Exactly.
Except that I am not going to spend money on a professional calibrated
equipment. The goal is to make quick and dirty "kind of" FCC test to allow
rapid hardware and firmware iterations in the house.
When I will be confident, I will go to a certified lab as everyone do for
FCC.

Thanks for the idea to check similar FCC test reports!


On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 at 18:44, Chris Kuethe <chris.kue...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

Reply via email to