I used one of the wayback sites to look to see if Hydrofarm had the product
available recently. I didn't find it on their site going back a couple of
months, so they may have discontinued being the distributor some time ago.
Other lighting controllers are equally noisy, but I think it is best to let
this complaint proceed a bit with the FCC.
The older analog ones seem to be quiet enough, but they are less efficient, so
more costly to run. The users of these products are reportedly somewhat
concerned that they identify to law enforcement and thieves that there is a
valuable cash crop available in the house. With some crops, when the timers
are switched to 12-hour cycles, it is even easy to tell that the crop is nearly
ready for harvest.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: RFI [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Cole
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 9:16 AM
To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...
Dale,
I see after the ARRL filed the report to the FCC, that Sears and the Vendor in
CA removed the product from the web sites in very short order!
I have not checked to see if they have put them back.
I can only say thanks to the ARRL for this... If only someone could generate a
hefty fine to both that would send a message!
To the folks that will say there are hundreds of switchers left, yes I am aware
that there are hundreds of switchers out there, but there is now one less, and
the vendors know a bit more about RFI than they did a month ago. That is
progress.
--
Support better RFI practices, please sign this petition:
at Whitehouse.gov
http://wh.gov/lpz5Y
On Sun, 2014-03-30 at 04:24 -0500, Dale J. wrote:
> Ed,
>
> If the manufacturer is required to test the device then the overseeing agency
> should have the right to visit the mfg lab where the testing is performed and
> do an audit of the procedures, watch tests being performed and if procedures
> are followed. Unscheduled visits are also to be permitted and spot checks in
> the field may also be performed, not required, but the possibility would
> exist. This would place a burden on the mfg to assure that testing is
> performed and in a prescribed way, sample sizes, methods, test equip. etc.
>
> I don't believe this would require an army of agency personnel to carry this
> out. Just the fact that it's in place would send a message. Of course the
> penalty for non-compliance would be enormous, both monitory and criminal
> negligence for those who knowingly broke the law with intent to deceive. This
> after all could constitute a safety issue.
>
> This business of allowing manufacturers to simply test something without any
> oversight and just because they say it's good is like allowing a fox to
> manage a chicken coop. They probably don't do any testing at all, just take
> our word for it's good, ya right.
>
> As for product that's shipped from overseas, the receiving company would be
> responsible for the testing and would be under the same rules and penalty as
> on shore mfg.'s.
>
> This is not rocket science.
>
> 73
> Dale, k9vuj
>
>
>
>
> On 29, Mar 2014, at 20:40, "Hare, Ed W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org> wrote:
>
> > 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
_______________________________________________
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
|