2023 01 12 HW

And how was the holiday time, the New Year's Eve, everything fine?
Yeah everything was fine.
Some quiet days.
you? All the best. Had a really good time. I cannot complain. To execute OpenTorpex in
the year, right? Exactly. To start fresh and really motivated in the end of 2023. I think
Everything would be good.
Yeah, will be good.
Hi, Tina.
Good morning.
Hi, good morning.
I don't know, is somebody else still not yet joined?
Or we can't?
I think Christoph Schweitzer will join in half an hour later.
About Julia, I don't know if she will join the meeting.
So I think from Hela's side, we can start.
Sounds good.
So what you see here, I don't know.
I cannot remember, Karina, if you already
informed the colleagues here in the hardware meeting
that we will basically not proceed any further
with the well-known LOP.
And we will use this tool basically.
So go over from the normal Excel-based LOP list
of open points.
And we have here internally at BMW,
this so-called My Workplace.
And we have this next one tool basically,
which is more or less the same tool like the LOP,
but just digital and it has some more features,
some of them like, I don't know,
uploading documents to each point and so on.
So this is how we will proceed this year.
Karina has finalized adding the topics
from the normal LOP here in the next one.
and we are currently still trying to add the person responsible for each topic.
What I could not find, I was just trying to do this, Karina is adding Julia Fischer,
but I could not find her here. But I found Mr. Frank, which is also that good.
Yeah, I think, yeah, maybe I can talk to her. I think she should be in my workplace already.
Maybe with other meetings I would talk to her and clarify this. Yeah, up to now I have
not informed the Hello Colleagues about that, but I think this is a much more comfortable
tool than using the Excel list. And this is why we decided to change.
Exactly. So basically the agenda what you see here is basically an export from the next
one tool. Normally you have also access because that's the good thing. You will have access
to all the topics and all the updates. You just need to access the B2B portal from your
site and then you will have the way we have it. Let me jump here. You should have more
or less an overview like this. And here under next one basically we have all the topics
And normally, you should be already directly assigned
to the 48-volt Gen 2.2 hardware meeting.
And you should be able to see this so-called theme
and also see every topics.
You can try this out, I don't know,
after the meeting or something like this.
And if you have any issues, please inform us.
We'll try to help you as much as possible.
So far, understood?
Yes, OK.
Question is, can we add all people from Foveo side,
or it's not possible?
Yeah, I think this should already be done,
because we have added this basically this team
and here under the team,
oh yeah, so far we have added just this.
Yeah, so it's not yet done,
but we can add everyone from Hella.
The important is I think that Hans-Michel Hella
is here in and also Dr. Robert Kaller
Because I expect also changes from an organization point of view in some next months on our side.
It's just only my personal expectation. Therefore we need people here and responsible matching the points.
Yeah, just we can we can update Valentin Frank. Let me see which one Frank, which one because
there are three like you Mr. Frank. Okay, interesting. Oh yeah, so there is just only
the first one. Good to know that I have clones.
Yeah. And Wolfram, do you already have access to B2B? Is it also one open topic?
I have access to B2B but I don't see any project chairs.
Do you have an EA940 sign?
EA940? I don't know. No, Magne, I'm not Magne.
But EA940 could be the right one because I think there's also a free-fixitized group.
Let me check.
Let me check.
Because we can see this here.
I can check this.
Yeah, in Auftrag von EA 940.
So it's correct.
That was the right one.
Perfect.
But this will be sent to the partner email address, right?
Which email address is behind?
Yes.
You have also, you don't have a, yeah to the partner.
Just the partner email addresses will be added here so,
that's the only addresses can be added. I don't know if we can add a direct, let me,
that's a good question actually.
The others have their, their hello address, that's what I'm asking.
Oh yeah. What's your, what's your,
Maybe we can search for Julia additionally?
Yeah, I have tried.
Let me see if I can add.
Julia Fisher.
If I can add.
No, I cannot add the somehow why.
Because you already have a partner email address.
That's why it's not working.
I have tried to add just the email address from Afael.
So Julia Fisher.
So we have some Julia Fisher here.
Name from V, it's not her.
Motherson.com, also not her.
Also not.
Ike Sponsa.
Sponsa, no.
Delta R, no.
Also, okay.
Crazy.
E P E E, I don't see, yeah, wait, E E.
Four ten.
Is it her? Should be her.
Yeah, it should be her.
Yeah.
Okay.
But she's not in off track.
This should be a partner email address.
And she does not have a partner email address.
I think we need to clarify this is interesting because I cannot find.
Yeah we I think we have to ask her maybe she knows that she's the one with the partner
or from E410.
Maybe there was some history that was not possible with the Helle address before and
this is why she needs a partner.
Yeah let's ask her.
Okay what about Christoph Schweitzer?
Yeah I think we can search for him.
Okay.
Schweizer with T before.
Ah, Schweizer.
Yeah.
But still E410.
Okay, it's the same as for Julia, right?
It might be possible that they both have somehow partner email and they are under EE410, which
should be correct, but I don't know if this is correct.
Do they have?
Normally they don't have partner email.
Maybe the root cause is that we changed the email addresses and not everybody has done
this change.
It might be possible, yeah.
What you could ask both Yulia and Kristof is to basically log in at least one time in
the B2B portal because if they haven't done this yet then I don't think it will work.
But Yulia joined now so we can ask her directly.
Hi.
Hi.
Happy New Year.
Happy New Year.
Yulia, one question.
We are going to use this year now and from now on,
a different tool is LOP,
it's a BMW Next One.
I don't know if you know it.
We're trying to add your e-mail address here,
which normally you have it in the B2B portal from BMW.
Do you know your e-mail address from the B2B portal?
Do you know it?
Is it something like this?
Yeah, he says Christoph.
But then I don't know if it's his email address because normally here just the, so you can
see in the case of your colleagues, yeah.
It has a Hela email address and in your case I don't find any email with Hela.com.
Do you know? Yeah, we use other tools actually, but yeah, maybe take a screenshot and then clarify.
But maybe we can just try it and then we can see whether you're able to to join or to see it.
I also expect it should be this because otherwise won't make sense.
And if you will please access the B2B portal when you have the time, you normally should
be able to go here in my workplace and just click on next one and should be able to see
the hardware meeting.
Okay.
Yeah, we'll try.
Is there somebody else we need to join?
I think from EV side we need to add someone, right?
I think Jason.
And yeah, I can do this later because otherwise this will jump in a little bit.
Because I'm also not sure whether the EVE colleagues already have a B2B access.
If not, maybe we have to talk about it together with Jan.
And that we set up one.
We will definitely clarify this.
So based on the agenda which Kenna has sent,
C2 Design Freeze State Review, planning
of workshop for the design freeze review in Lippstadt.
This is what we discussed last year.
You have managed to add the comments.
How does it look like in the nearest future from your side?
So in my case, it would be possible just starting, let's say, this is calendar week two, start
calendar week four would be possible.
A question, do we have an agenda somehow?
We need to plan this agenda.
We need to also to align internally because it might be possible that we combine this
design freeze workshop with maybe with some other colleagues with some other topics yeah and yeah.
That would be a visit for just one day or what is what is your thinking?
At the end depending on the agenda but I would assume just for the topics we will have to discuss
at least for the other side one day should be more than enough. I don't know what's your opinion
Karina? Yeah thanks to you. But as I said we need to also learn internally this week yeah to see if
if there are other colleagues which you would like to join,
I don't know, Axel, project lead and so on,
and maybe other topics, software,
I don't know, mechanical or something like this,
and then we will get back to you.
But my kind of request to you right now
would be to check internally at your site
when will it be possible,
and we will do the same thing from our side.
In the meantime, try to prepare an agenda, okay?
Maybe you can also write down that we have to think about when in calendar week 4 we
want to do the workshop.
I think this is the only possible week then.
If it's calendar week four, I don't know.
That's why.
Calendar week four.
Question mark, I would say.
Let's go on with calendar week four.
And yeah, the exact days and so we'll clarify later.
OK?
OK.
So next topic, based on the agenda,
status software implementation.
Exactly, that's one really, really good topic.
So this is a general topic.
As you know, with software implementation,
with this topic, we basically want
to track all the software changes which are hardware
related and see what's the current status.
And Karina has added here, let's say, one of the main topics,
which is basically a software implementation due
to the un-plausible circuit breaker temperature
for the plausibility check.
So I don't know if there is already a due date for the topic.
I've seen, Karina, that Andreas Beher has created a JARO topic
for it.
Yeah, but there was already one.
I can also forward you the link to the existing trial ticket.
And Simon Pululic already wrote down that the data bouncing time will be increased on the
software 7.2.2.
Yeah, wait Karina, because it's another issue.
So for this long term solution, let's say we need the measurements.
This cannot be done now.
Yeah, what Zimon mentioned is that we increased the threshold, yeah, and changed the debouncing
time. Actually, the debouncing time, which is set now, is shorter than the one which was before.
Yeah, so at the moment, we are still waiting for the measurements. Yeah, the sample is already
prepared. Yeah, it's already on my side, but the measurement itself needs to be repeated.
Yeah, this is the issue. So short-term solution is implemented, yes, but the long-term solution
is still, yeah, in analysis and earliest implementation in my understanding is
measurements until when are they expected?
Yeah, wait a sec.
Because it's split in two parts. One part will be done next week and the second part either next
week or the week afterwards. So by end of January we will be finished.
Okay end of January.
OK.
OK, for the second measurement, short.
If we will not destroy the sample again, yeah?
So last time it was very optimistic as well.
But this time we isolated everything,
so it should be fine.
This shot pick is tracked also in the software.
OK.
Hmm.
Extract also in the software.
OK.
Good.
What about the other topics?
Ground loss detection R390 is not possible from software
point of view.
BMN suggests to update the software during preview
for a ground loss test.
Yeah.
We have an update maybe regarding the ground loss
detection update, anyhow.
or still need to align internally?
Do not exactly understand the sentence to be honest.
So from our side, yes, it's not good to bring it in 390,
because we have a lot of other high-pre-review issues.
Maybe it's not possible.
I do not know to whom.
So it's always the matter of prioritization.
Yeah, so if you will push it, yeah,
then surely we can do it.
Yeah, but then we have to discuss what else
needs to be then skipped.
Yeah, for me, this issue is not that high prior.
Yeah, but what is meant with the second sentence?
I know that with Axel and with Thomas Matuni,
I always have these engineering drops for specific issues,
for specific tests and so on.
Is it something like this?
So that we provide you an engineering drop for the PV
or what is meant here?
So basically what this sentence is meant the following.
We would like to have to fix, yeah,
for the ground loss detection for the units
which are going to see the PV.
Yeah, because basically until the start of PV,
we should have at least for the, I don't know,
typically for the PV units as far as I know,
I don't know in this case or the Hella case,
for the PV you have a dedicated software,
let's say an adjusted software for the PV.
We would like to kindly have this fix,
ground loss detection in the PV units,
so basically in the PV software.
The problem is also that we have 48 volt tests, so the test 12, which is especially to check the ground loss.
Therefore, we need the implementation of the software for this test.
Okay. Let's do it like this.
I see mid of June.
Let me check it shortly.
So mid of June means we can target it for 4.10.
Yeah, because the first delivery of
the 410 software is end of May and the ATS is 8th of June.
So it will fit.
I will target it like this.
Yeah, I will plan it like this and I will state additionally in our ticket
that if it's not possible to bring it into this official software,
then we need somehow to provide you something with it.
So maybe it will be a branch, let's say.
Okay.
At the end, we need to understand.
Yeah, but it should be possible.
Okay, R410, R390 was not possible.
Your statement now should be R410.
I hope this will work.
At the end, we need to understand that the PV units,
they will be handled quite a lot.
there will be most probably problems.
Yeah, you need to disconnect the BMS,
re-composable and if the sequence is not done correctly,
then we will get once again a ground loss
and this should not lead to any hardware failure.
So that's the idea behind why we want to have this
in the PV units.
Okay, what about the other topic, easy rows even?
I don't know if we have already an update here.
Yes, this is the hardware issue now.
So we detected that it's not a software issue, but a hardware.
And this will also come in the next points of the agenda.
OK, so let me basically remove this here.
It has been clarified that this is not the issue.
Ok, so basically the topic will be closed here.
Okay.
So easy to receive IR and there is another exactly, this is the last software related
topic.
Additional path for the 12 volt supply to ensure faster reaction.
This is one of the changes from the C2.
Valentin, help me with understanding this.
I don't know.
Okay.
This statement.
What did you meant?
Let me see.
I think I have here the change document.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Additional fast provision added for internal.
Exactly.
Yeah, okay.
but that is only to speed up the software reaction.
Yes, but at the end,
it leads to a change in the software.
As I said, from our side,
we want to make sure that this will not be forgotten.
Yeah, clear.
But this is only C2, no, Valentin?
Yeah, it's only C2.
Okay and into your PV C2 samples will go or which hardware version will be used for?
Hopefully C2. Yes, C2. Yes, it's planned to use C2.
Do we already have an internal softee ticket for this? Do you need a softee ticket? How do you?
How do you?
We, so normally we will have tickets to update.
The software updates.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, so this is not tracked like this.
Yeah, because I mean, yeah, it is in discussion that we add everything into a software ticket
as well.
Yeah.
Okay.
Sure.
Yeah, I don't know.
You can track everything like this in my understanding because this is not the only change in hardware
software interface.
I totally understand.
Please understand our point of view because as I said, we had also in the past issues
with small changes which lead to hardware issues or general to the fact that the hardware
is not working because just a really small change is missing.
So this is why we will stress you, I think, from week to week now, what's the status on
the software changes, which are highly related.
One hint, but this improvement is coming just only from hardware discussions internally.
It's not finding from TV tests or something.
I know, I know.
Okay.
I know, I know.
But as I said, in the past, also from the experience, there has been, let's say, always
more problems because let's say that the hardware doesn't really speak to the software and the
other way around and let's say that the software guy,  the developers, they don't

know that they still have to make any software changes for the hardware guys.
So if you are telling us or you have, maybe let me rephrase the question like this. How
How do you track all these small software changes which are coming from the hardware
in the software internally?
Internally at Hella we will have a ticket saying that the interface needs to be updated.
And then this ticket, this work package will be forwarded to software guys.
This is the handling internally.
internally.
And in parallel, we have this software hardware interface and this will be updated to every
new sample release if this is related.
Yeah, sure.
So this work package will be created as a result of this hardware software interface
change.
This is the system document and will be exchanged between hardware and software.
Okay.
That is already done.
Yeah, the communication is already done.
Yes, okay, understood.
So this means that...
Exactly, so this is what I just wanted to ask.
You have a ticket number for it.
it would be great if you can send us the number to have it linked here.
I will do a bit later.
Yeah, because it's not really fully set up.
Okay. Sounds good.
So I think regarding this topic,
I can switch it so this is in our right.
Okay. So based on the agenda,
Next topic will be status of ICT.
Yeah, so latest status, I think Axel has asked us
about the ICT also.
Latest status was that the ICT has arrived in the production
for the logic PCB.
This has already been commissioned,
and it's working.
How about the power PCB?
I think this should be also the latest status.
So far as I know, they are still in the implementation
and they are still working with a flying probe.
Ah, okay.
And, yeah, there are some issues they have to solve,
but I think it's a normal implementation
working for the Power ICT adapter.
Maybe later if Christoph joins, he has the most clear overview.
But I think here was in different directions, the power was ready and the logic is still ongoing.
I added a little bit the other way around, document it.
Logik PCB, genau.
Wurde uns kommuniziert. Kann mal anders gewesen sein.
Alles gut.
I'm wondering, but...
It's a different way.
Currently still under implementation.
Okay.
Okay.
Already moved to 19th.
So ICT, CB, unplaceable temperature.
Okay.
We said we will close this topic in the hardware so far.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
This one is closed right now.
I don't think we have to I don't see the topic here maybe you have you are in the
hardware meeting right so not yeah okay yeah I will check I can check it but
this this topic is closed maybe there was a filter that me and maybe is all
Oh yeah, sorry. I have just...
No, I cannot see it. There is something wrong here.
I will check it out later.
Yeah, so we can inform you that basically...
This one is closed.
Exactly. This is the message here. Basically, we will close the topic here
in reference to the fact that we will do a change in the soft term.
So from the other point of view,
this un-plausible CB topic will be closed.
Good. Next topic, second source components,
components shortage, I've seen this here.
Exactly. Here maybe the question,
as far as I could remember,
you wanted to order the on semi MOSFETs for the power PCB.
I don't know what's the status because otherwise
from the Aurex point of view,
this topic is still being clarified
and telling within BMW how we will proceed here further.
Yeah, from the sample point of view,
yeah, they are in monitoring process.
I don't know exactly.
Yeah, they will arrived in this month.
I have not exactly date for it.
Maybe next week.
And then we will start the qualification by us here
in the hardware laboratory.
When you said you will expect them?
Maybe next week or over next week.
I don't have the exact date for it.
But they are in the sample shop.
OK.
What am I doing?
What am I doing?
Chrome has just disappeared.
Has switched off.
Okay, that's strange.
Maybe it was my bad, sorry for this.
Yeah, of course nothing documented.
And round two, mix.
OK, sounds good.
That's a good status.
OK.
So according to the agenda, what we have?
Test matrix and test procedures.
Test matrix and test procedures.
Yeah, so at this point, we now have the E07 test
where we can discuss what has been changed in the C2 sample
due to the failure of the EO7.
Exactly. So maybe you can, I don't know if you have anything to present, maybe you can
at least for me explain us what is actually the root cause.
I've seen the email from you Mr. Frank.
Yes, I can do that.
I share my screen.
Please.
So we see here the change 15 from the change list.
It's already in the change list, okay?
Yes, yes. The last page.
I did not come here to this page.
No problem.
Yes, and we implemented here a divider on the inner pin on the SPC and this resistor
2K here, the pull down resistor is used for changing the threshold by when the SPC will
start up.
So we checked this function directly on the 12 volts.
So we power supplied from 12 volt
and looked at the threshold and identified
that PMIC will be start then from 9 volt on.
And this change, this shifting of the threshold from 6 volt
to 9 volt is sufficient gap enough
to have sufficient internal energy to bring the PMIC up.
And that was the root cause why the test E07,
or the sample not start up by on very slow rising of clamp 30.
So because in case we rise up very slow, the first stage is the PMIC is not able to
to bring the sufficient energy to the buffer and then the K-MIC tries three times and goes
in error mode and then nothing happens because the microcontroller power supply is not switched
on.
That was the behavior.
I identified this lag and talked with Infineon.
Infineon proposed this change.
I checked this directly in laboratory.
Then we checked this three times on our side,
on software side and also on systems side in the Cell Lab.
It works fine.
And we think that this is the solution for the future
and position and we don't expect any problems.
We don't expect any other kind of side effects.
So basically you have just changed the threshold of the enable pin.
No, yeah, just a moment.
We checked further things.
We checked, for example, by when it will be switched off.
And this switch off happens really on a round of six volts.
So very lower threshold.
So here is more or less the inner pin is not digital on one threshold, it's working on
two thresholds.
So we on the power down, we don't expect additional problems here.
So we checked it also.
So to prevent any side effects.
I can expect that from timing it can be delayed maybe one millisecond or something like that,
but it is very short time for timing on startup.
I think that is not a problem for BMS handling.
one more question because as I got now we changed here the voltage divider this is why we changed
the threshold but as I understood also from the problem we had it was depending on the timing so
on the voltage gradient so internally we changed here also the behavior of the
or that we are able now to switch on with lower gradients?
This timing dependency was only because of the fact that if the time was too short, then we
didn't went to sleep and didn't need to wake up the system again. Because normally we have 17
seconds closing if ECV was requested. So for the 17 seconds it will be kept closed. Anyway,
and we stay awake for a time depending on balancing and stuff like this but at least for five minutes
and this was exactly the part yeah so if you was quick enough and the system didn't want to sleep
yeah then you're able to wake up if the time was a bit longer yeah it doesn't matter if it's 60
minutes or 10 minutes. Important was that it was long enough to go to sleep.
So in case this 12 volt safety is power supplied by redundant supply in balancing mode, so then we
have no problem to start up because this internal buffer is full. In case the BMS goes complete in
sleep then we have to ensure that this energy buffer has minimum energy.
And now before we had just only here pull up resistor and now we have a divider that is
change. So the resistor was in here but the P-Mix before started at six volts and that's the
loaded energy it was in gray zone so sometimes you go you you can start up sometimes not and
that was more or less unstable and depends on the gradient on clamp 30. Now it's not depending
It's really sufficient energy and it's starting. I tried five times. It's not a problem.
I scoped this and it was fine. And some other colleagues rechecked this also. I think that's a stable solution.
Okay, thank you for the explanation. Now I totally got it.
No problem, Volkan.
So then I stop sharing and...
Yeah.
Let me take it over.
Okay. So due to the change, the pain will start
when the voltage is exactly 9 volts.
Did you need to, actually not, yeah.
I just wanted to ask if this has any changes to any thresholds
in the software somehow?
No, no.
That's not have.
Further hint, maybe I talked with testing.
And we try as fast as possible to organize some C2 samples
for testing for delta DVs and I expect that we check this fail tests before PVs. So that is my
expectation. Internal alignment we will see how we can deal with. So basically you will order some
pre-C2 samples there were some faster C2 samples.
Hans-Michel, I'm not sure if we explain the production situation.
You have a production situation?
No, we have a different way.
We expect the C2 samples.
We will also have a production here in our sample shop in Lipschad and we expect those
samples in the beginning of March, so that we can check this directly on the updated logic PCB.
We ordered internally by our own trigger, so no critical here problems, but we ordered internally
to get the samples as fast as possible.
I find it really good.
But limited.
Yeah, limited edition, I know.
Limited number of units, I know.
It's good because it's always really good to have some, let's say, samples, yeah, which you are able to test to commission basically.
Sample.
And basically when the actual C2 serial production units will come, you know if you have any
issues, if you have any problems and basically be able to run the things faster.
So we can have a faster react on this.
Exactly, exactly.
For example, they will produce some faster C2 samples in order to verify, let's say,
the integrity of the units in the general world.
OK, sounds good.
So this is not an issue.
This is actually a good thing.
So change it already.
So test mentioned, EMC tests.
Mr. Galler, you're on.
So topic of C2 samples is a good keyword.
The C2 samples that we are getting from the sample
workshop will be used for our C2 EMC test at Halosite.
So this is our idea to start earlier.
Since we are expecting the samples beginning of March,
our EMC test is scheduled to start during March,
mid or end of March.
And as you know, the EMC test would take quite some time,
but at least we can get the results early for the C2.
Do you already have kind of a time plan for the EMC test
like we had for the C1 sample?
Not yet, but we still have a couple of weeks to do that.
I guess.
Okay.
So we will of course check the history
And as long as it is possible from the equipment,
we will start with the critical tests, of course.
So which will be at least one emission test
and the robustness tests?
Immunity test, right?
Immunity, yeah, exactly, immunity.
And the most critical ones were usually BCI and ALSA.
So this is not planned yet.
And I don't know if we can make it 100% perfect.
We will try to put it in this order.
OK.
You asked about EMC time plan.
Will be available when exactly, you said, or around?
I need to check with Thomas Eifler from our EMC lab
because he needs to book the chambers.
So I need to check with him.
I don't know if he can already do that.
I will talk to him and come back next week
when we can talk about a more detailed time plan.
OK.
Yeah.
We will be there.
OK.
I just remember something.
One second.
In the weeks at the end of the year 2022,
you have done some tests, if I remember correctly.
You have tested also some of the changes, which
were, let's say, EMC-related.
Did we already get that results?
I don't really remember.
I have a presentation that has been shared by Hans-Michel Heller to you before Christmas.
Let me check this.
Yeah, but there are no final reports yet. We did most of the testing externally and
anyways the main results you have in the presentation. This is a
development test and the official test will be the C21.
I am. Yeah, yeah, yeah. These are the tests which you mentioned, right?
Yeah. How do you see testing 24th? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So we have it already. Okay. I don't know, Karina, do we need anything else from your point of view or?
Or?
No, I think then it's fine.
We can check what has been shared.
And then if we have some questions,
we can also clarify next week.
Yeah.
OK, right here.
Check the IMC reports.
Yeah.
OK.
To be precise, this is the presentation
because this is not an official test
and we do not always have complete reports,
as far as we think.
It's just a check.
It's understood.
Don't need to worry, Mr. Galle.
It's just a EMC check, basically, of the changes.
That's normal.
It's just our engineering test at the end, yeah.
Yeah.
OK.
So what does our agenda say?
Says Ende.
So any other topics?
Oh, yeah, regarding the whole changes from the C1 to the C2,
I replied to you, Mr. Frank, before this meeting.
We will check it once again until next week
because we have sent us the presentation.
In case we will have any further question,
we will get back to you either by e-mail or just directly
discuss the topics in the hardware meeting.
What we can inform you is also the reason why we did not take
the topic here for today is the status of
the end-of-line testing or the end-of-line tests,
which are done in the end-of-line tester.
We are currently reviewing the error matrix and have found some more things, let's say.
But we would like to finalize this internally and get back to you next week so we can discuss this in a more detailed view.
Maybe this is also one point which we can discuss if we are in Lipstadt for the workshop.
Yeah, exactly. That's a good idea. That's a good idea.
Karina, yeah.
You are in Leipstadt for workshop. When exactly?
We would like to visit you.
Yeah.
Glendwig 4.
Glendwig 4. We kindly ask Mr. Frank, the colleagues, to check internally Glendwig 4 and what days are most suitable for you.
will do the same thing in also at BMW and come with an agenda proposal to you.
Maybe there are some other colleagues which would like to join to the workshop.
Maybe also the project lead.
I don't know.
Yeah, welcome.
Yeah, sounds good.
I have one question.
Please.
beginning of December there was something with BCI test because I'm not into the loop right now
because I'm switched off of Panama. There were some problems with BCI as far as I know regarding
pre-charging or something and I just want to ask if there was something new after beginning of December.
Yeah, we made further BCI tests on the critical position 15 centimeters and we found a modification
to pass this test of 15 centimeters. I think it's not in this one here because this focuses
on their mission.
And this is not really the pre-charging, but how do we call it?
It's the inrush current.
Yeah, exactly.
Wolfram, that was a really good question.
This was actually the topic I remembered to be opened.
Exactly this.
Good question, Wolfram.
For this test, for this BCI was my question exactly. Not for the standard emissions test and so on, but exactly for this.
So did we get here to this topic? Any reports or something? Any results?
I think if I remember correctly you have presented us something or informed us that you are working on it, but not remember.
Exactly, this was the issue.
No, it's not reported yet.
So we need to compile it in a, let's say, readable form for you.
OK.
OK, so let me document this.
EMC test of the EMRush current change.
Yeah.
Do you think next week will be possible?
Yeah, I think so. We can compile the results because we have them for the quick test we did.
Okay. Exactly, that was the change. Yeah, really good document. Okay.