Jump to content

Chriull

Moderators
  • Content Count

    2,933
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Chriull last won the day on November 8 2018

Chriull had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,510 Excellent

About Chriull

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wien
  • EUC
    KS16S

Recent Profile Visitors

4,064 profile views
  1. No problem! As this is a community forum and now the ?first? bigger fault/mishap/... happened imo clarification is the way to go! Imho we'll take care of such a situation once it arises. Which normally/imo should not happen. But your proposal seems to be a sound/?the only? consequence. I personally just take any misuse of this community for personal interest as lack of appreciation for this community. Having mods is just a necessity and should in no way interfere with the community interest - imo best (in a perfect world) happens without anyone "noticing" anything.
  2. FYI: the member got a temporary posting ban. Just provided the infos in my post above. And fyi the mod resigned.
  3. Sorry for the delayed answer - i disabled myself a bit on the weekend ... 1) Under the sole discretion of the forum owner, normally a discussion with proposals of the whole moderation team to propose members backed by the whole team. 2) The email adress used for regristration. And beside, of course the whole organisational forum interface for reported post, warnings, posts of new members to be approved etc. 3) I'm not sure if i get your question right? So two answers: - we have a two factor authorization to make our accounts "a bit" more safe. - moderators are choosen from the "pool" of serious, respected, active long term members, who have shown a code of conduct without bad standing.
  4. Yes! Should be some CC up until the first cell reaches cut-off threshold - should be easily detectable to warn the user.
  5. There is no communication between charger and the wheel - the charger just has some voltage and some current thresholds to change his behaviour. These of course could at wrong values. Charging with cutting of at a certain voltage always shows too much charge while charging. THe correspondance battery voltage to battery charge is only correct if one lets the battery settle some time. From https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries Charge V/cell Capacity at cut-off voltage* Charge time Capacity with full saturation 3.80 3.90 4.00 4.10 4.20 ~40% ~60% ~70% ~80% ~85% 120 min 135 min 150 min 165 min 180 min ~65% ~75% ~80% ~90% 100% Table 2: Typical charge characteristics of lithium-ion. Adding full saturation at the set voltage boosts the capacity by about 10 percent but adds stress due to high voltage. So if one charges up to 4.2 volt, the app shows (wheel reports) falsely 100%, but the battery voltage will settle to something around this 85% charge after some time. So if one charges up to 4.1 volt, the app shows (wheel reports) falsely ~90%, but the battery voltage will settle to something around this 80% charge after some time. ... Edit: As all of this stuff could be almost way too Simple, EUCs show some (quite big) range as 100% - from 4.2V downto somewhere not to far from 4.1V. (don't remember exactly - maybe 4.13V?) So when a battery has in reality 90% (4.1V) the wheel/app just started to leave the 100% area...
  6. Gute Besserung! Falls es dich noch interessieren sollte: Klingt nach einem overlean? Eventuell schon niedrigere Batterieladung ("Ich bin schon eine Weile mit dem V8 gefahren")? Eventuell die Beschleunigung doch etwas mehr als normal - speziell für eine nicht mehr volle Batterie? Oder die Beschleunigung bei zu hoher Geschwindigkeit? Wenn es bei noch recht voller Batterie, wenig Beschleunigung und geringer/moderater Geschwindigkeit war, könnte die Batterie schon alt/schlecht balanziert sein? Dann verliert das Rad viel an maximaler Leistungsfähigkeit...
  7. Yes. Only limited - just if all cells are fine and balanced. So this could lead to a wrong wrong feeling of safety :(. Imo the only solution is the usage of BMS which also monitor single cell undervoltage and report this to the mainboard/app (and in no case like the very first generations did cut off the discharge port...) But maybe also some "abonrmality" can be detected by wheellog with not fully charging wheels. But there are ?three? cases: - the charger does not deliver enough max voltage, so it starts the CV phase at too low voltage. Could be seen by the constant current decreasing at not maximum voltage. - the main board reporting a wrong voltage. Mabe some correction factor can/should be implemented if the users verifies the charger voltage? Or just some "margin" is introduced? - Charger output and mainboard is behaving fine, but some cells are dead. I have no idea how this will behave? The voltage will stay at some too low voltage - interesting would be the "current behaviour". If it still stays like in the CC phase or show some other anomalies? Edit: This last option will just charge with some CC up until the first cell reaches the overvoltage cutoff threshold - so some premature charging end (thanks to https://forum.electricunicycle.org/topic/16045-safety-advisory-faulty-charger-may-lead-to-risk-of-16x-battery-fire/?do=findComment&comment=273279 ) I'll try to monitor some charge cycles and compare them to https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries and https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/bu_409a_why_do_old_li_ion_batteries_take_long_to_charge. So if one makes such logs from time to time and compares the curves battery state should be "easily" determinable? With other members input (enough charging wheellog data file - especially from "abnormal" battery pack/charger combinations) maybe a nice battery pack analysator can be evolved?
  8. Nowadays EUC BMS monitor each single cell (pair/triple - the paralleled ones) for overvoltage (some 4.2xV). If the threshold is reached the charger input is cut off with Mosfet(s). One idea came to my mind, as @photorph mentioned the overflow of the charger output voltage display, which could mean more than 99V. In such a case this voltage could be above the specification of the mosfet (drain source breakdown voltage) damaging him. But the fire happened with the normal stock charger afterwards there (without overvoltage) some bad/steongly mismatched cells would be needed to cause troubles. ... Or just some loose contacts/bad components or whatever. The possibilities would give space for endless speculationd - so i'm looking forward to the result of the lab analysis.
  9. My post was in regard to your xxxxxx'ing of @eddiemoy posting a colleague relationship. Not a company name or addres (can't remember a address beeing posted?) However - i'm out of any serious discussions for today. Indulging some nice wine and going to relax with the latest "walking death" season
  10. Yes. I did not publish anything i could not have remembered or i'd think would be compromising. If he'd want to hide that he is someones colleague that's he's personal problem if he publishes it. The whole for had the chance to read it. For any other links he had given i'd advice him, and i did this in the past to not do this on a forum. And i agree fully with you that this special information is not to be republished in any way. (And should not be published anyhow at first place)
  11. This was publicly posted information from @brockj and he decided to hide it lateron. Not in because of beeing a colleague but in because his other (private) information he revealed, which were not mentioned anymore.
  12. Full agree, and is reglemented officially by now. Home adress were just examples/fears mentioned here. And this would only be possible for members with static ips and a registered domain stating their address in the ?nic?/whois dataset. Although this nic dataset is public, publishing this information (just to be easily found by knowing the ip adress and doing a whois query) would be a "real" harrasment. He did learn and accepts and respects this new guideline/rule. Which was implicitly existing before, but he just did not know it's information only shown to moderators and not to every member. That's not (sololy) his fault but all moderators and the forum owners fault to not state this as moderator rules. An explanation, but of course no excuse is that this was and still is and will (hopefully) stay a (calm and harmonic) enthusiast EUC hobby forum! The forum is growing constantly and i have the feeling especially with the newest wheel generation (ks16x and nikola). This forum is privatly paid by its founder, there are no advertisment or any other sponsoring incomes, moderators are solely veteran EUC riding members doing voluntary administration work. Faults happen, and i'm personally sorry and as i'd strongly assume all of the moderators and the owner too regarding the bad feelings and fears happened to our members by this incident. Accusations also hurt, as this is done honorary from EUC enthusiasts for EUC enthusiats - but that's imo understandable to happen as this forum is growing and times are long gone were every member knows every other. At least i am loosing the "overview". So this is an hopefully stay excusable mishap that occured because our internal organizational guidelines did not grow/evolve accordingly to the firum growth.
  13. I assumed so - and theoreticly the real "natted" client address should be safe, if the router firmware, setup,os, client os, etc... would be safe... Don't mind - this thread is gone. That's quite "normal" around here... I, and i assume noone else will split the posts to a new topic... If @chrisjunlee reconsiders and returns he'd best start a new topic
  14. FYi: It's the first (till now) written rule for moderators to not publish any private member data, especially the ip adress.
×
×
  • Create New...