DIY Electric Car Forums banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

· Registered
72,624 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Re: [EVDL] j1772 necessity revisited, "Conspiracy against new EVs?

2) "Locking connector" is required to prevent inadvertent

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:

Anderson 100amp socket (on my 1920 Milburn):


-----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..




Dennis Miles <[email protected]> wrote:


> > Would you buy an appliance if an outlet costing 15% of the price was

> > required to plug it in?

> >

> > Price Gouging in the USA is highly frowned upon and in times of

> > is

> > often illegal. We arrested and fined individuals after Hurricane Andrew

> > Miami and Katrina in New Orleans for selling portable electric

> > for premium prices of two to ten times the usual.

> >

> >

> > Why then are we allowing dozens of firms all over the USA to charge the

> > American Public *twenty times the usual price* for an electric outlet

> > installing it in their garage? Requiring citizens to waste $2,750 more

> > necessary.

> >

> >

> > What am I talking about? The so called "Charging Stations" being

> > in the homes of every individual who wants to buy a "Plug-In "electric

> > vehicle. An Electric or Hybrid Plug-In Vehicle is required to have a

> > "Specialized Outlet" to connect the charging unit actually located in

> > Vehicle. WHY ?

> >

> >

> >

> > In every home laundry area are two outlets, one is for the Washer it is

> > v. @ 15 a. and there are dozens of outlets all around your home just

> > that (Stated simply, If you can plug in a Toaster, you can usually plug

> > an EV.)The other one is for the Electric Dryer it is 208 to 240 v. @ 30

> > If

> > you own a Recreational Camper those come with a cord that plugs right in

> > one or the other, but if you get a new Electric Vehicle, you must buy a

> > $3,000 socket and cord set and pay an additional $1,000 TO $2,000 to

> > it

> > installed. However to add an additional Dryer Outlet only costs about

> > including the parts needed.

> >

> > Why then does an EV need a $5,000 outlet? Because, the Underwriter's

> > Laboratory said it? That is not reasonable. The only justification is

> > Safety, but I can plug a $300,000 RV bus into a "Dryer Outlet" and the

> > 10,000 plug-in vehicles in the USA today can plug into a "dryer outlet"

> > a

> > "Standard home outlet" So that argument is unsubstantiated. If there

> > concern to have a "Ground Fault" protection, build it into the car. That

> > the proven method with Recreational Vehicles like Motor-homes.

> >

> >

> > IMHO, the j1772 connection is inhibiting the public adoption of Electric

> > "Plug-In" Vehicles. I ask "Why should we pay to have data collected

> > regarding our habits? Let the utilities pay , Why should we pay for this

> > Data collection so the "Charging Station" companies can then SELL the

> > to the electric Utilities? The Idea does not sit well with me. Do you

> > it ? ? ?

> >

> > --

> > Regards,

> > *Dennis Lee Miles* (Director) *E.V.T.I. inc*.

> > *www.E-V-T-I-Inc.COM <> *(Adviser)*

> > EVTI-EVAEducation Chapter

> > *

> > Phone (813) ID4 - E V T I or (813) 434 - 3884

> > -------------- next part --------------

> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> > URL:

> >


> > _______________________________________________

> > | REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.

> > | Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.



> > | OPTIONS:

> >

>-------------- next part --------------

>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...





>| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.

>| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.





| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.

| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
| REPLYING: address your message to [email protected] only.
| Multiple-address or CCed messages may be rejected.
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.