In another recent thread (On Demand Propane Water Heater?) Maine Sail made the point that the device we were discussing was unsafe because it was not ABYC certified. Earlier in that thread, Peggy Hall posted statistics about how many deaths were caused by electric devices on boats (I'd be curious to see how many of those devices themselves were ABYC certified). According to those statistics, the danger from electric devices dwarfs the danger from propane devices in the real world.
During that discussion it occurred to me that there seems to be a huge unjustified bias against propane devices, way out of proportion to the actual risk, compared to electricity powered devices. For example, are these solar panels and their controllers ABYC certified? The panels go outside the cabin, but the controllers don't. I am attaching the controller to wood paneling in my boat. Flammable material! I looked at the Sunforce version sold on West Marine: (Sunforce 50033 Solar Kit) and can find no evidence of ABYC or any kind of certification. Why has there been no outcry in this thread of the danger of installing these devices on boats?
Stepehen,
Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of how the standards work. The ABYC is not a "certification" organization, they are a safety standards organization. They create the standards which in turn can and should guide construction and manufacturing which "meet" or exceed the safety standards. For example Blue Seas builds nearly all their products to meet or exceed the ABYC E-11 electrical standard. Even their ANL fuses are ignition protected! Wire manufacturers will make wire to meet UL1426/ABYC E-11 etc. etc. on and on. The ABYC does not "certify" it but manufacturers build to the standard and can then say things like "Meets ABYC A-16" or "ABYC E-11 Compliant" if their products do indeed meet the standards. In the case of ABYC H-27 Forespar has this to say:
"We are the only manufacturer to offer motorized Marelon® seacocks (ROV systems) that meet and exceed all Marine U.L. & ABYC"
Even the USCG does not certify nav lights. This is done by an external laboratory that tests the lights to ensure that they "meet" the minimum COLREG requirements. After independent testing nav lights can then wear the USCG or ABYC A-16 embossed "certification" stamp on the housing. The COLREGS and ABYC A-16 have guided the manufacturing and testing process for "certified" nav lights but neither the ABYC nor the USCG, who's stamp would be on the light, conducted the testing. If the light passed the requirements it would then be allowed to be considered a "certified" light. Nav lights are one of the few items that I know wear the actual "certified" label, everything else either meets the minimum requirements or does not.
Maine Sail made the point that the device we were discussing was unsafe because it was not ABYC certified
Please lets not take my writings out of context. I never said the unit needed to be ABYC "certified" but I did say about 100 times, perhaps that's an exaggeration, that it should meet the
minimum safety standards, which the Excel does not. No "vent-free" water heater does. It also does not meet ANSI standards for combustion which A-26 is guided by.
The ABYC is often guided by and takes into account other industry standards such as SAE, ASME, NSF, UL, CSA, ANSI and a slew of others. It is the collaboration of a bunch of existing safety and design standards that help build the ABYC standards as they apply to te marine industry.
ABYC E-11, which a solar panel installation would fall under, suggests safe installation practices and such things as ignition protection, wire termination, wire gauge etc. etc. on and on. Microwaves, as you brought up in the other thread, would already meet UL or CSA standards which the ABYC accepts as reasonable safety measures for a device like a that. It should also be plugged into a proper GFCI outlet as laid out in E-11 and have proper OCPD protection.
The solar panel should also be installed with proper OCPD (over current protection devices) with the proper rating, and AIC rating, if connected directly to a bank of batteries. It should also include proper wire chafe protection, strain relief, wire support, correct wire termination and gauge etc. etc. and E-11 covers all this.
None of this changes the fact that the Excel does not meet the minimum safety standards under A-26, which you seem upset over.
As for the OP's question:
*Solar panels don't like any shading. Even a little can cut output dramatically. The shadow from my radar pole can cut my panels output by up to 50% even though it takes up less than 5% of the panel!!!
*If using a very small panel with no charge controller, blocking diodes should be used if the panel does not come with them.
*Proper fusing/OCPD should be used at the battery to protect the wire and if connected directly to a bank should meet the minimum AIC (Amperage Interrupt Current) of the banks capacity. If your bank can do 2000 MCA then the AIC rating of the fuse should be 2000 AIC at a minimum.
*There should be a fuse to protect the charge controller and it never hurts to install one at the panel junction box provided it can be kept dry..
*The Flex Charge PV-7 is one of the better "shunting" controllers but shunting controllers as a whole are not the best fit on a sailboat. The money would be better spent on a quality PWM controller like those from Morningstar.
Sorry for the thread drift...
