Ed,
Your comments about testing of fixtures are of great interest to me. You may
have seen a posting I made a few days ago regarding a replacement fluorescent
fixture that creates much more RFI than did its predecessor. The new fixture
is an American Fluorescent Model 234SLFSW Utility Light, uses two 48" tubes,
has a 5 foot cord with grounding (3-prong) plug, and bears an FCC mark on the
end cap. The ballast appears to be fully integral to the fixture - not
replaceable by an off-the-shelf ballast. The UPC on this critter is: 0 37949
28177 1. Mine is from lot 1352A, and I bought it at Menards in Marion, IA,
just 2 weeks ago. It wipes out the AM b'cast band and 160 thru 40 meters.
If this is not one of the fixtures that have been tested, I'd like to suggest
that it be added to the list. Cost is under $20. I contacted the company,
located near Chicago (although the fixture is made in China), and their QC
manager told me to go get a filter from Radio Shack. I replied to him with a
list of good anti-RFI design reasons why a plug-in filter intended to reduce
emissions above 30 MHz would not help this problem, as well as describing what
should be done to reduce RFI from the unit. I have had zero response to that
e-mail.
I find it interesting that when I searched Amazon for this unit, and found the
listing, many buyers reported great disappointment with the life of the unit.
A few even had DOA units, but others had them last a few weeks to less than a
year.
The fixture that died on me was the SAME brand, made more than 10 years ago,
created little to no RFI (except for a few seconds upon start-up), and with
which I was happy camper. When I tore the old unit apart, I found it had two
separate electronic ballast units inside, one at each end, and integrated into
the plastic end caps. One unit had a blown cap ("guts" exploded right out of
it), which is probably why the fixture died. I also noted that each ballast
had an actual small iron core inductor (multiple taps on the winding, about 1
1/4" in size)and that the green safety wire of the 3-prong line cord went
directly to the metal chassis of the fixture, in no way being connected to any
part of the switcher ballasts at all. Amazingly, the "switches" for each
ballast were a pair of transistors in TO-92 plastic cases!
73, Dale
WA9ENA
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Hare, Ed W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org>
>Sent: Mar 29, 2014 8:40 PM
>To: "RFI@contesting.com" <RFI@contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...
>
>The unit we tested had the FCC logo on it, even though it was 58 dB over the
>noise limits.
>
>It also has a CE mark on it, and there are already complaints being brought in
>Europe.
>
>Under the US rules, the FCC does not test any equipment to authorize it. Even
>certification is based on manufacturer-supplied test data. In the case of
>lighting devices, the equipment is "verified," meaning that the manufacturer
>is required to test the design before marketing it.
>
>Ed Hare, W1RFI
>
>
>________________________________________
>From: RFI [rfi-bounces@contesting.com] on behalf of Roger D Johnson
>[n1rj@roadrunner.com]
>Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:50 PM
>To: RFI@contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...
>
>An occasional spot check wouldn't bring world commerce to a halt! If an item
>fails
>and it's found that the mfr left out critical filtering components, the whole
>load goes
>back to China.
>
>On 3/29/2014 3:43 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On 03/21/2014 02:48 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
>>> Do you really think we need more gov't to be involved with inspecting
>>> and testing EVERY item that is made so that it does not hurt people,
>>> cause interference and on and on and on. We would never see another
>>> product brought to market.
>>>
>>> We don't live in a perfect world and expecting something like this with
>>> a gov't that is 17trillion in the hole is crazy.
>> Proactively having the government check everything does seem
>> impractical, indeed.
>>
>> However, putting rules in place that oblige manufacturers
>> and/or importers to replace faulty equipment at their expense
>> (instead of stiffing the consumers) might be a good deterrent
>> to people sticking FCC stickers on untested equipment...
>>
>_______________________________________________
>RFI mailing list
>RFI@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>_______________________________________________
>RFI mailing list
>RFI@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|