Hi Mike, Hi Cortland and everybody out there, How can I join in one Email a reply to two almost different points of view? I'll try because I think there are some good sense observations in both but I will limit myself to the initial objective of my writing.
As a starter: 1. Michael Butler wrote (EXTRACTS ONLY (hope I still keep you ideas): > ...I had a question about your comments about "our Rules".... > So, given your general disgust for the situation (with which I can > certainly empathize!), why do you feel that "[you] in Europe are so > much better than [us] located on the other side of the big pool [and > thus] can not use [our] rules"? From our perspective, all of the new > rules, bottlenecks, intercommunity infighting, and additional > production costs are coming from the EC, not from the U.S.A. Or am I > misunderstanding your comments? That's where it is all about Mike, we are NOT better in Europe but we impose OUR rules. I do not agree only partially but TOTALLY with your remarks and comments. I find it stupid and unjustified that European rules making people think they are smarther. 2. Cortland Richmond wrote (EXTRACTS ONLY): > You need to find ways to meet the requirements, not lose sleep > protesting them..... > The rules on EMC were actually developed by using actual radio and TV > receiving equipment and measuring how much interference people using them > could tolerate. > Real people! THey are not a pile of rules upon other rules, though that > may well be what it looks like when you're under them!..... I don't like to be a chicken in a cage having some above me..... Even worse, I have to pay for those actually unavoidable guy's above me. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Why did I start this discussion? Searching for economical "pre-compliance" equipment, I came up with the idee to use a general coverage scanner. Those equipment's are no longer so hobby designed as they may look. They cover for instance from 100Khz to 1950 MHz and use the same signal conversion techniques as more expensive measuring devices. Remember material is cheap, design cost isn't but scanners are produced in great quantity, that's why they are cheap. So that seems easy possible solution but: in Belgium we have also "our" rules (see IBPT) who impose typical Belgium certifications for communication devices. This is why once again I say, "are the other countries who certify com. equipment so stupid that we can not agree with it" or is it a matter to the keep IBPT privileged monopolistic institution position intact? Now beside that we are not allowed to use general converage equipment (again IBPT), so what do I have to do? I agree, you in the US don't understand this, I do neither. During now almost 9 months I try to convince this people that I use that receiver as a test equipment, result they impose now a license for each test device included spectrum analyzer, test transmitters, etc.. By the way, when you have a licence in Belgium you have to allow this people to junp in your house/establishement 24/24 hrs and 7/7 days for inspection and control! Remark: Its pitty that there is not a licence required for GSM's, otherwise our governement people could also expect a visit anytime. If I don't do my job in a rational and efficient manner, I'm fired. Rules making people has not to justify themselves on the need of the rules they invent. They impose rules required or not that's it. Do they invent rules because the existing rules are not good? Are they so smart and are the others stupid? Why does Europe (CE) have other rules piling up together all the exception rules of the different country's? Those guy's cost a lot of money, twice: once to pay them and second to apply their smart inventions. You, in big manufacturers, waste and spend a lot of money on complying to the EU and other rules. Are you not supposed to avoid unjustified expences in your company? Can't you put stress on rule making institutions? I dont say rules are not required, I say are they all required! Do you not have to justify your expenses? Its time to react or will you still be the chicken underneath discussing how you will meet requirements? If anybody can suggest (do not state the possibility of existence, that everybody can do) of an economical way to do pre- or compliance tests, its probably good to open an other discussion subject separated from this. Is this kind of discussion to technical for this group? Regards -- Paul Rampelbergh Member of RC Soaring & Electric flight Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) club "Les Alouettes" de Sart-Risbart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
