Disappointing experience with Juicebox - Page 5 - Chevy Bolt EV Forum
User Tag List

 34Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #41 of 58 (permalink) Old 05-02-2019, 07:11 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,134
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 807 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaxEVLyftUber View Post
The reason I figured the EVSE should be able to display current SOC is that DCFCs do...that tells me the SOC data is in the "data" pin of the J1772 connection...just a matter of decoding and displaying...no?
That's not how it works. DCFC actually communicates using powerline networking (specifically ISO 15118) using the big DC power pins.

This means that when you plug in a regular, non-DCFC J1772 connector, there is none of the communication that occurs with a DCFC station. All there really is is the pilot signal, which is an almost one-way communication from EVSE to car that simply says “you can draw X amps”. (There is also a “plugged in”, “turn on”, and “stop” signal back from the car.) Read more about it here.
Vertiformed is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #42 of 58 (permalink) Old 05-02-2019, 07:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Upstate, NY
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaxEVLyftUber View Post
The reason I figured the EVSE should be able to display current SOC is that DCFCs do...that tells me the SOC data is in the "data" pin of the J1772 connection...just a matter of decoding and displaying...no?
DCFC is the charger, it negotiates the power delivered to the vehicle, when using Level 2 the charger is in the vehicle.
wonderbolt is offline  
post #43 of 58 (permalink) Old 05-02-2019, 07:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,134
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 807 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderbolt View Post
DCFC is the charger, it negotiates the power delivered to the vehicle, when using Level 2 the charger is in the vehicle.
You're technically correct, but this kind of pedantry is like the folks who will point out that strawberries, raspberries, and blackberries are not berries, but “aggregate fruits”, and cherries are not berries either, they are “drupes”, and mulberries aren't berries, they're “multiple fruits”. On the other hand, eggplant, bananas, cucumbers, pomegranates and chili peppers are all berries. So when you ask for berries on your cereal, don't be surprised if you get slices of cucumber and habanero.

Yes, technically we should either refer to “charging stations” or “EVSEs”, but people will call them chargers and that's perfectly okay to anyone who is happy to consider a peanuts, cashews, almonds, and pistachios nuts (technically, they're not, of course, but let it go folks).
Vertiformed is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #44 of 58 (permalink) Old 05-02-2019, 08:39 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
VF - TY for setting me straight on comms between car and EVSE / charger...I made a bad assumption. I find the Chevy app on my Android slow and kludgey.


WB - I do know where the various chargers live...even if I was sloppy as to terminology.
JaxEVLyftUber is offline  
post #45 of 58 (permalink) Old 05-08-2019, 09:38 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
UPDATE

So it was on April 24th that I called Juicebox support reporting that my second charger had stopped working the day previous after working fine for a month. I emailed the lady in customer service whom I had been dealing with from my first returned charger, I heard nothing back from her, fast forward a week and I call customer service on the 1st of May saying I was getting frustrated as I had not heard anything back from customer service, no updates to my case. They promised to ship out a replacement that day or the next. So today, week later, I am expecting the charger to show up, however instead, I get an email from the nice lady in customer service saying there was a delay in shipping my third replacement charger and it was shipping out today, so I should get it Monday. Wow. Super not impressed with this company. You would think the last person they would want to make wait would be me, but nope, wait I must.

Not going to recommend this company to anyone, how can I at this point? I certainly don't feel like my situation was any kind of priority for them. Shame.
surgeonFWW likes this.
ashman70 is offline  
post #46 of 58 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 10:40 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertiformed View Post
That's not how it works. DCFC actually communicates using powerline networking (specifically ISO 15118) using the big DC power pins.

This means that when you plug in a regular, non-DCFC J1772 connector, there is none of the communication that occurs with a DCFC station. All there really is is the pilot signal, which is an almost one-way communication from EVSE to car that simply says “you can draw X amps”. (There is also a “plugged in”, “turn on”, and “stop” signal back from the car.)
That’s not how it works. :-)

Actually, that is how it works when used for its original purpose over electrical power lines but for cars the digital communication is sent over the same pilot pin that is used for the simpler analog communications normally used for AC charging.

And so, it is actually possible to use fancy new digital communications to control AC charging, but it’s use is optional and so far there have not been enough compelling reasons to cause any AC EVSE equipment to use digital mode (as far as I am aware).

DCFC chargers are bigger and a lot more expensive so it’s not a significant burden for them to have the extra circuitry to use digital the communications method. This is convenient since DC charging requires use of the digital communications mechanism.
Jeff N is online now  
post #47 of 58 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 02:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,134
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 807 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff N View Post
That’s not how it works. :-)

Actually, that is how it works when used for its original purpose over electrical power lines but for cars the digital communication is sent over the same pilot pin that is used for the simpler analog communications normally used for AC charging.

And so, it is actually possible to use fancy new digital communications to control AC charging, but it’s use is optional and so far there have not been enough compelling reasons to cause any AC EVSE equipment to use digital mode (as far as I am aware).
I'm actually relieved to hear that the communications protocol is done over the pilot pin. To use the power lines seemed quite mad to me. This is an instance where I am delighted to be wrong.

I've struggled to find good info on the specs here, what's your source?

It's also not clear that the Bolt (or any car) would pay any attention at all to an attempt to do ISO 15118 communication with a Level-2 charger. It would be totally fantastic if they did, but I'm skeptical since no one has a Level-2 charger that does so.
Vertiformed is offline  
post #48 of 58 (permalink) Old 05-09-2019, 03:32 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertiformed View Post
I'm actually relieved to hear that the communications protocol is done over the pilot pin. To use the power lines seemed quite mad to me. This is an instance where I am delighted to be wrong.

I've struggled to find good info on the specs here, what's your source?
It’s described in the SAE and ISO specs, but your earlier link to the excellent v2g-clarity site contains a clear description about halfway down the page where it describes ISO 15118-3. It says there that
Quote:
If both the charging station and EV support ISO 15118-2 (or ISO 15118-20), they can use a PWM signal of 5% to trigger high-level communication. This means that they will engage in a charging process that is not controlled by analog PWM signals but instead by the information that is exchanged via the digital communication protocol ISO 15118.

Moreover, ISO 15118-3 addresses how powerline communication (PLC) is used to modulate the digital information specified in ISO 15118-2 onto the Control Pilot (CP) pin inside the charging cable.
It's also not clear that the Bolt (or any car) would pay any attention at all to an attempt to do ISO 15118 communication with a Level-2 charger. It would be totally fantastic if they did, but I'm skeptical since no one has a Level-2 charger that does so.[/QUOTE]
Good question. I don’t know for sure, but my guess is that it would actually work although there could be some compatibility bugs as is common when new types of device capabilities first show up in the market.
Jeff N is online now  
post #49 of 58 (permalink) Old 05-10-2019, 12:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,134
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 807 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff N View Post
It’s described in the SAE and ISO specs, but your earlier link to the excellent v2g-clarity site contains a clear description about halfway down the page where it describes ISO 15118-3.
How embarrassing! A site I'd previously linked to had the information I needed! I must admit that that site mostly seemed to promoting paid-for information that I didn't probe too deeply for free stuff.

Any public/free sources for the actual SAE and ISO specs?
Vertiformed is offline  
post #50 of 58 (permalink) Old 05-10-2019, 04:33 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertiformed View Post
Any public/free sources for the actual SAE and ISO specs?
V2G-Clarity actually has some very good free summaries of aspects of the specs although it’s obviously tailored toward enticing people to pay for the better stuff behind the paywall. Still, it can be a good place to get an overview.

Much of the information on Wikipedia was rather old when I last checked although maybe it’s gotten better since then. Sadly, the SAE and ISO standards are not developed in an open and public manner and cost a fair amount of money to purchase. I prefer the IETF model where it’s all out in the open and drafts as well as more finished documents are available for free download.

Sometimes you can get around it by searching for academic papers that critique the standards and thus discuss aspects of them in detail. You can also sometimes use Google to find older versions of some documents inadvertently uploaded to academic or governmental sites even though you aren’t supposed to share copies.

If you are willing to pay, the SAE derivatives of some ISO specs are sometimes cheaper but also tend to leave out some sections are aren’t considered relevant yet for North America.
Jeff N is online now  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome