240v charging and the electrical code

[NmGfan]

For universal usage the NEMA L14-30 is the closest thing to a STANDARD that is widely available across the country. Again, this is what should be built into the side of a 2e to allow for a separate removable power cord with a L14 connector on the vehicle end of the cord and your favorite NEMA compliant 240V or 120V plug on the wall end of the cord.

The AVCON male connector is for connecting from their charging station to your AVCON female connector equipped EV. That looks like a dedicated proprietary system to me. The female AVCON connector on the EV and the male AVCON connector on the vehicle side of a power cord can probably be purchased individually and used with standard 240V and 120V plugs on the wall end. The question is what benefit or advantage does this provide? I think it defeats the intent of the AVCON system.



http://www.avconev.com/

[evmavin]

Originally Posted by NmGfan

For universal usage the NEMA L14-30 is the closest thing to a STANDARD that is widely available across the country. Again, this is what should be built into the side of a 2e to allow for a separate removable power cord with a L14 connector on the vehicle end of the cord and your favorite NEMA compliant 240V or 120V plug on the wall end of the cord.

The AVCON male connector is for connecting from their charging station to your AVCON female connector equipped EV. That looks like a dedicated proprietary system to me. The female AVCON connector on the EV and the male AVCON connector on the vehicle side of a power cord can probably be purchased individually and used with standard 240V and 120V plugs on the wall end. The question is what benefit or advantage does this provide? I think it defeats the intent of the AVCON system.



http://www.avconev.com/

This was the EV charging standard connection (not charger) as it had multiple pins to give feedback such as "turn on vent fans" for cars with flooded batteries, charge lockout to prevent drive away, ground check circuits, etc, etc. I use an adaptor box with mine and "trick" the wall unit to do what I want with a few resistors and a cap, works great and I can charge at an AVCON station with your plug.

[NmGfan]

Originally Posted by evmavin

This was the EV charging standard connection (not charger) as it had multiple pins to give feedback such as "turn on vent fans" for cars with flooded batteries, charge lockout to prevent drive away, ground check circuits, etc, etc. I use an adaptor box with mine and "trick" the wall unit to do what I want with a few resistors and a cap, works great and I can charge at an AVCON station with your plug.

The feedback from the multi-pin connector sounds like a lot of the features I have with my built-in charger that uses the NEMA L14-30 type connector (fans on, drive away lock-out, parasitic systems run from wall outlet, etc.) It looks like you've come up with a fairly simple work around to be able to use a standard connector when there are no AVCON equipped charge stations around.

[evmavin]

What I do is use the AVCON charge stations with my standard plug and trick it to see what it wants.

[LTLFTcomposite]

Hi I'm new here... just scanned through this discussion and unless I missed someone already pointing this out, the reason for the electrical code requiring the cord to be de-energized is because of the nature of the way it's being used: You essentially have an extension cord that is always plugged in/energized from the other end, so the user is constantly wandering around carrying the energized recepticle end. It's an accident waiting to happen, standing in a puddle, you drop the thing...

Shouldn't be hard to address... the "charging station" is as simple as a relay/contactor that only closes when a low voltage "signal" circuit is closed when the recepticle is connected to the car.

[evmavin]

Originally Posted by LTLFTcomposite

Hi I'm new here... just scanned through this discussion and unless I missed someone already pointing this out, the reason for the electrical code requiring the cord to be de-energized is because of the nature of the way it's being used: You essentially have an extension cord that is always plugged in/energized from the other end, so the user is constantly wandering around carrying the energized recepticle end. It's an accident waiting to happen, standing in a puddle, you drop the thing...

Shouldn't be hard to address... the "charging station" is as simple as a relay/contactor that only closes when a low voltage "signal" circuit is closed when the recepticle is connected to the car.

AVCON does this with a LV pilot signal. There are many easy ways to implement this.

[garygid]

A "safety" power-relay Box could be made that takes 240v, N, and G in.
It would output 240v through a 2-pole normally-open 6-volt Relay,
with the Ground, but no Neutral to the extension cord.
A standard 120-volt AC to 6v DC power pod in the box would
connect to the ground and be used to power the Relay.
The other side of the Relay would connect to a "sense" wire that gets
grounded only when the "vehicle" end of the extension cord is plugged in.

Assuming the Aptera 2e uses only the two "hot" wires, does not use
the Neutral, and the charging socket in the 2e could have the Neutral
internally wired to ground, THEN the extension cord's unused "neutral"
wire MIGHT POSSIBLY be used as the "sense" wire.

Plugging in the "standard" 4-wire extension cord to the 2e would
short the "sense" wire to ground and energize the Relay, thereby
providing 240 volts to the extension cord only when the extension
cord is plugged into the 2e.

But, wiring the 2e's charging socket that way might not be exactly "legal".
Hovever, this Relay Box is simple and not very expensive to make.

[jstdadd]

Originally Posted by LTLFTcomposite

Hi I'm new here... just scanned through this discussion and unless I missed someone already pointing this out, the reason for the electrical code requiring the cord to be de-energized is because of the nature of the way it's being used: You essentially have an extension cord that is always plugged in/energized from the other end, so the user is constantly wandering around carrying the energized recepticle end. It's an accident waiting to happen, standing in a puddle, you drop the thing...

Shouldn't be hard to address... the "charging station" is as simple as a relay/contactor that only closes when a low voltage "signal" circuit is closed when the recepticle is connected to the car.

Although what you say is 'true', it kind of defies logic to me. I have an electric lawnmower, and I regularly walk around the wet yard with the energized cord female end in my hand. It is plugged into a GFI recepticle and occasionally it pops, without my knowing it. Annoying, but the system works.

When you want to use a 'public infrastructure' charging station, the 'owner or operator' of that station has some liability exposure for people getting shocked (I assume also for things like horses chewing through the cords, but I digress.) So, the all-protecting big-brother government regulators try to find a more fool-proof design. Having a requirement for the vehicle to communicate 'out-of-band' through the charging connector before energizing the charging circuit would make for a very reliable, if not entirely fool-proof, conductive charging system. The inductive (paddle) systems used in the past were very safe, but I think that today the inefficiencies are trying to be avoided (I don't have the data, but I am assuming that there is a loss involved in the inductive 'paddle' type charging.)

If you are an electrical handyman (handyperson?), like many here in the forum, you don't worry about 'fooling' the car into accepting the charge. You are taking your safety into your own hands. I am comfortable with that, but I don't think my other family members are as likely to understand the consequences of their actions with the conductive charging circuit as am I.

If the State of California, it all its glory, is going to specify the Yazaki J1772 connector for all BEVs built in the state, I think the discussion of at least one end of 'your' charging cable will be moot. I think it comes down to how easily you can just 'plug in' to household current. I would expect at the least some kind of 'charger-thingie' with the home power cord to meet the needs of http://tinyurl.com/3qdvl7 . The state, as far as I can tell, will adopt that connector, at the vehicle end, in early 2009. Tesla is already using it. The description of the 'charger-thingie' by LTLFTcomposite is valid, it does not have to be very complex.

Coulomb Technologies recently announced a charging system to begin rollout in 2009 in CA. Pictures available in a zip file at this site: http://tinyurl.com/6e9jvw

[KarenRei]

Originally Posted by jstdadd

The inductive (paddle) systems used in the past were very safe, but I think that today the inefficiencies are trying to be avoided (I don't have the data, but I am assuming that there is a loss involved in the inductive 'paddle' type charging.)

Yes, there is. The largest (50kW) MagneCharge chargers required liquid cooling of the paddles. A less obvious consequence is that the inefficiencies make scaling up to rapid charging harder with inductive.

[NmGfan]

I'm sticking with my recommendation to stay with existing infrastructure connectors that are available everywhere today and well into the future. Almost all of us have suitable 120V and a significant percentage have 240V available in our homes without purchasing anything (major $$) extra to charge an EV. Once there is an actual EV manufacturing industry thriving and selling vehicles across the country (many thousands, not hundreds) and there is real demand for a national standard charging station infrastructure I can see the move toward idealized connections.
I wonder if Aptera Motors will have to switch to the Yazaki J1772 connector when it becomes the CA standard in 2009?