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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > >> 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 <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Is there someone who did this or similar task before? > >>>> Any specific suggestions? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 4 August 2017 at 21:57, Andrew Rich <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/hackrf-dev > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- Best Regards, Sergey Ivanov +7 910 424 9895
_______________________________________________ HackRF-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/hackrf-dev
