Re: European Standards for Combination Smoke and CO detectors
Robert, Beside the good advices of Richard Woods, i recommend you also to take contact with Mr Walter Teugels of U.P.E.A. (Union Professionnelle des Entreprise d'Assurance) Email: walter.teurg...@upea.be He is of good advise and can direct you to the rules required for europe and belgium in particular. Paul Rampelbergh On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:43:51 -0600, you wrote: Can anyone provide information on which EN or IEC standard covers a combination smoke and carbon monoxide detector or any related information? Sincerely, Robert Loop --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: modest proposal
Hi Egon, Languages are part of what is called culture, you remember? Sometimes its time to take a peanut and find-out it was grown on something bigger, and that thing was on something even bigger, and bigger, and bigger, the world. Paul On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:52:57 +0200, you wrote: This is really becoming a completely pointless discussion. Most of the people on this forum appear to be native English speakers. In my experience, native English speakers have absolutely no motivation or desire to learn any other language. --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Re: modest proposal
Hi there, A little bit behind the subject, i take the opportunity to express my opinion in general on english and at the end a NEW proposal (maybe). I'm from belgium and as you certainly know we don't have our own language here. In my country we have FRENCH, FLEMISH and GERMAN. I speak/write only French, Flemish (equivalent to Dutch) and some English (it could be worse). This being said let me comment a few general problems encountered with english: - its unbelievable the long time it takes to express my opinions and put it down on paper. The same way, it takes a long time to find-out the real meaning of some sentences put forward by people who try to convince they know very well english subtleties. The use of commonly used words in simple expressions would be more efficient and helpful. - in the future i had some people who ridiculed my spelling and expressions, but that past time, thanks for your understanding There is now spell checking, it helps (a lot). - pithy enough, and i find things smoothly changing, english speaking people don't do enough effort to try to find-out what's the real meaning behind the sentences and words expressed. This happens often during meetings. Just misplace the accentuation point in a word and there it goes.. A little more interpretation effort to understand the objective of the text or at least ask for complementary information could be less frustrating when the author read the reply. - the last, and the worst. To understand english i have to have at least 2 big dictionaries of abbreviations generally used. OK EMC everybody knows but other ones... Some time ago i worked with the US airforce, how boy that's an adventure you never forget. I think it would be wise to have at least once in the original text a full expression (word) and then its abbreviated equivalent. Final modest proposal for a solution (maybe): I suggest to use hieroglyphics in stead of abbreviations, its more image speaking and universal for everybody but i'm afraid it will require an extra language on my computer. Hey Mr MicroSoft! Consider this not as a open criticisms but more as an expression of my findings during several years of traveling (-/+ 45 times to the us and 15 to canada). I enjoy to come to the states, a comfortable car and country music let's me feel like in holiday even if i'm not. Best regards to all of youPaul On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 20:53:40 -0500, you wrote: To all who replied: Thanks for the quick and hearty responses! SORRY LOU, it took me some time I certainly agree that the world does not need another artificial language like esperanto. Just realize, whe strugle here with frensh, english, german, dutch, spanish, italian, greeks, norsk, and more. Whe don't require an extra one. Some people are better at languages than others, though, and i have seen some very good engineers having to really struggle with ours. See above. Meanwhile, I have it on excellent authority that the Spanish Government is about to simplify the Spanish language, eliminating all the accent marks to make an easy, logical language even easier to learn and to use. Oh well, lets get back to work. Best Regards, Lou --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
.Re: House alarm certification
Hi, I do not contest the right of insurance companies to ask for additional particularities they think required insurance wise. The belgium law define that you have an alarm system ONLY and ONLY when you have an EXTERNAL SOURCE of noise and/or flashing light (an internal noise source is also prohibited when it can be heard on the outside of the house. Sound level is undefined). The origin of the law is to prevent false alarms and disturbances caused by it due to unreliable systems. This is past time since EMC and immunity approvals. On the other side, if i install a what i call a SILENT alarm system who calls only my cell phone, its not considered by law an alarm system. That seems quite normal to me otherwise i would even not be allowed to have an automatic light going on in presence of a person on my front door. Now where the UPEA act and in my opinion is faulty is that they impose that a system can only be relayable when it satisfy THEY'RE REQUIREMENTS including they're para-EMC specifications. That's false, systems are ok when satisfying EMC requirements. That they claim that they can only admit reduction in insurance cost when some other conditions are met is they're free choice. But UPEA is indirectly also preventing free circulation of goods. The reason why i comply is the fact that they're pressure goes behind the scoop of insurance considerations. They re-specify immunity and other EC requirements. Is that allowed? Due to the above and as a consequence the manufacturers and they're representatives prevent the free distribution and circulation of goods when you do not comply as a purchaser with UPEA. This forms some kind discrimination and auto protection against competition and free circulation of goods from other countries, they're systems are not good... Can everybody adapt, reduce and impose hiss type of EMC requirements in hiss specification given the impression that official requirements do not preveal? Is it allowed to publish some kind of EMC requirements beside the official ounce? Paul Rampelbergh On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:17:32 -0500, you wrote: The objective of the CE mark is to enable the free movement of goods throughout Europe and for them to be placed on the market. The UPEA is not preventing this from being done. The UPEA is exercising its right as a user/consumer to “contractually” insist that a requirement that is possibly extra to the various pieces of EC legislation be met. If the requirement is detrimental to the various EC directives i.e. it makes a particular requirement easier to meet then you maybe have a reason to follow this up. However, provided this is not being used as a reason to prevent the equipment being placed on the market then you have no legal complaint. There are various organisations that already do this as the EC Directives, particularly EMC, do not cover the environment in which the equipment is to be used. Regards Ray Garner Consultant Datel-Ferranti Group --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
House alarm certification
I like your opinion on the requirements for House protection alarm systems. Typical intrusion alarm systems are installed by professional people, have a noisy external horn with flash lite and may send alarm signals to a monitor agency who take care of the alarm for you on a predefined and stipulated protocol basis. Fire and intrusion insurance companies add specific certification and requirements on the hardware used in the system whitch are different from CE requirements (in belgium : Union Professionel des Assurance = UPEA dictate those rules to the insurance companies). Are in your oppinion those insurance contract stipulations in agreement with the free circulation of goods in europe and EC rules and certification allowances ? Paul Rampelbergh --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
measurement tools (EMC?)
General question not specific to EMC: Where can I find an 'official' definition of what's a RF measurement device (tool, circuit, equipment) With the special attention to: Is it a radio communication device or not?
Do you need a license
Is there a need to have a license to posses and operate EMC measurement tools? I'm thinking on: receiver types: - spectrum analyzers - mesurement receivers transmitting types: - RF generators - ESD generators etc.. (Licence from FFC? or from similar autorities in the different countrys)
Re: EU law?
HI Horst Haug and Patty Elliot Looking true previous EMC mail I'll noticed your replay's: Horst Haug wrote: ... I like the idea to control the market ...Patty Elliot wrote: ... the authorities have the right to verify the conformance ... In view of your replay's, I have a simple question: In what priority order are the products checked? As you all know for the moment (in Belgium, and be sure in your country it exists to) a lot of political, commercial practices and other special PROTECTIONs are discovered and examined by several commissions. Those protections are ranging from corrupts to gentle influences... So again In what priority order are the products checked? and are those checked in an unbiased priority order? I know, good products don't have in theory not to worry about it, but are they all good or just are some ignored? Sorry Horst Haug and Patty Elliot but I disagree with your statements. I don't own black money to have favors when my product is not that good, do you? On the other side, who will pay for all those overdone and unrequired controls? You and me, don't forget it. Do you not trust the honesty of your competitors? No, read back above considerations and find out if you solve them with your remarks. To my opinion, only complains due to bad influences on (interference) or influences from (immunity) other products have to be taken in consideration for control of conformity to the rules. Isn't that in fact the basic and general purpose of the EMC rules: - Protection against pollution and - Assurance of reliable operation in that polluted world? Horst Haug wrote: . the notified body has the duty to check, if the products on the market comply to the EMC directive. I like the idea to control the market, because it avoids advantages for manufacturer, which does not take care of the CE-mark and just stick the label on and ship without testing. It also forces the test houses to keep the quality level high. Horst Patty Elliot wrote: There does not have to be a complaint against your equipment in order for a Notified Body to examine it. European authorities have the right to take off-the-shelf products and examine them for compliance to the directives. The Declaration of Conformity that is shipped with your equipment is a legal document that states your product complies with the directive(s), and the authorities have the right to verify the conformance. Patty Elliot -- Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) -
Re: low cost equipment
Hi Moshe, In addition to my previous scanner specification data, I like to add: You find scanners of all kind of sizes from handheld to topdesc models. ALL scanners do not have the same features, of course, but most do have following: The electronic SMD is smal and low power due to the actual technologie. Its able to run on internal batteries, from a external 12VDC or from AC mostly with a simple AC/DC cord adapter. Typical power consumption in normal opperation is 160mA, 110mA in standby and 20Ma in power saving mode (9 till 16 V DC External or 4.8 internal). I mentioned in my previous mail usenet and mail lists. You will find several vendors on the www, search on yahoo http://www.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Marketing/ (or any other web search server) with the keyword scanners in order to find them. A block diagram is rather difficult to draw, hope my previous mail and data specification helps. Drawings and allignment documentation can also be purshased at a very reasonable price from vendor. In this documentaion you can also find the spurious freq. spots, bandwith spec., sensivity , .. They have a good sensitivity around the 1 uV (180 kHz bandwith). Hope this helps you Moshe. moshe_vald...@isr-rhv-p1.ccmail.compuserve.com wrote: 1. How these scanners are built, any info like block diagrams preferably on the net. How big are they? Do they run on batteries? 2. Where I can buy the ones you recommend. Do the vendors have an internet page? Or at least an address or some way to make contact with them.-- Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) -
frequency scanners low cost equipment
, dictatorial, monopolistic bureaucrats and irresponsible authority attacks. I Quit on the subject for now. The BIPT is proposing a modifications to Belgium laws for telecom, I'm wondering how good they will recover on the EMC laws and try to impose once again their monopolistic position. STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP Now once for ALL Cortland Richmond, STOP. STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP, STOP The dangerous people is not the expensive nor the low price test equipment owners, but the outlaws as they do NOT respect any Law. Using comments of telephone industry representatives concern is pure intentional discrediting talk that doesn't make any sense. You can use some expensive test equipment as well in outlaw conditions. In fact, you are in a professional context of experienced people who can design telephone decoders. So quit please and let other people share their experience on EMC low cost equipment. Cortland Richmond you never described your job function, are you involved with similar authorities, rules making people or do you have any financial advantage by discrediting possible competition low cost equipment's? re- Aaargh. === I like to continue the discussion on low cost equipment without ALL the nothing to do with it considerations. Lets find out how good, bad or limiting this kind of low cost equipment is, lets look in which context it can be used or lets find out its useful area. I don't like to limit mail exchange to scanner type equipment, but rather to ALL kinds of low cost devices. I'm thinking for instance on a gas lighter for ESD, etc.. What are the results? That would be at least a constructive input. Lets look at home made antenna's, test cell's and other EMC test equipment. For sure it will cost less than old equipment which anyhow will require outside certification. I don't say that we don't need outdoor certification with more sophisticated equipment, but at least lets try to find a possible way around or at least reduce cost due to a one time certification pass. Don't mention publications, I purshased an promissing book Handbook of Antennas for EMC by Thereza Macnamara. Nice expensive and purelly of no use. Its a theoritical consideration not covering the actual used antennas. So I sugest to remove book recomandations from those discutions and have instead more practical designs and considerations. I'm sure I'm not the only one who like to limit cost for EMC. -- Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) -
Re: frequency scanners
Hi, If you like to be informed aboud scanners you can subscribe to the mailing list server for the AR8000 from AOR majord...@rpmdp.com with the clasical text: subscribe ar8000 your E-Mail adr. There are also Newsgroups like: rec.radio.scanner or alt.radio.scanner Features example for the AR 8000 from AOR; - frequency range continious without gap from 150 kHz till 1950 Mhz. - frequency steps 50Hz till 500kHz - modes: NFM, AM, USB, LSB, CW, WFM - searches on frequency (specify desired range, step, mode, ..) - scan specific frequencies (individual freq.) - store frequencies to bypass (individual freq.) - attenuator, squelch - configure in between channel wait times - etc.. With the AR8000 (its not the only one of course) its possible to control the features from a PC (in, out and signal strenght data; rs232 connector ttl level; RS232 level converter interface CU8232 or similar). The AR8000 receiver is a triple convertion receiver: 50 ohm BNC input followed by 7 fixed not tunable different input filters : (.1 - 30 Mhz; 30-110; 110-165; 165-240; 240-470;470-820; 820-1950 Mhz) 1st I.F. 736.250 Mhz or 275.450 Mhz depending on freq. range; 2end I.F. 40.05 Mhz monolitic cristal filter 3th I.F. 10.7 Mhz or 456.5 kHz ceramic filter depending on opperating mode; SSB/CW 4 kHz (-6db), 15 kHz (-50db) AM/NFM 12 kHz (-6db), 25 kHz (-60db) WFM 180 kHz (-6db), 800kHz (-50db); For example the AR3000A can be equiped with a SDU5000 Spectrum display unit, etc.. I don't know other brands exept ham radio types, those are not designed for the same purpose and don't have, mostly, the continious frequency range. Hope this give some answer to your request for info Moshe. moshe valdman wrote: I'm interested in the potential use of low cost scanners as low end receivers\spectrum analyzers. My problem is I don't know anything about how they work, Can someone give a brief explanation or/and point me to some technical information (preferably on the web). Regards -- Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) -
[EMC] Unit convertion factors Table (ftm,etc..)
For a Very Complete Unit Conversion Table (Updated Jan 1997) see http://world.std.com/~jbourke/ezone.html Regards -- Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) -
Re: LOW COST mesurement equipment.
Hello, Paul Rampelbergh rampelberg...@infoboard.be wrote: It seems more difficult to have data and to build a Bi-conical or simular antenna's. Anybody can help? How good can avail calibrations data be used when the antenna is copied? Who can provide this data and info? Bill Franklin JR wrote: There was a book published in 1980 called A Guide to F.C.C. Equipment Authorizations by Willmar K. Roberts. This book covers how to build wide band baluns, half-wave dipoles (also known as the Roberts Dipole), Line impedance stabilization networks (LSINs), how to set up a site, etc. Thanks for info Bill. -- Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) -
[EMC] Belguim edition
Hi, CE rules application LAWS have been introduced in Belgium by the Ministry of Economics and his departments. The BIPT (our Belgium FCC) was not involved directly. Now the BIPT introduces additional constrains by imposing additional burdens like the requirement of TELECOM LICENSES for ALL test equipment! One of the reasons invoked: A spectrum analyzer (or receiver), by blocking the scanning can listen to outbound frequencies like police and other communications outside the normal broadcast range. Listen to those frequencies is strictly prohibited in Belgium (please US ++ people don't smile, we are in the OLD country part of the world and have some laws still of the same age). Other side effects: Licensed material has, in general, to comply to a specific Belgium certification procedure ($$$). By obtaining a license you allow an inspection of your promises by the BIPT without prior notice 24/24hrs and 7/7 days bases on simple complain from mister anybody or initiated by the BIPT themselves. I realize this whole IS A DISADVANTAGE for my country, its why it has to be changed. Has anybody else any experience with similar facts of this BIPT irresponsible autocratic, dictatorial, monopolistic bureaucratic institution? I can not admit that the people from the BIPT imposes rules only to justify them self and their position. In Belgium located industries are you concerned or do you prefer to be quite and sitting in a corner and behave like a mushroom? Personally addressed EMAIL to me will be treated with confidentiality, but EMAIL to emc-pstc mail is preferred if confidentiality is not required. When you send your EMAIL to emc-pstc you allow everybody, who may or can be involved with EMC regulations in Belgium, to know the extra constrains they may have to face. Your participation will weight in the balance and will allow me to put more pressure on our authorities to have things changed. I have already informed the Minister of Telecom Mr. DI RUPO, having the BIPT under his responsibility, about the unfair situation. Laws dated from mid 1979 have to be changed in order to allow the incorporation of modern EMC rules without any interpretation conflicts. General statements giving ALL authority to the BIPT, without specified limits, have to be removed from the laws and have to be replaced with appropriated specific objective oriented items. The BIPT is usually the people who propose law changes to the government. Are you really thinking they will reduce their monopolistic position and activity in your favor by having more equilibrated and justified laws subject EMC (and other?) implementation? I like to concentrate myself and have all mail exchange with one Minister at the moment, before I will bring up the problem to the parliaments if no solution can be found. If things don't change, I will steam up the thing until it become a big explosive mushroom (not the one sitting in the dark) if required. I don't like to argue and compare FCC++ rules existing in other country's (unless they are send to my private EMAIL adr.), its a Belgium problem who has to be solved in Belgium. I'm ready to the challenge to make things change, in favor of everybody who have, who consider or plan to have some day their business in Belgium, you bet. Belgium is great, we have to keep it that way. -- Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) - NOTE: BIPT is a governmental institution who stands for Belgium Institute for TELECOM and Post. Its the TELECOM part of course who is involved. The BIPT is also called IBPT in Flemisch (Dutch).
Re: LOW COST equipment for EMC.
Hi, Gabriel Roy/HNS wrote: For REALLY low cost test equipment for use during the developmental stage, refer to Dr. Keenan's book Digital Design for Interference Specification Section 6.3. ...snip... Dr. Keenan's book is published by TKC in florida, (813) 544-2594 Also on http:/www.tkcemi.com/publicat.html Thanks for info Gabriel, -- Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) -
Re: LOW COST mesurement equipment. (Was Shiep rules)
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
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) -
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) -
