I pride myself in documenting projects with technically backed, facts based research. It is clear to me that the installation represents a credible shock hazard – the exact opposite of what I was trying to achieve.Īt this time, it does not look like this product is ABYC Standard E-11 compliant in how it is grounded and also in terms of UL 1561. There are serious concerns over the way this product was installed, and whether it is fully ABYC compliant. After a few comments (scroll down) and a number of email discussions on the side, I decided to remove the content of this article and replace it with this info. ![]() You may notice that this article is quite short. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |