Mini-QC Rapid-Charger (RC) Project for LEAF QC Port

[valerun]

Joel, do you have a cad drawing of the shapes of these pins and what you're looking for? There are lots of electonics manufacturers out there that make custom pins. I've never dealt with pins anywhere near the size of 9mm before so I don't know if any of these places will have the tooling for 9mm, but it may be worth looking into it and getting a quote from a few places. It definitely won't be cheap for just a few pins, but for a few thousand, it may be affordable per pin, if we're sure of what we want, or leave room for adjustment, like threading them in or something.

The final diameter of the pin is nominal 9.0mm (after electroplating) the tolerance is +0.0 -0.1mm
if you can get a quote for 100 pins (50 sets), go nuts, please post the results here.

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:121581

thx Joel - do you have a CAD file or a PDF drawing with all dimensions?

 

[garygid]

Is the missing dimension 10 mm, making the outside dimensions
9, 10, 8, and 12 mm from tip to wire end?

I think the pins we had made were 3/8 inches instead of 10 mm,
but they did not use the E-clip to hold the pin in place, which was
Joel's nifty idea, as I recall.

 

[garygid]

Valery,
Very nice progress, it appears. Good work, sir.
Have you posted a summary of your serial command protocol
so that I can add the correct commands and properly parse the
responses in my Due controller (which it appears that you no
longer need, I am guessing).
Cheers, Gary

 

[garygid]

The constraints that one needs to agree to in order to purchase the
Chademo document are WAY too constraining for us, so we have
carefully avoided contact with that document, or getting information
from those that have the document.

From your posts, it would seem that you have purchased the
Chademo document, correct?

Likewise, we carefully do not use the term Chademo, but use mini-QC
instead, or the term Rapid Charge, or RC. We have used Jolomo for our
created mini-QC connectors, since they are in no way Chademo. They
just happen to fit the LEAF's QC connector, but are not approved or
listed by anybody, and are intended for very careful, indoor, personal,
experimental use only.

If you have jumped into the Chademo bucket, you might be required
to have any derived technology that you produce tested and approved
by the Chademo folks?

 

[valerun]

12kw. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xdSBkSUeDI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

but as Gary mentioned elsewhere, running 12kW continuous is thermally challenging at this higher output voltage (compared to the original rating of that charger - 350V max output).

 

[valerun]

Valery,
Very nice progress, it appears. Good work, sir.
Have you posted a summary of your serial command protocol
so that I can add the correct commands and properly parse the
responses in my Due controller (which it appears that you no
longer need, I am guessing).
Cheers, Gary

Thanks Gary -

We (the group here and a wider Leaf community) need your controller code very much actually. I hope that you will make it run on our controller hardware that we can then mass-produce. I will PM you.

The reason we did this sprint is that it was way easier to tune the hardware when we have all the source code - both on the QC and charger sides. Otherwise it would have taken months with different locations and all. We ended up doing a major rewrite of the underlying charger control code over 4 rapid iterations or so. Similarly, we have done 2 iterations on the controller hardware (PCB layout, etc).

It is still not quite done as there are some [charger software] issues remaining when running on our 25kW hardware. We are hoping to be able to post at least a 20kW run in the next 2 days, though. Then it's over to the isolated version and the real fun begins.

A quick update on the isolated version - enclosures have been ordered and should be here sometime in the next 2 weeks. Also, we have redesigned the transformer for ~1/4th of the cost of the previous one - this will bring down the pricing of the eventual kit quite a bit.

V

 

[svingen]

this is great work!
will there be any kick starter project on this also?
will it work on other car the leaf? (like Mitsubishi i-Miev / Citroën C-Zero / Peugeot iOn?)
do you have any thought about the price?

Cheers from norway (here is not so many quick charger but a lot of 32a 220v 3 phase så it wold be nice to have this in the car when you shold drive a long trip)

 

[valerun]

this is great work!
will there be any kick starter project on this also?
will it work on other car the leaf? (like Mitsubishi i-Miev / Citroën C-Zero / Peugeot iOn?)
do you have any thought about the price?

Cheers from norway (here is not so many quick charger but a lot of 32a 220v 3 phase så it wold be nice to have this in the car when you shold drive a long trip)

There will most likely be a KickStarter project from this, yes. ETA 2 months.

Compatibility - we will be testing the chargers on other vehicles and add those to the list as we go.

Pricing is still TBD but to give you some ideas, there are a couple of products in our store that will be upgraded to run this protocol - QuickCharge-25000 and ISOCharge-20000 (I don't want to spam this forum with product details - please visit our site at http://emotorwerks.com/products/online-store/product/show/75-new-emotorwerks-quickcharge-25000-a-25kw-pfc-charger" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://emotorwerks.com/products/online-store/product/show/76-emotorwerks-isocharge-20000-20kw-isolated-ev-charger" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false. Kits will also be available (later) and run at ~half the price of the complete units.

Re 3-phase - it would be very trivial to make the above chargers work with 3-phase in a NON-PFC mode. 3-phase PFC, on the other hand, is quite non-trivial. We have another project in the works designing a 30kW 600V 3-phase non-isolated charger for a customer in Canada so we will have a product around that but it's not going to be cheap. So for 'quick-and-dirty', you might need to either stay with non-PFC version or run 3 smaller [isolated] chargers in parallel - one per each phase pair.

V

 

[TonyWilliams]

From your posts, it would seem that you have purchased the
Chademo document, correct?

If you have jumped into the Chademo bucket, you might be required
to have any derived technology that you produce tested and approved
by the Chademo folks?

Not sure if this is for me, but no, I have not purchased that.

Yes, it is customary to have the CHAdeMO Association actually review your product. That seems proper to me.

 

[jclemens]

From your posts, it would seem that you have purchased the
Chademo document, correct?

If you have jumped into the Chademo bucket, you might be required
to have any derived technology that you produce tested and approved
by the Chademo folks?

Not sure if this is for me, but no, I have not purchased that.

Yes, it is customary to have the CHAdeMO Association actually review your product. That seems proper to me.

That's only if you want to use the CHAdeMO brand/trade mark, and be "certified" and be listed on their website and get included in updates like v2g.
If you don't care to be involved in those things, you can make a QC compatible charger. The fact that it is compatible with their canbus is meaningless. You didn't download any copy-written software and claim it for your self. This is no different from the leafspy app, or thousands of other aftermarket accessories that are based on reversed-engineering proprietary technology. No-body is getting sued because we can read canbus codes for leaf-spy. It is the same thing with chademo.

• Patents are for hardware designs and can be copied/examined for personal/non-commercial use.
  Copy-write is for literature/media and software, such as the publication containing a specification. Reading a spec to become educated and building something based on it does not violate copywrite.
  Trademarks are for logos and names.

I don't think you can patent a published standard, so there is no patent infringement going on here. You can patent manufacturing processes and have a way to build a better mousetrap that is trade secret, but the concept of a standardized mousetrap is available for everyone.

There is no copywrite violation here, we didn't upload any copywrited documents. You can't copywrite words in a language, (including a programming language). How absurd would it be if I announced a copywrite on the word "the" and then demand and sue anyone who doesn't pay me royalties?

And as long as we don't market using the name, there is no trademark violation either.

My vision is a community owned project with full access to the canbus codes that we have been able to read thus far.... THE SAME WAY AS LEAF-SPY!

We do not need tepco's or yazaki's or anyone else's blessing for this project, never did and never will.

 

[TonyWilliams]

From your posts, it would seem that you have purchased the
Chademo document, correct?

If you have jumped into the Chademo bucket, you might be required
to have any derived technology that you produce tested and approved
by the Chademo folks?

Not sure if this is for me, but no, I have not purchased that.

Yes, it is customary to have the CHAdeMO Association actually review your product. That seems proper to me.

That's only if you want to use the CHAdeMO brand/trade mark, and be "certified" and be listed on their website and get included in updates like v2g...

If you don't care to be involved in those things, you can make a QC compatible charger....

I don't think you can patent a published standard, so there is no patent infringement going on here...

We do not need tepco's or yazaki's or anyone else's blessing for this project, never did and never will.

Yes, I've heard those arguments previously. I doubt you asked a patent or copyright lawyer, or other legal expert about their opinion on the matter. I know the Chinese and other groups that make stuff based on other folk's work don't bother for much legal interpretation, either.

I don't practice law on the internet (or anywhere else), but I could never open myself to possible legal challenges with potentially lethal pirated technology that you seem quite smug about.

This is all fun and games until:

1) somebody gets killed messing around with this stuff. People with real authority might come knocking on your door looking for real answers. I'm not sure you have them, but I wish you the best should that day come.

2) the CHAdeMO Association sues you. I have a feeling they aren't going to let unlicensed clones of their technology go on forever without a challenge, contrary to your opinions.

Here's an idea for you, why don't you send an email to the CHAdeMO Association and tell them what you're doing, and see what their response is? Maybe they are TOTALLY KEWL with it ?!?!?

You don't need to convince me that everything you're doing is proper. I don't really care either way what you do. I just know that I personally will protect my family and my assets differently than you do.

 

[davewill]

I don't think you can patent a published standard, so there is no patent infringement going on here. You can patent manufacturing processes and have a way to build a better mousetrap that is trade secret, but the concept of a standardized mousetrap is available for everyone.

Who told you this? I assure you lots of standards have patented technology in them. This project may be OK as it is, but it's not because it's not possible to patent a published standard.

... We do not need tepco's or yazaki's or anyone else's blessing for this project, never did and never will.

OooooKaaaay....

 

[jclemens]

This project may be OK as it is, but it's not because it's not possible to patent a published standard.

Yes, i guess you are right, there are probably tonnes standards that are covered by a patent. if not all of them. (not being sarcastic)

My thoughts are based on examples such as j1772, someone must own the patent on that right?
(sarcasm below)
Is the SAE going to come after openEVSE or anyone else who develops and sells products that use the j1772 standard? It has dangerous voltage doesn't it?
What about leafspy? doesn't that encroach on the hard working people at nissan who developed their own proprietary super secret canbus codes? I suppose leafspy and openEVSE better shutdown quickly while they are ahead before lawyers start getting involved.
Isn't there risk in that? What if the canbus hacks we add mess up the throttle and we get "uncontrolled acceleration?" What then?
(end sarcasm)

Please do not answer any of the above questions, they are just rhetorical. I don't mean to flame or cause trolling.
My thoughts on risk are also a little different than typical american culture would suggest. I am a strong believer of personal accountability. If you blow yourself up playing with high voltage, it is your own damn fault. Of course I am interested in safety, it does not help the EV movement to have people getting vaporized left right and center. But if someone buys a kit, understanding the risk, assembles it, makes a mistake, and gets hurt, it is my personal belief that no-one is to blame other than that individual. This may be counter to your culture. I understand that, but please understand my side too.

 

[evnow]

I don't think you can patent a published standard, so there is no patent infringement going on here. You can patent manufacturing processes and have a way to build a better mousetrap that is trade secret, but the concept of a standardized mousetrap is available for everyone.

Not a lawyer - but there are tons of examples of published standards that need royalty to be paid. For a industry standard (like dvd or chademo) usually a bunch of companies come together, create a company through which to license the technology.

But if someone buys a kit, understanding the risk, assembles it, makes a mistake, and gets hurt, it is my personal belief that no-one is to blame other than that individual. This may be counter to your culture. I understand that, but please understand my side too.

Unfortunately (?) the law doesn't care about your personal beliefs - that exposes you to legal risk. Depending on your assets and responsibilities, you may want to assume more or less risk ...

 

[TonyWilliams]

But if someone buys a kit, understanding the risk, assembles it, makes a mistake, and gets hurt, it is my personal belief that no-one is to blame other than that individual. This may be counter to your culture. I understand that, but please understand my side too.

Unfortunately (?) the law doesn't care about your personal beliefs - that exposes you to legal risk. Depending on your assets and responsibilities, you may want to assume more or less risk ...

Well said. Fortunately, there are lots of folks who can give a real legal opinion. Just be prepared that it may not have anything to do with cultures, personal beliefs, or "side". Frankly, you seem grossly naive about the situation in general, and posting your opinions here on a public forum won't be a benefit to you should the "**** hit the fan".

Best wishes.

 

[TonyWilliams]

My thoughts are based on examples such as j1772, someone must own the patent on that right?
(sarcasm below)
Is the SAE going to come after openEVSE or anyone else who develops and sells products that use the j1772 standard? It has dangerous voltage doesn't it?

If you don't understand the legal ramifications between duplicating SAE J1772tm IP and doing the same with CHAdeMO Association IP, you really do need legal help.

 

[Elephanthead]

You would probably at most get a cease and desist letter. If you are not making money then they don't really have a reason to sue you, i.e. getting your money. They would have to prove damages etc. also. Now if someone dies wiring together a bunch of toasters following your instructions then it really is just a crap shoot what the jury decides.

 

[evnow]

You would probably at most get a cease and desist letter. If you are not making money then they don't really have a reason to sue you, i.e. getting your money. They would have to prove damages etc. also.

Compare to music sharing. See how many got sued.

Now if someone dies wiring together a bunch of toasters following your instructions then it really is just a crap shoot what the jury decides.

But even before that, one has to deal with lawyers and huge legal bills. Even if the jury decides you walk free, you might be in some big debt or lost your home.

 

[valerun]

just chatted with our IP lawyer on this and he thinks (in advance of going through all the materials in detail) that if the protocol features are patented, whoever implements anything sufficiently similar would be infringing regardless of whether protocol info is obtained from the official document or by reverse engineering. In his words, "even if you didn't have a Leaf and didn't see a single piece of data out of it and just dreamt up a similar protocol in your sleep, your implementation would be infringing if the prior patent on protocol exists". Will have to dig a bit deeper into that after he reads through various docs (including actual patent applications / grants) - will report out when I get more info.

Joel - you are right re trademarks - if we don't call it chademo etc, then no issue with trademarks. You are also right about trade secrets - the protocol is publicly available for $70 so it can no longer be a trade secret.

Tony - no we have not purchased the protocol and were very careful not to click any 'agree to conditions' buttons anywhere...

Valery.

 

[hill]

It'll be interesting - (once someone does it) to see how the SAE QC (or Tesla, for that matter) standard gets reproduced ... and/or how anal the SAE is, once that happens. Hasn't chademo shot itself in the foot, in the first place, when originally they were charging big bucks to own their secret decoder ring? I'm thinking chademo would go passive on litigation, because they've already branded their selves as QC protocol nazis. Such actions might be their death knell, imo.
.