Just curious, but? (re: Shiep rules)
Just curious, but what is a Shiep?
Re: Shiep rules
George, David L TR wrote: Maybe you are not sympathetic but you should be. EMC means eliminate minor companies. The way the rules are developed in many cases have little to do with the actual importance of the issue. Comparing regulatory requirements to the rules of physics is like comparing apples to oranges. If we do not question the need and validity for regulatory requirements we will find it increasingly difficult to deliver products. There many people out there eager to travel to far away places to develop additional requirements for us. We should ensure the requirements are necessary not just blindly accept everything. I applaud the people who question and probe the real need for requirements. Dave George Unisys Corp. -- Dave, HOORAAY! I have been singing that song for a long time and have had many people attempt to put me off insinuating that I was going to allow people to be hurt. My real story is: Let's never lose sight of WHY particular regulations exist and if the reason is revenue generation, then call a spade a spade and get rid of the rules when enough revenue is generated. If there is a VALID reason for the rules, then OK. I don't mean to say all compliance rules are unnecessary, I just mean to say that rules don't exist simply for the sake of rules, they must be continually questioned!! Sincerely, Ron Fotino Compliance Eng. Group Leader Cabletron Systems, Inc.
Re: Shiep rules
Dear Hans, hans_mellb...@non-hp-santaclara-om4.om.hp.com wrote: The proper authority in Belgium is not the Postal . etc., but rather the Comite Electrotechnique Belge (+32-2-556 0110) They will tell you how to own test equipment legally. They are the official Belgian representative of the CENELEC committee which governs the EMC aspects of Belgium, not the Post office. Hans the BIPT is the Belgium Institute for post and TELECOM. Its the Telecommunication part (FCC) of the BIPT I mentioned in my previous mail. Now, you mention CENELEC. This is the organization who conceives the specific European EMC CEE rules (is located in Belgium), this are some of the good fellows who are on candid camera. When I mention additional and local constrains, I'm talking about the BIPT (or IBPT in Flemish), when I'm talking about EMC rules I'm thinking to ALL regulation and rules making people, including CENELEC for the CE rules. The problem arises with the BIPT when I try to use low cost scanners for approximate pre-compliance testing. It's a communication receiver device according to they're opinion and may not be used. General coverage receivers are prohibited in Belgium (outdated law!). At a sudden they realize spectrum analyzers and EMC test receivers also are able to receive outbound frequencies. They require at a sudden now a license for those equipment to! He guy's of HP, Rhode Zwarts, Tektronics, etc.. you mentioned me that there is no problem for test equipment and that there is no license required for measuring devices, you better check with the smart BIPT people like Mr. Van Heesveld General Administrator (the big boss) of the BIPT. He has a different opinion. To the hell with this people. I wrote to the Minister of TELECOM. and he replayed: the problem is complex, he scheduled a meeting for me with the BIPT. Useless meeting. Facing people who think they are superior by having institutional monopolistic rights, they just don't listen, they impose their rules based on outdated laws still in force and interpreted they're way (see previous mail subject: license withdraw in and for a TELECOM store). They even don't make (or want) a report of the meeting, that's how serious they take it Now to come back on the EMC subject, the same parallel problems exist with CENELEC. They don't have to justify they're action, they impose CE rules with different requirements than other countries. WHY? What justify this? How to get rid of this superior behaving people and have them use existing rules? Dear Hans, is the above now more explanatory (subject CENELEC and BIPT)? If nobody complains, if nobody take the attention to this situation, if nobody put pressure on those guy's, nothing will change and the industry will remain the junk of those guy's with one common sense: PAY the cost. You like to undergo unjustified specific rules conceived by people protecting their job on my expenses (maybe yours?). Some people say: just put the CE sticker on it! No, I wont, if I have to do that its because there is something wrong, someware. So I'm looking for cheap pre-compliance measuring equipment. Not the conventional ones who are overpriced (even second hand). To start: Did anybody use a scanner (+/- $US 700) as mesuring receiver? It's computer controllable, has a wide frequency range, is sensitive. Did anybody design an antenna for 30 - 200 or/and 200 - 1000 MHz range? Did anybody made a LISN? Did anybody.. Any idea? -- Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) -
Re: Shiep rules
Hello Paul, Now to come back on the EMC subject, the same parallel problems exist with CENELEC. They don't have to justify they're action, they impose CE rules with different requirements than other countries. WHY? What justify this? Paul, emission standards you have to meet are actually about the _same_ as other countries. Even in countries without standards published, the customers require compliance either with CISPR-22 (the same as EN 55022) or FCC Part 15, Class B, and some of those countries (such as Australia) have adopted CISPR-22 requirements as their own standard, too. How to get rid of this superior behaving people and have them use existing rules? You are doing that in your meetings with BIPT. It is possible that their reaction is not so good -- but people only scratch after the flea bites, no? If nobody complains, if nobody take the attention to this situation, if nobody put pressure on those guy's, nothing will change and the industry will remain the junk of those guy's with one common sense: PAY the cost. This is a basic problem in relations between industry and government, everywhere. So I'm looking for cheap pre-compliance measuring equipment. Not the conventional ones who are overpriced (even second hand). To start: Did anybody use a scanner (+/- $US 700) as mesuring receiver? It's computer controllable, has a wide frequency range, is sensitive. I have several receivers (some cost more than US $700) and I think they could be useful, but you should understand that the amplitude calibration is not all that good. If you are talking about 10 dB, it's probably OK. If you are talking about 3 dB I find neither the ICOM R7000 nor the ICOM R7100 to be able to give the kind of fine discrimination needed. However, I have notattempted to use the R7100's data output as a level meter. If you do this, it may have enough steps to be if use -- but do remember that calibration on these receivers may change when you change frequency bands. Also, bandwidth is only approximately the same as the 120 KHz required for emissions testing and 9 KHz for conducted emissions (WFM and WAM modes). This means response to broadband signals will differ from a set using the right filters. You will also not be able to use a quasi-peak detector (unless you build one external to the receiver). I also have some wide-range hand-held scanners and Amateur Radio portable transceivers which are useful in locating the places from which radio signals are being emitted. One transceiver (which has wide receiving coverage) is smaller than a pack of cigarettes, including antenna. Using such a device means I do not have to carry a spectrum analyzer out to my equipment table for probing, but it's not always satisfactory. Sometimes I still must use a spectrum analyzer instead. I will note that the R7000 and R7100 do not as sold receive frequencies below 25 MHz, and would be of limited use for conducted emission reading. I have equipped my R7000 with an up-converter made by a British company, so it is able to receive about 0.1 - 2000 MHz. Sensitivity at the low end is not as good as it is higher up. This has to be taken into account when measuring signals in that range. The Yupiteru 7100 and AOR 8000 hand-held receivers cover (with reduced sensitivity) down to 0.5 MHz and are capable of being set at lower frequencies where they may or may not work. The AOR has a magnetic antenna built-in which could confuse measurements taken with it at low frequencies. Their amplitude levels are not so easy to read, though. Did anybody design an antenna for 30 - 200 or/and 200 - 1000 MHz range? You can easily build antennas which will work over these ranges. However, calibrating a wide-band antenna so that its antenna factor is known, is not all that easy. You also ned a signal source of a steady level and wide frequency coverage. Then, if you can borrow an antenna with a known antenna factor at ranges you expect to use, you can compare signals received with each one and thereby establish a calibration for your antenna at your measurement site. This calibration is not good anywhere else, though. The Roberts dipole design, named after the USA Bureau of Standards engineer who first built them, is published in some of our commercially available EMC guides and magazines, and you could build this one yourself. The advantage to this is that with reasonable construction, its calibration may be assumed from its dimensions. The problem is, you will then have to change dipole length as you go through the test -- and a 30 MHz diole is 5 meters long. Also, using a dipole close to the EUT may throw off the readings. Did anybody made a LISN? There's no reason you can't do this. And... you don't need a BIPT license for it. Anything you can make that will couple RF out of the power cord for measurement will do the job if you have some way to compare it to what a LISN will produce. Paul, one
