An aftermarket kit to improve charging to 6.6kW

[Ingineer]

First of all, the danger is hugely overblown. If the system does not have any electrically live components accessible to the user (which it doesn't in any of these cars), there is no possibility for a shock. Isolated or not. Furthermore, if protected by a proper GFI, non-isolated is nearly as safe as an isolated design - even if there are live components accessible (again, not in these cars). If that wasn't the case, we would still all have inductive charging...

It is not overblown. Clearly you do not possess enough engineering skills to even be qualified enough to make such a statement! If you did, you'd know that all common "GFI's" (GFCI) are NOT sensitive to DC leakage, and will NOT trip if you were to touch the EV's body (which is not grounded, as you don't seem to think it's needed, and in fact CANNOT be grounded if you are using a non-isolated design!) this could then conduct a large and fatal DC current through a person to something that is grounded. There would be no trip. Try it if you have doubts!

Secondly, if everyone thought like this, we wouldn't have automotive performance aftermarket industry at all. For example, increasing pressure by 2x in one's turbo engine has risks. Same for putting in a NOX system in your car. Some engines blow up. Yet hundreds of thousands of people do that. It's all about trade-offs. Learn about the potential risks, weigh them against the benefits, and make an informed decision. Not based on hearsay, ideally...

Risking some engine damage is not the same as risking LETHAL ELECTROCUTION!

EMI/RFI - I have a couple of problems with the related statements in your post:
1. To uninitiated (i.e. not EE types), saying 'radiation' and 'bad consequences' without explaining is fear mongering. We have a pretty paranoid society here as it is.

Paranoia starts because of people taking unreasonable risks.

2. 'A ton of RFI' is not a very scientific term. Have you measured it? Have you compared it with the background levels? Across the spectrum? We have measured radiated EMI from our non-grounded units - in a 0-10kHz band, at full 12kW power, at 3 feet, we measure less than 2 milli-gauss. Background level in my last 3 houses was 1.5-3 milli-gauss depending on how many lights are on...

If you use a non-isolated DC supply on the LEAF, you will have to intentionally NOT ground the LEAF's body to an RF sink (Earth ground) to make it not trip the leakage detection in the LEAF. This will turn the LEAF's body into a passive radiating antenna, re-radiating all the RFI from your poorly designed non-isolated converter. Note that I am more concerned about RFI, not EMI as you are claiming figures for. Apparently you don't know the difference, thus further proving your lack of qualifications to be working in this area. RFI is Radio-Frequency interference, EMI is Electo-Magnetic Interference. Milli-Gauss is measuring EMI NOT RFI!

3. Lastly, when your car moves, it's not grounded. Yet there is up to 80kW of AC power transferred around you (in a Leaf, up to 400kW in a Tesla S). And you are sitting IN the car (as opposed to you being in your HOUSE when you car charges). At freeway speeds, that AC also has much higher frequency than line - and radiated power is roughly proportional to the square of the frequency.

You also haven't directly connected the AC power lines to the car while you are driving, but when using a non-isolated converter, this is exactly what you are doing! All modern EV's use fully shielded equipment and transmission lines, everything is double-insulated and there always is a fault detection circuit that will cut power to the EV is a fault is detected. There is NO current path to ground or the car's body in normal operation, and during any connection to an external power source referenced to ground, there is always a bonded connection to the car's body to ground, as well as leakage detection that will cut power in the event of a fault. You will have to effectively disable all this protection in order to use your device and create a dangerous condition.

No regulatory agency on the planet would ever approve your device, and there are good reasons for that! It would be trivial to prove your negligence in a civil suit, and you'd be liable for damages if anything bad happened. The FCC would easily issue you a cease and desist as soon as your converter starts blasting RF interference all over.

So let's try to not generalize things into non-quantitative categorical statements. Especially if you decide to launch a direct assault on other people like you did.

If you want me to prove the danger and give you quantifiable measurements, I'll be happy to. Send me one of your converters and I'll give it a full and proper analysis for free and publish the results here. My concern is that people understand the risks before attempting dangerous scenarios. You are dangerously downplaying safety, and you clearly are not qualified to make such assessments. Your initial offering of your kit EVSE wasn't even going to include GFCI protection until you were called out on it! A $10 Chinese-made hair dryer even includes this essential safety device. That you could consider skimping on such a critical thing to save a few bucks shows where your sensibilities lie.

-Phil

 

[EVDRIVER]

I have actually been shocked as a result of a non-isolated Manzanita Micro charger on an EV body. Not fun at all. :shock: After changing to an isolated charger this was resolved.

 

[hyperlexis]

What needs to be added or replaced to increase charging from 3.3k to 6.6k level 2? I would pay for this upgrade

The charger, which is located inside the Leaf. At one point, Nissan hinted that they might be able to upgrade current Leafs, but now they say it can't be done. Forget it, not gonna happen.

More specifically, the charger is located in the hump behind the back seat. A higher capacity charger will almost certainly be physically larger. Can it be configured to fit inside that hump? Maybe, maybe not. Rumor has it that Nissan isn't even going to try, and will relocate the larger charger to the front of the car. Can you imagine trying to reconfigure the "engine" compartment of an existing car to accommodate an additional component like that?

Not to mention that the charger is water cooled and uses some very hefty electric cables. The larger charger will need more cooling. Is the existing system adequate for that? Probably, but who knows. It will definitely need larger cables running back to it from the charge port at the very front of the car. Not only are these expensive, but will there be room in the existing channels for the larger diameter wires?

Of course it's doable, at a price. How many thousands of dollars are you willing to spend, and how many others can you find willing to spend those amounts so that there is a viable business plan for the product?

Ray

This was one of my outstanding questions -- so the Leaf cools the electronics with radiator coolant, including the charger all the way back in the hatch? 1.) I assume this coolant loop also preheats the cabin heating coolant in winter; and 2.) Can the coolant loop be tapped into and rerouted to cool the battery? Nissan if anything should have devised a TSB to accomplish this.

(Does anyone have a Leaf coolant system diagram online?)

Any 3rd party manufacturers considering a retrofit battery cooling jacket or something? Astronomically costly if even possible, I'd assume....

 

[GregH]

Can the coolant loop be tapped into and rerouted to cool the battery?

I'm guessing the temperature of the coolant used to cool the electronics is a bit warmer than you'd want to cool the batteries.. Does anyone know what the range of temperatures would be for the electronics coolant loop during charging?

 

[planet4ever]

More specifically, the charger is located in the hump behind the back seat.

This was one of my outstanding questions -- so the Leaf cools the electronics with radiator coolant, including the charger all the way back in the hatch? 1.) I assume this coolant loop also preheats the cabin heating coolant in winter; and 2.) Can the coolant loop be tapped into and rerouted to cool the battery? Nissan if anything should have devised a TSB to accomplish this.

(Does anyone have a Leaf coolant system diagram online?

Wow, you reached clear back to a Jul 28, 2012 post I made. Yes, the radiator coolant did go all the way back to the hatch in the 2011-2012 cars. And the charger was moved to the front compartment for 2013 as I suggested it might be. In fact it's a whole different component breakout, and the charger is part of that "Power Distribution Module" (PDM) that Nissan has been having trouble with in the 2013's.

There were two separate coolant loops in the 2011-2012, and presumably in the 2013's, though I haven't checked that. The only thing the cabin heating loop shared with the cooling loop was the fluid reservoir.

Nissan engineering is philosophically opposed to allowing any liquid-containing tubes inside their sealed battery pack. I suppose for enough money it would be possible to mount a network of cooling tubes on the outside of the pack.

There are diagrams of the cooling system in the Service Manual, which you can gain access to for $30. It would be a clear violation of copyright law to publish them online, so I'm not going to do that.

Ray

 

[TomT]

Yeah, I was tempted to explain RFI and microvolts/meter to him but decided there was no point...

Apparently you don't know the difference, thus further proving your lack of qualifications to be working in this area. RFI is Radio-Frequency interference, EMI is Electo-Magnetic Interference. Milli-Gauss is measuring EMI NOT RFI!

 

[valerun]

Clearly you do not possess enough engineering skills to even be qualified enough to make such a statement!

beautiful

Of course GFI won't trip on the internal DC-only leak. Just as it won't if you touch both hot AC lines at the same time. Please don't assume that everyone else is an idiot before responding.

Back on topic: for the current to flow through you, you'd have to close the circuit. There are 3 possible paths a person can create:

(Path 1) Between one of the live terminals and body of the car.
The current is limited to the leakage that might exist between the other live DC / AC terminals and the body of the car. Given that the car is constantly testing for that leakage, this scenario is unlikely. While the charger is not isolating between its inputs and outputs, the metal enclosure itself is of course floating relative to both and is connected to the car body so that leakage detection covers the charger, as well. You just need to make sure that the input AC power is not allowed to be connected if there is a detected fault. This could be done by piggibacking on the car's fault signal (through CANbus or sensing DC connection directly) and simply not allowing input relay to close if the fault is present.

(Path 2) Between one of the live terminals and true ground.
The only current that can flow will have to come from the AC mains as that is the only external thing that's connected to the car. Such a flow will result in imbalance of AC current and trip GFI. There is a possibility of the current to return via something like wet wheels back to the car body but that means there is an isolation fault between HV and car's body (see Path 1 above)

(Path 3) Between body of the car and true ground.
This is a combination of (1) and (2). Again, you need leakage between HV and body of the car to close the circuit.

Again, of course nothing can protect you if you touch the opposite energized contacts. Regardless of how much grounding etc you have. That's not the scenario we are talking about here.

I love the response re EMI / RFI measurement, too. You know that the only difference in the terms is the frequency, no? Perhaps you also know that an electromagnetic wave is a combination of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, no? So the magnetic field intensity is proportional to the electric field intensity, perhaps? You guys are a riot ;-)

This said, yes, EMI will be higher with an ungrounded car. The question is how much higher and is it going to be high enough for 'bad consequences'.

 

[valerun]

Also, out of curiosity I just spent a few minutes looking at a few other threads honored by your replies, Phil.

A couple of interesting patterns I noticed:

1. Extremely hostile, demeaning personal attacks at people who in one way or another can hurt your EVSEupgrade business. While motivation can be understood, the means you use to bring your message across are rather questionable. Kind of a high school bully, really...

2. Almost every such posting by you is immediately followed by EVDRIVER posting or two - in a similarly hostile and demeaning manner. This is curious that two people can have such a unison of opinions. I am assuming this is two different people as I just can't imagine how one could put on such a classy act as reinforcing his own opinions by posting from a separate account... That would be just TOO classy...

Just my observations, of course. Who knows.

Ok I will now stop wasting time on this thread. Thanks guys for the entertainment ;-)

Valery.

 

[EVDRIVER]

We are not the same person but I do follow every thread and I think Phil is primarily concerned about safety as that is evident in all his posts. I am also concerned about safety and I don't think you would have a single response to your posts if this were not a concern and that has been the basis of the posts. This tone was started when you introduced a product with no GFCI protection and I think it is reasonable to question this. I would be concerned about anyone that does not put safety first and I have pretty much made that clear from day one here. My only contention was your decision not to do the latter and the logic behind that decision to omit the most important safety feature of an EVSE, a device that is specifically designed to be a safety device. Having a kit product is very risky IMO opinion and that is your risk, not implementing safety is what I can't understand or support. I am all for innovation and new ideas I just hope they will be done responsibly, that's all.

 

[TomT]

Bye!

Ok I will now stop wasting time on this thread. Thanks guys for the entertainment ;-)

 

[JeremyW]

Can the coolant loop be tapped into and rerouted to cool the battery?

I'm guessing the temperature of the coolant used to cool the electronics is a bit warmer than you'd want to cool the batteries.. Does anyone know what the range of temperatures would be for the electronics coolant loop during charging?

I bought a temperature logger with external probe off ebay and plan to monitor coolant temperature to see how hot it gets. Will make a new thread when I've got some data.

 

[Ingineer]

Back on topic: for the current to flow through you, you'd have to close the circuit. There are 3 possible paths a person can create:

You haven't considered all the possibilities. One is that there is significant capacitance between the car body and it's HV system. There is also a directly conductive path in the LBC for effecting the leakage detection. Both of these, or one of these could conspire with a simple scenario, such as a barefoot child touching the body to deliver a lethal shock in the right conditions. The Leakage detection will halt charging, but it will likely not happen fast enough to prevent a lethal shock, as it's designed to detect a low resistance short from chassis to HV and then disable the car so no further use could occur until the fault is repaired.

You also haven't addressed the fact that no regulatory agency anywhere in the world would consider approving your method. So these people are just paranoid "fear mongers" with no basis for their rules? Obviously you know better. There is no point in trying to argue with you when you obviously convinced you know more than any other engineer on the planet.[/quote]

-Phil

 

[Ingineer]

Also, out of curiosity I just spent a few minutes looking at a few other threads honored by your replies, Phil.

I'm sure in those few minutes you were able to get a good idea, I suppose you can read my over 2500 posts in only a few minutes. The bulk of those posts are me assisting and supporting the community here. I rarely have to speak out against anyone.

1. Extremely hostile, demeaning personal attacks at people who in one way or another can hurt your EVSEupgrade business. While motivation can be understood, the means you use to bring your message across are rather questionable. Kind of a high school bully, really...

Obviously you are already on this level with your name-calling. EVSE Upgrade has helped thousands of EV owners charge their EV's for low cost and in a SAFE manner. I know the upgrade business is simply a stop-gap, as the market forces will eventually solve the charging issues, and I welcome and support other options. I have assisted with and support the REAL open-source open EVSE project, and I have assisted the community in improving it. What I don't support is dangerous efforts by unqualified people, especially when they encourage other people to do so. I will vigorously protest anything I deem to be a danger to people or property, and that could hurt the EV movement.

2. Almost every such posting by you is immediately followed by EVDRIVER posting or two

It's not just EVdriver, the bulk of educated and informed people here will support my assertions as they are based on many years of engineering experience and facts. I don't see anyone else agreeing with you here! There are many people here who have met both EVdriver and myself in person. Just because several people think reasonably doesn't mean there is a conspiracy.

Ok I will now stop wasting time on this thread.

Thanks. If you were at least responsible enough to issue a warning about your methods, I wouldn't have said anything. I think I've made my point, and you've only underscored it now.

-Phil

 

[QueenBee]

I have assisted with and support the REAL open-source open EVSE project, and I have assisted the community in improving it. What I don't support is dangerous efforts by unqualified people, especially when they encourage other people to do so. I will vigorously protest anything I deem to be a danger to people or property, and that could hurt the EV movement.

This thread is a great example of why you are so valuable to the community. I couldn't but questiom anything someone who would think it was even a remotely good idea to exclude GFCI and your highlites of why their charger is not safe. It's a shame that this person could not have a more civil discussion about this topic and get a understanding of your concerns. If they really were committed to the safety of their product they would certainly take you up on your offer to do your own tests.

As for your motives. I've yet to meet you but my gut tells me that you would strongly support manufacturers including a high quality 240 volt EVSE for very little additional cost thus killing your EVSEUpgrade business. When this eventually happens all future EV owners will have you to thank. In the mean time we have you to thank for the cheapest L2 option available. Thanks for taking the risk that this business has.

Your support of OpenEVSE, DIY adapters, homeowner electrical work, jumping from LEAFs, charging on generators, DIY quick220, etc. clearly shows that you are all about people tinkering and tweaking but you are always willing to take the time to steer us towards the right direction keeping us safe.

 

[Ingineer]

This thread is a great example of why you are so valuable to the community. I couldn't but questiom anything someone who would think it was even a remotely good idea to exclude GFCI and your highlites of why their charger is not safe. It's a shame that this person could not have a more civil discussion about this topic and get a understanding of your concerns. If they really were committed to the safety of their product they would certainly take you up on your offer to do your own tests.

Thanks!

As for your motives. I've yet to meet you but my gut tells me that you would strongly support manufacturers including a high quality 240 volt EVSE for very little additional cost thus killing your EVSEUpgrade business. When this eventually happens all future EV owners will have you to thank. In the mean time we have you to thank for the cheapest L2 option available. Thanks for taking the risk that this business has.

In our first meeting with Nissan, I proposed this. Sadly Nissan is really not interested in entering the charging business in any way, I suspect for liability reasons. They have the "emergency" cord made by a 3rd party supplier, and they recommend everyone use a separate entity (AV) for normal charging. They clearly want "hands off" in the EVSE area.

Your support of OpenEVSE, DIY adapters, homeowner electrical work, jumping from LEAFs, charging on generators, DIY quick220, etc. clearly shows that you are all about people tinkering and tweaking but you are always willing to take the time to steer us towards the right direction keeping us safe.

Exactly, and thanks for confirming this. Obviously there are others that just popped in here recently and contribute little, but are quick to call names and slam others that have a proven long track record.

Thanks again!

-Phil

 

[braineo]

Ingineer - suggest you compile your experiences into the Bible of EV inginuity... you have a thankful EV community willing to support that. Sign me up for a book (in electronic format please). You have teached many in these forum and many are willing to go through your "Electronics from the Trenches" course if you ever decide to teach one.

 

[Ingineer]

Ingineer - suggest you compile your experiences into the Bible of EV inginuity... you have a thankful EV community willing to support that. Sign me up for a book (in electronic format please). You have teached many in these forum and many are willing to go through your "Electronics from the Trenches" course if you ever decide to teach one.

Thanks Braineo. I wish I had the time for such endeavors! I'd like to keep my energy directed at things that will help more EV's get sold, so we can get more on the the road. I believe this will lower costs, and cause much more rapid improvement in battery technology. Then we all benefit!

-Phil

 

[Luft]

It is not overblown. Clearly you do not possess enough engineering skills to even be qualified enough to make such a statement! If you did, you'd know that all common "GFI's" (GFCI) are NOT sensitive to DC leakage, and will NOT trip if you were to touch the EV's body (which is not grounded, as you don't seem to think it's needed, and in fact CANNOT be grounded if you are using a non-isolated design!) this could then conduct a large and fatal DC current through a person to something that is grounded. There would be no trip. Try it if you have doubts!

Let me say that I trust and value your opinion. I have purchased several LEAF upgrades from you and they work flawlessly. My trip from Canada to Mexico would not have been possible without you EVSE upgrade. Thank you!

However, I don't understand the isolated / non-isolated thing. Can you explain it in simple terms for us non-engineer types?

 

[DaveEV]

However, I don't understand the isolated / non-isolated thing. Can you explain it in simple terms for us non-engineer types?

An isolated charger has no direct connection between the input/output. Most commonly transformers (windings of copper) are used to isolate the charger. Google "How do transformers work" for some nice pictures/video of how a transformer work.

 

[Luft]

However, I don't understand the isolated / non-isolated thing. Can you explain it in simple terms for us non-engineer types?

An isolated charger has no direct connection between the input/output. Most commonly transformers (windings of copper) are used to isolate the charger. Google "How do transformers work" for some nice pictures/video of how a transformer work.

Okay, I follow that so far. But why is a isolated charger safer than a non-isolated charger? Why can't the car body be grounded if one uses a non-isolated charger?