E-MotorWerks - UL approval and safety

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

sabes

New member
Joined
May 7, 2014
Messages
1
@valerun

I am very interested in buying the JuiceBox, but would prefer for it to have UL approval. I saw on your FAQ that it said you were in the process of getting that, and it would be another 3-4 months. There was no date on that FAQ, so there is no reference point for that estimate.

Do you have any idea when you will receive approval? I am charging off the 110v wall outlet for now, but need to make moves towards buying an EVSE very soon.

MOD NOTE: This thread split off from the main thread: E-MotorWerks JuiceBox - an open source 15kW EVSE
 
sabes said:
@valerun

I am very interested in buying the JuiceBox, but would prefer for it to have UL approval. I saw on your FAQ that it said you were in the process of getting that, and it would be another 3-4 months. There was no date on that FAQ, so there is no reference point for that estimate.

Do you have any idea when you will receive approval? I am charging off the 110v wall outlet for now, but need to make moves towards buying an EVSE very soon.

Then they can get their quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable approved next :lol: I'm willing to bet there will be no UL approval in 4 months.
 
EVDRIVER said:
sabes said:
@valerun

I am very interested in buying the JuiceBox, but would prefer for it to have UL approval. I saw on your FAQ that it said you were in the process of getting that, and it would be another 3-4 months. There was no date on that FAQ, so there is no reference point for that estimate.

Do you have any idea when you will receive approval? I am charging off the 110v wall outlet for now, but need to make moves towards buying an EVSE very soon.

Then they can get their quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable approved next :lol: I'm willing to bet there will be no UL approval in 4 months.

I'll extend the bet to it'll never be NRTL listed...
 
QueenBee said:
EVDRIVER said:
sabes said:
@valerun

I am very interested in buying the JuiceBox, but would prefer for it to have UL approval. I saw on your FAQ that it said you were in the process of getting that, and it would be another 3-4 months. There was no date on that FAQ, so there is no reference point for that estimate.

Do you have any idea when you will receive approval? I am charging off the 110v wall outlet for now, but need to make moves towards buying an EVSE very soon.

Then they can get their quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable approved next :lol: I'm willing to bet there will be no UL approval in 4 months.

I'll extend the bet to it'll never be NRTL listed...

Based on so many factors I would agree, the first being I believe the statement is a pure marketing ploy and there is noting being sent to UL or any other lab.
 
EVDRIVER said:
QueenBee said:
EVDRIVER said:
Then they can get their quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable approved next :lol: I'm willing to bet there will be no UL approval in 4 months.

I'll extend the bet to it'll never be NRTL listed...

Based on so many factors I would agree, the first being I believe the statement is a pure marketing ploy and there is noting being sent to UL or any other lab.

Wow. Tough crowd.
 
Levi8than said:
EVDRIVER said:
QueenBee said:
I'll extend the bet to it'll never be NRTL listed...

Based on so many factors I would agree, the first being I believe the statement is a pure marketing ploy and there is noting being sent to UL or any other lab.

Wow. Tough crowd.

Sorry, I just have a big problem with someone selling very unsafe products like the "quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable". The Juicebox is trying to be marketed as a EVSE product like you'd buy from any of the major manufacturers but it's really just a preassembled DIY EVSE.
 
QueenBee said:
Levi8than said:
Wow. Tough crowd.

Sorry, I just have a big problem with someone selling very unsafe products like the "quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable". The Juicebox is trying to be marketed as a EVSE product like you'd buy from any of the major manufacturers but it's really just a preassembled DIY EVSE.

I'm not familiar with this "quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable" you refer to is, but I assure you this box is pretty well designed. When it's properly respected, electricity is nothing to be afraid of. The thick rubber boot on the charging cable more than exceeds the minimum thickness required for carrying such a meager voltage and amps. And the box it comes in is solid. I'm impressed at how well built these things are.

I'm also not certain what marketing you're referring to. EMW is a startup. This EVSE was a kickstarter project.
This isn't a big corporation, it's just a handful of hardworking engineers, so give them some slack.
The SW issues are growing pains. A big company like GE may be able to purchase 12 of every electric vehicle on the market, then have each of those vehicles testing continuously in parallel to verify every possible corner case of use you could imagine. But a small shop like EMW is working from 3 or 4 different cars and probably fewer engineers. They're likely to miss a corner use case, like charging only on the 12th saturday of each month between 3am and 3:36am. But they're doing things right for how small they are. Just give them a chance.

I picked up the kit because I didn't feel that spending a grand on a name brand relay made any sense. With the big brand relays you're really just paying for the paint job and pretty LEDs on the box. I guess some people like that. I was more interested in the SW being open sourced, so I could replace the SW with my own bare bones version and maybe add my own pretty lights.. And someday re-purpose my box box to hang 2 charging cables off of it. I've got the plans in my head of how to do it. I'd just need to order a second rely, second charging cable, and a handful of current pickups, which are all listed part for part on EMW's website.
I agree that as long as the ground fault handling is being done in SW and the SW is user-upgrade-able, this box may not end up being UL listed. But I have complete faith that if they put their minds to it, they'll be able to get a listed box out there. The bar for UL listing is fairly low, I've seen AC cables that wouldn't stand up to a fingernail scratch get the UL logo on them. It's more about coming up with the funds to pay UL for the pleasure of putting their logo on your device.

I think what EMW is doing is great. But I'm an engineer and a tinkerer, so I'm partial to things I can look inside of and know exactly how they work. So as long as they're standing behind their project and doing their best to fix things when issues arise, kudos to them.
 
Levi8than said:
QueenBee said:
Levi8than said:
Wow. Tough crowd.

Sorry, I just have a big problem with someone selling very unsafe products like the "quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable". The Juicebox is trying to be marketed as a EVSE product like you'd buy from any of the major manufacturers but it's really just a preassembled DIY EVSE.

I'm not familiar with this "quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable" you refer to is, but I assure you this box is pretty well designed. When it's properly respected, electricity is nothing to be afraid of. The thick rubber boot on the charging cable more than exceeds the minimum thickness required for carrying such a meager voltage and amps. And the box it comes in is solid. I'm impressed at how well built these things are.

I'm also not certain what marketing you're referring to. EMW is a startup. This EVSE was a kickstarter project.
This isn't a big corporation, it's just a handful of hardworking engineers, so give them some slack.
The SW issues are growing pains. A big company like GE may be able to purchase 12 of every electric vehicle on the market, then have each of those vehicles testing continuously in parallel to verify every possible corner case of use you could imagine. But a small shop like EMW is working from 3 or 4 different cars and probably fewer engineers. They're likely to miss a corner use case, like charging only on the 12th saturday of each month between 3am and 3:36am. But they're doing things right for how small they are. Just give them a chance.

I picked up the kit because I didn't feel that spending a grand on a name brand relay made any sense. With the big brand relays you're really just paying for the paint job and pretty LEDs on the box. I guess some people like that. I was more interested in the SW being open sourced, so I could replace the SW with my own bare bones version and maybe add my own pretty lights.. And someday re-purpose my box box to hang 2 charging cables off of it. I've got the plans in my head of how to do it. I'd just need to order a second rely, second charging cable, and a handful of current pickups, which are all listed part for part on EMW's website.
I agree that as long as the ground fault handling is being done in SW and the SW is user-upgrade-able, this box may not end up being UL listed. But I have complete faith that if they put their minds to it, they'll be able to get a listed box out there. The bar for UL listing is fairly low, I've seen AC cables that wouldn't stand up to a fingernail scratch get the UL logo on them. It's more about coming up with the funds to pay UL for the pleasure of putting their logo on your device.

I think what EMW is doing is great. But I'm an engineer and a tinkerer, so I'm partial to things I can look inside of and know exactly how they work. So as long as they're standing behind their project and doing their best to fix things when issues arise, kudos to them.

Yeah, all the reasons you supported the JuiceBox are exactly why the preexisting OpenEVSE has such great support. Not sure why one would reinvent the OpenEVSE... Fortunately OpenEVSE is clearly being marketed as a DIY project and should be respected as such. JuiceBox is trying to go farther and market into the non DIY market, preassembled/etc. where respect for electricity is not as high and the extra safety that NRTL requires is actually needed.

Here's the thread on the "quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable": http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=4330&start=240#p361604" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and it's still listed on the emotorwerks site.
 
Levi8than said:
QueenBee said:
Levi8than said:
Wow. Tough crowd.

Sorry, I just have a big problem with someone selling very unsafe products like the "quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable". The Juicebox is trying to be marketed as a EVSE product like you'd buy from any of the major manufacturers but it's really just a preassembled DIY EVSE.

I'm not familiar with this "quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable" you refer to is, but I assure you this box is pretty well designed. When it's properly respected, electricity is nothing to be afraid of. The thick rubber boot on the charging cable more than exceeds the minimum thickness required for carrying such a meager voltage and amps. And the box it comes in is solid. I'm impressed at how well built these things are.

I'm also not certain what marketing you're referring to. EMW is a startup. This EVSE was a kickstarter project.
This isn't a big corporation, it's just a handful of hardworking engineers, so give them some slack.
The SW issues are growing pains. A big company like GE may be able to purchase 12 of every electric vehicle on the market, then have each of those vehicles testing continuously in parallel to verify every possible corner case of use you could imagine. But a small shop like EMW is working from 3 or 4 different cars and probably fewer engineers. They're likely to miss a corner use case, like charging only on the 12th saturday of each month between 3am and 3:36am. But they're doing things right for how small they are. Just give them a chance.

I picked up the kit because I didn't feel that spending a grand on a name brand relay made any sense. With the big brand relays you're really just paying for the paint job and pretty LEDs on the box. I guess some people like that. I was more interested in the SW being open sourced, so I could replace the SW with my own bare bones version and maybe add my own pretty lights.. And someday re-purpose my box box to hang 2 charging cables off of it. I've got the plans in my head of how to do it. I'd just need to order a second rely, second charging cable, and a handful of current pickups, which are all listed part for part on EMW's website.
I agree that as long as the ground fault handling is being done in SW and the SW is user-upgrade-able, this box may not end up being UL listed. But I have complete faith that if they put their minds to it, they'll be able to get a listed box out there. The bar for UL listing is fairly low, I've seen AC cables that wouldn't stand up to a fingernail scratch get the UL logo on them. It's more about coming up with the funds to pay UL for the pleasure of putting their logo on your device.

I think what EMW is doing is great. But I'm an engineer and a tinkerer, so I'm partial to things I can look inside of and know exactly how they work. So as long as they're standing behind their project and doing their best to fix things when issues arise, kudos to them.


This company has a continued history of reckless disregard for safety. I think you might reconsider some of your comments if you knew their history better.
 
EVDRIVER said:
sabes said:
@valerun

I am very interested in buying the JuiceBox, but would prefer for it to have UL approval. I saw on your FAQ that it said you were in the process of getting that, and it would be another 3-4 months. There was no date on that FAQ, so there is no reference point for that estimate.

Do you have any idea when you will receive approval? I am charging off the 110v wall outlet for now, but need to make moves towards buying an EVSE very soon.

Then they can get their quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable approved next :lol: I'm willing to bet there will be no UL approval in 4 months.

troll alert ;-)
 
Levi8than said:
I agree that as long as the ground fault handling is being done in SW and the SW is user-upgrade-able, this box may not end up being UL listed.

Thanks Levi8than! We _are_ a small startup and we _are_ trying hard to build the best product we can. Which includes us sitting here at 2am in the morning taking care of a couple of corner cases right now.

BTW V8.9 boards will have hardware GFCI, as well - with latch clearing by software so if the MCU is stuck, the relay will never turn back on. We expect to start shipping V8.9 in ~4 weeks.

Also, V8.7.8 is now posted on http://emotorwerks.com/JuiceBox_Public/8.7/50%20-%20Firmware/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It is still being tested but did check out at least on 2 of our cars.

Thanks,
Val
 
re UL - as you can see, the design is still being tweaked. It did not make sense to start NRTL process until it's reasonably static. We so far went through 4 major revisions on hardware side - only the last one (8.x) was shipped. Within that one major revision, we went through 8 minor revisions...

The next minor revision (8.9) will have more robust GFCI system (as mentioned above) and better manufacturability (that translates into our ability to keep the prices low while adding features)

The next major V9.x revision will see:
* move to all-SMT design
* upgrade to an ARM Cortex-M3 chip (same as in Arduino Due) as a main controller for per-J1772-head control. For the curious ones, check out our discussion of the new Arduino-compatible board we have designed for this - at http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=233091.0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, and a recent video of it in action at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPL8APZyh4A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
* an extensible architecture with SPI / I2C buses on board to support addition of sensors (think temp / humidity / video camera / etc)
* embedded Linux based management of multiple J1772 heads
* remote firmware updates
* and a full 5-second latency control through web-based API

I hope you guys can see that we are shooting WAY beyond tweaking some dumb EVSEs...

You can be a part of this exciting evolution of charging or bash it from your high tower - your choice ;-)

Cheers,
Valery
 
valerun said:
re UL - as you can see, the design is still being tweaked. It did not make sense to start NRTL process until it's reasonably static. We so far went through 4 major revisions on hardware side - only the last one (8.x) was shipped. Within that one major revision, we went through 8 minor revisions...

The next minor revision (8.9) will have more robust GFCI system (as mentioned above) and better manufacturability (that translates into our ability to keep the prices low while adding features)

The next major V9.x revision will see:
* move to all-SMT design
* upgrade to an ARM Cortex-M3 chip (same as in Arduino Due) as a main controller for per-J1772-head control. For the curious ones, check out our discussion of the new Arduino-compatible board we have designed for this - at http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=233091.0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, and a recent video of it in action at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPL8APZyh4A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
* an extensible architecture with SPI / I2C buses on board to support addition of sensors (think temp / humidity / video camera / etc)
* embedded Linux based management of multiple J1772 heads
* remote firmware updates
* and a full 5-second latency control through web-based API

I hope you guys can see that we are shooting WAY beyond tweaking some dumb EVSEs...

You can be a part of this exciting evolution of charging or bash it from your high tower - your choice ;-)

Cheers,
Valery

I can get behind HW GFCI and dual head. Keep it up.
Why do you need a separate controller for each head?
 
valerun said:
EVDRIVER said:
sabes said:
@valerun

I am very interested in buying the JuiceBox, but would prefer for it to have UL approval. I saw on your FAQ that it said you were in the process of getting that, and it would be another 3-4 months. There was no date on that FAQ, so there is no reference point for that estimate.

Do you have any idea when you will receive approval? I am charging off the 110v wall outlet for now, but need to make moves towards buying an EVSE very soon.

Then they can get their quick 220 child shock and fire starter cable approved next :lol: I'm willing to bet there will be no UL approval in 4 months.

troll alert ;-)

You have already been called out on safety here before and argued against it so calling me or anyone else a troll goes to demonstrate your lack of business professionalism. Name calling is a great distraction from your gross disregard for the safety of your customers. As an example, please be a professional and answer this simple question you clearly have avoided for some time:

Why do you sell an unsafe version of a "quicck220 type" adapter on your website that can leave an exposed hot 120V male plug end? Please explain the rationale for selling such an incredibly unsafe and irresponsible device. Please correct me and others if we are wrong.
 
EVDRIVER said:
Why do you sell an unsafe version of a "quicck220 type" adapter on your website that can leave an exposed hot 120V male plug end?

Looks like he took it down. He probably sent his customers a recall/buyback notice :lol:
 
z0ner said:
EVDRIVER said:
Why do you sell an unsafe version of a "quicck220 type" adapter on your website that can leave an exposed hot 120V male plug end?

Looks like he took it down. He probably sent his customers a recall/buyback notice :lol:


It's unfortunate their customers set the safety standards for the products rather than the other way around and that the general public has to force them into doing the right thing. Concerning is an understatement.
 
EVDRIVER said:
You have already been called out on safety here before and argued against it so calling me or anyone else a troll goes to demonstrate your lack of business professionalism. Name calling is a great distraction from your gross disregard for the safety of your customers. As an example, please be a professional and answer this simple question you clearly have avoided for some time:

Why do you sell an unsafe version of a "quicck220 type" adapter on your website that can leave an exposed hot 120V male plug end? Please explain the rationale for selling such an incredibly unsafe and irresponsible device. Please correct me and others if we are wrong.

EVDRIVER - thank you for your professional reply. Really.

We take the constructive feedback well and are open to it. Many changes in design over the last months have been made based on suggestions on these forums, etc. We did the GFCI design changes before we shipped any of the units - still while our KickStarter campaign was running. We are adding hardware GFI to V8.9 just in a few weeks. Etc. We do appreciate the feedback and have a good track record of acting on it. You had some good feedback for us, as well, and we have acted on that. Thank you for that.

What I don't handle as well is aggressive personal attacks on me and my team. I don't think anyone should be exposed to that kind of treatment. Your general response tactic to a lot of people who are trying non-standard things tends to be 'you're an idiot for even thinking about it'. One can observe that on some of our threads, many other EVSE threads, Leaf charger upgrades threads, etc. Maybe it's just a tone of the responses and you don't mean them to be insulting but they do come off that way to many people...

On quick220: 1) if connected per recommended sequence (120V plugs first, before JuiceBox is plugged in on the 240V end), there are no exposed hot terminals. Agree that if the sequence is not followed it can become dangerous. Hence 2) it's no longer sold from our site. It will be reintroduced once we have a positive disconnect figured out.

Hope this helps.
 
valerun said:
EVDRIVER said:
You have already been called out on safety here before and argued against it so calling me or anyone else a troll goes to demonstrate your lack of business professionalism. Name calling is a great distraction from your gross disregard for the safety of your customers. As an example, please be a professional and answer this simple question you clearly have avoided for some time:

Why do you sell an unsafe version of a "quicck220 type" adapter on your website that can leave an exposed hot 120V male plug end? Please explain the rationale for selling such an incredibly unsafe and irresponsible device. Please correct me and others if we are wrong.

EVDRIVER - thank you for your professional reply. Really.

We take the constructive feedback well and are open to it. Many changes in design over the last months have been made based on suggestions on these forums, etc. We did the GFCI design changes before we shipped any of the units - still while our KickStarter campaign was running. We are adding hardware GFI to V8.9 just in a few weeks. Etc. We do appreciate the feedback and have a good track record of acting on it. You had some good feedback for us, as well, and we have acted on that. Thank you for that.

What I don't handle as well is aggressive personal attacks on me and my team. I don't think anyone should be exposed to that kind of treatment. Your general response tactic to a lot of people who are trying non-standard things tends to be 'you're an idiot for even thinking about it'. One can observe that on some of our threads, many other EVSE threads, Leaf charger upgrades threads, etc. Maybe it's just a tone of the responses and you don't mean them to be insulting but they do come off that way to many people...

On quick220: 1) if connected per recommended sequence (120V plugs first, before JuiceBox is plugged in on the 240V end), there are no exposed hot terminals. Agree that if the sequence is not followed it can become dangerous. Hence 2) it's no longer sold from our site. It will be reintroduced once we have a positive disconnect figured out.

Hope this helps.

Wow, nice job EVDRIVER! So Val you realize the reason no one makes these devices is because Quick220 has a patent on it right!
 
valerun said:
EVDRIVER said:
You have already been called out on safety here before and argued against it so calling me or anyone else a troll goes to demonstrate your lack of business professionalism. Name calling is a great distraction from your gross disregard for the safety of your customers. As an example, please be a professional and answer this simple question you clearly have avoided for some time:

Why do you sell an unsafe version of a "quicck220 type" adapter on your website that can leave an exposed hot 120V male plug end? Please explain the rationale for selling such an incredibly unsafe and irresponsible device. Please correct me and others if we are wrong.

EVDRIVER - thank you for your professional reply. Really.

We take the constructive feedback well and are open to it. Many changes in design over the last months have been made based on suggestions on these forums, etc. We did the GFCI design changes before we shipped any of the units - still while our KickStarter campaign was running. We are adding hardware GFI to V8.9 just in a few weeks. Etc. We do appreciate the feedback and have a good track record of acting on it. You had some good feedback for us, as well, and we have acted on that. Thank you for that.

What I don't handle as well is aggressive personal attacks on me and my team. I don't think anyone should be exposed to that kind of treatment. Your general response tactic to a lot of people who are trying non-standard things tends to be 'you're an idiot for even thinking about it'. One can observe that on some of our threads, many other EVSE threads, Leaf charger upgrades threads, etc. Maybe it's just a tone of the responses and you don't mean them to be insulting but they do come off that way to many people...

On quick220: 1) if connected per recommended sequence (120V plugs first, before JuiceBox is plugged in on the 240V end), there are no exposed hot terminals. Agree that if the sequence is not followed it can become dangerous. Hence 2) it's no longer sold from our site. It will be reintroduced once we have a positive disconnect figured out.

Hope this helps.


There is no personal attack here. IMO your company never should have sold such a device and your response reinforces my opinion that you do not make safety a priority. The point of plugging in your adapter in sequence is merely a poor explanation that fails to solve any of the safety issues related to the design. So why was it ever sold? How is that even justified under any conditions?

Here are some very basic reasons it should never have even been considered:

What happens when a child pulls one plug from the wall and there is a live 120V leg just ready for their mouth? What happens when someone trips over one of the 120V cords and the hot live leg hits some metal or if some unsuspecting person picks up the live end off the ground? The list goes on. How do you justify even considering something like this is appropriate to sell to a consumer? I'm glad you did just remove it from your site but it never should have been offered for sale and that is my point and I find it baffling that you found it acceptable before.

I also do know you added GFCI during your Kickstarter and it was because your were pressured to do so. Excluding GFCi never should have even be a consideration as it is one of the primary functions of an EVSE. It seems you should be arguing FOR safety and not against it or trying to justify or explain unsafe devices. This has been my point all along and that these should not be negotiable options.

I hope you take a closer look at safety and make it a requirement for what you do and not an inconvenience.
 
EVDRIVER said:
valerun said:
EVDRIVER said:
You have already been called out on safety here before and argued against it so calling me or anyone else a troll goes to demonstrate your lack of business professionalism. Name calling is a great distraction from your gross disregard for the safety of your customers. As an example, please be a professional and answer this simple question you clearly have avoided for some time:

Why do you sell an unsafe version of a "quicck220 type" adapter on your website that can leave an exposed hot 120V male plug end? Please explain the rationale for selling such an incredibly unsafe and irresponsible device. Please correct me and others if we are wrong.

EVDRIVER - thank you for your professional reply. Really.

We take the constructive feedback well and are open to it. Many changes in design over the last months have been made based on suggestions on these forums, etc. We did the GFCI design changes before we shipped any of the units - still while our KickStarter campaign was running. We are adding hardware GFI to V8.9 just in a few weeks. Etc. We do appreciate the feedback and have a good track record of acting on it. You had some good feedback for us, as well, and we have acted on that. Thank you for that.

What I don't handle as well is aggressive personal attacks on me and my team. I don't think anyone should be exposed to that kind of treatment. Your general response tactic to a lot of people who are trying non-standard things tends to be 'you're an idiot for even thinking about it'. One can observe that on some of our threads, many other EVSE threads, Leaf charger upgrades threads, etc. Maybe it's just a tone of the responses and you don't mean them to be insulting but they do come off that way to many people...

On quick220: 1) if connected per recommended sequence (120V plugs first, before JuiceBox is plugged in on the 240V end), there are no exposed hot terminals. Agree that if the sequence is not followed it can become dangerous. Hence 2) it's no longer sold from our site. It will be reintroduced once we have a positive disconnect figured out.

Hope this helps.


There is no personal attack here. IMO your company never should have sold such a device and your response reinforces my opinion that you do not make safety a priority. The point of plugging in your adapter in sequence is merely a poor explanation that fails to solve any of the safety issues related to the design. So why was it ever sold? How is that even justified under any conditions?

Here are some very basic reasons it should never have even been considered:

What happens when a child pulls one plug from the wall and there is a live 120V leg just ready for their mouth? What happens when someone trips over one of the 120V cords and the hot live leg hits some metal or if some unsuspecting person picks up the live end off the ground? The list goes on. How do you justify even considering something like this is appropriate to sell to a consumer? I'm glad you did just remove it from your site but it never should have been offered for sale and that is my point and I find it baffling that you found it acceptable before.

I also do know you added GFCI during your Kickstarter and it was because your were pressured to do so. Excluding GFCi never should have even be a consideration as it is one of the primary functions of an EVSE. It seems you should be arguing FOR safety and not against it or trying to justify or explain unsafe devices. This has been my point all along and that these should not be negotiable options.

I hope you take a closer look at safety and make it a requirement for what you do and not an inconvenience.

some good points above. good job on improving delivery / tone, as well ;-)
 
Back
Top