TWL: Another Heart Inverter Secret...
As you all know, all electronics operate internally on smoke. Once the
smoke gets out, they fail to operate. My last inverter missive talked
about the importance of clean connections, well bolted down to eliminate
vibration.
There's one other measure you can take when faced with desperation short
of float testing the entire unit. If the inverter/charger is acting
strange but doesn't have a foul smell or the look of the proverbial
"smoking gun", the problem may be the microprocessor equivalent of
Alzheimer's.
One example is when the control panel indicates the charger can't make
up it mind what phase it is in. You might be sure you should be in the
bulk phase, but the charger drives up to 125 amps, then down to zero as
if it had finished the float phase. Doing this repeatedly at 3-4 minute
intervals is a sure sign of corrupt memory in the unit's "confuser".
Technical bulletin issue #19 says these "brain-farts" can be caused by
nearby lightning strikes, voltage surges from shore power or generators,
engine starter motor related spikes and dips, or high voltage propane
igniters.
The recommended "re-boot" procedure is to remove all A/C power (un-plug
and/or turn off the genset), disconnect the phone jack powering your
control panel from the unit, turn off the inverter power switch if you
have one, and then disconnect the negative battery terminal for a full 5
minutes. This will allow the micro-confuser to be "refreshed" at the
next power-up.
Reconnect the negative cable and expect a pretty good spark as the
filter capacitor charges up inside the unit, then plug in your control
panel, apply power to check the charger, and then remove it to check the
inverter function. If this works, pour yourself a "Dark & Stormy" and
declare success.
I've experienced years of agony with my Freedom 10 and Freedom 25
learning these lessons. When you are a full time solo cruiser, your
quality of life depends on dependable electricity in both flavors. The
Xantrex web site www.xantrex.com is an order of magnitude better than
the old Heart Interface site in terms of usable information, but you
still have to question the sanity of any management team that would lose
Arild.
Regards.....
Phil Rosch
Old Harbor Consulting
M/V "Curmudgeon" Marine Trader 44 TC
Currently Moored in Block Island, RI
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you
didn't
do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away
from
the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover." - Mark Twain
Phil wrote:
One example is when the control panel indicates the charger can't make
up it mind what phase it is in. You might be sure you should be in the
bulk phase, but the charger drives up to 125 amps, then down to zero as
if it had finished the float phase. Doing this repeatedly at 3-4 minute
intervals is a sure sign of corrupt memory in the unit's "confuser".
Technical bulletin issue #19 says these "brain-farts" can be caused by
nearby lightning strikes, voltage surges from shore power or generators,
engine starter motor related spikes and dips, or high voltage propane
igniters.
REPLY
I would like to add another bit of information to what Phil has just
mentioned.
By now I have come across enough example to see a pattern forming.
Many Asian built boats have the neutral white wire connected to multiple branch
circuits.
I have found this out the hard way. By ringing out the individual circuits at
the main panel I discovered there are more black wires leaving that there are
white wires returning. The reason being that the electricians tied two or more
outlets together on a single common white wire.
This practice can produce more electrical noise and allow any spikes to cross
into multiple circuits.
While the old Heart models didn't seem to mind this too much, the new Prosine
shuts down every time.
The fault detection circuitry is too sophisticated and rejects the odd wiring
configuration as a fault.
Another practice which can contribute to electrical noise that causes
inverter memory problems, not to mention actual metering problems, has to do
with separating the neutrals for the input and output circuits.
When the whole boat is wired through the inverter there is no problem. The shore
power input line connects directly to the AC IN terminals. All the boats
electrical panel connects to the AC OUT terminal. However, it is not a good
idea to run high loads like water heaters, baseboard heaters and air
conditioning through the inverter since these drastically reduce battery run
time.
For such installations you should run what is called a split bus. The high
draw equipment is wired to the main panel along with the inverter. The
remaining loads are fed from a separate bus that is connected only to the AC
OUT of the inverter. Many installers fail to separate the white neutrals as
well. They leave all the neutral wires connected on the same bus bar. This
forms a feedback loop where noise and voltage spikes can loop back to the input
where the inverter's sensing circuits can get confused.
If the boat has been wired with multiple circuits to a single white common
wire, the problems multiply.
Last week I came across a boat that had been upgraded from an old Heart
inverter to a new Prosine. All of the above conditions existed and naturally
the inverter kept shutting down ands refusing to work. While the inverter
would usually work on shore power it flatly refused to work with the genset.
Careful investigation revealed that the genset had never been properly wired so
the white wire was bonded to the green wire.
The manufacturers do not necessarily tie the green and white wire together
since many applications in metal hulls require them to be kept separate.
Evidently the original installers failed to do this necessary step. The old
Heart model inverter was not sophisticated enough to detect the problem.
The new Prosine did and shut down. It was only a matter of luck that no one
ever received a shock from this poor wiring setup.
Regards
Arild
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/2002
Mil spec...particularly the fancier grades like flight rated...were two
things...reliable and obsolete. So you could build an assemble with heavy
military componentry and count on the fact that it would be 10 times as big,
20 times as expensive and less reliable than its commercial component. The
one good news was that you had good documentation and understanding of what
the reliability was.
The government is no better at reliability that it is at other things. It
claims to provide certainty but could do so only in a brute force way.
Truly reliable state of the art systems require finesse...a quality
difficult if not imposssible to find in the military reliability world.
I spent the better part of 25 years working on this particular problem. My
employer was Xerox. Xerox for many years owned most or at least lots of its
equipment and paid its own maintenance costs. Even when it did not own the
equipment it sold it with long term maintenance contracts. So we had a very
strong interest in the service costs of our equipment. Now we weren't
flying the stuff so we were not afraid of killing people so had no need to
drive reliability to man rated levels. On the other side of the coin
though we paid the life cost of the product...not just its manufacturing
cost.
We learned a couple of things that are of interest but may leave everybody
annoyed. It is, for instance, clear that good test, burnin of the
assemblies and reasonable usage simulation testing lead to minimum life
cycle cost. Burnin by the way is capital intensive but operationally cheap.
Once you buy the ovens you can use them for months and continue to make
incremental profit. The problem is that all of the cost is in the fixturing
and set up of the test...the actual running cost is very small. It turned
out that burnins exceeding 500 hours were often cost effective.
For the conventional manufacturer this is not all a good thing. While he
would like to minimize infant mortality that would impact warranty costs he
is not interesting in reducing failures after the warranty period. So
unless he can get a warranty payback he is not interested. Given limited
production runs he may even decide to take the warranty hits as cheaper than
the cost of functional test...any he may be correct in the straight
economics.
Simulated usage testing is extremely valuable and practically never done.
It is capital intensive and engineering intensive. Done correctly you apply
it only to suspect goods...repaired manufacturing fallout and repaired field
returns being the primary items. I used to insist that it be applied to
initial production until the going in and coming out numbers indicated the
process was good enough it was no longer needed. On some products this
start up test continued forever. Note that this is a really interesting
kind of test. If your manufacturing and engineering guys can improve their
processes enough the test can be stopped saving a lot of effort and money.
Often it could not be done. On occassion the books were cooked to make it
go away.
If you have a proper simulator (use real equipment in a pinch) there is very
little probablility that one will ever ship a miswired connector. Note that
manufacturing systems often use connections other than the connector for
final test...its quicker and cheaper.
We took one group of 100 field returned boards from a copier where no fault
was found in the standard manufacturing test. We ran them through real
machine testing or simulated machine testing. We eventually failed all 100.
We fixed all 100 and shipped to the field where we replaced known good
boards with them. We then tracked them for 2 years. They proved to be a
couple of orders of magnitude more reliable than new production.
Note however that, unless you are in the Xerox situation, you don't really
want to minimize life cycle cost. What you want to do is minimize the
manufacturing costs and the warranty costs. It is very likely that failures
after the warranty period are a large profit center. When is the last time
you heard of someone minimizing a large profit center?
Arilds comments on components are only partially true. While mil-spec
components may well have parameters ranges that are wider than the
commercial equivalent this does not neccessarily impact their reliability in
the commercial zone. For instance military parts rated to 200C may well not
be any more reliable than commercial parts rated at 100C if used in a 55C
ambient.
Further semi manufacturers have always sorted mostly the same run into lots
of part numbers and categories. Basically they make a part and then sort it
into many bins depending on its parameters. It may well be that some of
these are mil spec and some are not. It is however not neccessarily true
that the "better" parts are military. The better parts get a different
part number and are sold as premium commercial. The parts closest to the
center of the spec. are sold to the military spec. community.
Many of the military specs deal with enviormental variables. The military
really wants their stuff to continue working while the tank is on fire. The
boating world is probably somewhat less interested.
In Summary - Really reliable assemblies are done by design and careful
test - componentry is a small and not very important part. Commercially
successful designs minimize both design and test. You get what you pay for.
The copiers that shipped on nuclear submarines were, by the way, the same
ones that went into your office. They were however sliced in clever ways to
fit through the required hatches.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: trawler-world-list-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawler-world-list-bounces@lists.samurai.com]On Behalf Of Arild
Jensen
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 1:43 PM
To: Ron Rogers; Bob Rapasky
Cc: trawler-world-list@samurai.com
Subject: TWL: RE: Re: Equipment reliability - Mil Spec
REPLY
That depends.
When you test production runs there will be a certain quantity
that fully meet
all spec.
Ron has just illustrated that the tactic works.
Buying the same model from e-bay or Defender or no-name mail order is no
guarantee the equipment will perform exactly as what the Coast
Guard or military
experiences.
cheers
Arild
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/2002
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawler-world-list
To Unsubscribe send email to trawler-world-list-request@lists.samurai.com
Include the word "Unsubscribe" (and nothing else) in the subject
or body of the message.
Some time ago there was a thread concerning reliability of Raytheon radars.
Someone gave me an old radar ( circa 1971) they had removed from the boat in
preparation for installing a new unit.
I decided to dismantle the unit in order to learn something about its inner
workings.
One of the first things to catch my attention was the fact the interior was
clean and free of corrosion.
At some time in the past the outer casing had been given a fresh coat of paint.
( once in 30 years)
While there was some evidence of corrosion around bolts that had scraped the
paint off, this was relatively minor.
The worst instance of corrosion was the large diameter shaft seal that kept
water out of the waveguide head.
The head rotates while the body stays fixed. A shaft seal is used to keep the
moisture out.
The rubber seal itself was fine but the steel housing was badly corroded.
In the process of cleanign up the dirt etc. I noted that a grey dielectric
compound had been used to isolate the steel from the aluminum housing.
Gradually I began examining every detail of how this whole piece of gear had
been designed and assembled.
I compared this to the much newer models which I have also installed.
I should note that I began installing radards back in 1973 - the Decca 050
model. That product somehow faded from the scene, to be replaced by Furuno and
Raytheon.
My conclusion is that the older equipment was often times much better designed
and built.
Despite advances such as raster displays, color, variable range and heading
markers, the products have also been cheapened by cost reducing out a lot of
mechanical details intended to ensure the product kept working in all weathers
and conditions.
Sadly, we no longer have the domestic manufacturing facilities that are
capable of producing such equipment.
By now there is a whole new genration of not two generations of so called
designers who are entrusted with the task of making new consumer equipment.
I bet tnone of them have ever bothered to dismantle some of the old stuff and
examined what did work and what did not.
They are paper experts capable of manipulating their AutoCad screens and
drawing pretty pictures.
I'm not as convincd they are equally capable of producing the same high quality
of equipment reliability that was produced 30 years ago.
I speak now of such things as rigidity of the whole assembly, the water tight
seals, and he ruggedness of the whole system of gears, bearings and morot
drives.
The motor in that old unit is real heavy duty. The new models have flimsy
motors by comparison.
Machined parts hav ebeen replaced with die cast or injection molded parts.
Screw and washer assemblies noe consist of plastic snap in posts.
When something breaks nowadays, you re-place the whole block not just the broken
part.
It occurredd to me to wonder if new circuit boards could not be installed into
these old cases. I also wonder how much more reliable they are compared to he
stuf they sell today. I have installed both so can make a fair comparison.
Cheers
Arild.
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/2002
The same exact comments could be applied to many things, including many
new boats, especially production boats.
I understand why it is necessary, in some cases simply to stay in
business. IMO it is mainly brought about by unnecessary government
regulations and a public attitude that is "programmed" by the media and
society to be short term oriented. Competition drives technical
improvements, and that is good, but it is too bad that it comes too
often by trading off durability and reliability.
Maurice Marwood
aepmem@bahamas.net.bs
Nassau, Bahamas
-----Original Message-----
From: trawler-world-list-bounces@lists.samurai.com
[mailto:trawler-world-list-bounces@lists.samurai.com] On Behalf Of Arild
Jensen
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 10:56 PM
To: trawler-world-list@samurai.com
Subject: TWL: Equipment reliability - then and now.
<snip>My conclusion is that the older equipment was often times much
better designed and built. Despite advances such as raster displays,
color, variable range and heading markers, the products have also been
cheapened by cost reducing out a lot of mechanical details intended to
ensure the product kept working in all weathers and conditions.
Sadly, we no longer have the domestic manufacturing facilities that
are capable of producing such equipment. By now there is a whole new
genration of not two generations of so called designers who are
entrusted with the task of making new consumer equipment. I bet tnone
of them have ever bothered to dismantle some of the old stuff and
examined what did work and what did not. They are paper experts capable
of manipulating their AutoCad screens and drawing pretty pictures. I'm
not as convincd they are equally capable of producing the same high
quality of equipment reliability that was produced 30 years ago. I speak
now of such things as rigidity of the whole assembly, the water tight
seals, and he ruggedness of the whole system of gears, bearings and
morot drives. The motor in that old unit is real heavy duty. The new
models have flimsy motors by comparison. Machined parts hav ebeen
replaced with die cast or injection molded parts. Screw and washer
assemblies noe consist of plastic snap in posts. When something breaks
nowadays, you re-place the whole block not just the broken part. It
occurredd to me to wonder if new circuit boards could not be installed
into these old cases. I also wonder how much more reliable they are
compared to he stuf they sell today. I have installed both so can
make a fair comparison.
Cheers
Arild.
You are making a good point, but in all fairness, you should also compare
the cost at present value of one of these radars from 30 years ago....
Patrick Mouette 55' Defender
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arild Jensen" elnav@uniserve.com
To: trawler-world-list@samurai.com
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 10:55 PM
Subject: TWL: Equipment reliability - then and now.
Some time ago there was a thread concerning reliability of Raytheon
radars.
Someone gave me an old radar ( circa 1971) they had removed from the boat
in
preparation for installing a new unit.
I decided to dismantle the unit in order to learn something about its
inner
workings.
One of the first things to catch my attention was the fact the interior
was
clean and free of corrosion.
At some time in the past the outer casing had been given a fresh coat of
paint.
( once in 30 years)
While there was some evidence of corrosion around bolts that had scraped
the
paint off, this was relatively minor.
The worst instance of corrosion was the large diameter shaft seal that
kept
water out of the waveguide head.
The head rotates while the body stays fixed. A shaft seal is used to keep
the
moisture out.
The rubber seal itself was fine but the steel housing was badly corroded.
In the process of cleanign up the dirt etc. I noted that a grey dielectric
compound had been used to isolate the steel from the aluminum housing.
Gradually I began examining every detail of how this whole piece of gear
had
been designed and assembled.
I compared this to the much newer models which I have also installed.
I should note that I began installing radards back in 1973 - the Decca 050
model. That product somehow faded from the scene, to be replaced by
Furuno and
Raytheon.
My conclusion is that the older equipment was often times much better
designed
and built.
Despite advances such as raster displays, color, variable range and
heading
markers, the products have also been cheapened by cost reducing out a lot
of
mechanical details intended to ensure the product kept working in all
weathers
and conditions.
Sadly, we no longer have the domestic manufacturing facilities that are
capable of producing such equipment.
By now there is a whole new genration of not two generations of so called
designers who are entrusted with the task of making new consumer
equipment.
I bet tnone of them have ever bothered to dismantle some of the old stuff
and
examined what did work and what did not.
They are paper experts capable of manipulating their AutoCad screens and
drawing pretty pictures.
I'm not as convincd they are equally capable of producing the same high
quality
of equipment reliability that was produced 30 years ago.
I speak now of such things as rigidity of the whole assembly, the water
tight
seals, and he ruggedness of the whole system of gears, bearings and
morot
drives.
The motor in that old unit is real heavy duty. The new models have flimsy
motors by comparison.
Machined parts hav ebeen replaced with die cast or injection molded
parts.
Screw and washer assemblies noe consist of plastic snap in posts.
When something breaks nowadays, you re-place the whole block not just the
broken
part.
It occurredd to me to wonder if new circuit boards could not be installed
into
these old cases. I also wonder how much more reliable they are compared
to he
stuf they sell today. I have installed both so can make a fair
comparison.
Cheers
Arild.
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/2002
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawler-world-list
To Unsubscribe send email to trawler-world-list-request@lists.samurai.com
Include the word "Unsubscribe" (and nothing else) in the subject or body
of the message.
Arild Jensen wrote an interesting Email on "Equipment Reliability - Then
and Now":. I assume we are discussing only consumer type products. My
question: Are there Military Specifications for this type of equipment,
and, if so, could the military specs be used to create a better radar?
What would the additional cost and weight be of such radar?
Bob Rapasky
Venture, 31' Seahorse Trawler
Often the item of equipment with a few exceptions is the same, BUT the
Mil-Spec paper documentation and testing requirements drive the cost up.
Perhaps it is this testing that improves reliability? The electronics suite
for the retrofit of older USCG 40 boats consists of conventional Furuno gear
which I happen to have bought for my boat. I assume that an 1831
radar/chartplotter is an 1831 radar/chartplotter!?
Ron Rogers
Annapolis, MD
_/)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Rapasky" rrapasky@astound.net
| Arild Jensen wrote an interesting Email on "Equipment Reliability - Then
| and Now":. I assume we are discussing only consumer type products. My
| question: Are there Military Specifications for this type of equipment,
| and, if so, could the military specs be used to create a better radar?
| What would the additional cost and weight be of such radar?
-----Original Message-----
Subject: TWL: Re: Equipment reliability - Mil Spec
Often the item of equipment with a few exceptions is the same, BUT the
Mil-Spec paper documentation and testing requirements drive the cost up.
Perhaps it is this testing that improves reliability?
I assume that an 1831radar/chartplotter is an 1831 radar/chartplotter!?
Ron Rogers
REPLY
That depends.
When you test production runs there will be a certain quantity that fully meet
all spec.
There will even be some that exceeds the nominal spec and give superior
performance.
These are the ones that get selected for mil-spec sales.
If you look at component listings there are typically three groupings of the
same device but defined by a suffix.
Mil spec equipment is always built with the superior grade components.
Industrial grade was built with the mid range components and the consumer
products were built with the other stuff.
When I was involved with electronic production we would often get government
orders that stipulated mil spec compliance.
We always made sure we stipulated NO SUBSTITUTIONS! and for mil-spec jobs we
also requested the necessary documentation.
This often doubled the cost but we accounted for this in our bid as did all
other contractors.
The surplus stores often bought up culls from a manufacturer. These are
components that fell outside the curve for acceptable parts.
When the government buys something "off the shelf" you can bet it is supplied
direct from the manufacturer and that the batch is double checked.
The extra effort is justified because the manufacturer counts on the advertising
value of being able to claim that so and such a government agency is using this
particular brand/model.
Ron has just illustrated that the tactic works.
Buying the same model from e-bay or Defender or no-name mail order is no
guarantee the equipment will perform exactly as what the Coast Guard or military
experiences.
cheers
Arild
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 11/25/2002
Actually, this has worked in reverse! The USCG saw me specify the Furuno
suite in December to my local commercial vendor and then they announced
their identical selection in April. So, in fact, the USCG was buying
Ron-Spec.
Self assuredly yours,
Ron Rogers
Annapolis, MD
_/)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arild Jensen" elnav@uniserve.com
|
| Ron has just illustrated that the tactic works.
| Buying the same model from e-bay or Defender or no-name mail order is no
| guarantee the equipment will perform exactly as what the Coast Guard or
military
| experiences.