CCS v2...

[Ed Lee]

Anyone want to join me with the DOT discussion?

Whether you agree with me or not,
I can add your usenet ID to the letter to start.

----------------------------

Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 680
[Docket No. FHWA-2022-0008
RIN 2125-AG10
https://www.regulations.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE, Washington, DC 20590

RE: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program

Dear Sir/Madam:

We would like to address the connectivity of DC fast charger.
The Combined Charging System (CCS) is an attempt to upgrade
from AC J1772 with additions of two large DC pins and
depreciating (unused but occupying space) of the two AC pins.

This physical form factor makes the CCS plug unusally large
and expensive (for both plugs and sockets). It is time to
revisit the connector design.

We do not believe that it is necessary to maintain J1772
compatibilty for DC charging. Furthermore, we believe that
it is advantageous to add CAN bus messaging, since the rest
of the vehicles are mostly CAN based.

We are proposing a new connector, while keeping existing one
during the transistory period.

edward.ming.lee@gmail.com

 

[John Doe]

Off topic troll...

--
Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2793:b0:6a7:44f0:c280 with SMTP id g19-20020a05620a279300b006a744f0c280mr2454083qkp.53.1654872941922;
Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:f202:0:b0:65c:b668:5d45 with SMTP id
i2-20020a25f202000000b0065cb6685d45mr44384856ybe.578.1654872941709; Fri, 10
Jun 2022 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2602:306:cd54:2f00:9509:6043:f1d4:ca7d;
posting-account=pjQH5woAAABeN8ToX-2bq3zh9hvCM8sL
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2602:306:cd54:2f00:9509:6043:f1d4:ca7d
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <aa6ae9a3-0cfe-4e5b-9cc9-66d031920542n@googlegroups.com
Subject: CCS v2
From: Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:55:41 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
X-Received-Bytes: 2333

Anyone want to join me with the DOT discussion?

Whether you agree with me or not,
I can add your usenet ID to the letter to start.

----------------------------

Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 680
[Docket No. FHWA-2022-0008
RIN 2125-AG10
https://www.regulations.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE, Washington, DC 20590

RE: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program

Dear Sir/Madam:

We would like to address the connectivity of DC fast charger.
The Combined Charging System (CCS) is an attempt to upgrade
from AC J1772 with additions of two large DC pins and
depreciating (unused but occupying space) of the two AC pins.

This physical form factor makes the CCS plug unusally large
and expensive (for both plugs and sockets). It is time to
revisit the connector design.

We do not believe that it is necessary to maintain J1772
compatibilty for DC charging. Furthermore, we believe that
it is advantageous to add CAN bus messaging, since the rest
of the vehicles are mostly CAN based.

We are proposing a new connector, while keeping existing one
during the transistory period.

edward.ming.lee@gmail.com

 

[Ed Lee]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
> Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.

 

[Edward Hernandez]

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe stated:

Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

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.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
least 1604 articles to USENET. Of which 173 have been pure insults and
758 have been Troll Doe \"troll format\" postings.

The Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

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$Q381.1452@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

 

[server]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
<edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.

And connectors are often associated with electronics.



--

Anybody can count to one.

- Robert Widlar

 

[Ed Lee]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
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.

 

[Ricky]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:55:45 AM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

Anyone want to join me with the DOT discussion?

Whether you agree with me or not,
I can add your usenet ID to the letter to start.

----------------------------

Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 680
[Docket No. FHWA-2022-0008
RIN 2125-AG10
https://www.regulations.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE, Washington, DC 20590

RE: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program

Dear Sir/Madam:

We would like to address the connectivity of DC fast charger.
The Combined Charging System (CCS) is an attempt to upgrade
from AC J1772 with additions of two large DC pins and
depreciating (unused but occupying space) of the two AC pins.

This physical form factor makes the CCS plug unusally large
and expensive (for both plugs and sockets). It is time to
revisit the connector design.

We do not believe that it is necessary to maintain J1772
compatibilty for DC charging. Furthermore, we believe that
it is advantageous to add CAN bus messaging, since the rest
of the vehicles are mostly CAN based.

We are proposing a new connector, while keeping existing one
during the transistory period.

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

https://xkcd.com/927/

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
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.

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.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ed Lee]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
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.
What\'s wrong with an 8 pin MCU?

They don\'t run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.

> 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.

A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

--- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
| 6 | [3] | 7 | 4roximty 5ilot
--- [4] [5] --- 6C+ 7C-
CCSv2

 

[Ricky]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
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.
What\'s wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
They don\'t run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
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.
A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

--- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
| 6 | [3] | 7 | 4roximty 5ilot
--- [4] [5] --- 6C+ 7C-
CCSv2

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.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ed Lee]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
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.
What\'s wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
They don\'t run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
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.
A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

--- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
| 6 | [3] | 7 | 4roximty 5ilot
--- [4] [5] --- 6C+ 7C-
CCSv2
Why? What problem are you trying to solve?

Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.

> I can\'t see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn\'t convey anything important anyway.

Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:
1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground 4roximity 5ilot
(make no sense to have different size ground pin as in J1772/CCS)

Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:
6C+ 7C-

 

[Ricky]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:31:17 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
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.
What\'s wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
They don\'t run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
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.
A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

--- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
| 6 | [3] | 7 | 4roximty 5ilot
--- [4] [5] --- 6C+ 7C-
CCSv2
Why? What problem are you trying to solve?
Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.
I can\'t see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn\'t convey anything important anyway.
Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:
1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground 4roximity 5ilot
(make no sense to have different size ground pin as in J1772/CCS)

Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:
6C+ 7C-

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.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ed Lee]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 2:05:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:31:17 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
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.
What\'s wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
They don\'t run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
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..
A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

--- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
| 6 | [3] | 7 | 4roximty 5ilot
--- [4] [5] --- 6C+ 7C-
CCSv2
Why? What problem are you trying to solve?
Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.
I can\'t see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn\'t convey anything important anyway.
Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:
1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground 4roximity 5ilot
(make no sense to have different size ground pin as in J1772/CCS)

Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:
6C+ 7C-
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.

 

[John Doe]

Eddie, the Astraweb porn-sucking retarded forger is flagging every off-topic
post with this idiotic spam.

Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

See also...
John Doe <always.look_message.header> (Astraweb, Aioe.org)
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99_gmail.com>
Edward H. <dtgamer99_gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99_gmail.com>

Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don\'t get spanked!

Spanked Eddie...

--
John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!81.171.65.14.MISMATCH!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx01.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John Doe <always.look@message.header
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
Subject: CCS v2
Followup-To: alt.test.group
References: <aa6ae9a3-0cfe-4e5b-9cc9-66d031920542n@googlegroups.com
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 10:57:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host=\"aefae07b417003b570527823e77a9930\"; logging-data=\"29200\"; mail-complaints-to=\"abuse@eternal-september.org\"; posting-account=\"U2FsdGVkX18QBXYPJWay5G0R7zD10mjY5gUD5xOvt6I=\"
User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.05
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <tZIoK.51389$Q381.1452@usenetxs.com
X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:57:29 UTC
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:57:29 GMT
X-Received-Bytes: 3150
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:671016 free.spam:18573

Off topic troll...

--
Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2793:b0:6a7:44f0:c280 with SMTP id g19-20020a05620a279300b006a744f0c280mr2454083qkp.53.1654872941922;
Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:f202:0:b0:65c:b668:5d45 with SMTP id
i2-20020a25f202000000b0065cb6685d45mr44384856ybe.578.1654872941709; Fri, 10
Jun 2022 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2602:306:cd54:2f00:9509:6043:f1d4:ca7d;
posting-account=pjQH5woAAABeN8ToX-2bq3zh9hvCM8sL
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2602:306:cd54:2f00:9509:6043:f1d4:ca7d
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <aa6ae9a3-0cfe-4e5b-9cc9-66d031920542n@googlegroups.com
Subject: CCS v2
From: Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:55:41 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
X-Received-Bytes: 2333

Anyone want to join me with the DOT discussion?

Whether you agree with me or not,
I can add your usenet ID to the letter to start.

----------------------------

Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 680
[Docket No. FHWA-2022-0008
RIN 2125-AG10
https://www.regulations.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE, Washington, DC 20590

RE: Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program

Dear Sir/Madam:

We would like to address the connectivity of DC fast charger.
The Combined Charging System (CCS) is an attempt to upgrade
from AC J1772 with additions of two large DC pins and
depreciating (unused but occupying space) of the two AC pins.

This physical form factor makes the CCS plug unusally large
and expensive (for both plugs and sockets). It is time to
revisit the connector design.

We do not believe that it is necessary to maintain J1772
compatibilty for DC charging. Furthermore, we believe that
it is advantageous to add CAN bus messaging, since the rest
of the vehicles are mostly CAN based.

We are proposing a new connector, while keeping existing one
during the transistory period.

edward.ming.lee@gmail.com

 

[John Doe]

Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.

I don\'t disagree. Personally, I would\'ve spelled out what \"CCS\" means, in the
subject line. Maybe the other Edward was confused.

 

[Edward Hernandez]

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) John Dope stated:

Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

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.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope has posted at
least 1633 articles to USENET. Of which 173 have been pure insults and
781 have been John Dope \"troll format\" postings.

The Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

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$8@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

 

[Ricky]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:12:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 2:05:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:31:17 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
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.
What\'s wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
They don\'t run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
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.
A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

--- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
| 6 | [3] | 7 | 4roximty 5ilot
--- [4] [5] --- 6C+ 7C-
CCSv2
Why? What problem are you trying to solve?
Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.
I can\'t see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn\'t convey anything important anyway.
Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:
1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground 4roximity 5ilot
(make no sense to have different size ground pin as in J1772/CCS)

Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:
6C+ 7C-
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.

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.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ed Lee]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 6:08:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:12:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 2:05:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:31:17 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
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.
What\'s wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
They don\'t run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
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.
A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

--- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
| 6 | [3] | 7 | 4roximty 5ilot
--- [4] [5] --- 6C+ 7C-
CCSv2
Why? What problem are you trying to solve?
Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.
I can\'t see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn\'t convey anything important anyway.
Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:
1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground 4roximity 5ilot
(make no sense to have different size ground pin as in J1772/CCS)

Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:
6C+ 7C-
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.
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.

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

> Why are you talking about fast DC and J1772 pins? I know I\'m going to regret asking.

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.

 

[Ricky]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:29:21 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 6:08:16 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:12:25 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 2:05:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 4:31:17 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:20:01 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:33:40 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 9:26:15 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:01:01 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee
edward....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:57:38 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Off topic troll...

EV charging is absolutely On Topic.
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.
What\'s wrong with an 8 pin MCU?
They don\'t run at 12V. A 10c 555 is easier. Not needing MCU was the original argument against ChaDeMo. CAN should be optional for info only, not to initiate charging.
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.
A portable battery can also be an EVSE. I think i would end up working on both end.

BTW, DOT is asking for opinions on EVSE design standard; so, speak now or forever ...

I am thinking of a connector closer to Tesla, but not the same.

--- [1] [2] --- 1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground
| 6 | [3] | 7 | 4roximty 5ilot
--- [4] [5] --- 6C+ 7C-
CCSv2
Why? What problem are you trying to solve?
Smaller and cheaper plugs and sockets.
I can\'t see your ASCII graphics. Instead of a diagram, why not a list? The diagram doesn\'t convey anything important anyway.
Five 4mm signal pins in the middle:
1:CAN+ 2:CAN- 3:Ground 4roximity 5ilot
(make no sense to have different size ground pin as in J1772/CCS)

Two 10mm power pins, 40mm apart:
6C+ 7C-
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.
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.
J1772 duty cycle is fraction of 60A. Namely, 25% is 15A, 50% is 30A, etc. They never figure that J1772 would exceed 60A.
Why are you talking about fast DC and J1772 pins? I know I\'m going to regret asking.
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.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[ke...@kjwdesigns.com]

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

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.
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.
J1772 duty cycle is fraction of 60A. Namely, 25% is 15A, 50% is 30A, etc. They never figure that J1772 would exceed 60A.
Why are you talking about fast DC and J1772 pins? I know I\'m going to regret asking.
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.

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