On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:44:29 GMT,
Brian Gregory wrote:
...
> We are building EV Chargers for residential markets (not just US)
> and one of the safety applicable standards is UL 2231-2. It calls
> out IEC 61000-4-3 for immunity testing parameters, which states a
> requirement for a field
Hi Chaz,
My thought is that concern over the simulated antenna can be neglected
if the the source is "electrically short dipole" at the frequency of
interest. Simulating with the radiated field from such a source, with
and without the shield, at a far field distance, should give you a
Like John, I have no idea why a "medical electrical device" standard has
gotten tangled up with EV chargers. I was one of the authors of the 2nd
edition of the IEC standard, and the only devices under that standard
that weren't patient connected were systems that connected those devices
to
Speaking in general – not acquainted with any work specific to your concern.
The real antenna is/are the IC (s) covered by the shield, and any internal
connections between them.
If you properly simulate that, you need not worry about the effect of the
shield on the antenna, because it
I suggest that a suitable source for evaluating the shielding
effectiveness of a BLS is a multivibrator (square-wave source), with
attention to rise and fall times: not too slow and not ridiculously
fast. It's more representative of emitting sources than a canned antenna.
Well, obviously 60601-1-2 doesn't apply, unless some clown claims that
EV chargers are medical devices. The higher limits in 60601-1-2 for home
healthcare are probably due to the expected absence of immediate
intervention when a medical device misbehaves.
Hello experts and gurus!!
I need to simulate the performance of a BLS (board level shield) and I am
considering
using the IEEE Std 2716-2022 IEEE Guide for the Characterization of the
Effectiveness of Printed Circuit Board Level Shielding document. This
document is however an adaptation of
the
Hi Brian,
The UL standard actually references IEC 61000-4-3 only for the test method.
Per the UL standard, the test level, 20 V/m, comes from EN 60601-1-2, which
is the CENELEC EMC standard for medical devices.
Per this article
Hi Brian,
Just for your information, in Europe residential EV chargers (for charging
an EV with AC voltage), typically needs to fulfill the requirements of EN
61851-21-2 (product standard for off-board EV chargers). In this standard
you will find the applicable test levels for immunity
==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do, and I understand.
Xunzi (340 - 245 BC)
Forwarded Message
FCC Part B has nothing to do with immunity. It protects radio receivers. 20
V/m simply means they are taking into account higher power or closer rf
transmitters. Your cell phone, transmitting at 0.5 W, theoretically can
generate 5 V/m a meter away. That will scale up in closer, although the
Hello colleagues, We are building EV Chargers for residential markets (not
just US) and one of the safety applicable standards is UL 2231-2. It calls out
IEC 61000-4-3 for immunity testing parameters, which states a requirement for
a field strength of 20V/m. Our EMC expert says typically
12 matches
Mail list logo
