Logo

Grounded to the engine block

""quote: "it suggests

""quote: "it suggests connecting all the negative cables from the batteries to a common ground"
Just my two cents here:
One reason that I can think of for this not being advisable would be redundancy!
There is no redundancy if all Battery Bank Neg cables attach to a common "remote" or "OFF engine" location/termination point (if I understood you correctly).
With each battery bank having their own engine termination point, you now have redundancy, should one fail.

A Negative Buss is great for subsequent D/C circuits."

I don't think breaking or loosing the 600AMP rated ground hub is a risk. If you use the Blue Seas item, it uses 3/8" hardware into a very substantial tinned copper one piece slab. The much more significant risk is a loose ground cable to an engine or battery. The single point ground method will reduce the potential of very high currents flowing thru small wiring, if/when the large conductor is compromised. Neither wiring method (direct to engine vs single point) will expand a port engine wiring failure to the stb side as well. But, I'm at least partially convinced the single point method may prevent burn-up of small wiring during a starting attempt with a bad ground on one engine.

I'll definately NOT recommend a single ground stud to mount both port and stb side heavy cables. THat's a very bad idea. The bolts need to be independant to offer the redundancy RM suggests. "
 
"Dave, maybe my point has been

"Dave, maybe my point has been missed.
It may NOT be the "ground hub" (as you call it) that fails. It may be a Negative cable terminal that fails....... In which case, you may not be able to rely on an alternate battery bank in an emergency scenario.
Hence the need for "redundancy", IMOO here!


Personally and professionally, I would never install two battery bank "Negative cables" leading to a "Negative Buss", and from there a single negative cable leading to an engine block!
That was my only point!

Carry on!
happy.gif


."
 
Back
Top