Ralph states: "They should have used IEC 61000-3-2 for conducted emissions. "
I'll have to do some research on this; I don't have ready access to the 61000
series like I once did, thereby I have lost any familiarity with their scope
and application. Recall, this is an EV manufacturer testing the combination of
an FCC-approved charger with an [?] approved EV. I guess I can start there;
what emissions levels to they pass? I suppose the answer will be CISPR12 for
radiated, and {whatever the charger company claims } Then asks: "I wonder
if the test equipment was in good working order. " I have submitted a bit of a
protest letter stating my issues with the test results. This is an accredited
lab, so while I expect a reply, I'm not sure I'll get an answer. The one thing
they should be able to look at, and stands against the obvious "they wrongly
hooked up something" (hardware or software filters) was that the charger+EV
combination passed one test, right in the middle of the test cases (a range of
charging currents and SoC were used as test cases), and guess what?That
perfectly-smooth slope about which I complain (in the failed cases) isn't
present in the data for the passed result; the emissions plot from 0.15-1MHz
looks "spikey" in that one test. So, I hope they can use that to figure out
what might have gone wrong. It's not just that the equipment failed, it's that
the data simply looks wrong. Here's what I wrote: "Comparing image 1
(a zoom in of 0.15 ~1MHZ) to image 2 (a zoom in of 1-30 Mhz) from the data
plot, I recognize in image 2 of QP and Averaged plotted points results which
are representative of CE testing I've witnessed. The plotted data points in
image 2 show - for lack of a better term - a visibly "spikey" characteristic
that is usually seen in EMC test results. In contrast, the data in image 1
has a smooth-slope characteristic that is unlike the data presented in image 2,
or any other EMC test result that I, or any in the engineering team at Emporia
have seen. Additionally, this data - which is near-identical to the other test
cases where emissions exceed limits - show the worst emissions at the
first-available data point in each test. All test cases that show failure
have this uncharacteristically smooth and linear graphical characteristic, with
the peak at the onset of data point averaging." If I get a useless reply, I
will post the majority of the test data - since we paid for that test, I feel I
have that right - for the experts here to chew upon. thanks for all your time
and responses, Colorado Brian
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Ralph McDiarmid <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PSES] Hazards, risks with EMC emissions?
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 11:47:30 -0700
Hi Brian,
They should have used IEC 61000-3-2 for conducted emissions. That standard is
called out in the Generic EMC emission standard, IEC 61000-6-3 applicable to
residential equipment where no product-specific standard is available. You need
to check the IEC store and then the OJEC list of harmonized standards. If the
product in question is a battery charger, then I conclude that the generic EMC
standard is the best fit for satisfying the EMC directive.
With reference to the weird looking emissions spectra you saw on the plot, I
wonder if the test equipment was in good working order. We also tested ours
with a known “comb generator” RF source before and after each test
session to be sure our measurement apparatus was functioning properly. We were
the only company in the metropolitan Vancouver area who were fortunate to have
our own 3-meter semi-anechoic EMC room with a full HP test rack, antennas, and
LISNs. That room got a lot of use.
Ralph
From: Brian Gregory <[email protected]>
Sent: August 27, 2025 2:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PSES] Hazards, risks with EMC emissions?
Ralph noted:
> For the Method yes, but as John Woodgate pointed out, you need another CISPR
> or
> EN standard to defined limits.
They used IEC 61000-3-3 Cl. B for the conducted emissions.
On top of that, the QP data we saw showed a smooth line from (~ 90dBuV at 168
kHz "corrected"), on a linear slope down to ~ 1MHz, whereupon the data started
looking like a typical EMC plot; jagged lines with some peaks. The first peak
was at 2MHz. Both me and the Engr VP looked at the plot on a big screen, and
said ... WTF?
The Averaged data showed only very small squiggles with the same slope,
starting at 58.6dBuV at 170 kHz "corrected" and started showing regular sized
peaks and bumps at about 2 Mz.
These are the weirdest test results I've seen; but I have no where the
experience as most of you. We're meeting again with the customer this
afternoon, and I'm still poorly informed on:
What is the hazard or risk?
Colorado Brian
Please note: message attached
From: Ralph McDiarmid <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PSES] Hazards, risks with EMC emissions?
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 13:34:20 -0700
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
[email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)
List rules:
https://pses.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/EM-PSTC-List-Rules.pdf
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: [email protected]
Rick Linford at: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: [email protected]
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
[email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)
List rules:
https://pses.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/EM-PSTC-List-Rules.pdf
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: [email protected]
Rick Linford at: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: [email protected]
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
[email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)
List rules:
https://pses.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/EM-PSTC-List-Rules.pdf
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: [email protected]
Rick Linford at: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
_________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC&A=1
