Island Time
-
Content Count
8,617 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
270
Content Type
Profiles
Media Demo
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by Island Time
-
-
1 minute ago, CarpeDiem said:
Good point IT, I do not. And even if I did know the spec I couldn't assume it from the spec...
I am basing my assumption on the several reports I have read that when the start line functionality with polar is enabled, the wind calc triangle output drops and this is visible on an n2k bus trace. Hence the unit appears to become overloaded.
It will definitely be great to know if the 3dms can be utilized in the wind triangle calcs by the Edge. Thank you very much for following this up with B&G - I messaged them a fortnight ago and have heard nothing
Yep, fair enough, but I'd say that even once a second is plenty for start line maneuvers - there is a LOT of calcs goin on for that, all at sub second intervals, and how many course changes can you do in a sec anyway
.
Navico support has become less efficient since the Brunswick takeover...
-
Pretty much if the accuracy of your existing systems (when working!) was fine for you, then you don't need a processor system. If though, you want to know the exact wind angle on the next leg, you want or have polars, and you have sail crossover points to within a couple of degrees and knots, then more accurate info will make you sail faster....
-
2
-
-
Anyone want a good 1050? A mate is selling his https://spboatsales.co.nz/1994 Elliott 1050/
-
3 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:
I can't see that the processor in the Edge is fast enough to be able to use the 3d motion sensor output which is about 50Hz
Just a side note - how do you know what the triton edge processor actually is? I don't and its not in the published data that I can see?
Also, the current model 3d Motion sensor is N2K certified, has a standard micro C connection, and the B&G system builder lets it connect with the Triton Edge, so I suspect the answer will be it works fine.
For most people no processor is required. For serious club racers The Triton edge is easier to configure and less complex than the Hercules, which is really designed for pro navigators in race teams. The WTP3 processor is for linux geeks...
-
55 minutes ago, waikiore said:
Hang on now, I have just recalled through the mists of time winning a B&G international sales award back in the Whitbread days with Hercules gear, think I prefer a basic Windex now.
Hercules have been around for 3 generations now. Just to confuse the issue, the H5000 had a model called Hercules (and 2 others), and now the replacement for the H5000 is called Hercules. Don't ask me why, it's confusing!!
Sorry I cannot currently answer the question about 3D sensor on a Triton Edge - I've only ever done them with the H5000's. I have asked B&G/Navico for an official answer, and will post here when I receive it.
3 hours ago, Guest said:o you reckon NAC2 could cure S wobbles DW with crossed up following sea Matt? Or Mute them a bit.
If you are using a AC12 or 42, the main issue in steering downhill is a fluxgate or (slightly better) a RC300 - which is a rate compass, but still a fluxgate. The single biggest improvement you can make is a new compass - like the precision 9 - it's solid state, and gives MUCH more accurate and stable heading output to the AP computer, and therefore results in a much better course. I noticed that most in a quartering sea. If you want that AND better wind steering, then change the ACXX to a NACX (The X's are just the model to suit your boat)
I'll post the 3D sensor/Triton Edge stuff when I get it...
-
1
-
-
AC12 is old tech. The wind algorithm in the newer NAC series is heaps better.
The B&G systems only do basic wind calcs if you don't have a CPU (Triton Edge or H5000 - Now Hercules).
The Triton edge and H5000/Hercules would expect to have a Precision 9 (Roll, pitch, yaw, heave, heading, rate of turn etc) AND a 3D motion sensor (to get rate/speed of roll and pitch) OR a 3d motion sensor and a gyro, so as the CPU can remove the masthead motion in wind calcs. The wind calcs are much more sophisticated and configurable in these than the basic units.
Think about this - as the main is powered up, it actually twists the mast - so that the masthead gear no longer points forwards - and therefore the data is wrong. So, on the serious race boats, mast twist sensors are included - TP52's for example, often have three (different levels of the rig) and multiple wind sensors - you will at least seen the long J shaped ones on the Americas cup boats - this is to get away from upwash etc. If you are not going to go to mast twist, 3 D motion sensing etc, then the Triton CPU is fine - unless you have a rotating mast - then the H5000/Hercules is required.
-
Agree but surely an appliance that is not leaking, and functioning as designed, and has been running for years cannot be deemed "unsafe", I get the opinion issue...
-
1
-
-
So wind speed depends on angle. 12 knots (true) at 60 deg apparent is fully powered up. Down deep, say 150 app, can hold it to about 18-20 - but don't round up!! Cant remember the cloth weight - ask Booboo - he made it! In about 18 knots true, and 150 app angle, boat speed is about 10 knots, so radical wind speed over deck if you loose it and round up!
-
1
-
-
So, perhaps a joint effort in construction of a response?
This section gives an answer in my view;
"Certifying Gasfitter to require the installation to :-
- Be Gas Tight
- Compliant with the codes at the time of installation.
- Any unsafe gas installation or appliance be isolated, and the consumer notified.
Should any work be carried out to the gas system as the result of either an inspection or testing of the installation, then the installation of the
boat or vessel and parts of the system do need to comply.
For example, a gasfitter has tested an installation and found a small leak on a gas hose connected to the rear of the hob, and discovers a
cracked or perished hose, then he is obliged to replace that section of gas hose and any other hose as its age has shown deterioration over that period of time."
SO - the whole system does NOT need to comply - only any work done, and that the existing system is safe. As I thought all along.
Anyone want to rough out a response?
-
Well, here is the response;
Good afternoon Matt,
Thank you for contacting the Board regarding LPG installations on Boats.
If a gasfitter is required to issue a Gas Safety Certificate for any existing installation, this usually starts with a visual inspection of the installation followed by a gas pressure test.
You are correct in stating that the standard includes the statement that compliance with AS/NZS5601.2:2013 it does not apply retrospectively, it does not take the responsibility of the
Certifying Gasfitter to require the installation to :-
- Be Gas Tight
- Compliant with the codes at the time of installation.
- Any unsafe gas installation or appliance be isolated, and the consumer notified.
Should any work be carried out to the gas system as the result of either an inspection or testing of the installation, then the installation of the
boat or vessel and parts of the system do need to comply.
For example, a gasfitter has tested an installation and found a small leak on a gas hose connected to the rear of the hob, and discovers a
cracked or perished hose, then he is obliged to replace that section of gas hose and any other hose as its age has shown deterioration over that period of time.
Unfortunately, vessel owners are reluctant to have any form of gas safety inspection carried out on a regular basis, and when finally, they do, a lot more work than is anticipated is required to bring the installation to an acceptable standard.
Any Gasfitting work on a vessel is deemed as high-risk as defined by the Gas (Safety and Measurement) Regulations 2010 and must be entered on the WorkSafe – Energy Safety database, identifying the vessel by name or registration number.
To do this a Gas Certificate of Compliance and Gas Safety Certificate must be issued and state that the installation complies with AS/NZS 5601.2 sections 3 to 9. This includes the gas soundness testing of an installation.
I look forward to the time where all vessels will require a Gas WOF as is required for the electrical installations on vessels connected to shore power.
Ngā mihi | Kind regards
Pete Worsnop
Technical Advisor
Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board
Ph 0800 743 262 | DDI 04 495 2617 | peter@pgdb.co.nz | www.pgdb.co.nz-
1
-
hands down a Norths A2. Replaced an MPS. Use it all the time, 150deg up to about 60 apparent. Way more fwd power and less heeling than the old mps, and easy to handle solo - its in an ATN sock, but probably go for a top down furler now...
Videos from this weekend...
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, K4309 said:
That is great IT, I hope it effects positive change.
Well, if nothing, next is to pass it on to an MP - isnt this Govt supposed to be removing red tape
-
3
-
1
-
-
Ok, further to that.
Today I have made a complaint to the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board as follows.
"I would like to complain about the current situation regarding LPG on Boats.
To get a gas cert for the vessel is currently impossible without a complete reinstall.
The issue is that despite current standard, page iii "This Standard includes a statement that its requirements do not apply retrospectively" the gas fitters are insisting on compliance with the CURRENT standards, even for an EXISTING installation. This is in direct contradiction to the current standard, page iii as quoted above.
From the standard, this clause means that if the system complied at the time of install, and is in good order, it still complies.
Currently I cannot find an installer who understands this. I work in the marine industry, and know of multiple vessels removing gas altogether due to this issue, and others being forced to spend 1000's sometimes 10's of thousands to comply as per a new installation, when their existing ones were safe and compliant at the time of install.
Please can I have a response stating that these existing installs do comply (if in good order), and therefore are acceptable for a gas certificate, or where in the standards or laws this interpretation is in error. This response can then be provided to a licensed gas fitter on inspection, to ensure that money is not wasted on an already compliant system."Be interesting to see if there is any response!
-
10
-
-
I totally understand your position. It's a shambles and I don't believe was the intention of the standard.
The issue is that the gas installers wont take the "risk" of signing off the install, even though it IS compliant with current standards (Through the retrospective clause). They feel they are at risk, and are not prepared to accept that "risk". IMO this is a failure of the gas registration and education system.
My boat is in the same situation as yours - built in 1988. My insurance condition report stated "gas compliant at time of install" and that was accepted.
There are very few NZ laws that are retrospective. For example, the electrical regs are updated say every 5 -10 years. If you had to be compliant with the new ones, then every building in the country would have to be rewired each time. That is patently ridiculous. The ONLY time a reg IS retrospective, is when a safety issue is identified, and then it states it IS RETROSPECTIVE.
-
3 hours ago, K4309 said:
That is quiet irrelevant, especially for insurance purposes.
Two reasons:
The insurance co's via the condition assessment reports want to know if the boat complies with the current NZ standards, not the standards from 1975, and
If a gas fitter touches anything on the system, then the whole system needs to be upgraded. Noting that you aren't allowed to touch anything yourself and have to get a gas fitter even to crimp a hose clip.
There are several reasons a gas fitter may need to touch the system, one being the standard flexible hose (1869 class C) that costs $12/m from Burnsco is supposed to be replaced every 7 years, and you can't replace it yourself. People may want their old system pressure tested as a basic and prudent check. Installing a pressure test point at the regulator would also require the whole system to be inspected / upgraded.
Of course any replacements would also trigger the upgrade, say a regulator, new stove etc.
Sorry but that is not correct.
If a boat complied with the regs when it was built it still complies, unless in poor or unsafe condition. That is what "Retrospective" means.
I agree that if anything is changed, that needs to comply with the regs at the time it was changed. You do NOT need to redo the whole system just to replace a gas line (for example).
The issue is finding someone who actually understands the regs.
The insurance co "condition reports" I've seen just say does the gas install comply with NZ standards, not "Current standards" the "current standard" says clearly it is not retrospective, and therefore a system that complied at time of build and is still in good order does "comply with current standards".
Show me where in the standards this is not so.
-
The main thing to note is, from page iii
"This Standard includes a statement that its requirements do not apply retrospectively"
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, K4309 said:
All the above is why I went for lead-carbon over lithium. Much the same reason as why Aardvark when for a kerosene stove over LPG. It avoids a whole lot of compliance issues. Standard charging profile and voltage profile, no need for a BMS and no risk of blowing the alternator in an uncontrolled load dump.
I have taken multiple sets (3) of lead carbon batts out of customers boats this year - premature failures, all approx 2 years old.. All have gone Lifepo4
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, ballystick said:
Why is it so critical to have an audible alarm for low voltage? This seems to be a regulation for commercial operations or similar.
Because the battery will turn off, possibly at a critical moment - no lights, no nav gear etc. Known as "dark ship". That's what the regs are trying to avoid.
-
2
-
-
On 16/04/2024 at 5:13 PM, harrytom said:
makes interesting
Great info!
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:
As the standard is not legislated in leisure craft it would only cause an issue with your insurance if and only if your insurance company required compliance with the specific (or latest) standard. My insurance policy has no such wording.
As the banks are in parallel then if the voltage goes high, eg, 14.7v all 4 BMS's will shutdown within seconds of each other.
Likewise a continuous current draw of merely a few amps that brings a single cell to the low voltage disconnect level will have a cascading effect across all 4 BMS's and they will all shut down within minutes of each other.
Having multiple batteries in parallel does not reduce the likelihood of a BMS shutdown across all the batteries due to high or low cell voltage.
The standards makes no allowance for "leisure craft". ABYC E13 OR AUS/NZS 3004. Just because a craft is not inspected doesn't exempt it . Yes I realize a standard itself is not law.
Yes, there are situations that could take out all the BMS units together. High (or low voltage) is an example. Much more likely is a single cell tripping one BMS - high or low temp, high or low voltage due to balance or other issues.
IMO.
-
Just a note here. That install does not meet ABYC or AS/NZS standards for a Lithium install. That COULD cause an insurance problem. Most of the issue it it has no external comms to "provide visual and audible" warning of an impending shutdown - but it's unlikely to ever shut down as there are, in effect, 4 BMS's making 4 banks...
-
Bow batteries are cranking batts, (or should be!) So voltage is what matters.
Ideally the balmar should be controlled by the battery BMS, so it does have current measurement etc. If it's not, it should be. The bms can switch the balmar ignition wire safely.
So, when the house is a bit down, turn off the start and thruster batts, and make sure the alt is putting out full output. If not, adjust the balmar till it is.
Combiners for charge are not great - the banks being charged are different types and chemistry, and have different charge profiles. Ideally alt to house only, and DC-DC for the other two.
There is no need for huge dc-dc, as neither the start nor the thruster batts should run for long periods. I often use around 20a for this.
Move the winch to the house bank.
-
On 12/04/2024 at 6:47 PM, Jon said:
Just register offshore and away you go
My point was that the rudder shaft appears undersized, and that the NZ regs re rudder shafts are what one of our leading designers suggests are "minimums".
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, B00B00 said:
Could work for me. I currently have a 100A balmar alternator and MC614 Smart regulator charging 400AH lifepo4 but the whole setup is under performing. The charge is split 3 ways to the bow battery bank, house and start. I was considering changing to a DC-DC charger setup.
Why is it under performing? Should be a pretty good setup. What continuous amps does the alt output, and at what alt temp?
If it's not over 90 amps, then it's not set up right.
.
Orca Core 2
in TechTalk
Posted
This is from B&G. So if you want motion correction, has to be a Hercules or H5000...