>I certainly agree. And I can see that I made a BIG mistake in one of my
>previous post by saying something unfounded about the engineers at the ARRL.
>Based on these discussions, I was way off base about the engineering staff
>at the ARRL. It's pretty obvious by these post that they know their stuff
>AND they also care.
>Tom/W4BQF
Thanks, Tom. I must admit, I was a bit surprised to see some of the
assumptions, but I thought
back to the mental image I had of ARRL HQ before I started working there, and
I can understand.
The best way to correct misunderstandings is with information, and when it
comes to the ARRL Lab,
I am always willing to provide! Let me offer this as the first of 3 posts that
will talk about the
experience of the HQ engineering staff, the ARRL Lab test equipment and
methods used and a brief
overview of the ARRL Product Review process.
I will discuss it more in a post about the test methods and equipment, but in
all cases, ARRL
then and now knew the limits of its test equipment and always ensured that the
equipment under
test had results that were below those limits, indicating that we had measured
the product, not the
test fixture.
I was hired at ARRL in 1986 as its test engineer, so I have done the job that
Mike Tracy is presently
doing. Though not a degreed engineer, I had been employed as a test engineer
for about the previous
15 years, designing test fixtures and software to test analog and digital
integrated circuits in production
and quality-control environments. I had also recently supervised a team of QC
technicians, doing
mechanical and electrical testing of components to finished product in
cable-television RF/fiber system
environment. Prior to that, I had a strong background as an electronics
technician, with a strong
emphasis on troubleshooting, so that on-the-job experience has given me years
of practical experience
figuring out what can go wrong.
When I started at ARRL HQ, the test process was rather limited, and over the
years of being test
engineer, I made continuing improvements and additions to the test methods and
test suite. At the
time, it was not very well documented, but having the same engineer doing all
of the tests ensured that
the tests were all done to the same method. Naturally, as the current Lab
Dad, I continue to bring my
years of experience to bear on the Product Review testing process. I stick my
nose into the screen
room often, as any manager will do (I am a proponent of MBWA -- management by
walking around),
and often consult as a fellow test engineer any time there is a testing issue.
I did the test-engineering job for about 4 years, when we hired Mike Gruber,
W1MG, to do the test
engineering job. Mike came to ARRL with a BSEE and about 15 years of
engineering experience,
most of it in a test-engineering environment in the aerospace industry. I was
tasked with training Mike
and over the years, I served as an experienced resource to him when any
testing questions came up.
Mike continued to build on my work and progress, further refining test methods
and -- most
important -- fully documenting the test methods in a test-procedures manual.
Mike left our employ to go
back to aerospace, but he has recently rejoined us as ARRL's "RFI" engineer,
so his significant
experience is once again an in-house resource.
Our current test engineer is Mike Tracy, KC1SX. Mike holds an ASEE and is
currently working
towards a BSEE at the University of Hartford. Mike's previous experience is in
the power-supply
industry, where he worked as a test technician for analog and switch-mode
power supplies. He has
been ARRL's test engineer for about 6 years now, if memory serves, and has
also continued to develop
and improve tests and the test-procedures manual.
We also have Zack Lau, W1VT. Zack also comes to us with a BSEE. Though we
hired him right out
of college, the man is absolutely brilliant when it comes to RF and he is an
important resource to us in
all areas of the ARRL Lab responsibility. Just as one test-related example,
we were asked by our DC
office to provide some field tests of the interference potential of IEEE
802.11a devices on 5.6 GHz.
Unfortunately, the 5.6 GHz stuff is all high power and high cost, so we were
not able to get a system
into the Lab to create the on-the-air signals we needed. On a Monday, I talked
to Zack about this and
by Thursday, he had a transverter designed and built that took an IEEE 802.11a
5.2 GHz card and
moved it up to 5.6 GHz, so we could do the testing.
In addition to the HQ staff, ARRL also maintains a cadre of technical
advisors, formal and informal,
that we rely on heavily for technical input on all sorts of issues. The League
can't afford to hire the
likes of Ulrich Rohde, for example, but the likes of Ulrich can and do work
closely with our staff. He
has given us lots of sage advice -- and test equipment -- on our test methods,
as have a number of the
manufacturers.
When you put this combination together, for testing the types of commercially
manufactured amateur
equipment, there is no doubt in my mind that the team is world class! Some of
the IARU societies do
testing to a similar level as that done by ARRL, although I believe that ARRL
does testing more often
than the others. Although I am sure there are engineers more familiar with
specific tests on specific
products, I don't believe that anyone in the world has more current experience
in testing the wide range
of products and testing types than does Mike Tracy! And when you add to that
the years and years of
testing experience that is in the Lab right now between me, Mike, Mike and
Zack, coupled with the help
we get from low friends in high places everywhere, I think that we have a team
and capabilities that
we can both be proud to support as a member!
BTW, the test-procedures manaual is available for download from the
product-review area on the
ARRL members-only web site, btw, and if anyone reading this list is not a
member, if you email me at
w1rfi@arrl.org, I will send you a non-member URL where it can be downloaded.
(I keep a copy in my
working area on the ARRL web site, so I can share it with manufacturers or
engineering colleagues on
the several industry committees on which I serve). This document is among the
finest of its kind in the
world, IMHO, outlining the test equipment used and the documenting the
procedures step by step. If
memory serves, it is over 150 pages long at this point, outlining a rather
impressive test battery!
Tonight, I will put together a description of the overall Product Review
process, with emphasis on the
way the ARRL Lab does testing within that process. Maybe when we are all done,
we can have an
appendix to the test procedures manual and an FAQ file I can use when the
subject inevitably comes
up again. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab Manager
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
Email: w1rfi@arrl.org
|