Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [solectria_ev] Re: Charging Issue in 99 NiCd Force

Expand Messages
  • Dan Fuller
    I finally got a chance to take another look at my non-charging Force.  I checked some of the connections between the charger and the pack, and they seemed
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 9, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I finally got a chance to take another look at my non-charging Force.  I checked some of the connections between the charger and the pack, and they seemed ok.  I was pretty sure that I wasn't going to be able to find them all, so I made sure to check the voltage while charging, at the charger side of the first Anderson connector.  The voltage never got above 163 so the charger isn't seeing a falsely high V unless there's a weak contact inside the charger.  I missed that 49000 AH flaw in the MONLOG screen-  I thought that was maybe a lifetime number.... was that field actually indicating that it moved that much charge during phase 3 during that 0.0 minutes???   I'm clueless as to what that would indicate.
      I still need to try the "clear operational data" trick, but my laptop is giving me troubles at the moment so I'm unable to connect.  I'll borrow one and get that done over the weekend.

      If I can't figure this out I may end up needing to talk to Wolf about a repair job.
      Any other ideas out there?
      Thanks again,
      Dan



      ________________________________
      From: geo_homsy2 <geo.homsy@...>
      To: solectria_ev@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 6:33 PM
      Subject: [solectria_ev] Re: Charging Issue in 99 NiCd Force


       
      I agree with Ken- check the wiring carefully between the charger and the pack. Any resistance there including a fnorked fuse holder or flaky fuse, could introduce voltage drop, causing the charger to think it's finished.

      When you say "pack voltage is showing under 160V", do you mean on MONLOG screen, or do you mean when you measure it with a DVM?

      I also note, something is VERY wrong in that MONLOG screen. It's showing over 49000 Wh delivered in phase 3. Should obviously never happen.

      Have you tried "clear operational data" in the NLG software? A couple weeks ago I had my charger fart badly, after being roughly power cycled a couple times by the eLithion BMS (THANKS, ELITHION!), and it wouldn't power up without a fault condition. I thought it was really hosed, until I used "clear operational data". Then, it miraculously fixed itself. Try that?

      //Geo

      --- In solectria_ev@yahoogroups.com, "Dan" <sbdeadelf@...> wrote:
      >
      > This is the first real problem I've had in about a year and a half... or could it be 2 and a half years... of Force ownership, and I may be stuck.
      > I started noticing that the charger was calling the car "full" when there was still some power use showing on the AH meter, but didn't think much of it since there had been some inaccuracy there (or so I thought). Finally, I came out one morning to find a BIG discrepancy. It had stopped charging with 30something AH still on the meter. I had driven quite a bit the day before and there had been little time for it to charge during the night. I unplugged it, and plugged it back in. It started charging again but shut off again. Single red light to two red LED and 3 red LEDs on shutoff. The charger seems to be operating. Is the car feeding it bad info? In hunting around, I found that the Anderson connector on the charger leading to the battery pack had partly melted and have now replaced it, but no improvement. MONLOG seems to show it going through a 10 minute precharge, skipping charge and overcharge, and then doing something for 2 minutes during
      the done phase. Pack voltage is showing under 160V.
      > Any thoughts?
      > Maybe an unrelated question: The manual cautions against using 110V to charge except in emergencies as it may shorten battery life. Is this accurate, and why? I've been using 110V pretty often lately but was thinking that it might actually be better for the charger since it gets less hot.
      > Thanks in advance!
      > Dan
      >




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.