Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Dedicated RF  (Read 12147 times)
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 3860




Ignore
« Reply #60 on: January 06, 2013, 08:12:24 AM »

TANAKASAN:  Excellent point!  I suspect that in the future if ham radio exists, the new gear will in fact have a sticker like "No user serviceable parts inside" placed prominently on the outside.   Grin
Logged
M0HCN
Member

Posts: 473




Ignore
« Reply #61 on: January 06, 2013, 08:35:16 AM »

It is particularly annoying when seen on things like professional audio mixers where a significant amount of end user configuration is done by moving jumpers on pin headers inside the equipment!

I think it has something to do with that whole UL thing that the us market is so enamored of.

The other major annoyance is the common use of 'security' screws on things like power supplies, WHY? I mean sure if I screw up in a big power supply I might die, but a simple standard screw will stop me getting in there by accident and if I go in anyway that is clearly me accepting the risk, why make access harder then it needs to be.

Regards, Dan.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20603




Ignore
« Reply #62 on: January 06, 2013, 09:29:06 AM »

M0HCN: The "UL thing" actually pre-dates UL, as Germany's VDE is older than that (same type organization, different language) and more recently the EU has come up with more regulations than the U.S. ever dreamed of!  "RoHS2" is now a requirement for CE Mark; we have no such requirements here.

One reason so many accessories use outboard power supply "bricks" instead of inboard supplies is to help them escape Low Voltage Directive requirements.  If you only supply 5V to an appliance, almost all the regs go out the window and only the power supply itself is certified.
Logged
M0HCN
Member

Posts: 473




Ignore
« Reply #63 on: January 06, 2013, 12:06:56 PM »

The regulatory regimes between the EU and US are actually very different in that CE is (essentially) a self certification that your product complies with all applicable regulations, while you may take the view for a certain product that you need to get it tested at an independent test house, this is not actually a requirement. 

While VDE, UK, CSA are all essentially insurance industry test houses they have never really obtained the level of being almost mandatory approvals in the EU that they have for many things in the US, the regime is just totally different but I am far from certain that one is meaningfully easier then the other (You guys have FCC class B testing for example, with paperwork with large fines attached for getting it wrong, nothing quite equivalent exists here), six of one half a dozen of the other.   

I know why wall warts and line lumps are popular, that was not what I was bitching about, it is the annoying tendency to make equipment gratuitously difficult to get into that pisses me off.

Regards, Dan.
Logged
AA4HA
Member

Posts: 1451




Ignore
« Reply #64 on: January 06, 2013, 04:07:43 PM »

With UL certification we are also seeing the emergence of "tri national standards" (harmonized standards) with Canada, Mexico and the US creating a single standards. (example, UL 508 transitioning to UL 60947 over the next four years). I have done design work with a company that produced UL 508 control cabinets and while it was sometimes a bit of a pain, most of the compliance can be met with careful attention paid to design. In many ways the compliance with FCC R&R is the same way. It requires good engineering practices, circuit layout, board design, attention to filtering, shielding and grounding.

We readily gripe about consumer grade electronics that creates RF hash that interferes with our ability to receive. It is important to realize that we are under the same obligation, to manufacture products that are well laid out, in compliance with emissions standards and that meets all safety requirements.
Logged

Ms. Tisha Hayes, AA4HA
Lookout Mountain, Alabama
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 4623




Ignore
« Reply #65 on: January 07, 2013, 02:51:51 AM »

Recent investigation by the European Commission found that some 80% of Short Range Devices and 60% of mobile radio products actually didn't meet the requirements of the applicable Decision and Directives. Not because of technical failure, but the paper work wasn't quite right!

Which suggests to me (professionally involved in radio standards and regulations) that the legal paperwork requirements are a load of BS that merely make products more expensive for the consumer, while keeping some bureaucratic jobsworths busy!
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 6078




Ignore
« Reply #66 on: January 07, 2013, 12:24:38 PM »

Managing Moral Responsibility for Product Use

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/business/products.html

This short but interesting article from the Santa Clara University Ethics page can shed some light on the ethics of the production and sale of extra high power amateur RF amplifiers. There are at least two companies building these amps at this time, Emtron (9 kW) and Dressler (40 kW).
Logged
N3JBH
Member

Posts: 2358




Ignore
« Reply #67 on: January 07, 2013, 01:34:33 PM »

WX7G , Don't take this terribly personal ok. But this crusade you our on is a bit ridiculous, In my opinion i  do not see where Dan building such amplifiers is wrong. I do not see why it bothers you so badly. And just because we here under the FCC control are restricted to 1500 watt's does not mean he can not produce larger and more powerful equipment for amateurs in other countries where they are legally permitted.

I even question rather these so called " Big Gun " stations in the USA even use amp's that where commercially built units .  I know i have tossed the idea of someday making a 3CX3000 tube amp. Now what would be my reason for that ? The amp i own now barely capable of making 800 watt's. I don't really intend to build it to make 8Kw with it.  To me it just sounds like a fun project.

I have built farm tractors that is capable of 1000 horse power. Was that so i could bale hay faster then the next farmer? I have a cubcadet garden tractor with a V6 motor on it that run close too 100 MPH is it so i can mow my yard in seconds flat? No !!!  Some folks out there like huge things and if the market will justifies the sale and production of them well so be it.

No one forcing you to buy one or use one. HeII no one even said you have to compete against one on the air. So with all this diatribe i have posted here. May i please ask you to just chill out and stop your silly quest to keep trying to make a case against this man and his business . Thanks Jeff
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20603




Ignore
« Reply #68 on: January 07, 2013, 01:45:46 PM »

Recent investigation by the European Commission found that some 80% of Short Range Devices and 60% of mobile radio products actually didn't meet the requirements of the applicable Decision and Directives. Not because of technical failure, but the paper work wasn't quite right!

Which suggests to me (professionally involved in radio standards and regulations) that the legal paperwork requirements are a load of BS that merely make products more expensive for the consumer, while keeping some bureaucratic jobsworths busy!

I don't think such testing and certification makes products more expensive for the consumer, unless production quantities are very, very small.  We use accredited Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories for product safety and electromagnetic compatibility verification and certification, and repeat for dozens of new products each year; the average cost "per product" is under $10,000.

If we only sold "one unit," that would be pretty expensive.  But for production units?  Heck, we spend much more than this on data sheets and marketing materials.

And in my experience, the labs, following the Standards, do a pretty good job of weeding out stuff that really shouldn't be on the market at all (without changes to comply).  U.L., for example, doesn't get involved in "how well the product works," but only "how safe" it is under normal operating conditions.  This obviously involves flammability testing, but also includes things most consumers don't know get "tested," such as whether a user can be harmed by the product tipping over and falling on his foot. Tongue

I think EMC testing and certification is vitally important, and perhaps should be stricter than it is, since there are lots of products on the market today that actually met all the Standards and Directives and are still very easily interfered with (my amateur radio transmitters, for example) or cause substantial interference (to amateur radio receivers, for example). Wink

Requirements vary by country or groups of countries, and are looser or stricter with many variables.  It is interesting to note that while many low-powered wireless appliances using the FM broadcast band (such as devices allowing you to play your iPod through your car's stereo system without any wired connection between them) are manufactured in Taiwan or China, those same devices they manufacture are not legal for use there, and are banned from those markets. Cheesy
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 4623




Ignore
« Reply #69 on: January 08, 2013, 02:18:18 AM »

The problem is in the detail they wanted in the technical files, not the actual conformance to standards. The testing isn't a problem, especially since for many products, provided you have an adequate quality control system, you can self certify.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20603




Ignore
« Reply #70 on: January 08, 2013, 08:06:04 AM »

The problem is in the detail they wanted in the technical files, not the actual conformance to standards. The testing isn't a problem, especially since for many products, provided you have an adequate quality control system, you can self certify.

Not here, you can't.  To have a product safety recognition, you must use an NRTL who is accredited and audited.  To use the "FCC" logo indicating the product meets the stated standard, you must use an FCC accredited laboratory, or the FCC themselves.  CE Mark can be applied based on an EC (EU) Declaration of Conformity signed by an officer of the manufacturing company, but in order to actually ship product to countries not part of the EU requires considerable additional declarations tied to a CB Scheme that can only be completed by an NRTL accredited within the country of import.  To ship to China requires CCC mark, and the only labs accredited for that are in China!

I go through this stuff almost every day...
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 4623




Ignore
« Reply #71 on: January 08, 2013, 08:10:17 AM »

The system here is so weird that there are certain items of medical equipment that until clinical trials are complete, MUST NOT have a CE mark - under one Directive. If they contain radio, under another Directive, they must be CE marked.....

The draft of the new Radio Equipment Directive is out. A dog's dinner hardly describes it, while in many places, the English is appalling. Probably in the French and German versions, too.

Makes retirement in June very attractive.....
Logged
KD4SBY
Member

Posts: 223




Ignore
« Reply #72 on: January 08, 2013, 08:46:36 AM »

From a design and production point of view, I can certainly understand why they would want to build a single amplifier that serves multiple markets, however, it would seem that the people in the 'lower' market (ie, hams) are paying a lot of extra money for capabilities (ie, more power) that they are not legally able to take advantage of.  I do not have any idea how much the extra tube (and supporting circuitry) and the beefier transformer required for dual tubes adds to the cost, but I'm willing to be it is not inconsequential.

Carlton

I do not quite agree with the above statement. While there are advantages of an universal design to cut costs, it does not necessarily will result in bloated costs for different users. In the case of a design for Hams for example, it would be a simple task to supply the finished  product with a tube and transformer only capable of delivering the maximum power allowed for the this user, and change these parts as needed for others.
It is like the fire arms industry, many assult rifles are capable of fully auto fire, but it is also available in a semi auto version for general use. The basic design, however, is the same. Although things can be changed in both cases, it is assumed that the average user will not have the skills to do so.
Logged
KD0REQ
Member

Posts: 950




Ignore
« Reply #73 on: January 08, 2013, 11:23:56 AM »

if the future product used 5000 12AX7A tubes in parallel, would that satisfy everybody?
Logged
KB4QAA
Member

Posts: 2381




Ignore
« Reply #74 on: January 08, 2013, 12:47:17 PM »

if the future product used 5000 12AX7A tubes in parallel, would that satisfy everybody?
Only as long as it doesn't use exactly two tubes.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!