Re: [EVDL] j1772 necessity revisited, "Conspiracy against new EVs?
2) "Locking connector" is required to prevent inadvertent
disconnection.
This is sad.the "standard EV charge connector" in the 19-teens and 20's was
the Anderson 100amp coaxial connector.
No locking connector, a spring-loaded door protecting against exposing
active contacts on the car side and contacts which were substantially deep
in there anyway. These type of connectors were made until the late 50's or
later. Another company made them for awhile after. The EV industry
recognized at the time that locking connectors were NOT WISE as people do
forget to pull the plug and (as you mention), there's the freakin' tow truck
Nazis who'll hitch you up and drive away without any due process let alone
checking to see if your car is unplugged or not.
Anderson 100amp charge plug of yesteryear:
http://home.comcast.net/~matwete/ev/DCAM0034.JPG
Anderson 100amp socket (on my 1920 Milburn):
http://home.comcast.net/~matwete/ev/DCAM0038_websize.JPG
-Myles
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Bill Dube
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:35 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] j1772 necessity revisited, "Conspiracy against new EVs?
You can actually blame GM and Hughes. The inventors of the
MagnaCharge inductive charging system used on the EV1.
They managed to get on the board that revises the National Electrical
Code rules back in the mid 90's. They wrote Article 625 in a way to
make conductive charging as difficult and expensive as possible. I
complained loudly and bitterly, but with no effect.
There are key phrases in Article 625 that make conductive
charging really expensive, without actually looking like that was the
goal. Here are two of the worst/best:
1) "Parts made live must be covered" when the connector is disconnected.
2) "Locking connector" is required to prevent inadvertent disconnection.
1) "Parts made live" is not the same as "live parts". Also,
"covered" is not the same as "inaccessible" or "protected from
accidental contact" or "Live parts not exposed." A normal connector
is required to prevent accidental contact with the live high voltage
parts after you disconnect it. The EV connector must "cover" _all_
contacts that were ever live. Even if they are intrinsically dead
when the connector comes apart, and even if they only have 5 volts
and are harmless. This makes the connector really complicated and expensive.
2) The NEC exists to regulate for safety, not for convenience. Making
the connector locking on a vehicle reduces safety. The connector
should simply pull apart safely if the vehicle rolls away (or is
towed away or driven away, or is hit by another vehicle.) Making it a
locking connector adds the requirement of a cord strain sensor and a
contactor the is controlled by that strain sensor. The strain sensor
won't prevent damage to the structure wiring or the car wiring. Thus,
when the car is towed away, live wires are likely to be exposed as
the charger rips off the wall or the inlet rips out of the car.
Article 625 forbids the use of an ordinary connector to
charge the car. It is required to be different than all other
connectors. This makes no sense, unless you are trying to make i
expensive and difficult to charge an EV.
To top all this off, the NEC is _not_ allowed to regulate
what is plugged in. It is only allowed to regulate what is attached
to a building or structure that is occupied. An outside plug next to
a parking place is the same no matter what is parked there, at least
that is the how the NEC is supposed to act according to the laws that
govern it.
The smart thing to do is to lobby your state or municipality
to exclude Article 625 entirely. (They typically exclude parts of
Art. 625 and well as other specific parts of the NEC.)
Bill D.
At 02:27 PM 11/21/2010, you wrote:
>Agree 100%, I been saying all along.
>
>It is ludicrous to have to pay for a $3000 extension cord that has a diode
>and a resistor in it.
>
>The "Charge Port" smarts necessary can be run with a $3 PIC..
>
>Mike
>
>
2) "Locking connector" is required to prevent inadvertent
disconnection.
This is sad.the "standard EV charge connector" in the 19-teens and 20's was
the Anderson 100amp coaxial connector.
No locking connector, a spring-loaded door protecting against exposing
active contacts on the car side and contacts which were substantially deep
in there anyway. These type of connectors were made until the late 50's or
later. Another company made them for awhile after. The EV industry
recognized at the time that locking connectors were NOT WISE as people do
forget to pull the plug and (as you mention), there's the freakin' tow truck
Nazis who'll hitch you up and drive away without any due process let alone
checking to see if your car is unplugged or not.
Anderson 100amp charge plug of yesteryear:
http://home.comcast.net/~matwete/ev/DCAM0034.JPG
Anderson 100amp socket (on my 1920 Milburn):
http://home.comcast.net/~matwete/ev/DCAM0038_websize.JPG
-Myles
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Bill Dube
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:35 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] j1772 necessity revisited, "Conspiracy against new EVs?
You can actually blame GM and Hughes. The inventors of the
MagnaCharge inductive charging system used on the EV1.
They managed to get on the board that revises the National Electrical
Code rules back in the mid 90's. They wrote Article 625 in a way to
make conductive charging as difficult and expensive as possible. I
complained loudly and bitterly, but with no effect.
There are key phrases in Article 625 that make conductive
charging really expensive, without actually looking like that was the
goal. Here are two of the worst/best:
1) "Parts made live must be covered" when the connector is disconnected.
2) "Locking connector" is required to prevent inadvertent disconnection.
1) "Parts made live" is not the same as "live parts". Also,
"covered" is not the same as "inaccessible" or "protected from
accidental contact" or "Live parts not exposed." A normal connector
is required to prevent accidental contact with the live high voltage
parts after you disconnect it. The EV connector must "cover" _all_
contacts that were ever live. Even if they are intrinsically dead
when the connector comes apart, and even if they only have 5 volts
and are harmless. This makes the connector really complicated and expensive.
2) The NEC exists to regulate for safety, not for convenience. Making
the connector locking on a vehicle reduces safety. The connector
should simply pull apart safely if the vehicle rolls away (or is
towed away or driven away, or is hit by another vehicle.) Making it a
locking connector adds the requirement of a cord strain sensor and a
contactor the is controlled by that strain sensor. The strain sensor
won't prevent damage to the structure wiring or the car wiring. Thus,
when the car is towed away, live wires are likely to be exposed as
the charger rips off the wall or the inlet rips out of the car.
Article 625 forbids the use of an ordinary connector to
charge the car. It is required to be different than all other
connectors. This makes no sense, unless you are trying to make i
expensive and difficult to charge an EV.
To top all this off, the NEC is _not_ allowed to regulate
what is plugged in. It is only allowed to regulate what is attached
to a building or structure that is occupied. An outside plug next to
a parking place is the same no matter what is parked there, at least
that is the how the NEC is supposed to act according to the laws that
govern it.
The smart thing to do is to lobby your state or municipality
to exclude Article 625 entirely. (They typically exclude parts of
Art. 625 and well as other specific parts of the NEC.)
Bill D.
At 02:27 PM 11/21/2010, you wrote:
>Agree 100%, I been saying all along.
>
>It is ludicrous to have to pay for a $3000 extension cord that has a diode
>and a resistor in it.
>
>The "Charge Port" smarts necessary can be run with a $3 PIC..
>
>Mike
>
>
