• Re: CCS v2

    From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to John Doe on Fri Jun 10 08:01:01 2022
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Fri Jun 10 14:57:29 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Off topic troll...

    --
    Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

    X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2793:b0:6a7:44f0:c280 with SMTP id g19-20020a05620a279300b006a744f0c280mr2454083qkp.53.1654872941922;
    Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
    X-Received: by 2002:a25:f202:0:b0:65c:b668:5d45 with SMTP id
    i2-20020a25f202000000b0065cb6685d45mr44384856ybe.578.1654872941709; Fri, 10
    Jun 2022 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
    Path: not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
    Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2602:306:cd54:2f00:9509:6043:f1d4:ca7d;
    posting-account=pjQH5woAAABeN8ToX-2bq3zh9hvCM8sL
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 2602:306:cd54:2f00:9509:6043:f1d4:ca7d
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Message-ID: <aa6ae9a3-0cfe-4e5b-9cc9-66d031920542n@googlegroups.com>
    Subject: CCS v2
    From: Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com>
    Injection-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:55:41 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
    X-Received-Bytes: 2333

    Anyone want to join me with the DOT discussion?

    Whether you agree with me or not,
    I can add your usenet ID to the letter to start.

    ----------------------------

    Department of Transportation
    Federal Highway Administration
    23 CFR Part 680
    [Docket No. FHWA-2022-0008
    RIN 2125-AG10
    https://www.regulations.gov

    U.S. Department of Transportation,
    1200 New Jersey Avenue,
    SE, Washington, DC 20590

    RE: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program

    Dear Sir/Madam:

    We would like to address the connectivity of DC fast charger.
    The Combined Charging System (CCS) is an attempt to upgrade
    from AC J1772 with additions of two large DC pins and
    depreciating (unused but occupying space) of the two AC pins.

    This physical form factor makes the CCS plug unusally large
    and expensive (for both plugs and sockets). It is time to
    revisit the connector design.

    We do not believe that it is necessary to maintain J1772
    compatibilty for DC charging. Furthermore, we believe that
    it is advantageous to add CAN bus messaging, since the rest
    of the vehicles are mostly CAN based.

    We are proposing a new connector, while keeping existing one
    during the transistory period.

    edward.ming.lee@gmail.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 10 07:55:41 2022
    Anyone want to join me with the DOT discussion?

    Whether you agree with me or not,
    I can add your usenet ID to the letter to start.

    ----------------------------

    Department of Transportation
    Federal Highway Administration
    23 CFR Part 680
    [Docket No. FHWA-2022-0008
    RIN 2125-AG10
    https://www.regulations.gov

    U.S. Department of Transportation,
    1200 New Jersey Avenue,
    SE, Washington, DC 20590

    RE: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program

    Dear Sir/Madam:

    We would like to address the connectivity of DC fast charger.
    The Combined Charging System (CCS) is an attempt to upgrade
    from AC J1772 with additions of two large DC pins and
    depreciating (unused but occupying space) of the two AC pins.

    This physical form factor makes the CCS plug unusally large
    and expensive (for both plugs and sockets). It is time to
    revisit the connector design.

    We do not believe that it is necessary to maintain J1772
    compatibilty for DC charging. Furthermore, we believe that
    it is advantageous to add CAN bus messaging, since the rest
    of the vehicles are mostly CAN based.

    We are proposing a new connector, while keeping existing one
    during the transistory period.

    edward.ming.lee@gmail.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 10 15:29:29 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3@dont-email.me> (http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
    12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe stated:

    Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
    NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 58.0% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
    least 1604 articles to USENET. Of which 173 have been pure insults and
    758 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

    The Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
    <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless Troll Doe has itself posted yet another
    incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:57:29 GMT in message-id <tZIoK.51389$Q381.1452@usenetxs.com>.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that John Doe does not even follow
    the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    Ycz0QX+0KIda

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to edward.ming.lee@gmail.com on Fri Jun 10 09:26:00 2022
    On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
    <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.

    And connectors are often associated with electronics.



    --

    Anybody can count to one.

    - Robert Widlar

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Jun 10 09:33:35 2022
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
    <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
    And connectors are often associated with electronics.

    It's funny that they advertise J1772/CCS as connector without electronics. I can't figure out how to do a 1kHz duty cycle without a 555 timer at least. Perhaps not with smart electronics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Fri Jun 10 11:13:56 2022
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:55:45 AM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    Anyone want to join me with the DOT discussion?

    Whether you agree with me or not,
    I can add your usenet ID to the letter to start.

    ----------------------------

    Department of Transportation
    Federal Highway Administration
    23 CFR Part 680
    [Docket No. FHWA-2022-0008
    RIN 2125-AG10
    https://www.regulations.gov

    U.S. Department of Transportation,
    1200 New Jersey Avenue,
    SE, Washington, DC 20590

    RE: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program

    Dear Sir/Madam:

    We would like to address the connectivity of DC fast charger.
    The Combined Charging System (CCS) is an attempt to upgrade
    from AC J1772 with additions of two large DC pins and
    depreciating (unused but occupying space) of the two AC pins.

    This physical form factor makes the CCS plug unusally large
    and expensive (for both plugs and sockets). It is time to
    revisit the connector design.

    We do not believe that it is necessary to maintain J1772
    compatibilty for DC charging. Furthermore, we believe that
    it is advantageous to add CAN bus messaging, since the rest
    of the vehicles are mostly CAN based.

    We are proposing a new connector, while keeping existing one
    during the transistory period.

    I read the post without looking at who made it. I didn't have to get to the end to know!

    https://xkcd.com/927/

    --

    Rick C.

    - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Fri Jun 10 11:19:56 2022
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
    <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
    And connectors are often associated with electronics.
    It's funny that they advertise J1772/CCS as connector without electronics. I can't figure out how to do a 1kHz duty cycle without a 555 timer at least. Perhaps not with smart electronics.

    What's wrong with an 8 pin MCU? They make them with 1% accurate, internal RC timers, so you can get much better accuracy than a discrete RC based design. Are you thinking a fixed duty cycle? That's what determines the current limit. That would go in
    the EVSE. Why are you designing an EVSE? I thought you wanted stuff to let you charge an extra battery. That would be the car side of the interface.

    --

    Rick C.

    + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Jun 10 12:11:44 2022
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
    <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
    And connectors are often associated with electronics.
    It's funny that they advertise J1772/CCS as connector without electronics. I can't figure out how to do a 1kHz duty cycle without a 555 timer at least. Perhaps not with smart electronics.
    What's wrong with an 8 pin MCU?

    They don't run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.

    They make them with 1% accurate, internal RC timers, so you can get much better accuracy than a discrete RC based design. Are you thinking a fixed duty cycle? That's what determines the current limit. That would go in the EVSE. Why are you designing an
    EVSE? I thought you wanted stuff to let you charge an extra battery. That would be the car side of the interface.

    A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

    BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

    I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

    --- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
    | 6 | [3] | 7 | 4:Proximty 5:Pilot
    --- [4] [5] --- 6:DC+ 7:DC-
    CCSv2

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Jun 10 13:31:02 2022
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
    And connectors are often associated with electronics.
    It's funny that they advertise J1772/CCS as connector without electronics. I can't figure out how to do a 1kHz duty cycle without a 555 timer at least. Perhaps not with smart electronics.
    What's wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
    They don't run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
    They make them with 1% accurate, internal RC timers, so you can get much better accuracy than a discrete RC based design. Are you thinking a fixed duty cycle? That's what determines the current limit. That would go in the EVSE. Why are you
    designing an EVSE? I thought you wanted stuff to let you charge an extra battery. That would be the car side of the interface.
    A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

    BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

    I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

    --- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
    | 6 | [3] | 7 | 4:Proximty 5:Pilot
    --- [4] [5] --- 6:DC+ 7:DC-
    CCSv2
    Why? What problem are you trying to solve?

    Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.

    I can't see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn't convey anything important anyway.

    Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:
    1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground 4:Proximity 5:Pilot
    (make no sense to have different size ground pin as in J1772/CCS)

    Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:
    6:DC+ 7:DC-

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Fri Jun 10 13:19:47 2022
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
    And connectors are often associated with electronics.
    It's funny that they advertise J1772/CCS as connector without electronics. I can't figure out how to do a 1kHz duty cycle without a 555 timer at least. Perhaps not with smart electronics.
    What's wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
    They don't run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
    They make them with 1% accurate, internal RC timers, so you can get much better accuracy than a discrete RC based design. Are you thinking a fixed duty cycle? That's what determines the current limit. That would go in the EVSE. Why are you designing
    an EVSE? I thought you wanted stuff to let you charge an extra battery. That would be the car side of the interface.
    A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

    BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

    I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

    --- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
    | 6 | [3] | 7 | 4:Proximty 5:Pilot
    --- [4] [5] --- 6:DC+ 7:DC-
    CCSv2

    Why? What problem are you trying to solve? I can't see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn't convey anything important anyway.

    --

    Rick C.

    -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Fri Jun 10 14:05:18 2022
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:31:17 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
    And connectors are often associated with electronics.
    It's funny that they advertise J1772/CCS as connector without electronics. I can't figure out how to do a 1kHz duty cycle without a 555 timer at least. Perhaps not with smart electronics.
    What's wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
    They don't run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
    They make them with 1% accurate, internal RC timers, so you can get much better accuracy than a discrete RC based design. Are you thinking a fixed duty cycle? That's what determines the current limit. That would go in the EVSE. Why are you
    designing an EVSE? I thought you wanted stuff to let you charge an extra battery. That would be the car side of the interface.
    A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

    BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

    I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

    --- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
    | 6 | [3] | 7 | 4:Proximty 5:Pilot
    --- [4] [5] --- 6:DC+ 7:DC-
    CCSv2
    Why? What problem are you trying to solve?
    Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.
    I can't see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn't convey anything important anyway.
    Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:
    1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground 4:Proximity 5:Pilot
    (make no sense to have different size ground pin as in J1772/CCS)

    Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:
    6:DC+ 7:DC-

    I don't really care. You are tilting at windmills. The rest of the world is happy with the CCS plug standards, both of them. I guess I don't really understand all the ways CCS-1 and CCS-2 are different. But mostly I don't understand why there are two.
    I've probably read about that, but forgotten it.

    Whatever. Anything we do won't change anything.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Jun 10 14:12:20 2022
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 2:05:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:31:17 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote: >> Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
    And connectors are often associated with electronics.
    It's funny that they advertise J1772/CCS as connector without electronics. I can't figure out how to do a 1kHz duty cycle without a 555 timer at least. Perhaps not with smart electronics.
    What's wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
    They don't run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
    They make them with 1% accurate, internal RC timers, so you can get much better accuracy than a discrete RC based design. Are you thinking a fixed duty cycle? That's what determines the current limit. That would go in the EVSE. Why are you
    designing an EVSE? I thought you wanted stuff to let you charge an extra battery. That would be the car side of the interface.
    A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

    BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

    I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

    --- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
    | 6 | [3] | 7 | 4:Proximty 5:Pilot
    --- [4] [5] --- 6:DC+ 7:DC-
    CCSv2
    Why? What problem are you trying to solve?
    Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.
    I can't see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn't convey anything important anyway.
    Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:
    1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground 4:Proximity 5:Pilot
    (make no sense to have different size ground pin as in J1772/CCS)

    Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:
    6:DC+ 7:DC-
    I don't really care. You are tilting at windmills. The rest of the world is happy with the CCS plug standards, both of them. I guess I don't really understand all the ways CCS-1 and CCS-2 are different. But mostly I don't understand why there are two.
    I've probably read about that, but forgotten it.

    Whatever. Anything we do won't change anything.

    Until you have to source plugs and sockets of the connectors.

    BTW, the J1772 duty cycle peak at 60A (100%) and many DC chargers are much higher than that. So, they are not following the signal spec anyway, why bother with forcing the same physical size spec.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jun 11 00:21:32 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3@dont-email.me> (http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
    12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) John Dope stated:

    Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
    NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 58.4% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope has posted at
    least 1633 articles to USENET. Of which 173 have been pure insults and
    781 have been John Dope "troll format" postings.

    The Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
    <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless Troll Doe has itself posted yet another
    incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:14:40 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t80mpg$hp7$8@dont-email.me>.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that John Dope does not even follow
    the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    dOf6ghATGuqB

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Fri Jun 10 18:08:12 2022
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:12:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 2:05:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:31:17 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote: >> Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
    And connectors are often associated with electronics.
    It's funny that they advertise J1772/CCS as connector without electronics. I can't figure out how to do a 1kHz duty cycle without a 555 timer at least. Perhaps not with smart electronics.
    What's wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
    They don't run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
    They make them with 1% accurate, internal RC timers, so you can get much better accuracy than a discrete RC based design. Are you thinking a fixed duty cycle? That's what determines the current limit. That would go in the EVSE. Why are you
    designing an EVSE? I thought you wanted stuff to let you charge an extra battery. That would be the car side of the interface.
    A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

    BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

    I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

    --- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
    | 6 | [3] | 7 | 4:Proximty 5:Pilot
    --- [4] [5] --- 6:DC+ 7:DC-
    CCSv2
    Why? What problem are you trying to solve?
    Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.
    I can't see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn't convey anything important anyway.
    Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:
    1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground 4:Proximity 5:Pilot
    (make no sense to have different size ground pin as in J1772/CCS)

    Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:
    6:DC+ 7:DC-
    I don't really care. You are tilting at windmills. The rest of the world is happy with the CCS plug standards, both of them. I guess I don't really understand all the ways CCS-1 and CCS-2 are different. But mostly I don't understand why there are two.
    I've probably read about that, but forgotten it.

    Whatever. Anything we do won't change anything.
    Until you have to source plugs and sockets of the connectors.

    BTW, the J1772 duty cycle peak at 60A (100%) and many DC chargers are much higher than that. So, they are not following the signal spec anyway, why bother with forcing the same physical size spec.

    You lost me. J1772 is not a DC charger. It's a 240V AC charger, which you say is 60A although I've never seen one above 30A.

    Why are you talking about fast DC and J1772 pins? I know I'm going to regret asking.

    --

    Rick C.

    +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Sat Jun 11 00:20:07 2022
    Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.

    I don't disagree. Personally, I would've spelled out what "CCS" means, in the subject line. Maybe the other Edward was confused.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Jun 10 18:29:17 2022
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 6:08:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:12:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 2:05:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:31:17 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
    And connectors are often associated with electronics.
    It's funny that they advertise J1772/CCS as connector without electronics. I can't figure out how to do a 1kHz duty cycle without a 555 timer at least. Perhaps not with smart electronics.
    What's wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
    They don't run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
    They make them with 1% accurate, internal RC timers, so you can get much better accuracy than a discrete RC based design. Are you thinking a fixed duty cycle? That's what determines the current limit. That would go in the EVSE. Why are you
    designing an EVSE? I thought you wanted stuff to let you charge an extra battery. That would be the car side of the interface.
    A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

    BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

    I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

    --- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
    | 6 | [3] | 7 | 4:Proximty 5:Pilot
    --- [4] [5] --- 6:DC+ 7:DC-
    CCSv2
    Why? What problem are you trying to solve?
    Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.
    I can't see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn't convey anything important anyway.
    Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:
    1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground 4:Proximity 5:Pilot
    (make no sense to have different size ground pin as in J1772/CCS)

    Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:
    6:DC+ 7:DC-
    I don't really care. You are tilting at windmills. The rest of the world is happy with the CCS plug standards, both of them. I guess I don't really understand all the ways CCS-1 and CCS-2 are different. But mostly I don't understand why there are
    two. I've probably read about that, but forgotten it.

    Whatever. Anything we do won't change anything.
    Until you have to source plugs and sockets of the connectors.

    BTW, the J1772 duty cycle peak at 60A (100%) and many DC chargers are much higher than that. So, they are not following the signal spec anyway, why bother with forcing the same physical size spec.
    You lost me. J1772 is not a DC charger. It's a 240V AC charger, which you say is 60A although I've never seen one above 30A.

    J1772 duty cycle is fraction of 60A. Namely, 25% is 15A, 50% is 30A, etc. They never figure that J1772 would exceed 60A.

    Why are you talking about fast DC and J1772 pins? I know I'm going to regret asking.

    The signalling pins of J1772 and CCS are the same. They are physically the same in CCS vehicles.

    When they designed CCS, they tried to keep it compatible with existing J1772 spec. But most DC chargers are way over 60A, or more than 100% duty cycle. So, it starts with a 1kHz with any duty cycle and then both side (charger and chargee) pretty much
    ignore it and look at the battery voltage instead.

    Hence, a big part of the signalling spec is meaningless, when you can just look at the battery voltage. Keeping big plug/socket with meaningless pins is just meaningless.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Fri Jun 10 22:03:14 2022
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:29:21 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 6:08:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:12:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 2:05:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:31:17 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Off topic troll...

    EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
    And connectors are often associated with electronics.
    It's funny that they advertise J1772/CCS as connector without electronics. I can't figure out how to do a 1kHz duty cycle without a 555 timer at least. Perhaps not with smart electronics.
    What's wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
    They don't run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
    They make them with 1% accurate, internal RC timers, so you can get much better accuracy than a discrete RC based design. Are you thinking a fixed duty cycle? That's what determines the current limit. That would go in the EVSE. Why are
    you designing an EVSE? I thought you wanted stuff to let you charge an extra battery. That would be the car side of the interface.
    A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

    BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

    I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

    --- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
    | 6 | [3] | 7 | 4:Proximty 5:Pilot
    --- [4] [5] --- 6:DC+ 7:DC-
    CCSv2
    Why? What problem are you trying to solve?
    Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.
    I can't see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn't convey anything important anyway.
    Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:
    1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground 4:Proximity 5:Pilot
    (make no sense to have different size ground pin as in J1772/CCS)

    Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:
    6:DC+ 7:DC-
    I don't really care. You are tilting at windmills. The rest of the world is happy with the CCS plug standards, both of them. I guess I don't really understand all the ways CCS-1 and CCS-2 are different. But mostly I don't understand why there are
    two. I've probably read about that, but forgotten it.

    Whatever. Anything we do won't change anything.
    Until you have to source plugs and sockets of the connectors.

    BTW, the J1772 duty cycle peak at 60A (100%) and many DC chargers are much higher than that. So, they are not following the signal spec anyway, why bother with forcing the same physical size spec.
    You lost me. J1772 is not a DC charger. It's a 240V AC charger, which you say is 60A although I've never seen one above 30A.
    J1772 duty cycle is fraction of 60A. Namely, 25% is 15A, 50% is 30A, etc. They never figure that J1772 would exceed 60A.
    Why are you talking about fast DC and J1772 pins? I know I'm going to regret asking.
    The signalling pins of J1772 and CCS are the same. They are physically the same in CCS vehicles.

    When they designed CCS, they tried to keep it compatible with existing J1772 spec. But most DC chargers are way over 60A, or more than 100% duty cycle. So, it starts with a 1kHz with any duty cycle and then both side (charger and chargee) pretty much
    ignore it and look at the battery voltage instead.

    Hence, a big part of the signalling spec is meaningless, when you can just look at the battery voltage. Keeping big plug/socket with meaningless pins is just meaningless.

    Like I said, I regret asking.

    Ok, good enough. Enjoy your new design.

    --

    Rick C.

    ++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Sun Jun 12 09:29:59 2022
    On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 18:29:21 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    ...
    BTW, the J1772 duty cycle peak at 60A (100%) and many DC chargers are much higher than that. So, they are not following the signal spec anyway, why bother with forcing the same physical size spec.
    You lost me. J1772 is not a DC charger. It's a 240V AC charger, which you say is 60A although I've never seen one above 30A.
    J1772 duty cycle is fraction of 60A. Namely, 25% is 15A, 50% is 30A, etc. They never figure that J1772 would exceed 60A.
    Why are you talking about fast DC and J1772 pins? I know I'm going to regret asking.
    The signalling pins of J1772 and CCS are the same. They are physically the same in CCS vehicles.

    When they designed CCS, they tried to keep it compatible with existing J1772 spec. But most DC chargers are way over 60A, or more than 100% duty cycle. So, it starts with a 1kHz with any duty cycle and then both side (charger and chargee) pretty much
    ignore it and look at the battery voltage instead.

    Hence, a big part of the signalling spec is meaningless, when you can just look at the battery voltage. Keeping big plug/socket with meaningless pins is just meaningless.

    DC charging does not use the PWM information for charge control at all. Neither does it use the battery voltage. The charging station does not know what the battery voltage is supposed to be or the vehicle's limits of charging current at any instant.

    There is a separate method using a modulated high-frequency signal CP line that allows bidirectional packetized communication between the vehicle and the charging station. This can do everything from billing to allowing V2G functionality.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Sun Jun 12 10:52:14 2022
    On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 18:29:21 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    ...
    BTW, the J1772 duty cycle peak at 60A (100%) and many DC chargers are much higher than that. So, they are not following the signal spec anyway, why bother with forcing the same physical size spec.
    You lost me. J1772 is not a DC charger. It's a 240V AC charger, which you say is 60A although I've never seen one above 30A.
    J1772 duty cycle is fraction of 60A. Namely, 25% is 15A, 50% is 30A, etc. They never figure that J1772 would exceed 60A.
    Why are you talking about fast DC and J1772 pins? I know I'm going to regret asking.
    The signalling pins of J1772 and CCS are the same. They are physically the same in CCS vehicles.

    When they designed CCS, they tried to keep it compatible with existing J1772 spec. But most DC chargers are way over 60A, or more than 100% duty cycle. So, it starts with a 1kHz with any duty cycle and then both side (charger and chargee) pretty much
    ignore it and look at the battery voltage instead.

    Hence, a big part of the signalling spec is meaningless, when you can just look at the battery voltage. Keeping big plug/socket with meaningless pins is just meaningless.
    DC charging does not use the PWM information for charge control at all. Neither does it use the battery voltage. The charging station does not know what the battery voltage is supposed to be or the vehicle's limits of charging current at any instant.

    No for CCS, but Yes for CDM. CDM DCFC knows exactly what the vehicle voltage is via CAN.


    There is a separate method using a modulated high-frequency signal CP line that allows bidirectional packetized communication between the vehicle and the charging station. This can do everything from billing to allowing V2G functionality.

    kw

    Moduled on the DC lines? If so, more reason to ditch the J1772 part of CCS.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Mon Jun 13 10:47:09 2022
    On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 10:52:18 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 18:29:21 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    ...
    BTW, the J1772 duty cycle peak at 60A (100%) and many DC chargers are much higher than that. So, they are not following the signal spec anyway, why bother with forcing the same physical size spec.
    You lost me. J1772 is not a DC charger. It's a 240V AC charger, which you say is 60A although I've never seen one above 30A.
    J1772 duty cycle is fraction of 60A. Namely, 25% is 15A, 50% is 30A, etc. They never figure that J1772 would exceed 60A.
    Why are you talking about fast DC and J1772 pins? I know I'm going to regret asking.
    The signalling pins of J1772 and CCS are the same. They are physically the same in CCS vehicles.

    When they designed CCS, they tried to keep it compatible with existing J1772 spec. But most DC chargers are way over 60A, or more than 100% duty cycle. So, it starts with a 1kHz with any duty cycle and then both side (charger and chargee) pretty
    much ignore it and look at the battery voltage instead.

    Hence, a big part of the signalling spec is meaningless, when you can just look at the battery voltage. Keeping big plug/socket with meaningless pins is just meaningless.
    DC charging does not use the PWM information for charge control at all. Neither does it use the battery voltage. The charging station does not know what the battery voltage is supposed to be or the vehicle's limits of charging current at any instant.
    No for CCS, but Yes for CDM. CDM DCFC knows exactly what the vehicle voltage is via CAN.


    What has Chademo go to do with it? - you were taking about J1772 and CCS.

    You could use CAN as a communication link but when the CCS spec was created they didn't define it that way. They used an approach that exploited the J1772 safety mechanism and didn't add any more connections other than the DC power pins.

    It is not completely obvious why they didn't just use the AC power pins for DC power as Tesla does. The CCS DC pins are slightly larger diameter but not much. Tesla gets up to 300A using their pins that are similar diameter to the J1772 power pins.

    There is a separate method using a modulated high-frequency signal CP line that allows bidirectional packetized communication between the vehicle and the charging station. This can do everything from billing to allowing V2G functionality.

    kw
    Moduled on the DC lines? If so, more reason to ditch the J1772 part of CCS.

    No the communication link does not go over the DC lines - the modulated RF signal rides on the Control Pilot line together with the PWM signal used for safety and AC signaling.

    I wonder why they didn't use a simple digital protocol similar to RS232. It doesn't really need CAN. It is always going to be point-to-point, no need to multiple end points and it would never be directly attached to a car's main network for security
    reasons.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Tue Jun 14 06:46:45 2022
    On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 10:47:14 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 10:52:18 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 18:29:21 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    ...
    BTW, the J1772 duty cycle peak at 60A (100%) and many DC chargers are much higher than that. So, they are not following the signal spec anyway, why bother with forcing the same physical size spec.
    You lost me. J1772 is not a DC charger. It's a 240V AC charger, which you say is 60A although I've never seen one above 30A.
    J1772 duty cycle is fraction of 60A. Namely, 25% is 15A, 50% is 30A, etc. They never figure that J1772 would exceed 60A.
    Why are you talking about fast DC and J1772 pins? I know I'm going to regret asking.
    The signalling pins of J1772 and CCS are the same. They are physically the same in CCS vehicles.

    When they designed CCS, they tried to keep it compatible with existing J1772 spec. But most DC chargers are way over 60A, or more than 100% duty cycle. So, it starts with a 1kHz with any duty cycle and then both side (charger and chargee) pretty
    much ignore it and look at the battery voltage instead.

    Hence, a big part of the signalling spec is meaningless, when you can just look at the battery voltage. Keeping big plug/socket with meaningless pins is just meaningless.
    DC charging does not use the PWM information for charge control at all. Neither does it use the battery voltage. The charging station does not know what the battery voltage is supposed to be or the vehicle's limits of charging current at any
    instant.
    No for CCS, but Yes for CDM. CDM DCFC knows exactly what the vehicle voltage is via CAN.

    What has Chademo go to do with it? - you were taking about J1772 and CCS.

    You could use CAN as a communication link but when the CCS spec was created they didn't define it that way. They used an approach that exploited the J1772 safety mechanism and didn't add any more connections other than the DC power pins.

    It is not completely obvious why they didn't just use the AC power pins for DC power as Tesla does. The CCS DC pins are slightly larger diameter but not much. Tesla gets up to 300A using their pins that are similar diameter to the J1772 power pins.
    There is a separate method using a modulated high-frequency signal CP line that allows bidirectional packetized communication between the vehicle and the charging station. This can do everything from billing to allowing V2G functionality.

    kw
    Moduled on the DC lines? If so, more reason to ditch the J1772 part of CCS.
    No the communication link does not go over the DC lines - the modulated RF signal rides on the Control Pilot line together with the PWM signal used for safety and AC signaling.

    RF over fixed wire is making thing more complicated than necessary. No wonder CCS chargers break often.

    I wonder why they didn't use a simple digital protocol similar to RS232. It doesn't really need CAN. It is always going to be point-to-point, no need to multiple end points and it would never be directly attached to a car's main network for security
    reasons.

    The charger needs to disable vehicle's drive train and route the electrical junction. It's not just talking to the battery alone. Of course, it should work in cooperation with the main vehicle controller.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Ed Lee on Tue Jun 14 07:28:19 2022
    On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 06:46:50 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 10:47:14 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    ...

    kw
    Moduled on the DC lines? If so, more reason to ditch the J1772 part of CCS.
    No the communication link does not go over the DC lines - the modulated RF signal rides on the Control Pilot line together with the PWM signal used for safety and AC signaling.
    RF over fixed wire is making thing more complicated than necessary. No wonder CCS chargers break often.

    Unlikely that is the cause of any failure. In my experience it is usually higher level network issues.

    I wonder why they didn't use a simple digital protocol similar to RS232. It doesn't really need CAN. It is always going to be point-to-point, no need to multiple end points and it would never be directly attached to a car's main network for security
    reasons.
    The charger needs to disable vehicle's drive train and route the electrical junction. It's not just talking to the battery alone. Of course, it should work in cooperation with the main vehicle controller.

    I said it can't connect "directly". Of course it has to interact with other parts of the vehicle but it cannot be allowed to directly connect to the car's CAN network or malicious actors could compromise the security of the vehicle.

    If it has to go through a bridge anyway for security reasons then the physical media is immaterial.

    The charger end does not have any particular reason to use CAN so something more straightforward would have been appropriate.

    Using a standard PLC protocol (the technique modulated RF over the CP line) I thought was unusual but it is a standard and allows the line to be used for both functions.

    kw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to ke...@kjwdesigns.com on Tue Jun 14 09:26:13 2022
    On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 1:47:14 PM UTC-4, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 10:52:18 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 18:29:21 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    ...
    BTW, the J1772 duty cycle peak at 60A (100%) and many DC chargers are much higher than that. So, they are not following the signal spec anyway, why bother with forcing the same physical size spec.
    You lost me. J1772 is not a DC charger. It's a 240V AC charger, which you say is 60A although I've never seen one above 30A.
    J1772 duty cycle is fraction of 60A. Namely, 25% is 15A, 50% is 30A, etc. They never figure that J1772 would exceed 60A.
    Why are you talking about fast DC and J1772 pins? I know I'm going to regret asking.
    The signalling pins of J1772 and CCS are the same. They are physically the same in CCS vehicles.

    When they designed CCS, they tried to keep it compatible with existing J1772 spec. But most DC chargers are way over 60A, or more than 100% duty cycle. So, it starts with a 1kHz with any duty cycle and then both side (charger and chargee) pretty
    much ignore it and look at the battery voltage instead.

    Hence, a big part of the signalling spec is meaningless, when you can just look at the battery voltage. Keeping big plug/socket with meaningless pins is just meaningless.
    DC charging does not use the PWM information for charge control at all. Neither does it use the battery voltage. The charging station does not know what the battery voltage is supposed to be or the vehicle's limits of charging current at any
    instant.
    No for CCS, but Yes for CDM. CDM DCFC knows exactly what the vehicle voltage is via CAN.

    What has Chademo go to do with it? - you were taking about J1772 and CCS.

    You could use CAN as a communication link but when the CCS spec was created they didn't define it that way. They used an approach that exploited the J1772 safety mechanism and didn't add any more connections other than the DC power pins.

    It is not completely obvious why they didn't just use the AC power pins for DC power as Tesla does. The CCS DC pins are slightly larger diameter but not much. Tesla gets up to 300A using their pins that are similar diameter to the J1772 power pins.

    The J1772 pins simply are not rated for the high currents on the DC pins. Tesla designed their connector for high current DC from the start. J1772 didn't.


    There is a separate method using a modulated high-frequency signal CP line that allows bidirectional packetized communication between the vehicle and the charging station. This can do everything from billing to allowing V2G functionality.

    kw
    Moduled on the DC lines? If so, more reason to ditch the J1772 part of CCS.
    No the communication link does not go over the DC lines - the modulated RF signal rides on the Control Pilot line together with the PWM signal used for safety and AC signaling.

    Ed is good at mixing up the details. He likes odd arrangements, oblivious that there are huge amounts of inertia in any standard. No charger company is going to want to change connectors now. Likewise, what car company wants to obsolete their
    previously sold cars... well, maybe that's not valid. ;)


    I wonder why they didn't use a simple digital protocol similar to RS232. It doesn't really need CAN. It is always going to be point-to-point, no need to multiple end points and it would never be directly attached to a car's main network for security
    reasons.

    I don't know much about the CCS protocol. I do know the J1772 standard is very, very simple and doesn't necessitate digital electronics in the EVSE, even if they all have an MCU.

    --

    Rick C.

    --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From keith@kjwdesigns.com@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue Jun 14 09:57:46 2022
    On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 09:26:18 UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 1:47:14 PM UTC-4, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Sunday, 12 June 2022 at 10:52:18 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 9:30:03 AM UTC-7, ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote:
    On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 18:29:21 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
    ...
    BTW, the J1772 duty cycle peak at 60A (100%) and many DC chargers are much higher than that. So, they are not following the signal spec anyway, why bother with forcing the same physical size spec.
    You lost me. J1772 is not a DC charger. It's a 240V AC charger, which you say is 60A although I've never seen one above 30A.
    J1772 duty cycle is fraction of 60A. Namely, 25% is 15A, 50% is 30A, etc. They never figure that J1772 would exceed 60A.
    Why are you talking about fast DC and J1772 pins? I know I'm going to regret asking.
    The signalling pins of J1772 and CCS are the same. They are physically the same in CCS vehicles.

    When they designed CCS, they tried to keep it compatible with existing J1772 spec. But most DC chargers are way over 60A, or more than 100% duty cycle. So, it starts with a 1kHz with any duty cycle and then both side (charger and chargee)
    pretty much ignore it and look at the battery voltage instead.

    Hence, a big part of the signalling spec is meaningless, when you can just look at the battery voltage. Keeping big plug/socket with meaningless pins is just meaningless.
    DC charging does not use the PWM information for charge control at all. Neither does it use the battery voltage. The charging station does not know what the battery voltage is supposed to be or the vehicle's limits of charging current at any
    instant.
    No for CCS, but Yes for CDM. CDM DCFC knows exactly what the vehicle voltage is via CAN.

    What has Chademo go to do with it? - you were taking about J1772 and CCS.

    You could use CAN as a communication link but when the CCS spec was created they didn't define it that way. They used an approach that exploited the J1772 safety mechanism and didn't add any more connections other than the DC power pins.

    It is not completely obvious why they didn't just use the AC power pins for DC power as Tesla does. The CCS DC pins are slightly larger diameter but not much. Tesla gets up to 300A using their pins that are similar diameter to the J1772 power pins.
    The J1772 pins simply are not rated for the high currents on the DC pins. Tesla designed their connector for high current DC from the start. J1772 didn't.

    I agree - although I was surprised that the connector could not be improved to increase the current capability.

    With the bidirectional communication link available in CCS there would be no ambiguity over the current capability of the connector.

    CCS2 connectors do support up to 500A with cooling (200A without) and have individual temperature sensors for each contact so the charging rate can be throttled if necessary.

    There is a separate method using a modulated high-frequency signal CP line that allows bidirectional packetized communication between the vehicle and the charging station. This can do everything from billing to allowing V2G functionality.

    kw
    Moduled on the DC lines? If so, more reason to ditch the J1772 part of CCS.
    No the communication link does not go over the DC lines - the modulated RF signal rides on the Control Pilot line together with the PWM signal used for safety and AC signaling.
    Ed is good at mixing up the details. He likes odd arrangements, oblivious that there are huge amounts of inertia in any standard. No charger company is going to want to change connectors now. Likewise, what car company wants to obsolete their
    previously sold cars... well, maybe that's not valid. ;)
    I wonder why they didn't use a simple digital protocol similar to RS232. It doesn't really need CAN. It is always going to be point-to-point, no need to multiple end points and it would never be directly attached to a car's main network for security
    reasons.
    I don't know much about the CCS protocol. I do know the J1772 standard is very, very simple and doesn't necessitate digital electronics in the EVSE, even if they all have an MCU.

    The the simple J1772 analog control technique used with CCS does have that virtue that the safety related aspect of enabling/disabling power does not require that any software be in the path.

    kw
    ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)