Page 6 of 7

### Re: MNL vs. other Leaf social media

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:17 am
Lothsahn wrote:
LeftieBiker wrote:
Add it up and you have a near equal level of power being taken from the wall that does not go to the battery. So its 250 watts. So you got 1440 watts coming in minus the 250 or 1190 watts or 82.6% of the power from the wall into the battery.
17.4% lost isn't "a near equal level of power being taken from the wall that does not go to the battery." It's less than 20%. You may want to edit that.
His point was the pump parasitic draw was near equal regardless of incoming charge rate. 250 watts.

Thank you Dave for taking the time to write such a detailed response. Makes a lot of sense!
You are correct.

Leftie; As far as the statement, edit it to your liking. I really don't understand your confusion. The power from the wall is not a percentage, its simply an integral number. What does happen if the charge runs long enough on 240 is the power will boost roughly 55 watts or so. The number details I don't remember but it was insignificant. Full power was around 175 watts?

When my pump went out, I found that the pump which is variable speed, only runs at 3? speeds because of the limited signals from the BMS. It takes a while on 240 to heat up enough before the pump kicks into the higher speed. My pump had a busted impeller causing it to run at the highest speed which is why I noticed the problem since the car functioned fine and charged fine.

### Re: MNL vs. other Leaf social media

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:41 pm
Add it up and you have a near equal level of power being taken from the wall that does not go to the battery.
This is what I have a problem with reading. If you mean "L-1 and L-2 charging use almost the same amount of power to charge the car" then please write that or something similar. I don't edit other people's posts as a rule. As it is that could be read as 'Parasitic charging losses use almost as much power as goes to the battery.'

### Re: MNL vs. other Leaf social media

Posted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:32 pm
This thread at another site is linked here primarily for the amusement of Cwerdna, but others are of course free to read it. It lays bare the logical frame of reference of far too many people:

https://visforvoltage.org/forum/12096-l ... ment-79197

### Re: MNL vs. other Leaf social media

Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:27 pm
cwerdna wrote:More pet peeves about people w/misinformation, some of them idiots.

Today, some guy at https://www.facebook.com/groups/nissan. ... 702986389/ basically said he had 65 km on his GOM and his destination was 80 km away. Will I make it?

There were proper replies including to slow down and some moron replies with this garbage. Luckily, he deleted it. I didn't have time to reply as I was busy w/my day job and had tasks that had to be finished at work, esp. when my teammates were around.

Image attached: https://imgur.com/a/mQzhLlq

Later today, in another post, someone at https://www.facebook.com/groups/nissan. ... 722889087/ asks if they install a 240 volt EVSE, will their electricity bill go down vs. how they're charging now (via 120 volts). Of course, another moron comes on and claims it won't at all, mixes up units (talks about watts when he means kWh, says "KW/h", doesn't understand the fixed charging overhead, doesn't even know what we're referring to when we're talking about pumps running, etc.). Sigh...

At least most other folks give correct info there.

This thread has gotten way too serious. For some comic relief;
David Laur first reread my post and understand the math first. Second kW is VxA/1000 which is not a rate it is a measure of power. KWh is a measure of capacity based on the number of amps that can be provided at a specific voltage for 1 hour, mathematically VxAx1hr/1000. Rate is a measure of speed or supply. It by nature MUST have a time component. It is the number of kW that can be provided over an hour. Mathematically. VxA/t DIVIDED. Just because it is often listed as kW with the assumed per hour does not make the mathematically correct kW/h suddenly wrong.

But clearly you are infinately knowledgeable and Google is never wrong. So I will just continue driving my car down the highway at a RATE of 65 miles.

### Re: MNL vs. other Leaf social media

Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:24 am
cwerdna wrote:
Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:31 am
More pet peeves about people w/misinformation, some of them idiots.
Along these lines, in the past few weeks, I've seen people on a few Leaf FB groups claim that Nissan promised active battery thermal management on gen 2 Leaf but then broke their "promise". I've never ever heard of Nissan (the company) or any official corporate rep ever making any such promise. When asked for a source, there's never an answer.

I suspect it's people that took rumors at https://pushevs.com/2017/12/29/nissan-s ... mpetition/ as gospel then kept parroting it to others.

That said, if there's ever been a promise, please point me to it.

### Re: MNL vs. other Leaf social media

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:23 am
I thought it was speculation, no where near a promise.

### Re: MNL vs. other Leaf social media

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:13 am
Nevermind

### Re: MNL vs. other Leaf social media

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:17 pm
Oilpan4 wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:23 am
I thought it was speculation, no where near a promise.
Yep. I'd NEVER ever seen such a promise.

When asked for a credible reference from Nissan corporate (e.g. press release, blog, official spokesperson or exec, etc.) making such a promise.... there's never been a response.

### Re: MNL vs. other Leaf social media

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:23 pm
The only reason I was some what intrest is I wanted to see their cooling scheme.

### Re: MNL vs. other Leaf social media

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 1:38 am
cwerdna wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:57 am
The idiot goes off and complains about us being trolls, derailing the thread (well, he added the BS, not us), says zzzzz, boring, etc. Then, he deletes his comment, taking all the replies me made with it! That's the worst part about FB. People can delete comments or threads, taking ALL the replies with it. I wish it would just delete only that post and leave all the replies.
Along these lines, a word of warning about participating in FB groups again is deletion.

Earlier today, someone in https://www.facebook.com/groups/437741293059829/ went on a rant about having paid \$8K for a replacement battery for their '11 Leaf and now being down a bar. I originally assumed they were in hot climate but it turns out they were in upstate NY so I suspect abuse of the battery/bad practices (e.g. high SoC for extended periods and always topping off the battery). Of course we didn't know this due to scant details at the beginning. There was some chatter and I was busy with my day job but during that time she apparently got pissed off by some other responses and deleted the whole thread, taking any useful info and replies with it.

One of the folks PMed me about the situation.

She then posted another rant and one of the admins missed the 1st thread (already gone). A summary was made of the situation as we knew it along with a screenshot of the '11 manual re: battery longevity recommendations (no high SoC for extended periods of time, keep battery cooler, etc.) ...and what do you know? That person seems to have either blocked me or deleted the whole 2nd thread. Thanks.

I've made a note of that person's name and the the group. Earlier, I already marked that person as hide their posts for 30 days (so I won't see them in my feed). In the future, I will not help them. From the PM, it sounds like person was unwilling to read some simple text on battery treatment and then threw a fit, deleting the 1st thread. I will not spend time to help those who behave like this and can't help themselves.

This is one advantage of MNL. Even if someone decides to destroy their own posts, someone (ahead of time) can submit the pages to https://archive.org/web/. And, all the replies don't vanish with such destruction.