CCS v2

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me

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.

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

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

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$ snipped-for-privacy@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

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.

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

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.

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.

Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.

Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:

Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:

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.

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me

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.

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

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

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$hp7$ snipped-for-privacy@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

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.

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

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.

On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 18:29:21 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote: ...

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

...

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

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