CCX 52V-19.2Ah BATTERY "Guard Voltage" & Other ANOMALIES"

[Ant~Phan]

Yes its probably coincidence, again the battery on the charge and discharge port read the same and it is the expected voltage at 100% SOC. Whats more likely the battery is only 93% charged based on the screen voltage or a 100% based on a multimeter reading? Why would you go through the trouble of putting some kind of boost converter (on both charge and discharge mind you) in the BMS and have the screen calibrated to show 1 volt less??? Just change the voltage adjustment in the shipped charger and and have accurate voltage readings throughout?

Honestly I'm not even sure you could integrate a boost converter in such a way to fool a charger if the battery was connected, you would have to pull current from the battery to boost voltage then feed it back and the battery would just eat it up again, even if some circuit could be designed why all that expense and complexity, just drop the trim on the charger if you want under 100%, I think there is even a video around showing which pot to turn inside the stock charger to tweak it.

jharrell: [side note: I suggest that the charger you are referring to is the 80/90/100% SoC, 1-5A charge rate unit from Luna Cycles; certainly I have seen a video showing how to adjust the pots. in it. The stock charger from JB is a sealed unit - the only way to access the internals is to destroy the case]

I don't believe in coincidences. And, one of many valuable lessons I learnt as an ICT manager/director and corporate network designer and project/program manager, thence consultant is that "...all vendors always lie" even though their (usually frontline) staff don't realize that they are promulgating such lies. And, in some of the more bizarre cases, unnecessarily so.

Back to Friar William of Ockham and his infamous but useful razor. From you and other individuals - more learned in matters electrics than me - I hear about such as leaky MOSFETS, failing capacitors, and faulty/badly installed pass diodes to prevent such as "...charging via the discharge port"; all technically feasible I am sure but, I, a simple lad who values Occam's (so many spellings) guidance to consider the simplest and most obvious - and to trust what I can measure and replicate - is as I have presented too many times in this forum. And, notably, over far too many months of emails and other missives to JB who have, throughout, resolutely refused to give me a straight answer to my concerns and questions - I wonder why?

I suspect that JB has, from their perspective(s), valid reasons for ensuring the pack can only be charged to 93-95% SoC. What they do not note in their product specifications and other marketing literature is that charging limit: informed buyers? I think not. And, strange that the JB's booster club and apologists on this forum have little to say but buy a Satiator and all will be well (buying a $330 unit to reach the same 93% SoC that the standard charger achieves make no sense); nor will any educate one how to achieve 100% SoC - I do wonder why?)

In order to bring a close to this I will withdraw to lick my wounds and cogitate awhile on why JB's and others' lack of straight, simple and logical inputs/answers. That is, I will do a Brain Dump on what JB's possible reasons/fears might be and as indirectly posited by others having troubles with JB products and lack of quality support elsewhere in this forum.

Until later, post cogitation

 

[jharrell]

Sometimes coincidences are just coincidences. Think about what you are proposing, somehow juiced is boosting the voltage by a volt to a fool a cheap charger into shutting off earlier, not sure if you realize how difficult it is to go up in voltage like that from a lower source that is also paralleled into the original source in order to charge.

Mosfets always leak, they are not perfect switches, relays wouldn't but they would arc and you would hear them clicking. Its only 1 volt with no load, that is such a minor leak honestly pretty good compared to other bikes it seems.

Here is how to adjust the "sealed" juiced charger:

 

[Ant~Phan]

Sometimes coincidences are just coincidences. Think about what you are proposing, somehow juiced is boosting the voltage by a volt to a fool a cheap charger into shutting off earlier, not sure if you realize how difficult it is to go up in voltage like that from a lower source that is also paralleled into the original source in order to charge.

Mosfets always leak, they are not perfect switches, relays wouldn't but they would arc and you would hear them clicking. Its only 1 volt with no load, that is such a minor leak honestly pretty good compared to other bikes it seems.

Here is how to adjust the "sealed" juiced charger:

THANKS for the video: I thought that the pads were little feet to protect any surface that it was laid on - Ahem!

That said, in an earlier entry in this topic I did note that I had done, as the 'author' of the video, and measured the voltage as he did - without protective paper, lesson learnt - and measured 58.8V as he did, exactly and from several readings. Please see original post, Sept 14th ie, #1, para #4; and Sept 18th #7 reply to Bruce Arnold, line #2

 

[jharrell]

Note I also just adjusted my controller down from 59.1 volts to 58.8v it was exactly the same as the video, very easy. I plan on getting a Grin in the future, for now I just try to manually under charge it most of the time.

It is annoying that the display seems to read a volt low, wish there was a calibration setting for it.

 

[Ant~Phan]

Note I also just adjusted my controller down from 59.1 volts to 58.8v it was exactly the same as the video, very easy. I plan on getting a Grin in the future, for now I just try to manually under charge it most of the time.

It is annoying that the display seems to read a volt low, wish there was a calibration setting for it.

jharrell: what voltage (circuit) in/out of your controller did you adjust, down; and, why?

 

[jharrell]

jharrell: what voltage (circuit) in/out of your controller did you adjust, down; and, why?

Sorry I meant charger not controller. My charger like the one in the video was putting out over 59 volts so I cracked it open and turned the adjustment screw until it read 58.8. Looks like these Juiced controller might actually come set a little high from the factory. They are definitely not set for 95% (58.0v) regardless of what Juiced says unless multiple of my multimeters are wrong.

 

[Ant~Phan]

Note I also just adjusted my controller down from 59.1 volts to 58.8v it was exactly the same as the video, very easy. I plan on getting a Grin in the future, for now I just try to manually under charge it most of the time.

It is annoying that the display seems to read a volt low, wish there was a calibration setting for it.

jharrell: what voltage (circuit) in/out of your controller did you adjust, down; and, why?

jharrell: BTW, the support desk wallah at JB I am dealing with advised Wed the 30th that he has initiated delivery of a replacement charger to me (and the same type with which he achieves 100% SoC). I try to remain hopeful but if it is a standard 52V pack charger that is documented to achieve a max. SoC of 95% then not so much; maybe it will be reconfigured either by some mojo through unused middle (earth!) pin or the output pot has been tweaked as per the video you kindly sent a link for to me. Hmm!

BTW #2: what determines how a pack is named, eg the 52V pack. 52.1V is at 60% SoC per JB's chart of such things; yet, a 36V pack at 36V is at 50% SoC - do you know the naming convention rationale? Just an idle curiosity if you have the time.

 

[Ant~Phan]

Sorry I meant charger not controller. My charger like the one in the video was putting out over 59 volts so I cracked it open and turned the adjustment screw until it read 58.8. Looks like these Juiced controller might actually come set a little high from the factory. They are definitely not set for 95% (58.0v) regardless of what Juiced says.

jharrell: you are correct when you say they are not set for 95% SoC (58.0V); they are set at 58.8V for a full 100% SoC (mine measures 58.8V exactly, every measurement). But, minus the Ghost Voltage, so you get the required 58.0V downstream as it were at the controller thence the handlebar display). Ahem; I have a theory; rather did have a theory and with apologies to Monty Pythons Flying Circus, and so, hoping to avoid the unpleasant end that befell the first character to utter that phrase...………………...

 

[jharrell]

BTW #2: what determines how a pack is named, eg the 52V pack. 52.1V is at 60% SoC per JB's chart of such things; yet, a 36V pack at 36V is at 50% SoC - do you know the naming convention rationale? Just an idle curiosity if you have the time.

The voltage is just the nominal voltage which is just the agreed upon name (hence nominal) usually close to the average but not necessarily just like 12v and 120v are not exactly those voltages. I am not sure of of the history of why a 14s lithium pack is called 52v it doesn't seem to be related to multiples of 12v like 48v (13s) and 60v (16s) is guess it just a nice round number close to 50% but distinct enough from 48 and 60.

Edit: actually looking at it 48v (13s) + 4v = 52v (14s) + 4v = 56v (15s) + 4v = 60v (16s) so its just multiple of 4 and nobody seems to use 15s so you don't see the 56v nominal anywhere.

 

[Ant~Phan]

The voltage is just the nominal voltage which is just the agreed upon name (hence nominal) usually close to the average but not necessarily just like 12v and 120v are not exactly those voltages. I am not sure of of the history of why a 14s lithium pack is called 52v it doesn't seem to be related to multiples of 12v like 48v (13s) and 60v (16s) is guess it just a nice round number close to 50% but distinct enough from 48 and 60.

Edit: actually looking at it 48v (13s) + 4v = 52v (14s) + 4v = 56v (15s) + 4v = 60v (16s) so its just multiple of 4 and nobody seems to use 15s so you don't see the 56v nominal anywhere.

jharrell: nice one, Sir. In the random scheme of marketing driven naming it makes just enough engineering based sense. Every time they install and additional string of cells and implying they are using best, they round to the nearest integer the resultant +4V (4.2V actual) in the pack? Likewise the P (parallel) number times 3200 to 3600ma??? Ahem.…...

 

[jharrell]

jharrell: nice one, Sir. In the random scheme of marketing driven naming it makes just enough engineering based sense. Every time they install and additional string of cells and implying they are using best, they round to the nearest integer the resultant +4V (4.2V actual) in the pack? Likewise the P (parallel) number times 3200 to 3600ma??? Ahem.…...

I wouldn't call them marketing names its a convenient name that conveys approximate voltage instead of having to remember what 14 x 2.8-4.2 is. Marketing would be what Dewalt does which is call their 5s pack a 20v while everyone else agrees 5s is 18v nominally.

Capacity is based on the cells used. Juiced uses LG Chem 18650 3200mah cells rated for 10a discharge when new, there are other 18650 cells rated higher capacity with usually lower discharge rating and also lower capacity cells rated for more discharge, those are good compromise for bike use giving our battery pack a 60a discharge rating along with a comfortable 10a charge rating. You can go larger on the cells like 21700's used in Teslas and some bikes now which have 4000-5000mah ratings but you can't fit as many in the same space so you might do a a 14s5p instead of 14s6p in our bike. Tesla just showed off an even bigger 46800 battery probably not very practical for bike use due to the physical size.

 

[Ant~Phan]

I wouldn't call them marketing names its a convenient name that conveys approximate voltage instead of having to remember what 14 x 2.8-4.2 is. Marketing would be what Dewalt does which is call their 5s pack a 20v while everyone else agrees 5s is 18v nominally.

Capacity is based on the cells used. Juiced uses LG Chem 18650 3200mah cells rated for 10a discharge when new, there are other 18650 cells rated higher capacity with usually lower discharge rating and also lower capacity cells rated for more discharge, those are good compromise for bike use giving our battery pack a 60a discharge rating along with a comfortable 10a charge rating. You can go larger on the cells like 21700's used in Teslas and some bikes now which have 4000-5000mah ratings but you can't fit as many in the same space so you might do a a 14s5p instead of 14s6p in our bike. Tesla just showed off an even bigger 46800 battery probably not very practical for bike use due to the physical size.

jharrell: Good Stuff, Sir. Ta muchly!