Re: LOW COST mesurement equipment. (Was Shiep rules)

[Paul Rampelbergh]

Hello,

Interesting approach but a few errors are slip in your comments who 
jeopardize the creditability, on purpose or not, of alternate solutions.
Criticism is easy, I prefer on this subject constructively.

I understand when you are directly involved and have financial interests
 with and due to the existing rules, the best possibility remaining to
 you is to support the rules and to discredit opponents.
OK, I'll understand your position but that's it.

cortland.richmond...@ccmailsmtp.ast.com wrote:
 None of these receivers are ready for conducted tests (0.15 - 30 MHz).

I maintain my statement, in Europe the frequency range for the AR8000 is
 from 100Khz to 1950 MHz without any gap, and it works.

 The handheld scanners offer a bar-graph signal strength display which seems 
 of limited use.  I have noted scales of from 2 to 8 dB per division depending 
on the scanner.  A unit such as the AOR AR8000 may offer a digital signal 
strength readout which will probably be more accurate than that.

Yes on the AR8000 the signal strength (and all other control commands) can
 be controlled from a PC. The S meter reading (64 steps) is good and a
 conversion table to dB is not so difficult.
 Range sensitivity differences can be handled the same way by the PC.
Better, you have complete spectrum analyzer capability, controlled by PC
 or not, for near field research of problem causing interference frequency's. 
Those can be recorded and used for OATL (or other means) frequency
 measurements avoiding complete spectrum analyzer wasted time.

 However, none of these receivers are designed with the amplitude headroom 
 needed for a precision measuring system. Since they do not use tuned 
preselectors...

By the way, the AR8000 ,and others also, have input preselector filters.
 I agree they don't have tracking filters.
Sorry, but major manufacturers propose also, for pre-compliance tests,
 receivers to they're customers without tracking filters.
 Are they useless?  Do I have to mention to you who?

 These radios also have something lacking on spectrum analyzers, a BFO. This 
 is surprisingly useful for probing and identifying sources of emissions.

Never heard about USB, LSB and CW?

  I will say that so far I
 have not seen any such radio suitable to be relied upon as a sole means of
 measurement even for engineering purposes

I hope you where able to discredit the whole subject, good job, but I 
disagree once more with you. Try harder, maybe someday you succeed.
See my comment at the beginning.


OTHER SUBJECT.
I received from the author of the spark generator (using a gaslight igniter) 
the confirmation, it works fine and gives good results for initial testing.


regards   Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium)
-

Re[2]: Shiep rules

[Paul Rampelbergh]

cortland.richmond...@ccmailsmtp.ast.com wrote:
 
   While not losing sight of the reason why regulations exist,
   let's also remember that if we don't participate in making
   them, we can only complain afterwards about their impact

OK, OK, OK Cortland,

Now at least I understand completely your unrealistic reactions and
 previous statements defending the rules and the rule making people
 so hungry.

Just state you have a financial interest in the rules and it will
 close the loop.
 Read my last EMAIL posted under the subject LOW COST measurement
 equipment (not yet published in emc-pstc due turnarround time) and
 you'll see that I got already the message before your above
 referenced EMAIL.

Useless to lure yourself, even if you state As usual, the above
 opinions are my own, and may not reflect those of my employer you
 can't hide that you are defending your direct financial interest.

Discrediting people by general statements as do not complain, you
 didn't participate is a poor counterbalance to the privileged
 position you try to maintain a l'envers et contre tout.

In view of your last reactions and how more I reed my first EMAIL (and
 lounge of the subject),
recall:
 By making rules, they don't have to justify themselves as their business,
 most of the time, is inside institutions or organizations who have
 the sovereignty to propose (impose) rules to the governments without
 having to justify themselves.
 They are not controlled by moderated authorities and even worse usually
 address themselves to equipment manufacturers who all have interest
 to promote expensive equipment.
 Also University's are consulted, they are great but most of the time
 have no practical experience with small companies and are not facing
 this kind of production reality, so they add rules also.
 But anyhow, the rule making people have to protect their job and authority
 in no way are concerned with the sometimes unjustified rules they
 impose and problems they cause.

how more I see my statements are true.

Paul Rampelbergh
Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium)
-