Showing posts with label inverter noise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inverter noise. Show all posts

Friday, December 1, 2017

Containing RF noise from a sine wave UPS

An amateur radio friend of mine (WA7X) has a cabin in the mountains.  It is not a particularly "rustic" cabin as it is festooned with radios, antennas, propagation beacons, computers and cameras and has an internet connection, but because it is in a remote location it occasionally has 3-6 hour power outages and thus it also has a UPS (Uninterruptible Power System) to keep many of these things online in the interim.

This "sine wave" UPS is a 1.5kVa unit that was cast off from by someone for the same reason most UPSs are cast off:  Its internal battery went bad.  Rather than simply replacing the battery, its previous owner simply got another UPS and asked the question "Do you want this?"

Instead of replacing the internal battery, the DC connections for the batteries were brought out and a bank of six 12 volt lead-acid batteries was wired up (two sets of three parallel batteries connected in series amounting to a nominal 200-ish amp-hours at 24 volts) to provide the needed 24 volts and a DC circuit breaker was added for safety, this battery capacity allowing the unit to run for far longer than it could have on the original battery.

While this UPS was more efficient than a previous unit and produces a fairly nice sine wave rather than the typical, ugly "modified sine wave" there was a price to pay:  RF Interference (e.g. RFI) that was present whether the unit was active or on standby.

But first, a few weasel words:
  • This project involves high voltages and/or currents:  Do not attempt to construct a similar device unless you are thoroughly familiar with electrical safety and the wiring of such devices.
  • If you use an external battery bank with a UPS it is imperative that you include some sort of current liming, such as a fuse or circuit breaker rated for both the expected current and battery voltage.  Such devices are available from auto-parts stores.
  • If you use an external battery bank with a UPS you must determine if this battery bank is "mains referenced" internally by the UPS or not.  If it is mains referenced (e.g. connected directly or indirectly to the mains AC voltage) then the low-voltage DC terminals will pose a line voltage safety hazard and care must be taken - the least of which is enclosing the battery and any exposed DC terminals to prevent accidental contact.  This UPS's battery terminals were isolated from the mains and given that the room in which the UPS resides has restricted access, the low-voltage battery connections themselves were deemed to be "adequately safe" left exposed.
  • YOU are responsible for the safety and for any liability if you choose to do something similar to what is described on this page.  You have been warned!
    Figure 1:
    The completed AC/DC filter.  This
    box contains a "brute" force L/C filter
    for the battery (DC) leads as well as
    separate filters for the AC mains in/out
    power connections.
    Click on the image for a larger version.

Interference:

The radio frequency "grunge" from the UPS manifested itself on the HF ("High Frequency" or shortwave) bands in several ways.  Most obvious was a loud "buzz" every 40-50 kHz on the lower (80 and 40 meter) bands, but there was also more subtle interference that pervaded these and higher bands:  A background "hiss" that might initially escape the notice of the casual listener until one realizes that this noise masked signals that should have still been perfectly audible.  If one switched the receiver to AM it would be observed that this "hiss" was subtly modulated at twice the mains frequency, 120 Hz.

To determine the extent of this sort of interference the typical procedure is to start turning things in the house off one-at-a-time (or, more reliably, the reverse:  Turn everything off at the breaker panel and then turn on one thing at a time) until the culprit is found.  This was done with the UPS and the magnitude of its "radio interfering" nature was determined.  Clearly, this "grunge" was being conducted from the power leads going in and out of the UPS.

Further experimentation revealed the true extent of the noise:  Even with everything disconnected from the UPS - that's to say, with it running on its battery, unplugged from the mains and the load disconnected - there was still detectable noise getting to the antenna and a quick check with a portable shortwave receiver proved that the remainder of this noise seemed to be being radiated by the physically-large battery bank and the wires that connected it.

While the proper application of a "brute force" AC line filter would likely quash the noise conducted in and out of the UPS on the mains power leads, something else would be required to minimize/eliminate the noise emanating via the DC lines.

"Brute force" line filters:
Figure 2:
A typical "brute force" L/C line filter typically found on devices
to minimize conduction of extraneous RF energy on the
AC mains.  For a 1500kVa UPS the filter would need an
appropriate current rating - particularly the fuse!
In some filters, two sections are used, with the components
L1, C1, C2 and C3 repeating.  This same filter
topology is used for the described DC filter.
Click on the image for a larger version.

One of the best ways to eliminate or minimize the amount of RF energy that might be conducted out of a potentially interference-generating device is to apply a combination of inductance and capacitance to that line as depicted schematically in Figure 2.

With the noise coming from the power supply (the UPS in our case) capacitor "C4" effectively "shorts" this RF noise to both sides of the power line, leaving the AC signal (pretty much) unchanged.  Inductor L1 consists of two equal windings on a ferrite core and it is practically invisible to signals that are equal and opposite, but it acts as a series choke for signals that are "common mode" - that is to say, equal on both sides of the power supply's mains leads - such as the RF noise energy.

On the "mains" side of the filter capacitor C3 reinforces the common mode again while capacitors C1 and C2 shunt any remaining RF energy from the power supply - its impedance now made much higher by inductor L1 - to ground - which would be the metal enclosure in which everything was mounted.

As it happens, these filters are available on the surplus market, and we would need three of them:
  • One for the AC mains connection to the UPS.
  • Another for the UPS's AC output
  • A third one for the battery connection to the UPS.
With the UPS being rated for 1.5kVa, some surplus AC mains filters, rated for 16 amps, were obtained while a filter designed specifically to filter DC lines rated for at least 50 amps at 60 volts was found (at The Electronic Goldmine - item G21652 - link) to filter the power connection between the UPS and the battery:  50 amps at 24 volts is not quite 1.5kVa, but there was nowhere near this amount of power being drawn from the UPS and the added circuit breaker/disconnect would provide the required safety - and the filter should be able to handle a brief overload, anyway.

Putting the filters in a box:
Figure 3:
Inside the filter box.  Along the top edge is the main AC input.  On the bottom edge - and just below the outlet on the left side - are the short leads that conduct the "dirty" AC power to/from the UPS, each through its own, separate filter - the two black boxes.
On the far right is the high-current DC filter with stud (bolt) connections being used to make the connections between the battery and the DC input of the UPS.  Barely visible along the bottom, one of the three studs is used to connect a piece of heavy wire or braid to bond this box to the chassis of the UPS to minimize conducted/radiated RF.
In the middle is a circuit board that contains a mains transformer, a high-current mechanical relay and a small solid-state relay.  This board - added later in the design - allows one pair of the outlets to be turned on and off with a simple contact closure of an internet-connected remote power switch.  On the control cable for the relay (the thin white wire) is a ferrite device which minimizes the amount of RF energy that might possibly be conducted in or out of the box on that control lead.
Click on the image for a larger version.

Ideally, one would have put the UPS and the batteries in a large metal box and passed the power leads in and out of this box only via the filters, but this simply wasn't practical, so the next best thing had to be done:  Put the filters in a single, metal box that would be electrically bonded to the UPS chassis and make the connections in and out of the UPS using short leads.  By keeping the leads short and bonding our new filter box to the UPS, we'd do our best to limit the number and length of conductors that carried the RF interference and, most importantly, preventing RF circulating currents from finding their way on external connections.
Figure 4:
The end of the box with the mounted outlets.  As noted,
one pair of these outlets is connected to a relay to allow the
connected devices to be remotely controlled.
Click on the image for a larger version.

To that end a power distribution box was found at a home improvement store (Lowes Depot, I think) for less than $25 and the "guts" removed (the box with "guts" was cheaper than just an empty box by itself!) and the filters mounted inside.

With the short-as-possible conductors between the UPS and the filter, they will have minimal ability to directly radiate RF while the RF conducted on these lines will be filtered by the circuitry in the box itself with the bonding of the two boxes minimizing differential RF currents.  The power "to" the UPS was made with a short length of "SO" cord with a female connector on it while the power "from" the UPS is via a short cable with a male connector, plugged into one of the UPS's outlets - and being the ONLY thing plugged into the "dirty" AC output of the UPS.

Installation:

Figure 5:
Perhaps a bit cluttered, this is the UPS sitting atop the filter, installed
and working.  In the lower-left corner of the picture, above two
batteries may be seen the DC circuit breaker/disconnect that protects
the DC circuit for short circuits.
Click on the image for a larger version.
Being that this is a remote location, the filter unit was installed a few weeks after it was constructed, having been tested (as best as could be done) on the workbench:  Power flowed through the various filters and the load control relay worked properly.

When installed, the filter box was placed underneath the UPS as it had a slightly larger footprint - and to minimize the length of the "noisy" DC and AC power leads from the UPS, along with the lead used to bond the two cases together.

To connect the DC, the cable coming from the batteries was effectively cut so that there was just enough of it emerging from the UPS to connected to the "output" side of the filter:  On both sides of this cable heavy "ring" lugs were attached and these were connected  to the studs of the DC filter.  To eliminate the probability of accidental shorting, the ground stud on the "input" side of the filter was removed and near both connectors a plastic wire clamp (one may be seen in Figure 6, below) to keep the positive wire in a fixed position and rotating into and shorting to the other stud.

Figure 6:
The back side of the UPS, showing the coiled power cord and the
(green) bonding wire that connects the chassis of the UPS and filter
box firmly together.  At the bottom of the picture can just be seen the
plastic clamp the keeps the positive wire lifted and away from the
the negative wire, to prevent shorting.
The ONLY thing plugged directly into the "dirty" AC output
of the UPS is the cord going to the filter:  Plugging anything else
directly into the UPS would at least partially negate the filtering! 
Click on the image for a larger version.
The AC input and output of the UPS was simply "plugged in" to the cables and the excess cordage was neatly coiled and stowed at the back end of the UPS using plastic "zip" ties:  It was important to do this because these cables are unfiltered and are "noisy" with RF meaning that they should be kept as small and as close to the metal of the cabinet as possible and kept away from any other conductors to minimize cross-coupling which would defeat the purpose of this filter.

To the remaining ground stud of the DC filter was attached a short piece of heavy (8 AWG) green wire with a ring lug on each end, this wire being visible in Figure 6.  The other end of this wire was attached to a marked grounding screw on the UPS chassis to bond the two boxes together and minimize RF circulating currents and to prevent the UPS chassis itself from being a source of radio frequency interference by direct radiation.

The result:

Taking the 20 meter (14 MHz) amateur band as an example, the UPS caused an extra 2 "S" units or so of noise above that of the typical ionospheric noise floor when it was powered up, before the filter was installed - this, being detected on a Carolina Windom antenna lofted between two trees high above the cabin's roof.  After this filter was installed the noise from the UPS was completely undetectable on any HF band, revealing other weaker low-level noises from other devices - the quieting of some of these will be discussed in later installments.

Figure 7:
A general block diagram of how the parts are interconnected.
The external UPS battery bank is protected with a DC-rated circuit breaker/
disconnect switch.  This particular UPS operates from 24 volts, hence the two
series-connected 12 volt batteries.  If the battery is inside the UPS's metal
cabinet, the DC filtering and connections are not needed.
Note that the "output" side of both AC line filters are both connected to
the UPS:  This is done because many filters are designed such that the
"output" side is that best-suited for connecting to RF-noisy circuits.
This diagram does not include the remote relay described.
Click on the image for a larger version.
Before the installation of the filter I'd placed my FT-817 (a small, portable HF transceiver) across the small room from the UPS, receiving with a short antenna and tuned to the 20 meter band.  When the UPS was operating and connected to its loads its noise was clearly audible, causing several S-units of indication on the signal meter.

After the filter was installed and the unit was powered up again with the loads connected, the noise was barely audible in the FT-817 and from across the room, it went away completely when the green wire was connected, bonding the UPS and filter chassis together.  If the radio was moved to within a foot or two of the UPS I could start hearing the "hash", but it seemed to be emanating only from the coils of AC cables "zip"-tied to the back end of the unit.   Because of the short length of the wires - and their being close to the metal case and not near any other wires into which this noise could be coupled it is unlikely that these short conductors will radiate any detectable noise at a distance greater than a few feet.

Doing the same on another UPS:

As part of his "noise abatement" strategy, WA7X did some RF sniffing around his house and discovered that a major contributor of RF noise was a sine wave UPS of a different brand.  While the UPS itself was completely different, the same things needed to be done to it as was
Figure 8:
Line input filter.  This was mounted externally, using very
short wiring, as it was difficult to insert a filter directly
into the AC mains path via the connector that was
directly mounted to the UPS's circuit board.
Click on the image for a larger version.
done to the UPS at his cabin:
  • A "brute force" line filter on the AC input.
  • Another line filter on the AC output.
  • Because the batteries on this one were, like the other one, external there needed to be a filter on the battery DC line as well.
This UPS was a bit smaller - 750VA (about 600 usable watts assuming an average 0.8 power factor) and it, too, had been modified to use a much larger set of external batteries to maximize run time.   Like the other UPS, it produced copious quantities of RFI whether it was "UPSing" (providing back-up power) or idle.

Figure 8 shows the input filter - and its mounting represents a slight complication:  The AC (mains) input went directly to the UPS's circuit board - and no on-board RF filtering was seen.  While we could have probably removed the board, cut some traces and soldered wires to "intercept" the AC flow between the input mains cord and the circuitry, we did something a bit "cheesier" - but still effective:  Attached a filter to the outside.  Going to our local electronics surplus store we found a suitable line filter with an overkill rating of about 10 amps (6 amps would have sufficed for a 750 kVA UPS) with a built-in IEC power connector.  As can be seen from Figure 8 we cut up an IEC power cord and with minimal length, soldered it directly to the terminals of the line filter and insulated them
Figure 9:
Output line filter.  This was mounted in the empty battery
compartment.  The "dirty" AC power from the inverter
is via the black/white wire on the left and the "clean" AC
power to the outlets is on the right.  The "clean" power
was wired using green wires with black/white markings
as that was the only solid wire - used to push into the
outlet's rear connector - that was on-hand.  These two
sets of wires are kept physically separate to prevent RF from
capacitively coupling from one to the other.
Click on the image for a larger version.
with heat shrink tubing and copious quantities of RTV sealant.  Because this filter was intended to mount via screws to the back panel of a piece of equipment, it had no mounting lugs, so we soldered some to the tin-plated case and used these for the ground connection as well.  It looks a bit kludgy, but its "pretty safe"!

For the AC mains output we disconnected the wires from the rear-mounted power socket and spliced short lengths of wires to it, sleeving the splices with several layers of heat-shrinkable tubing, connecting the output of the UPS's inverter to one side of the filter mounted in the battery compartment.  Connected to the AC outlets were short pieces of wire which were then soldered to the other side of the mains filter.  Although not seen in the pictures, there were no chassis holes that permitted the passage of these two sets of wires, so a pair of holes (protected with rubber grommets) were drilled with the unit tilted so that metal shavings (e.g. "swarf") would not end up in the circuitry - one hole for the "dirty" AC power from the inverter and another hole for the "clean" AC power to the socket on the output.  Having these two sets of holes and routing the two sets of wires away from each other prevents the RF grunge from coupling from one set of wires to the other.
Figure 10:
The DC line filter.  Too big to fit in the battery compartment,
this filter was mounted to a metal partition present in the UPS,
holes in that partition and in the chassis below to pass the
metal studs that carried the DC power.  Underneath, through
the battery compartment, was later wired the cabling for the
24 volt, fused DC input.
Click on the image for a larger version.


Finally, there is the DC filter.  Using the same surplus filter obtained from Electronic Goldmine as was used in the other UPS, this filter was mounted in an empty space adjacent to the circuit board.  There, a metal divider provided a handy mounting point for the "dirty" side of the DC connection (e.g. the input to the inverter).  A metal hole punch and a nibbling tool was used to fashion the holes necessary to pass the power studs through them with a similar hole being punched through the case into the battery compartment.  Before the filter was installed we declared which terminal was the positive side and clearly indicated it with a red permanent marker.

In Figure 8 one can see a grommet through the panel to the right of the filter:  This was the original passage of the DC power cables which were not installed at the time the pictures were taken.  When these cables were added later, appropriate DC fusing was included and the wires were carefully routed through the battery compartment, keeping them away from the "dirty" side of the filter to prevent coupling of RFI.

The result:

As with the other power supply, a portable AM/shortwave radio held near the UPS was not able to detect any noise unless it was held within an inch or two (couple of cm) where it was likely that magnetic coupling occurred.  When checked, there was no noise heard on the HF spectrum that was attributable to the inverter - only a few more "new" noises that will need to be chased down now that this UPS has been quieted!

* * *

Yet another UPS:

Some time after the above article was written Glen acquired another UPS at his house - this time, an 8 kVA unit pulled from an office.

Not surprisingly, this, too, produced RFI since it was only a Part 15 "Class A" device.  Because the AC and DC current was too high for inexpensive/surplus RFI filters, they had to be constructed using very large 31 Mix "Monster" toroids (from KF7P.com).  For the mains side, a bifilar choke of adequately-sized wire was wound on a choke and the same circuit as depicted in Figure 2 was constructed using class X and Y "safety" capacitors:  About 4700 pF for C1/C2 and 0.1 uF for C3/C4.

After the AC side was done, it was observed that noise was still being radiated from the wiring to the external battery bank.  For the DC side, a length of welding cable was procured and it was possible to wind 7 bifilar turns of this cable on another "monster" toroid - and the same types of class X and Y safety capacitors were used.

Each filter was built into its own box - inexpensive steel electrical boxes obtained from Lowes Depot - and these boxes were bolted to the chassis of the UPS itself to eliminate the possibility of noise radiating from connecting leads on the "UPS Side" of the filters.  The result - as with the others - was that the noise was undetectable with a portable shortwave radio more than a few feet away.

* * *


Links to other articles about power supply noise reduction found at this site:


[End]

This page stolen from ka7oei.blogspot.com


Wednesday, March 2, 2016

The solar saga - part 1: Avoiding interference (Why I did not choose microinverters!)

Part 2 of this article (August 22, 2016) is online - to read it, click here: "The Solar Saga - Part 2:  Getting the system online"

Back in November I decided to get some solar (photovoltaic) "grid tie" power generation installed at my house. I decided that the best place to install this was on the roof of my detached garage because:
  • The roof area of the garage was comparable to that of the house.
  • Much less tree shading than on the house.
  • Because it was not an occupied structure with no finished attic space, it was exempt from certain requirements (e.g. walkways around the panel areas, etc.) that would have reduced the available area for the installation of the panels.
  • It already had an existing, high-current circuit that was capable of being used for both source and sink of electrical current.
The only thing that I really had to do in the garage was to replace the 70's vintage Zinsco breaker panel with a more modern "load center" as a sub panel:  Doing so was a straightforward job that took only a few hours and cost less than $125 for all of the parts.

Unfortunately there was a significant snag to the "electrical" side of getting it connected to the utility grid via "Net Metering" (it's not "online" yet...) but that will have to wait for a later installment and that is covered in part 2 of this article - see the link at the top of the page.

What kind of solar system?

In residential, grid-tie installations, two types of solar systems are most commonly found:
  • Series string.  This is where the panels are tied together and go to one, large power converter.  Many of these inverters have inputs for at least two, separate strings for redundancy, to accommodate different illumination profiles (e.g. "east versus west") and also to (statistically) increase efficiency.
  • Microinverter.  In this approach each, individual panel has its own, "private" power converter.
The series string approach is a bit older technology and its popularity is being overtaken by the microinverter approach since the latter is touted with the ability to extract more energy from the entire solar plant since the output from each, individual panel is optimized rather than relying on the "weakest link" from the bank of panels comprising the series string. With modern panels that are intrinsically well-matched, the "weakest link" issue is not as significant as it once was, but that's a topic for a later discussion.

I will say right now that I chose the series string approach for a very practical reason:

Radio Frequency Interference (RFI).

Interference from microinverters:

Let me spin time back to mid 2013 when I saw on an email group a plea from a local amateur (Ham) radio operator for help to analyze a problem that he was having.

He'd had installed a sizable solar plant (approx. 3 dozen panels), each with an Enphase M190 microinverter and suddenly found that he faced a tremendously increased noise floor on both HF and VHF.  By the time that he and I "connected" he had come to some arrangement with the manufacturer and/or installer to install "ferrite beads" (at their expense) on the microinverters' leads in an attempt to mitigate the problem.

He asked me to come over to verify the nature of the interference and its approximate magnitude, prior to the installation of the ferrite devices, and I arranged to do so.

When I arrived, he demonstrated the problem:  When receiving on his HF dipole, which spanned over a portion of his roof and solar panel farm, he experienced 4-6 S-units (20-40dB) of additional noise from the microinverters, depending on frequency.  The noise was that of typical AC mains-coupled switching supplies, being grouped in spectral "bunches" every 10's or hundreds of kHz or so (I don't recall the spacing) on the lower bands (75, 40 meters) and by the time one got to 15 meters it was pretty much just an even "smear" of noise across the spectrum.  By switching to AM, it was apparent that the noise itself had an amplitude-modulated component related to the mains frequency that was not readily apparent when listening on SSB.

The problem was also apparent on 2 meters where low-level spurious signals emanated by these devices were intercepted by his rooftop antenna and would open the squelch and/or mask weaker signals - including those of some of the more distant repeaters.

Analyzing the problem:

For this visit I'd brought along with my FT-817 portable, all-band, all-mode transceiver with a small 2 meter Yagi antenna, a small shielded "H" field loop for localizing signal sources and a specialized 2-meter DF antenna/receiver, to be used with the Yagi, and in switching to 2 meter SSB mode using the rubber duck antenna on the FT-817 I could hear a myriad of low-level carriers as I tuned up and down the band.

Stepping out onto the roof we approached the solar system and I wielded my other gear:  The DF receiver/antenna combination showed the source of the signals - on any random 2 meter frequency - to be that of the solar array. Switching to the combination of the FT-817 and the small, shielded H-loop I was able to localize the conductors from which the energy was being radiated:  Not only did it seem to be coming from the AC power mains cables connecting everything together, but also the frames and the front surfaces of the solar panels themselves, indicating likely egress on both the AC and DC sides of the microinverters.

Part 15 compliance?

At this point one might ask how such a product appeared on the market if it caused interference:  Doesn't FCC Part 15 "protect" against that?

No!

First of all, it is worth re-reading a portion of the text from Part 15 that I'm sure that you have noted somewhere on a device or in a manual that you have laying around.  Quoting from FCC Part 15, section 105 subpart (b):

This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a Class B digital device, pursuant to part 15 of the FCC Rules. These limits are designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful interference in a residential installation.
This equipment generates, uses and can radiate radio frequency energy and, if not installed and used in accordance with the instructions, may cause harmful interference to radio communications.
However, there is no guarantee that interference will not occur in a particular installation.
(The emphasis is mine.)

The above speaks for itself!

It should be observed that while Part 15 limits the amount of incidental RF energy that can be emitted/radiated/conducted from electronic devices to a certain level, that level is NOT zero!  The fact is that a device may be perfectly legal in its amount of emission, but still be detectable, under the right circumstances, from a significant distance.  In this particular situation, there were at least three things going against our solar system owner:
  • He was in very close proximity to the microinverters and solar panels.  As noted previously, his antennas for HF and VHF were either on the roof, or crossed part of it.
  • HF operation, by its nature, involves rather weak, narrowband signals.  This makes it even more likely that similar low signals emanated from devices would be noticeable and obvious and that broadband noise could be quite apparent.
AND
  • His solar system comprised approximately three dozen panels.  What this means is that each of those microinverters is, by itself, radiating its own, set amount of interference.  If you take the number as 36, this means that as a system, the total amount of energy being radiated by all of those microinverters put together will be increased by nearly 16 dB - that's nearly 3 S-units!  Practically speaking those inverters nearest the antenna(s) will cause the most problem due to proximity, but you can certainly see that many devices in one location are likely to exacerbate the issue overall.
I had no way to accurately measure the emitted signals from the microinverters to determine if they were compliant with part 15 or not, but I'm willing to believe that a widely-sold product such as an Enphase M190 microinverter had been tested and found to be in compliance by reputable people.

Figure 1:
A look inside the newer, Enphase M250, a model newer than the M190's
described as causing interference problems.  At the moment the jury is still
out if the M250 (or M215) is much "cleaner" than the older M190 in terms
of radiated energy.  While some decoupling - possibly filtering - is visible
on the AC mains connection at the bottom, no inline chokes are
apparent from the top-of-board view on the DC (solar panel) side - only
some capacitors that appear to bypass it to ground (e.g. the case.)
This M250 was given to me by an installer after it had failed in the field.
Click on the image for a larger version.
We discussed what it would take to make this microinverters completely quiet and I knew a way:  Completely enclosing each microinverter in a metal box with L/C Pi filters on both the DC input and AC output leads.  Proper L/C filtering of the input and output along with appropriate capacitive bypassing so that not only does RF energy not escape from the unit, but it also offers little/no potential for RF currents generated within to appear differentially between the DC input and AC output leads.

I have discussed similar interference-elimination measures related to switching power supplies in my August 18, 2014 post, "Completely Containing Switching Power Supply RFI" - link.  This method can be completely effective in reducing the interference level of such devices to undetectable levels.

It would have been nice if if there was available a weathertight box into which each microinverter could be mounted, along with a separate set of filtered input and output power connections.  The design of such a device would be slightly complicated by the fact that the Enphase units communicate via their powerline connections, but it was likely that this could be accommodated in the filter design.

I was quite sure that such an after market product did not exist at the time and even if it did, it would be prohibitively expensive, particularly when multiplied several dozen times!

My host asked me if I thought that the installation of ferrites on the input and output leads would help:  I thought that it might help a little bit on VHF and UHF, but that I couldn't see it having any useful effect on HF - but I hoped that I was wrong!

As I left this ham's house I had my FT-817 connected to my vehicle's antenna, listening in SSB mode on 2 meters and I could hear the low-level signals from his solar array from a distance of nearly two blocks, line-of-sight.

Post ferrite installation:

A few weeks later I got an email from this same ham stating that the ferrites had been installed on the microinverters.  To do this, it was necessary to (practically!) un-install and re-install the entire system as very few could be reached from the roof, requiring a lift to access.

Did it help?

Not that he could tell.

Is his situation unique?

Apparently not.

There are many anecdotes of amateur radio operators facing terrible interference issues after they - or their neighbors - install a microinverter-type solar system.  Once such instance is documented in the following thread on Reddit:
Neighbors just got solar - They gifted me with S-9 RFI  - link

Another case was documented several years ago on the "Ham Nation" Web TV show (Episode #65) where the only way to reduce the problem to a tolerable level was to relocate the antenna some distance away from the house-mounted microinverter system, at the far end of the lot.

A link to the webcast of Ham Nation episode #65 may be found here:  Link  (The relevant portion starts at 16:40.)


Since the original posting of this article a write-up appeared in the April, 2016 QST magazine that details another ham's battles with RFI from a solar electric system.  While this system was not microinverter-based, it used devices called "optimizers" that work on similar principles to the microinverters in that high-frequency switching supplies are used to maximize the amount of power available from the array.

Why the ferrites didn't/won't work:


There is a misconception amongst some that loading wires with ferrites will stop the ingress/egress of RF signals.

This does not happen.

By putting a piece of ferrite on a conductor one increases the effective impedance at a given frequency, but that impedance is not infinite, and the effectiveness of the ferrite depends on several things:
  • The characteristic impedance (real, complex) of the conductor on which it is placed at specific frequencies (it varies all over the map!) 
  • The size of the ferrite (length, diameter, etc.)
  • The material type (permeability)
  • The frequency
  • How many "turns" of the conductor may be passed through the ferrite.
For retrofits, the answer to last one is generally easy:  One turn, as that is all that may be accommodated with a typical "split core" ferrite that is installed simply by placing it over a wire.  As was certainly the case with the Enphase units, the connecting wires were simply too short to allow additional turns of wire even if the ferrite device were sized to allow it.

In general, ferrites have greater efficacy with increasing frequency, but this is not surprising since their mechanism is generally that of adding a bit of inductive reactance to the conductor on which they are placed - but this also explains why "snap on" or split ferrites are part of a futile attempt when one attempts to solve HF-related noise issues:
Simple snap-on/split ferrite devices simply cannot provide enough reactance to attenuate by the needed 10-30dB to solve most severe interference situations at HF!
Figure 2:
The outside of the same Enphase M250 as shown in Figure 1,
above, showing connecting cables:  Not much room
to place large ferrites on these - much less multiple turns!
(The cables on the M190 are of similar length.)
Click on the image for a larger version.

The reason for this is immediately apparent if one studies the specifications of a typical snap-on ferrite such as the Amidon 2x31-4181p2 link.  Here are some typical specifications for this rather large piece of ferrite:
  • I.D:  0.514" (13mm);  O.D.:  1.22" (31mm) ;  Length:  1.55" (39mm)
  • Material type:  31 (1-300 MHz, typical)
  • Reactance of device, typical:  25 ohms at 1 MHz, 100 ohms at 10 MHz, 156 ohms at 25 MHz, 260 ohms as 100 and 250 MHz
As you can see, the impedance is stated as 100 ohms at 10 MHz.  Being generous, let us apply that figure to the 40 meter band where we can see that if this were applied to a line that had a 50 ohms characteristic impedance, we might (theoretically, simplistically) expect to see somewhere in the area of 8-16dB of additional attenuation caused by the loss induced by this device - but that is only 1-3 "S" units, and that represents only a "good case" scenario.  In the case of the aforementioned situation it would have taken several more "S" units to reduce the noise to the point where it was not highly disruptive.

What is more likely to happen is that the interconnecting wires will have wildly varying impedances at different frequencies - some higher, some lower - and the this will have a dramatic effect on the efficacy of this reduction.  In the case of the ham that I had visited I would not have been surprised that if a plot had been taken of the noise versus frequency, its "shape" would have been dramatically altered by the addition of the ferrite devices and, overall, the amount of radiated energy (interference) would have been measurably reduced.  The problem was that the level was so high to begin with that knocking it down by, say, 90% (10dB, or just under 2 S-units) still represented a terrible situation!

The Amidon device noted above is a rather large device and at least three of them would be required for each microinverter (one for each DC lead, one for the AC connection) and the expense of these devices - not to mention the installation (36 microinverters would require 108 ferrite devices!) - could really add up!

It should go without saying that a smaller ferrite - although less expensive - will have even less effect than a larger one!

Comment:
Ferrite devices such as described are often more useful for preventing RF from getting into devices:  Increasing the impedance on the connecting leads and wires may not only improve the efficacy of already-existing RFI protection devices such as bypass capacitors, but they can also break up loops through which high RF currents induced by a local transmitter might be passing "through" a device.  In these case the moderate effect of their added impedance may well be enough to adequately mitigate RF ingress issues.
Remember:  With RF ingress it is often the case that knocking down the RF energy by 6-12 dB will be enough to mitigate the issue.  Conversely,the amount of "hash" emitted by the microinverters would likely need to be reduced by more than 20 dB to make it undetectable.

"Grounding" won't help either:

Reading some of the correspondence in the Reddit posting (above) there is mention of "grounding" to eliminate/reduce RFI from these units:  To assume that "grounding" would likely solve or mitigate this problem would be to assume incorrectly!

The problem, again, is that RF energy appears to be conducted from the input and output (DC and AC, respectively) coupling wires which, themselves, can act as antennae:  "Grounding" the case - which would also "ground" the safety ground on the AC output - is not really going to help.

If the unit is installed according to code, there should already be a "ground" attached at the panels, anyway - but this wire connection, which is likely to be 10's of feet (several meters) between the roof and the Earth or grounding point is going to look like a "ground" only at DC and low frequencies - such as those found on the AC mains!

Any wire that is several feet long - grounded or not - is going to act as an antenna.

What this means is that it is entirely possible that at least some of the RF interference being radiated by the inverter is going to be conducted along the grounded metal structures (such as the solar panels and the frames) and wires in addition to the AC mains wiring.

Again, the proper way to contain such RF energy within the confines of the circuitry was discussed above:  Proper L/C filtering of the input and output along with appropriate capacitive bypassing so that not only does RF energy not escape from the unit, but it also offers little/no potential for RF currents generated within to appear differentially between the DC input and AC output leads.

The upshot:

If you are getting interference from a microinverter system - either your own, or your neighbors, is there anything you can do?

Since the installation of ferrites will have minimal effect on HF, the answer would seem to be "No, not really", aside from converting to a series-string system, or installing a series-string system, instead.

In the case of the ham operator that I visited, he mitigated the situation somewhat by moving his HF antenna as far away from his house as he could (which wasn't very far considering that he had limited space on his city lot) which helped slightly.  Nighttime was the only time during which he could completely quell the interference by turning off the breaker feeding the solar array, but during the day there was nothing he could do:  If either solar illumination or AC mains power was available to the microinverters they seemingly caused the same amount of interference, whether they were under load or not!

Are newer microinverters better/quieter?

It has been reported that the Enphase M190 microinverter has been obsoleted and has been replaced with newer models that are more reliable and more "RF Quiet".  On this second point, the jury seems to be out:  Anecdotally, there seem to be about as many reports of the newer models (from various manufacturers) causing interference as not, so the reports are rather confused.

I know at least two amateur operators with newer-model Enphase inverters (M215, M250) but they report other extenuating circumstances (e.g. their microinverter PV system is located some distance from their antennas and/or they already had notable interference from other sources before installing the solar power system) that they cannot say for certain whether or not there is a problem caused by their system.  At some point I hope to personally visit at least one of those installations in the coming months.


Series String inverters and interference:

While less efficient overall and somewhat less expensive up front, I decided to use a series-string inverter system.  From direct observation and reports by people that I know and trust I knew that units made by Sunnyboy and Fronius could be reasonably expected to cause little or no interference on their own.  Additionally, were an interference issue to arise, having a single point at which to filter (e.g. one large box with a relatively small number of input and output leads) I was quite confident that it would be possible to add additional filtering if necessary.

To be sure, one might (theoretically) lose up to 10-20% or so peak efficiency with a series-string system as opposed to a Microinverter that optimizes for each, individual panel, but considering the comparatively low cost of panels these days and the lower "up front" cost for a series-string inverter system, one can usually afford to "up size" the system slightly to compensate.

(Comment:  As noted previously, series string "optimizers" have been observed to cause significant RFI since their basic principle of operation would lend to them tendencies to produce unwanted "hash" unless well-designed.)

Maintaining the various systems:

Anecdotally, from both owners and maintainers of microinverter-based systems, it is not uncommon to experience the failure of several of the microinverters after a only few years, the rate-of-failure (apparently) following somewhat of a "bathtub" curve:  Several die early on, there is often a period of relative stability, and then they start to fail in greater numbers after several more years.

While these devices (microinverters) seem to have a good warranty, the issue comes about replacing the microinverter that is in the "middle of everything" on the roof.  On a roof with a moderate-to-steep pitch it may be necessary to use equipment such as a lift to be able to safely access the failed inverter - and it may be necessary to "de-install" several of the surrounding panels to gain access.  In other words, it will likely be many times the cost of the microinverter itself ($125-$300) in equipment rental, time and labor just to replace it.  For this reason it seems that many people simply allow several of them to fail before "calling out the troops":   Having several panels (effectively) offline at a time is something that detracts from the proclaimed efficiency benefit of the Microinverter scheme!

The large, series-string inverters appear to be extremely reliable, having excellent track records (at least for Fronius and Sunnyboy - the two brands with which I have any familiarity).  The obvious down side is if there were a failure with the converter, it would likely take a large portion - or all - of the production off line, but the replacement of the device is comparatively easy and would likely not be more than a couple times the total cost (parts plus equipment rental plus labor) of replacing a small handful of microinverters!

What about failures of solar panels?  Modern panels contain diodes that "wire around" sections that have failed or shaded, so unless a catastrophic failure occurs that completely removes it from the circuit, one will lose, at most, the capacity of the entire panel:  This is true with both microinverter and series-string configurations.

Fortunately solar panels have been around for decades and have been proven to be quite reliable and rugged in terms of durability.  If a failure in a solar electric system is going to occur, the solar panel itself is less likely to be the problem unless the problem is actual, physical damage which again, is a common point in both series-string and microinverter-based systems.

(Note:  There may be warranty coverages or service plans that mitigate the costs related to such maintenance, but since they vary wildly with installers and manufacturers, they are not covered here.)

A note about "Optimizers":

It is common in series string - with a single, main inverter - to use an "optimizer" on each solar panel - particularly if the series string consists of solar panels at various angles covering a complex roof where the availability of just two MPPT inputs per main inverter is not sufficient to serve many "sub-strings" of panels mounted at those different orientations.

It has been observed (See the April 2016 QST article, "Can Home Solar Power and Ham Radio Coexist" pp. 33-37) that many models of optimizers - notably certain models made by "SolarEdge" - produce noise in a manner similar to that of microinverters.  This is not too surprising considering that an optimizer and microinverter are quite similar in many ways - notably the fact that both use high-frequency switching converters for voltage and current transformation.

In the aforementioned QST article it was noted that while the RF noise generated by the optimizers in the solar installation could be reduced significantly with proper wiring configuration and the implementation of hundreds (or maybe more) of dollars of ferrite, it could not be completely quashed:  The author of the article reported that he would simply shut down the system if the noise floor was too high to work the "weak ones".

In short:  As of the time of this writing, both Microinverters and Optimizers share the same issues when it comes to being "RF Noisy".

Final comments:

Each system has its advantages and trade-offs:  In my case a primary concern was the avoidance of interference.  Since the advent of digital TV - and because fewer people listen to the radio or even have off-air TV these days - they likely wouldn't notice (or would care!) about interference issues that appear to be common with the microinverter (and "optimizer") approach.

One can always hope that newer microinverters will become increasingly quiet, but for now that seems not the case - if not in reality, certainly in perception.

Semi-Update:

While the Enphase M190 was known to be a strong emitter of spurious RF signals across the RF spectrum (from at least 3.5 MHz through 450 MHz) it would seem that the later Enphase M215, M250 and IQ series are much quieter - at least to the point that some amateurs that have them have found their situation to be acceptable in terms of generated noise.

What is not known at the time of this update (March, 2017) is if they are "RF quiet" to the point of practical undetectability (as in the case of my SunnyBoy series string inverter) or if they are just "much quieter" than their predecessors.

What seems to be clear is that Enphase has made gains toward the reduction of interference potential of their products - definitely a move in the right direction!

(I have no new information on other manufacturers' microinverters or optimizers at this time.)

* * *

In the next installment I talked a bit more about the installation of my system - trials and tribulations...  Part 2 of this article (August 22, 2016) is online - to read it, click here: "The Solar Saga - Part 2:  Getting the system online"



Update - May, 2024:

It has been about eight years since the above system was installed and I have had ZERO maintenance issues during the entire time other than occasionally trimming back tree branches that block/hang over panels.

I have since had a Tesla Powerwall 2 installed as well as increased the solar production to 10 kW - again using a SunnyBoy series string inverter, still with no interference from my own solar and only very slight interference from the Powerwall 2 when it was running on some of the lower bands:  If you want more details on this and other solar-related topics at this blog, peruse the links below.

* * * * *

Other articles at this blog on related topics:


[End]

This page stolen from "ka7oei.blogspot.com".