Integrel Generator "Replacement"

[NaClyDog]

Does anyone have any experience using this system?



Other than the cost, are there any downsides? From the marketing materials, everything just seems too good to be true so that is raising some red flags.


Near as I can determine, the system would cost around $12,000 and that's in the same ballpark as an equivalent marine generator.

[CalmSeasQuest]

I looked at it early on in my research. My automated estimate (https://integrelsolutions.com/estimator/) was much higher - The system and installation was ~$42K without batteries. The quote provided was way over-sized and based on 60KBTU of Aircons. The total quote including batteries was ~$86K

Based on a cursory review, I liked the idea (48V, alternator generation tuned to available engine HP at specific RPMS...) but I did not get a sense of fail-over as there seemed to be multiple single points of failure.

Had I not already had a Genset I might have given it more consideration.

[NaClyDog]

I get the extra costs for a bigger system but I'm thinking those are things we will need to buy eventually anyway.


Ideally, if we could derive all our living, cooking and motoring needs from solar, possibly hydro and our 2 diesels I would be a happy customers. Not having LPG and gasoline would be very good but things may still be a little too bleeding edge I guess.

[smac999]

So it’s a house bank, an alternator, and an inverter?

Which every boat already has... but they want 40k?

[a64pilot]

What kind of engine do you have? Many if not most Yanmar’s will allow only a 4 HP load at 50% RPM, this equates to 100 amps, it’s directly proportional to RPM so 8 HP at max RPM.
Big motors surely have higher limits, but I believe even the 100ish HP turbo motors are limited to 4HP. I know my old 44 HP 4JHE is.
If you have a Yanmar, get a copy of the installation manual for the engine you have and in it, there is a very detailed explanation of exactly how much load can be placed on the front of the crankshaft.

Some will tell you that the Yanmar limits are incorrect, that Yanmar doesn’t know what they are talking about, but from the detail that they go through in the manual, I don’t believe so.
I think they know exactly what they are talking about, they did design the engine, and I beleve they did so to a specification.
I don’t know about Volvo, but bet they are similar.

Back in the day apparently Yanmar manufactured a generator that bolted onto the rear of the engine and I assume fit between the motor and the transmission, but I have never seen one myself. Only a very few engines are designed for large loads to be extracted from the front of the crankshaft, only one I have experience with is a JD backhoe and a International bulldozer that both drove their hydraulic pumps off the front end of the crankshaft, but those motors were different than the tractor motors in that they had a larger front crankshaft bearing, similar to the rear one.

[NaClyDog]

Originally Posted by smac999

So it’s a house bank, an alternator, and an inverter?

Which every boat already has... but they want 40k?

That is the full solution. My understanding is the integrel is a special alternator and a "black box" that monitors the engine and outputs and extra in electricity.

[NaClyDog]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

What kind of engine do you have? Many if not most Yanmar’s will allow only a 4 HP load at 50% RPM, this equates to 100 amps, it’s directly proportional to RPM so 8 HP at max RPM.
Big motors surely have higher limits, but I believe even the 100ish HP turbo motors are limited to 4HP. I know my old 44 HP 4JHE is.
If you have a Yanmar, get a copy of the installation manual for the engine you have and in it, there is a very detailed explanation of exactly how much load can be placed on the front of the crankshaft.

Some will tell you that the Yanmar limits are incorrect, that Yanmar doesn’t know what they are talking about, but from the detail that they go through in the manual, I don’t believe so.
I think they know exactly what they are talking about, they did design the engine, and I beleve they did so to a specification.
I don’t know about Volvo, but bet they are similar.

Back in the day apparently Yanmar manufactured a generator that bolted onto the rear of the engine and I assume fit between the motor and the transmission, but I have never seen one myself. Only a very few engines are designed for large loads to be extracted from the front of the crankshaft, only one I have experience with is a JD backhoe and a International bulldozer that both drove their hydraulic pumps off the front end of the crankshaft, but those motors were different than the tractor motors with in that they had a larger front crankshaft bearing, similar to the rear one.

We have Volvos but I didn't see any mention from their marketing spiel related to being engine brand specific.



So, you don't believe they are simply harvesting wasted energy via their special alternator / black box?

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by NaClyDog

We have Volvos but I didn't see any mention from their marketing spiel related to being engine brand specific.



So, you don't believe they are simply harvesting wasted energy via their special alternator / black box?

There is no “wasted energy” well actually there is I guess, the heat taken away by the cooling system is wasted, but if you draw any power from an engine from the crankshaft, it’s going to burn more fuel. TANSFAL there is no free lunch, it’s also of course going to increase crankshaft loads and increase combustion chamber pressure and temps.
The theory is that if you look at the HP curve that an engine is capable of making vs RPM and the HP that a normal fixed prop will absorb, you will note that there is a large difference, leading some to maybe market that there is excess or wasted energy. It is power that could be harnessed, the engine is capable of being loaded higher and still stay within limits, but of course your running it harder.
But in truth all it means is that your not pulling the guts out of an engine at cruise and that’s one reason these little motors last so long.
Load an engine up and you will reduce its lifespan.
The idea is you program a “black box” that knows the capability of the engine vs RPM and how much power the average prop will absorb and will load the engine up to the calculated max but not overload it.
I would argue that a better way would be to measure exhaust temp and limit fuel based on EGT, but the programming is simpler and likely less expensive.

But that’s not the real issue, the real issue is that the front end of the crankshaft of a normal engine is not designed to have significant HP withdrawn from it, the rear is. The front end is designed to provide accessory power, normal alternator and water pump, maybe power steering pump etc as these motors are also used in forklifts etc. Look at the difference in the crankshaft bearings and it becomes apparent.

Yanmar went to a great deal of effort writing a section of their installation manual specifying exactly how much power can be extracted from the front end of the crankshaft and even gave you a formula to calculate it if you added another pulley in front of the existing one, apparently overhang reduces the amount of power that can be extracted.

So I guess you need to decide who knows more, the person that is trying to sell you something that grossly exceeds a published engine limitation, or the engine manufacturer.
I can’t imagine that Yanmar would go through all the trouble of writing a section of their installation manual specifying an engine limitation, if it wasn’t really a limit.


I’ve seen the Yanmar sections, posted here on this forum, I assume Volvo May have similar limits, but I have not seen them if they do. Manuals don’t and can’t cover every possibility, it’s likely that some manufacturers haven’t computed max loads off of the front of the crankshaft

[NaClyDog]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

There is no “wasted energy” well actually there is I guess, the heat taken away by the cooling system is wasted, but if you draw any power from an engine from the crankshaft, it’s going to burn more fuel. TANSFAL there is no free lunch, it’s also of course going to increase crankshaft loads and increase combustion chamber pressure and temps.
The theory is that if you look at the HP curve that an engine is capable of making vs RPM and the HP that a normal fixed prop will absorb, you will note that there is a large difference, leading some to maybe market that there is excess or wasted energy. It is power that could be harnessed, the engine is capable of being loaded higher and still stay within limits, but of course your running it harder.
But in truth all it means is that your not pulling the guts out of an engine at cruise and that’s one reason these little motors last so long.
Load an engine up and you will reduce its lifespan.
The idea is you program a “black box” that knows the capability of the engine vs RPM and how much power the average prop will absorb and will load the engine up to the calculated max but not overload it.
I would argue that a better way would be to measure exhaust temp and limit fuel based on EGT, but the programming is simpler and likely less expensive.

But that’s not the real issue, the real issue is that the front end of the crankshaft of a normal engine is not designed to have significant HP withdrawn from it, the rear is. The front end is designed to provide accessory power, normal alternator and water pump, maybe power steering pump etc as these motors are also used in forklifts etc. Look at the difference in the crankshaft bearings and it becomes apparent.

Yanmar went to a great deal of effort writing a section of their installation manual specifying exactly how much power can be extracted from the front end of the crankshaft and even gave you a formula to calculate it if you added another pulley in front of the existing one, apparently overhang reduces the amount of power that can be extracted.

So I guess you need to decide who knows more, the person that is trying to sell you something that grossly exceeds a published engine limitation, or the engine manufacturer.
I can’t imagine that Yanmar would go through all the trouble of writing a section of their installation manual specifying an engine limitation, if it wasn’t really a limit.


I’ve seen the Yanmar sections, posted here on this forum, I assume Volvo May have similar limits, but I have not seen them if they do. Manuals don’t and can’t cover every possibility, it’s likely that some manufacturers haven’t computed max loads off of the front of the crankshaft

Very interesting analysis. Thank you for the response.


I'm a little surprised that Nigel Calder would associate himself with this product / outfit. He does give them some credibility but the whole white lab coat video was a little overdoing it in my opinion.


I guess it's a solid no for us in the medium term and we will wait to see what it brings for the early adopters.

[mcarthur]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

But that’s not the real issue, the real issue is that the front end of the crankshaft of a normal engine is not designed to have significant HP withdrawn from it, the rear is. The front end is designed to provide accessory power, normal alternator and water pump, maybe power steering pump etc as these motors are also used in forklifts etc. Look at the difference in the crankshaft bearings and it becomes apparent.

Yanmar went to a great deal of effort writing a section of their installation manual specifying exactly how much power can be extracted from the front end of the crankshaft and even gave you a formula to calculate it if you added another pulley in front of the existing one, apparently overhang reduces the amount of power that can be extracted.

Good points! Do you know if there are any generalizable rules on PTO? Our old 6cyl NA Perkins say in the manual your can take upto 6kW from the PTO (which I assume include the alternator plus anything else driven from gears or belt, like pumps). But they don't go into any detail on "overhang" or anything other than a basic number of 6kW...

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by mcarthur

Good points! Do you know if there are any generalizable rules on PTO? Our old 6cyl NA Perkins say in the manual your can take upto 6kW from the PTO (which I assume include the alternator plus anything else driven from gears or belt, like pumps). But they don't go into any detail on "overhang" or anything other than a basic number of 6kW...

I know of no general rules, I doubt there would be any, as motors are as different as people, not individual motors, but say a Perkins and a Yanmar have significant differences.
My opinion whatever that’s worth is that if Perkins says that motor can withstand 6 KW, my assumption would be from the factory pulley position, and that number includes all loads, water pump, alternator, whatever there is there, but a little in front probably wouldn’t kill it.
Of course these are not hard and fast limits, nothing is, by that I mean if the redline for an engine is 3600 RPM, it’s not going to blow up at 3610. But continual operation beyond 3600 may likely cause increased wear.

Often times limitations are the way they are because if you stay within the published limit, the engine will last until it’s designed life limit. Now some get upset when I say an engine has a designed life limit, but they certainly do. You have to design to something.No engine or very few engines anyway are designed to last as long as is possible, to do that would cost a fortune, mean the engine is way heavier and bigger and lower RPM etc than It’s competitors.
So when ever anything is being designed, through analysis the Engineers determine that component will last as long as the rest of the engine is designed to, it does little good to design a 10,000 hour engine if the crankshaft will fatigue and break at 3,000, because of course then you have a less than 3000 hour engine, not a 10,000 hour one. On the flip side it’s not efficient to have a 50,000 hour crankshaft either.

So what I am saying is that it’s very unlikely that the Integral will cause a Yanmar to wallow out it’s front crankshaft bearing soon after it’s installed, but Yanmar set those limits for a reason, and again in my opinion it’s likely a lifeing issue.
It’s extremely common in turbine engines, operate at one set of limits and your TBO is 10,000 hours, operate the identical engine at higher limits and the TBO comes down proportionately.
TBO is time between overhaul.

Now everything I said is just my opinion. I am not saying anyone is wrong nor am I belittling anyone.

[NaClyDog]

I've been following this person's blog for a while now and I just noticed he posted a description (with photos) of the mother of all Integrel installs.


https://vingilote.blog/a-photo-tour-...power-systems/

[BillKny]

I have looked at this system when we were replacing our genset.

It really only seems to make economic and technical sense for a powerboat, and even at that for a power boat that spends a very large fraction of its time moving. Maybe for some commercial boats?

For a powerboat at anchor, and especially for a sailboat, the economics and technical justifications seem to evaporate.

We ended up installing a DC genset that has been the perfect solution for us.

[zboss]

The stock alt on my Volvo d1-30's is 115A and here is a provision for adding a second one.

[alaskanviking]

Thank you for that link. I believe I will snag some of those ideas for my boat.

If I understand right, this system is essential a big DC generator/alternator that replaces your stock alternator. The black box monitors eng speed/load and adjusts the voltage on the alternator wire. A smart regulator, with maybe some mppt stuff going on to extract more efficiency. It would be an advantage with smaller boats without space for a generator. Or if you don't want to dedicate space to a gen set.

Nigel Calder's support is a plus, however I don't see the difference between this and a large frame alternator with a smart regulator. You can get 250-300 amp 24v and 48v alternators elsewhere.

If your really good with electronics you can do the same with a 24v military humvee alternator upwards of 400-500amps. They have special cables that you have to adapt I believe.

I have a 24v system already. I would switch to 48v as the seen efficiency increases in charging and don't use as much power. 48v would expand on that. However the problem is the lack of 48v to 24v DC converters. They have them but I can only find low amp versions. The windless is 70amps @ 24v. 24v to 12v is easy and a lot of equipment can run 24b or 12v. Not a lot of 48v stuff, which I'm sure would be expensive. Having a 48v and separate 24v bank seems more complicated and difficult to add charging sources (solar/wind), to make it worthwhile.

I did look into their system, but was quoted 20k without batteries. Seeing I can experiment with humvee or big alternators for far less, I don't think it's feasible. Plus your putting more hours on your main engine, which is another debate altogether.