Question about chargepoint automatic stopping

That's right, 2 hours and it'll stop charging. I use the exact same charger at a local shopping center. With the same pricing. You will NOT be charged (money).

 

It sounds to me like the 2-hour limit is designed to prevent people from hogging the space. I'm sure if you leave before the 2 hours is up, you'll have no problems.

 

The 2 hour limit is because most people don't shop for 2 hours. The 2 hour free limit is so people don't turn the store into a car charging hub and just waste their energy, and take advantage of a incentive.

 

Like I stated earlier the car sends a turn off signal which is the same as unplugging it. If it is setup, it will even send you a text to tell you that it is done charging, how much it cost ($0), how much energy used, and how long it took. You can even monitor the charge with your charge point app.

 

I don't like unplugging mine while it's charging. One time I did it too fast, and I saw a white spark. I know that such things create power surges and are very bad for electronic circuits.

 

See the manufactures are smart. They though it through. When you press the release button the charger cuts off power in a split second. So I suggest pressing the button/ lever completely before pulling the wand.

 

My guess would be "Yes." It would take a special metering/vending system to keep track of your actual consumption and the duration.

 

I had actually read that beforehand, but in my haste of the moment, I yanked it out thoughtlessly.

 

See, in my 3 years of owning a mechanic shop, all problems are usually traceable back to user error. I had a guy crying about having to buy a engine. Because he went without oil for around 30,000 miles on conventional oil, the engine was basically running dry, and screaming.

 

Well, sometimes the blame-game can be carried too far. Every normally-conscientious person occasionally makes a mistake. Sometimes a design flaw can cause a lot of user-error.

A case in point; during WWII the US Army Air Force was going through a lot of pilots who were being grounded for landing planes with the landing-gear up. This was causing a severe shortage of qualified pilots, so in desperation they turned to an industrial designer for a possible answer. It turns out, the switch for the landing-gear was right beside the switch for the landing flaps, and the two switches looked identical. During landing, the pilots were sometimes hitting the wrong switch at exactly the wrong moment. In that case, blaming the user for the problem was not the solution; the flaw was in the ergonomics of the design. The German side suffered even more from such design problems due to the Nazis philosophy that most problems could be solved through harsh discipline alone.

 

Touché

 

Although... A decent pilot is one with hand-eye coordination and a good air force pilot is one that can perform meticulously under pressure, I'm not a pilot, but wouldn't you want to hit the landing flaps with the landing gear, so the confusion could be ruled out for a weak pilot? Hard discipline alone, maybe not, but hard discipline to get to know how to make your plane come down before making it go up. Engineers can only do so much. Only an idiot would allow a bigger idiot to fly a war plane who cracks under pressure and has been idiotic enough to not go through proper training, and dare I say, vigorous training.

 

I'm also a private pilot, and it's great to be able to perform flawlessly under pressure, but there's no need to for any pilot to experience unnecessary pressure. That's what emergency drills are for; to train pilots to be able to handle unexpected situations. A "stupid" design (as I'm sure those pilots called it, back in the day) is nothing but a day-to-day liability, no different than a faulty engine or a cracked wing-spar. The designers have just as much responsibility for the eventual outcomes as the pilots.

In the same way, blaming the car-owner for every mistake they make isn't going to solve any problems; the better a car is designed, the better the outcome, pure and simple.

 

Since there are no smart people , society has decided to make smarter things, instead of making common sense common lets make it less necessary . All mistakes can eventually be traced back to human error because, (a) the person with the faulty engine didn't get their car regularly inspected, (b) the guy with the cracked wing-spar didn't think is was a good idea to inspect the plane before taking it for a flight and falling to his/ her eventual death.

 

I don't want to sound argumentative at all, but the point I was trying to make is that both parties should always do their best; both the user and the designer. I think sometimes the first move is passing of the buck on the other guy, when it should be looking for the best solution to the problem.

 

Not to disagree with you, both parties trying to their best is a good choice, but one party could fix it all together.