Re: [EVDL] Failure Modes and Effects Analysis -FMEA of DCFC CCS<->J3400(NACS) adapters

[(-Phil-) via EV]

That's handled by the Proximity connection, when the car sees this is
connected it will not allow drive.  (One of the 2 small pins on the
connector)

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 3:44 PM Ron  wrote:

> That all makes sense to me, but does it address driving away while still
> connected? Or is there an interlock that prevents the car from moving while
> connected?
>
>
> On September 24, 2024 3:28:10 p.m. CST, "(-Phil-)" 
> wrote:
>
>> It's simple, you just have a mechanical lock like Tesla's original CCS to
>> NACS adapter, you connect the DCFC to the adapter, and then when the
>> adapter is connected to the car, a spring loaded pin or other device is
>> pressed in by the body of the car's inlet that locks the DCFC whip to the
>> adapter, then the car locks the adapter as it normally would.  This then
>> prevents removal until the car decides it's safe (all high-voltage is
>> removed), then you can remove the adapter from the car, which then releases
>> the spring pin, and then removal of the adapter is possible.   That's all
>> that's needed!
>>
>> Even if the DCFC can somehow stop the high-voltage in time when prox or
>> pilot is lost, a fault in the EV, such as a welded contactor, could leave
>> dangerous voltage present, so the electromechanical latch on the car is
>> absolutely required for safety.   CHAdeMO also has this, but they put the
>> lock on the handle side rather than the car.  CCS puts this on the car,
>> which makes sense, as the car would usually have a lock anyway just to
>> prevent people from disconnecting peoples cars without permission.
>>
>> This is already part of ALL DCFC standards, so all that's needed is for
>> the adapter manufacturers to look at the standard and implement it safely,
>> it's simple to understand if you are an Electrical Engineer, but they chose
>> to design something unsafe instead.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 11:17 AM Ron via EV  wrote:
>>
>>> Most of this discussion is either over my head or out of my wheelhouse.
>>> That said:
>>>
>>> Would it work to have a locking connector combined with a tether
>>> activated power disconnect and lock release?
>>>
>>> I'm envisioning a spring-wound reel of cord that trips a disconnect and
>>> release in a safe and non-destrucive way before the cord end and cable ends
>>> reach their limits.
>>>
>>>
>> --
> Ron
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] Failure Modes and Effects Analysis -FMEA of DCFC CCS<->J3400(NACS) adapters

[(-Phil-) via EV]

It's simple, you just have a mechanical lock like Tesla's original CCS to
NACS adapter, you connect the DCFC to the adapter, and then when the
adapter is connected to the car, a spring loaded pin or other device is
pressed in by the body of the car's inlet that locks the DCFC whip to the
adapter, then the car locks the adapter as it normally would.  This then
prevents removal until the car decides it's safe (all high-voltage is
removed), then you can remove the adapter from the car, which then releases
the spring pin, and then removal of the adapter is possible.   That's all
that's needed!

Even if the DCFC can somehow stop the high-voltage in time when prox or
pilot is lost, a fault in the EV, such as a welded contactor, could leave
dangerous voltage present, so the electromechanical latch on the car is
absolutely required for safety.   CHAdeMO also has this, but they put the
lock on the handle side rather than the car.  CCS puts this on the car,
which makes sense, as the car would usually have a lock anyway just to
prevent people from disconnecting peoples cars without permission.

This is already part of ALL DCFC standards, so all that's needed is for the
adapter manufacturers to look at the standard and implement it safely, it's
simple to understand if you are an Electrical Engineer, but they chose to
design something unsafe instead.

On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 11:17 AM Ron via EV  wrote:

> Most of this discussion is either over my head or out of my wheelhouse.
> That said:
>
> Would it work to have a locking connector combined with a tether activated
> power disconnect and lock release?
>
> I'm envisioning a spring-wound reel of cord that trips a disconnect and
> release in a safe and non-destrucive way before the cord end and cable ends
> reach their limits.
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] Failure Modes and Effects Analysis -FMEA of DCFC CCS<->J3400(NACS) adapters

[Ron via EV]

Most of this discussion is either over my head or out of my wheelhouse. That 
said:

Would it work to have a locking connector combined with a tether activated 
power disconnect and lock release?

I'm envisioning a spring-wound reel of cord that trips a disconnect and release 
in a safe and non-destrucive way before the cord end and cable ends reach their 
limits.

On September 23, 2024 5:57:04 p.m. CST, "(-Phil-) via EV"  
wrote:
>I have personally tested a number of CCS DCFCs, and NONE of them
>de-energize fast enough to avoid arcing when Pilot and/or Proximity is
>de-asserted.   It's a tall ask to have a DCFC putting out 500 amps and 800
>volts to get it to zero volts in a few milliseconds.   This is why there is
>a latch.
>
>Disconnecting AC under load is NOT THE SAME.   There is zero crossing 120
>times a second that will help extinguish an arc, and current is over a
>magnitude less.  DCFC has way more current, and high voltages connected
>directly to a current source that can provide tens of thousands of amps of
>fault current!
>
>On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 4:45 PM Bill Dube via EV  wrote:
>
>> I should note that the connector is designed so that the pilot wire
>> (communication wire) is the very first to disconnect. If the regulation
>> is followed correctly, this should automatically de-energize the entire
>> circuit, before the connector comes apart completely.
>>
>>  > Locking connector rant <<<
>>
>>  From the inception of Article 625 in the NEC, I have disdained the
>> requirement that the connector(s) be of the locking type.
>>
>> It makes _zero_ sense to have a locking connector on a object that is
>> mobile. If the vehicle moves somehow, the plug should simply disconnect
>> without indecent or damage. (The vehicle parking brake is not set
>> correctly. The vehicle is towed. The vehicle is accidentally hit by
>> another vehicle. The vehicle is somehow placed in drive. etc)
>>
>> Because the connector is locking, ("to prevent accidental disconnection"
>> which is _not_ a life-threatening hazard,) if the connector is strained
>> beyond its breaking point, either the cable conductors are dislodged and
>> exposed, or the connector housing in the vehicle is dislodged exposing
>> live conductors, or the cord is pulled out to the wall box exposing live
>> conductors. If plug were to simply disconnect, like on a vacuum cleaner,
>> or on an RV, then these hazards would be non-existent.
>>
>> As the regulation is now implemented, you have to have (expensive and
>> troublesome) strain sensors on both the wall box and the vehicle
>> connector housing to (hopefully) de-energize the live conductors before
>> they become exposed.
>>
>> The mandatory requirement for a locking connector should be dropped, or
>> at least made optional.
>>
>>   Soap box mode OFF <<< 🙂
>>
>> Bill D.
>>
>> On 9/24/2024 10:53 AM, (-Phil-) via EV wrote:
>> > I have discussed this here before, but neither the Lectron or the A2Z
>> have
>> > a proper mechanical interlock, meaning you can literally rip out the NACS
>> > cable while HV is still present, which could result in an arc flashover
>> > between the terminals with full pack voltage.  This could generate over a
>> > thousand amps of fault current and even completely destroy your EV!
>> >
>> > The CCS standard requires a mechanical interlock that prevents the
>> removal
>> > of the CCS whip while HV is present.  This is enforced by a motorized
>> latch
>> > in the car.   But there is no mechanical interlock on either of these
>> > adapters, which means the connector could be removed under load!   So if
>> > you ever use it, please supervise it the whole time (do not leave
>> > unattended!) and do not disconnect the NACS able from the adapter until
>> the
>> > car unlatches the adapter from the inlet, only then is it safe to remove
>> > the NACS cable.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 1:53 PM Jack Hill  wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm one of the people who bought a Lectron adapter (although other than
>> >> testing I may never have to use it. We'll see how long CCS1 sticks
>> around
>> >> I guess). Can you expand on why they're dangerous? I did read the
>> report,
>> >> and can't argue with the recommendations, but didn't see it call out
>> >> what's specifically wrong with the Lectron adapter. Lectron's AC J3400
>> >> adapter has seen years of real world use and held up fine.
>> >>
>> >> I'm happy to see standards. I'm kind of shocked that J3400 is being
>> >> rolled out without them. It seems to me like the right order would be to
>> >> do the standards first, and then a roll out (we have CCS and J1772 in
>> the
>> >> meantime).
>> >>
>> >>> Thanks for posting this, Rush!
>> >> Indeed, thank you!
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Jack
>> >>
>> > -- next part --
>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> > URL: <
>> http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20240923/31d32d61/attachment.htm
>> >
>> > ___
>>

Re: [EVDL] Failure Modes and Effects Analysis -FMEA of DCFC CCS<->J3400(NACS) adapters

[Jack Hill via EV]

Thank you both. I appreciate the multiple perspectives.

Best,
Jack

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] Failure Modes and Effects Analysis -FMEA of DCFC CCS<->J3400(NACS) adapters

[Jack Hill via EV]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, (-Phil-) via EV wrote:


Yes, there are lots of people buying these crappy Lectron and A2Z adapters
which I deem dangerous.   I'm glad there is some movement to develop
standards.


I'm one of the people who bought a Lectron adapter (although other than 
testing I may never have to use it. We'll see how long CCS1 sticks around 
I guess). Can you expand on why they're dangerous? I did read the report, 
and can't argue with the recommendations, but didn't see it call out 
what's specifically wrong with the Lectron adapter. Lectron's AC J3400 
adapter has seen years of real world use and held up fine.


I'm happy to see standards. I'm kind of shocked that J3400 is being 
rolled out without them. It seems to me like the right order would be to 
do the standards first, and then a roll out (we have CCS and J1772 in the 
meantime).



Thanks for posting this, Rush!


Indeed, thank you!

Best,
Jack
___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] Failure Modes and Effects Analysis -FMEA of DCFC CCS<->J3400(NACS) adapters

[(-Phil-) via EV]

I have personally tested a number of CCS DCFCs, and NONE of them
de-energize fast enough to avoid arcing when Pilot and/or Proximity is
de-asserted.   It's a tall ask to have a DCFC putting out 500 amps and 800
volts to get it to zero volts in a few milliseconds.   This is why there is
a latch.

Disconnecting AC under load is NOT THE SAME.   There is zero crossing 120
times a second that will help extinguish an arc, and current is over a
magnitude less.  DCFC has way more current, and high voltages connected
directly to a current source that can provide tens of thousands of amps of
fault current!

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 4:45 PM Bill Dube via EV  wrote:

> I should note that the connector is designed so that the pilot wire
> (communication wire) is the very first to disconnect. If the regulation
> is followed correctly, this should automatically de-energize the entire
> circuit, before the connector comes apart completely.
>
>  > Locking connector rant <<<
>
>  From the inception of Article 625 in the NEC, I have disdained the
> requirement that the connector(s) be of the locking type.
>
> It makes _zero_ sense to have a locking connector on a object that is
> mobile. If the vehicle moves somehow, the plug should simply disconnect
> without indecent or damage. (The vehicle parking brake is not set
> correctly. The vehicle is towed. The vehicle is accidentally hit by
> another vehicle. The vehicle is somehow placed in drive. etc)
>
> Because the connector is locking, ("to prevent accidental disconnection"
> which is _not_ a life-threatening hazard,) if the connector is strained
> beyond its breaking point, either the cable conductors are dislodged and
> exposed, or the connector housing in the vehicle is dislodged exposing
> live conductors, or the cord is pulled out to the wall box exposing live
> conductors. If plug were to simply disconnect, like on a vacuum cleaner,
> or on an RV, then these hazards would be non-existent.
>
> As the regulation is now implemented, you have to have (expensive and
> troublesome) strain sensors on both the wall box and the vehicle
> connector housing to (hopefully) de-energize the live conductors before
> they become exposed.
>
> The mandatory requirement for a locking connector should be dropped, or
> at least made optional.
>
>   Soap box mode OFF <<< 🙂
>
> Bill D.
>
> On 9/24/2024 10:53 AM, (-Phil-) via EV wrote:
> > I have discussed this here before, but neither the Lectron or the A2Z
> have
> > a proper mechanical interlock, meaning you can literally rip out the NACS
> > cable while HV is still present, which could result in an arc flashover
> > between the terminals with full pack voltage.  This could generate over a
> > thousand amps of fault current and even completely destroy your EV!
> >
> > The CCS standard requires a mechanical interlock that prevents the
> removal
> > of the CCS whip while HV is present.  This is enforced by a motorized
> latch
> > in the car.   But there is no mechanical interlock on either of these
> > adapters, which means the connector could be removed under load!   So if
> > you ever use it, please supervise it the whole time (do not leave
> > unattended!) and do not disconnect the NACS able from the adapter until
> the
> > car unlatches the adapter from the inlet, only then is it safe to remove
> > the NACS cable.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 1:53 PM Jack Hill  wrote:
> >
> >> I'm one of the people who bought a Lectron adapter (although other than
> >> testing I may never have to use it. We'll see how long CCS1 sticks
> around
> >> I guess). Can you expand on why they're dangerous? I did read the
> report,
> >> and can't argue with the recommendations, but didn't see it call out
> >> what's specifically wrong with the Lectron adapter. Lectron's AC J3400
> >> adapter has seen years of real world use and held up fine.
> >>
> >> I'm happy to see standards. I'm kind of shocked that J3400 is being
> >> rolled out without them. It seems to me like the right order would be to
> >> do the standards first, and then a roll out (we have CCS and J1772 in
> the
> >> meantime).
> >>
> >>> Thanks for posting this, Rush!
> >> Indeed, thank you!
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Jack
> >>
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20240923/31d32d61/attachment.htm
> >
> > ___
> > Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> > No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> > HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
> >
>
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Address messages t

Re: [EVDL] Failure Modes and Effects Analysis -FMEA of DCFC CCS<->J3400(NACS) adapters

[Bill Dube via EV]

I should note that the connector is designed so that the pilot wire 
(communication wire) is the very first to disconnect. If the regulation 
is followed correctly, this should automatically de-energize the entire 
circuit, before the connector comes apart completely.


> Locking connector rant <<<

From the inception of Article 625 in the NEC, I have disdained the 
requirement that the connector(s) be of the locking type.


It makes _zero_ sense to have a locking connector on a object that is 
mobile. If the vehicle moves somehow, the plug should simply disconnect 
without indecent or damage. (The vehicle parking brake is not set 
correctly. The vehicle is towed. The vehicle is accidentally hit by 
another vehicle. The vehicle is somehow placed in drive. etc)


Because the connector is locking, ("to prevent accidental disconnection" 
which is _not_ a life-threatening hazard,) if the connector is strained 
beyond its breaking point, either the cable conductors are dislodged and 
exposed, or the connector housing in the vehicle is dislodged exposing 
live conductors, or the cord is pulled out to the wall box exposing live 
conductors. If plug were to simply disconnect, like on a vacuum cleaner, 
or on an RV, then these hazards would be non-existent.


As the regulation is now implemented, you have to have (expensive and 
troublesome) strain sensors on both the wall box and the vehicle 
connector housing to (hopefully) de-energize the live conductors before 
they become exposed.


The mandatory requirement for a locking connector should be dropped, or 
at least made optional.


 Soap box mode OFF <<< 🙂

Bill D.

On 9/24/2024 10:53 AM, (-Phil-) via EV wrote:

I have discussed this here before, but neither the Lectron or the A2Z have
a proper mechanical interlock, meaning you can literally rip out the NACS
cable while HV is still present, which could result in an arc flashover
between the terminals with full pack voltage.  This could generate over a
thousand amps of fault current and even completely destroy your EV!

The CCS standard requires a mechanical interlock that prevents the removal
of the CCS whip while HV is present.  This is enforced by a motorized latch
in the car.   But there is no mechanical interlock on either of these
adapters, which means the connector could be removed under load!   So if
you ever use it, please supervise it the whole time (do not leave
unattended!) and do not disconnect the NACS able from the adapter until the
car unlatches the adapter from the inlet, only then is it safe to remove
the NACS cable.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 1:53 PM Jack Hill  wrote:


I'm one of the people who bought a Lectron adapter (although other than
testing I may never have to use it. We'll see how long CCS1 sticks around
I guess). Can you expand on why they're dangerous? I did read the report,
and can't argue with the recommendations, but didn't see it call out
what's specifically wrong with the Lectron adapter. Lectron's AC J3400
adapter has seen years of real world use and held up fine.

I'm happy to see standards. I'm kind of shocked that J3400 is being
rolled out without them. It seems to me like the right order would be to
do the standards first, and then a roll out (we have CCS and J1772 in the
meantime).


Thanks for posting this, Rush!

Indeed, thank you!

Best,
Jack


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/



___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] Failure Modes and Effects Analysis -FMEA of DCFC CCS<->J3400(NACS) adapters

[(-Phil-) via EV]

I have discussed this here before, but neither the Lectron or the A2Z have
a proper mechanical interlock, meaning you can literally rip out the NACS
cable while HV is still present, which could result in an arc flashover
between the terminals with full pack voltage.  This could generate over a
thousand amps of fault current and even completely destroy your EV!

The CCS standard requires a mechanical interlock that prevents the removal
of the CCS whip while HV is present.  This is enforced by a motorized latch
in the car.   But there is no mechanical interlock on either of these
adapters, which means the connector could be removed under load!   So if
you ever use it, please supervise it the whole time (do not leave
unattended!) and do not disconnect the NACS able from the adapter until the
car unlatches the adapter from the inlet, only then is it safe to remove
the NACS cable.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 1:53 PM Jack Hill  wrote:

>
> I'm one of the people who bought a Lectron adapter (although other than
> testing I may never have to use it. We'll see how long CCS1 sticks around
> I guess). Can you expand on why they're dangerous? I did read the report,
> and can't argue with the recommendations, but didn't see it call out
> what's specifically wrong with the Lectron adapter. Lectron's AC J3400
> adapter has seen years of real world use and held up fine.
>
> I'm happy to see standards. I'm kind of shocked that J3400 is being
> rolled out without them. It seems to me like the right order would be to
> do the standards first, and then a roll out (we have CCS and J1772 in the
> meantime).
>
> > Thanks for posting this, Rush!
>
> Indeed, thank you!
>
> Best,
> Jack
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/

Re: [EVDL] Failure Modes and Effects Analysis -FMEA of DCFC CCS<->J3400(NACS) adapters

[(-Phil-) via EV]

Yes, there are lots of people buying these crappy Lectron and A2Z adapters
which I deem dangerous.   I'm glad there is some movement to develop
standards.

Thanks for posting this, Rush!

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 5:45 AM Rush via EV  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Marco Gaxiola sent me a link to a report done by the ChargeX Consortium
> "Recommended  ACTIONS TO IMPROVE  ADAPTER SAFETY" that he and several
> others
> have written (Marco said he was the main participant).
>
>
>
> It discusses the safety issues of the DCFS CCS/NACS adapters and has
> recommendations that should be incorporated. And since there has been some
> discussion of the adapters on the list, I thought that some of you might be
> interested.
>
>
>
> You can read it here-   https://lnkd.in/gfisdNrk
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rush Dougherty
>
> TucsonEV
>
>   www.TucsonEV.com
>
>
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20240921/9946f889/attachment.htm
> >
> ___
> Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
> No other addresses in TO and CC fields
> HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
>
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/