It doesn't sound like he's trying to get out of testing; rather, he's
trying to save time and money by not submitting a known non-compliant
device to testing. Additionally, it might be neat if he could
basically do the RF equivalent of continuous integration. Eventually
he'll probably have to spend real money on real calibrated test
equipment for his in-house R&D lab, but that might not be the best way
to spend money at this time.

As for knowing what FCC specs to match, you can look at the test
reports for similar products.

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Andrew Rich <vk4...@tech-software.net> wrote:
> So basically your trying to save some dollars and get out of testing
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 5 Aug 2017, at 9:47 am, Chuck McManis <chuck.mcma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by a radio stack?
>
> Many modules that implement various radio protocols run software on a
> captive microprocessor. That software implements the protocol and drives the
> radio electronics. For example TI offers firmware that runs on the processor
> inside their CC3000 series chips that implement the Bluetooth protocols. If
> a project uses their software in this chip, it can take advantage of TI's
> efforts to get that software certified (see this:
> http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/CC3000_Product_Certification) which
> saves time and effort.
>
> For Part 15 certification (unintended emissions) you need to get a
> certificate from a testing laboratory that is certified by the FCC. They
> will put your product in a chamber that absorbs all RF with a wide band
> detector and spectrum analyzer. The will detect all of the unintended
> emissions and chart them in frequency and dBm. You take their report and a
> certification that you aren't going to change the design, and submit that to
> the FCC and they will give you a certification ID.
>
> Note that the FCC won't accept your testing, they only accept a certified
> lab's test results.
>
> --Chuck
>
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Sergey Ivanov <ivanov1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Chuck!
>>
>> I'll check this out. What do you mean by a radio stack?
>> For now my plan is to use pre-certified modules so that my board will be
>> certified as an unintentional radiator, which is thousands of $.
>> But I still need to prove that the board doesn't emit Electro Magnetic
>> Field above allowed.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 at 23:35, Chuck McManis <chuck.mcma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not sure exactly what you are asking.
>>>
>>> If you want to get FCC certification for your device, there is a process
>>> it is documented at the FCC web site here:
>>>
>>> https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/laboratory-division/general/equipment-authorization
>>>
>>> That pretty much outlines the steps. If you are using a manufacturer
>>> supplied radio stack you may be able to leverage their certification but if
>>> you wrote your own stack you will need to do the authorization
>>> independently. There are a number of consultancies in the US who will handle
>>> the process for you (for a fee of course). A long time ago (2006) I was on a
>>> project that needed such certification and the vendor hired charged $50,000
>>> and it took four months to complete. They did all the required paperwork and
>>> followed up on all of the questions the FCC had, they also flew out an
>>> engineer to an FCC certified test facility to get the verification tests
>>> done. (I live in the San Francisco bay area and the FCC testing facilities
>>> around here are typically reserved months, if not years, in advance it
>>> seems).
>>>
>>> --Chuck
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Sergey Ivanov <ivanov1...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there someone who did this or similar task before?
>>>> Any specific suggestions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4 August 2017 at 21:57, Andrew Rich <vk4...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can do what ever you like as long as you understand the rules for a
>>>>> licence and GNU Radio
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 Aug 2017, at 4:26 am, Sergey Ivanov <ivanov1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a product which uses nRF24L01+  2.4 GHz modules for
>>>>> communication. Now we have plans to go to North America market, and I am 
>>>>> not
>>>>> sure if my Chinese nRF modules can pass FCC test. If they can't, then I 
>>>>> need
>>>>> to re-design my PCB (now I use 2 layers logic board and nRF on a socket).
>>>>>
>>>>> Can I use HackRF to imitate FCC test on my workbench?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> HackRF-dev mailing list
>>>>> HackRF-dev@greatscottgadgets.com
>>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/hackrf-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Sergey Ivanov
>>>> +7 910 424 9895
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> HackRF-dev mailing list
>>>> HackRF-dev@greatscottgadgets.com
>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/hackrf-dev
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Sergey Ivanov
>> +7 910 424 9895
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> HackRF-dev mailing list
> HackRF-dev@greatscottgadgets.com
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/hackrf-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> HackRF-dev mailing list
> HackRF-dev@greatscottgadgets.com
> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/hackrf-dev
>



-- 
GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
_______________________________________________
HackRF-dev mailing list
HackRF-dev@greatscottgadgets.com
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/hackrf-dev

Reply via email to