Ford Transit conversion to camper MKII

Buford T Justice

Picked up this stuff the other day. To be perfectly honest I got pissed off with the condensation on the inside of the van, and though it's not as bad with the weather currently decided to do something about it.

This stuff has a vapour barrier built in, but I rekon I might have to still use a polythene sheet. I have to get some aluminium tape to cover the gaps.

Also, I was trying to figure out what to do as regards batons for the roof / mounting the roof. I didn't want to use the 2x1 on it's end as it would end up losing another inch of the height of the roof. Putting the batons on their side and fixing directly to the roof supports would end up losing the same amount of height, so in the end I used 70mm screws and fixed them to the side of the roof supports at the same height as the bottom of the support = no height loss. Profit!

Buford T Justice

Buford T Justice wrote: »

This guy takes perfection to a whole new level. He clearly has an abundance of time and money with the way he's building that yoke.

I would say it's heavily biased on time and not his first rodeo. Seems like a genuinely good skin (there's hardly any youtoob channels I can watch on the matter that don't have me facepalming inside the first 5mins)

Beta-nerd...I still outrank him...:p

Buford T Justice

I agree, seems like a nice guy and he's building the van the way he wants, but doesn't seem to have any issues with money building it.

In other news, I'm in the market for a new inverter. I've been trying some swanky 240v install where the default 240 supply in the van, and once it senses the shore connection it switches over to that for the supply for the van. I didn't do it right and am now learning an expensive lesson.

I didn't use a double pole isolators for the coil isolator, or for the feed mcb to the sockets. It was working until I was switching between the two. I think there was a loop via the neutral with caused it. Tripped MCB's Blew the inverter fuse and tripped the mcb in the shed providing the shore power.

I only tried the inverter again this evening and realised it.

Needless to say I fucked it up good and proper, and my inverter has paid the price for it. Thankfully the ProNautic is fine, since it's fed directly from the shore power and not part of this concoction.


This is what I was trying to achieve.



Feel like a prize prick now

Buford T Justice

Got my hands on some foil tape today - should've got some sooner. Finished out the lining of the van. I like how I finished around the sliding door, with the curve on the timber.

I've applied the 2mm self adhesive neoprene before the lining carpet to give that a thermal break and then the lining carpet. My idea this time is that I'll line the panels when I'm finished the install since there'll be cupboards and all sorts going in. No sense in lining them if they won't be seen really.
In this way I can line the panels on their own and tuck the edges up and under, and the edges around the door seals etc are already done. Tidy

Since I've lined the roof with that stuff I mentioned earlier I have noticed two things:

• Firstly, as this stuff obviously wasn't intended for this sort of stuff the gold lining that is stuck to the roof isn't bonded as well to the actual foam and it's come away in a couple of spots. I've glued it back up and we'll wait and see. It's not a big deal unless huge swathes of it start to fall down. Man will I be pissed if I have to do this again. In hindsight, I should've stuck it the other side up. Today is a real day of lessons.
  
• Secondly, the since the river of condensation is no more on the roof of the van, drips are more obvious as leaks. The skylight is still leaking, albeit slightly. There as an unmerciful and unrelenting shower today for about an hour and a half. I spotted one drip falling and when I pressed the lining there was two to three drips that fell. It's a leak but a minor one. I need to re seal the seams of the roof in the better weather so I'll re-seal the skylight while I'm at it.

Buford T Justice

So this is a shot of the van empty, with the layout lined for the toilet and the bed.

My conundrum is space(duh). With the width of the toilet and the kitchen, having the seats on the drivers side it'll be way too narrow to get past the seats to the kitchen area. It may be a case of moving the seats forward.

The kitchen unit that I have is unsuitable. It's too big and bulky for what I need. I'm thinking of getting am integrated cooker / sink as it has a smaller footprint than the one I have, but the tradeoff is the grill, which was useful. An alternative is to have the seats in front of the kitchen, but then there'd be a big empty chasm of unused space on the left side of the van.

I'm open to suggestions from people as to what I could do here.





On a positive note, the gas boiler is working. Just to give it a rinse and check for leaks.

Buford T Justice

Buford T Justice wrote: »

I agree, seems like a nice guy and he's building the van the way he wants, but doesn't seem to have any issues with money building it.

Arah sher you and I both know if you are happy to play the waiting game and wheel and deal then you don't pay the asking price.


Besides blue boxes are cheap shyte. You're buying an app and marketing not a reliable high quality piece of hardware.
I had a look at the battery episode and saw his tinternet machine. He's running firefox and chrome on PC. If that doesn't tell ya all ya need to know about a guy...

Buford T Justice wrote: »

In other news, I'm in the market for a new inverter.

Huzzah! I never liked yer old one.

Buford T Justice wrote: »

I've been trying some swanky 240v install where the default 240 supply in the van, and once it senses the shore connection it switches over to that for the supply for the van.

That's basic. Swanky is an interlock changeover with a delay.
Neater than dedicated sockets no arguments.

Buford T Justice wrote: »

I didn't do it right and am now learning an expensive lesson.

Cheaper than goin' to "sparky college" though?

Buford T Justice wrote: »

I didn't use a double pole isolators for the coil isolator, or for the feed mcb to the sockets. It was working until I was switching between the two. I think there was a loop via the neutral with caused it.

You can get away with coupling one leg. ie. you can tie all the neutrals and not have issue. I don't because I don't like it but fellars smarter than I am say it's kosher.


If you put utility mains on the output of an inverter it'll dodo it right fast. If you have continuity between L and N on the unpowered inverter output that's the failure mode (shorted output). Defeckt: dead FETs.

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Needless to say I fucked it up good and proper, and my inverter has paid the price for it. Thankfully the ProNautic is fine, since it's fed directly from the shore power and not part of this concoction.

Yurp


Just to make ya feel better about sending yer bargain basket inverter to silicon heaven here's two I've killed previously.




That's a €2.5k 2.4kVA MasterApprenticeVolt that was just sh1t start to finish and it died (twice) in a failed attempt to met specification under duress.




That's a €1.5k 2.2kVA Studer I destroyed with a wire making the fan spin faster..corrupted the main IC.

Buford T Justice wrote: »

This is what I was trying to achieve.

Looks fine. As in I'm not sure you've found the issue. Maybe yer contactor isn't fast enough. It really ought to be supply #1 -> off -> supply #2.

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Feel like a prize prick now

I'll give you honourable mention.
You didn't make the podium though.

Buford T Justice

Buford T Justice wrote: »

I'm open to suggestions from people as to what I could do here.

Buford T Justice

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Looks fine. As in I'm not sure you've found the issue. Maybe yer contactor isn't fast enough. It really ought to be supply #1 -> off -> supply #2.

I got the idea from this guy, and I have the same Schneider contactor

Buford T Justice

Buford T Justice wrote: »

I got the idea from this guy, and I have the same Schneider contactor

Sparks for 20 years :pac:....


Few Notes:


The Consumer unit is too big.

If you have automatic switching between Shore and Inverter than you only need one RCD on the contactor output (if the charger is double insulated or use an RCBO for that).

There's no need for an MCB on most inverters because they can't produce the surge power required to trip them.

Shore inverter priority ought to have priority to shore mains because it's abundant and the inverter uses battery.

There's no delay timer on the changeover?






I've pretty much the same system as the one you made Mr. T except I'm using a DPDT contactor instead of a DPST NO and a DPST NC so the two can never be made at the same time (but an arc can bridge the contacts while switching if yer super unlucky).


He's saying that the inverter was CTE. I think that's just a floating earth. All inverters I've seen look CTE until you neutralise them. I've heard that neutralising kills cheapys but not something I've experienced. All mine are TN-S and no issue.
I have a durshyte MSW...I think I might neutralise that for science and see if there's any truth to the claim or if there's other factors at play.




I suggest you line check your setup and ensure that mains can never backfeed the inverter output in any configuration.

I decided to put my money where my mouth is. Earth leakage protection aka life harm protection is the most important and overlooked part of electrical design in off-grid.
It falls into the; if it's too complicated to understand then it's probably not relevant department..and besides the system works without it.


Sparky A: blew up inverter
Sparky B: said it sounds sketchy... wouldn't recommend.
Joe Public A: blew up inverter
Joe Public B: blew up inverter
Mariner fitter: Never had an issue
Myself: never had an issue, haven't tried every topology.


Accepting that adapting a critical mindset..you don't know until you know, with consideration to those who seem to know what they're doing haven't had issue and those with no relevant experience/qualifications/problem-solving skills are having issues.
This leads me to consider that people blowing up inverters are blaming the neutralising link when there's other factors at play. Much like people blame batteries for system failures and not chargers.

Here's the cheapest nastiest inverter I have at my disposal.
As she comes standard, looking like a centre tapped earth but it's just a floating reference.



Live -> Earth: 131V
Neutral -> Earth: 106V

Here we see my tester flagging "No Earth"



That means no earth reference and/or continuity.
RCDs (GFIs) are not enabled in this configuration.

So let's TN-S; tied neutral supply.
..and see if she retains her smoke...




Live -> Earth: 238V
Neutral -> Earth: 0V

If that Wago was an RCD it could now save yer life.

I don't know how people are blowing inverters I expect it's by putting unsynchronised mains on the output or perhaps the DC input.

Remember. The earth and the neutral are the same conductor.
One is allowed to conduct.
Thuther isn't.
We are all birds on the wire with regards to the potential difference.



[Edit:] To be sure, to be sure, to be sure I just linked the PE (AC earth) to the Ground (DC negative) with the Earth tied to the neutral and smoke retained...inverter still working.

Buford T Justice

The idea is to have the default operation(NC) side of the contactor to supply via the inverter and use the energised state to supply via shore power.

I'm wondering if the issue was the CTE, or floating earth as you mention. I mean I know that I did it, but it'd be nice to know how.

This is the config at the time

Shore power in via rcbo powering the ProNautic via 16A MCB
Shore power feeding the two N/O points of the contactor and the + also energising the coil. Neutral of the coil and the shore power to the neutral bus bar.

Inverter in via rcbo (cos I had one) and feeding the N/C points of the contactor with the neutral output going to the bus bar.

Both positive outputs of the contactor are joined together into a singe pole mcb for supplying the sockets


I had shore power running with the 240 feed being supplied via this at the sockets mcb. I tripped the switch for the shore power and the output switched to the inverter.

I then did one of the following:
Shore power live with the switch down for the inverter, energised inverter = boom!
Inverter power live with switch down for shore, energised shore = boom.

I'm no electrician by any stretch, but would this have been caused by 100 odd volts on the neutral from the inverter, since they were all common?

Linking the neutrals is just referencing that leg to the neutral potential it's not a detrimental situation until you add unsynchronised lives.
I switch neutrals too because you never know when you'll come across reverse polarity shore power and less potential for sh1t to go wrong if you do.

You can tie all the earths and all the neutrals as long as there's no linked lives if shouldn't cause any problems. If you tied them in the wrong place it'll trip the RCD but not blow stuff up.

Forget about center tapped earth, there's no transformer involved that's a red herring.

My guess is your contactors are firing at diferent speeds and there's a long enough overlap to make 400V at the inverter output. This is why we use transfer delays. or DPDT contactors (backwards) so that it can never be both. That is what an interlock system is. Exclusive switching.

You'll need an O-scope to diagnose it if it's not a wiring misnomer.

colm_mcm

What seats are you using in the back?

Buford T Justice

colm_mcm wrote: »

What seats are you using in the back?

Transit Minibus seats:

colm_mcm

How big will the kitchen be?

Buford T Justice

colm_mcm wrote: »

How big will the kitchen be?

Yet to be determined. I've consulted the MIUAYGA (make it up as you go along) catalog and the dimensions are sketchy.
The original plan was to re-use the kitchen that was in the old van, which came from a caravan but it looks to be too big an clunky. I did a test fit to get a general idea but it seems the gap would be too narrow between the kitchen and the seats.





I think I'm going to get one of these sinks, since it'll save a lot of space and build a new unit around it - though I don't have a mate with a cnc to help me

I'd like to have kept the grill from the old unit, but what can you do eh?

I found this on DoneDeal, which is the same layout as what mine will be, and this looks like a plan really

colm_mcm

I think you could slide the double seat forwards a bit. There’s tonnes of room there between the front and back seats in this picture

lawred2

colm_mcm wrote: »

I think you could slide the double seat forwards a bit. There’s tonnes of room there between the front and back seats in this picture

they'd be in front of the window then wouldn't they??

colm_mcm

What harm though?

Just for contrast, this is the gap we have. It’s about as tight as you can comfortably go without hitting knees/legs. Not saying you need to go that tight, but your toilet cubicle is extremely small so it would benefit from more room. Even if you brought front of headrest level with back of window it would help get past the kitchen.
You’d end up halfway between the two, size wise.

Buford T Justice

colm_mcm wrote: »

What harm though?

Just for contrast, this is the gap we have. It’s about as tight as you can comfortably go without hitting knees/legs. Not saying you need to go that tight, but your toilet cubicle is extremely small so it would benefit from more room. Even if you brought front of headrest level with back of window it would help get past the kitchen.
You’d end up halfway between the two, size wise.

I looked at that alright and to be fair it doesn't really bother me if it is in front of the windows. Since I have the swivel seats and two kids, it's important to try and keep the one sitting area where we can all fit if at all possible.

I moved the seats up a fair bit. It'll make the toilet bigger, (no shower remember) so might end up with storage space out of it as a result.
You can see here where the seats are further up, but the gap is still small.



However, this one has the seats further back, and in the same vein as mine the toilet cubicle is narrower than the seats. I think with a combination of a slimmer kitchen unit that tapers off and the seats a bit further forward we might just be in business. If I'm really stuck for space in the hall, I can always recess the toilet a few inches into the wall panel to give a bit extra space, but I don't think that's needed.

Seems to me that if you mounted the taps internal to the sinks you could save quite a bittov space.

You guys are reminding me why I'm so glad my Mk-II is a truck and not a van.

I'd take it as an opportunity to use footswitches for taps instead. You won't believe the water you can save.

Buford T Justice

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Seems to me that if you mounted the taps internal to the sinks you could save quite a bittov space.

You guys are reminding me why I'm so glad my Mk-II is a truck and not a van.

I'd take it as an opportunity to use footswitches for taps instead. You won't believe the water you can save.

There's no opportunity to do that on the sink I have I'm afraid.

Whale tuckaway faucet.



Folding kitchen tap.

Footswitches can be water/air solenoid valve triggers. Put the valve in series with the plumbing and the electricity in parallel.

colm_mcm

If you’re going for the Smev, you’ll have a hole for an internal tap either way

Buford T Justice

colm_mcm wrote: »

If you’re going for the Smev, you’ll have a hole for an internal tap either way

That's what I was thinking. the SMEV / Dometic is around 325mm or 375mm deep depending on the model vs the current 500, plus the inbuilt tap. It's considerably slimmer and with the tapered end it might do the job.

What space do you have between the kitchen unit and the seats?

Oh, and what is the depth of the countertop?

Buford T Justice

Since i have an MPPT on the way (again, credit to Sir Liam) I added cabling to support the game yet to be bought solar panel(s)



My double pole mcb's arrived today, (well all except one for the contactor coil) and I took another stab at the consumer unit and I believe I've had more success.

When I undid the wiring I did spot some funky goings on which made me wonder what the hell I was doing. I followed my own diagram diligently this time and it seems to work.

Very left is the mcb for shore power which feeds the next mcb which is for the pro-nautic. Live out of the shore power mcb feeds the N/O contacts on the contactor. The live also powers the coil with the output of the coil to the neutral of the same mcb.

Next mcb is the inverter in. It may not be needed but I have them anyway so I've used them. The output from this feeds the N/C contacts on the contactor.

Both Lives from the contactor are joined into the most right mcb and both neutrals respectively giving a double pole feed to the sockets. This can then go to the sockets and the neutral bus bar if needs be.

Never mind the single pole mcb's - they're just filling space at the moment, but there will be another double pole 2a mcb here for the coil of the contactor.

I plugged in the inverter supply and I got 240 out from the sockets mcb.
I plugged in shore power and as you can see the contactor is energised. There is still 240 to the sockets but now fed from shore and not the inverter feed. It seems to be the job, but I can't fully test it since I am sans inverter at the moment.

Buford T Justice

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Since i have an MPPT on the way (again, credit to Sir Liam) I added cabling to support the game yet to be bought solar panel(s)

Best there is!
If you want it programmed and the firmware updated send it to me, I can reflash it and send it back.

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Next mcb is the inverter in. It may not be needed but I have them anyway so I've used them.

Won't work other than as a manual switch. You need 3x rated to trip them.

The inverter ought to have an RCD though and be neutralised, with the vehicle shell earthed and grounded.

Buford T Justice wrote: »

there will be another double pole 2a mcb here for the coil of the contactor.

No need the wire for a contactor coil is so thin it can be considered fuse wire.
I'd advise a delay timer here instead set to 1 second.

Buford T Justice wrote: »

I plugged in the inverter supply and I got 240 out from the sockets mcb.
I plugged in shore power and as you can see the contactor is energised. There is still 240 to the sockets but now fed from shore and not the inverter feed. It seems to be the job, but I can't fully test it since I am sans inverter at the moment.

Sounds fine.
Check for continuity between live and van shell & neutral and van shell too with the system unpowered. Should be neither if you're floating earth.

Buford T Justice

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Won't work other than as a manual switch. You need 3x rated to trip them.

The inverter ought to have an RCD though and be neutralised, with the vehicle shell earthed and grounded.

That Hager that the inverter runs into is an RCBO, so should be good for an imbalance no?

Check for continuity between live and van shell & neutral and van shell too with the system unpowered. Should be neither if you're floating earth.

On my list is to earth the consumer unit to the van body. Will do this through the floor to the chassis and test

Buford T Justice

Buford T Justice wrote: »

That Hager that the inverter runs into is an RCBO, so should be good for an imbalance no?

Kindov. I'd get rid of the MCB it's not doing anything you can switch it with the RCBO.
There's no imbalance going to be created unless you neutralise the inverter (tie the neutral to the earth upstream of the RCBO).
The imbalance is created by current traveling on the PE instead of the neutral, if they're not tied there's no path until a person becomes one.


The answer is yes if you allow it.

Buford T Justice wrote: »

On my list is to earth the consumer unit to the van body. Will do this through the floor to the chassis and test

The earth between the DC bus and Inverter ought to be one size smaller than the inverter DC feeder because this can be a DC fault path too and a 1.5mm² PE won't cut it with a 100A DC fault.
Once you tie the Earth bus to the ground bus (2.5mm² if you put the inverter PE direct to the DC bus or the same size as the inverter PE if you don't) the chassis is earthed via the DC chassis ground via the DC ground bus.

If you are being really lazy link the Inverter chassis PE to the DC ground at the inverter to save cable...it's messy and I don't like it but it works electrically.


Quite often even the inverter manufacturers don't know what they are doing and the PE stud is teeny and there's not enough meat on it for a 35mm² cable or similar. In which case I tap a brass M8 into the inverter chassis.

Buford T Justice

What do you mean by PE?

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Kindov. I'd get rid of the MCB it's not doing anything you can switch it with the RCBO.

The two single pole mcb's are just placeholders - only there to hog space for now. The double pole mcb is to the left is feeding the pronautic via the rcbo from the shore power - Is this the one you're referring to?

There's no imbalance going to be created unless you neutralise the inverter (tie the neutral to the earth upstream of the RCBO).
The imbalance is created by current traveling on the PE instead of the neutral, if they're not tied there's no path until a person becomes one.

So I should tie the neutral bus bar that's upstream of the MCB on the right to the chassis earth?

IE, Red or Yellow? (To be fair, I've no connection to the bus bar atm, just straight into the MCB (yellow)