Recent content by M CARLING

If your electricity is generated by an inverter, then it’s going to be very close to whatever it’s configured to be. If it’s from the grid, it should be +/- 5% of nominal, but I’ve seen grid voltages outside that range. I would not try to go higher than 277V nominal if grid connected. I...

BTW, the marketing limit is given in terms of power (watts). The physical limit is current (amps). Many nominally 240V inverters can be configured to produce 208V and many can produce up to 264V (240V + 10%). Changing the output voltage in the inverter’s configuration settings will normally...

A time factor as you suggested is possible, especially if the transformer is owned by Tesla. If the transformer is owned by the utility, then there is probably a simple limit and it won’t be very different from the rated capacity of the transformer. I think Tesla probably owns the transformer...

Transformers can safely operate well above (sometimes even two to three times) the rated capacity. Two problems arise with operating a transformer beyond rated capacity: inefficiency due to flux leakage and, if pushed beyond where flux leakage becomes significant, degradation of the transformer...

48A at 208V would be 10kW. 48A at 240V would be 11.5kW. 48A at 277V would be 13.3kW. I’m not sure why you want a 15kW inverter, unless you’re hoping that it will be stressed less by not operating at peak load. Thermal cycling is the main stressor of power electronics.

The video shows the Tesla charging from DockCharge at 216V. That’s odd if it’s being powered by the DockCharge’s inverter. Why is your inverter configured for less than 240V? Here is a suggestion if DockCharge has an integrated EVSE (which I believe it must based on the claim that it switches...

You appear to be confusing me with Tyl. The report that the circuit boards are being replaced at the Grant Road, Mountain View site is his report, not mine.

In that case, either Tesla planned this site to not support non-Tesla vehicles and then changed their mind or Tesla planned from the start of the project to install stations with older type circuit boards knowing that they would be changed later. Either of those is possible, but a bit outside...

I’m not suggesting that Tesla dropped support for their older (pre-CCS) protocol. I can’t imagine any reason why they would do that. I’m suggesting that when Tesla added support for the CCS protocol (ISO 15118 and DIN 70121) in 2021, they didn’t only add the capability for newer Teslas to...

https://chargedevs.com/features/ev-charging-is-changing-part-2-no-nacs-is-not-todays-tesla-connector/ Tesla switched from CANbus to PLC in 2021 according to the link (and others found easily via Google).

Didn’t Tesla change that a few years ago when they switched to the CCS protocol from their own proprietary protocol?

Yes, the CCS requirement in NEVI lasts for five years from commissioning of the site. After that, the owner is free to support or not support particular standards — or even close the site. So the last nail is already in CCS1’s coffin, but burial will have to wait several more years.

Thinking about this from both IT and electrical engineering perspectives, with some knowledge of the protocols, I’m not seeing how a circuit board change could be required to support NACS charging of vehicles produced by other manufacturers. Even if a software update would be needed (which...

I agree that Lee Vining would be a sensible place for superchargers. I seem to recall that a few years ago the Tesla Findus map used to show a planned supercharger site there. Does anyone else remember that?

In case anyone is interested, the Girdwood substation is on Gold Ave at Old West St. It is served by the Quartz Creek 115kV transmission line, which runs from Kenai Lake to Anchorage. The segment of the Quartz Creek line between the Girdwood substation and the Indian substation is due to be...