Regulatory and CE mark discussions

This and subsequent posts appeared on the HC-11 and HC-12 thread. As they were causing that thread to diverge from its specific topic they were separated out -

http://www.picaxeforum.co.uk/showthread.php?28893-HC-11-and-HC-12-transceiver-modules/page12

-----

Hi,

I'm no expert on these matters but AFAIK, the default 433 MHz carrier frequency is not "Legal" (i.e. Licence Exempt) in North America (including Canada) at any significant power level. The Licence Exempt bands are around 315 and 915 MHz (and of course 2.4 GHz).

As far as the UK is concerned, the introduction to the document in post #54 states that it gives only "minimum" requirements and is not intended to contradict the requrements of (a large number of) other listed specifications. Also, I note that page 29 is part of the section headed "Industrial / Commercial Telemetry and Telecommand". Now you may be able to claim that your application falls into the "Telemetry and Telecommand" category, but I rather doubt if you can claim it to be an "Industrial or Commercial" use ?

Cheers, Alan.

AllyCat said:

I rather doubt if you can claim it to be an "Industrial or Commercial" use ?

Click to expand...

um ... I'll have to think about that one

Thought: Canadian GMRS/FRS (General Mobile/Family Radio Service) regs. allow a licence & fee free 2-way radio service over 22 UHF channels on 462 or 467 MHz - details below. Transmitters can be up to 2 W.

However, & in contrast to our "down under" UHF CB regulations, US/Can. GMRS/FRS regs. seem extremely involved. Garmin's "Rino" is GMRS legal, but data or even DIY hobbiest type comms. may not be permitted?

But FWIW, & arising from the HC-12's generous 400kHz (= .4MHz) spaced setting spread, I note that HC-12 Ch. 74 matches on 462.600 MHz with GMRS Ch. 17 (aka. "600" ).

Stan.

FYI.
Radio Controlled Models are allocated, as well as other freq's,

458.5 to 459.5 General 100mw 15ch

Source - https://www.largemodelassociation.com/resources/legal-model-frequencies-in-uk/

Neil.

Hi,

Firstly, those frequencies are specifically for "model control" (so IMHO not garage door openers or telemetry, etc.) and the link leads to this Ofcom document which states (ao):

The use of the specific frequencies used for model control is exempt from the requirement to hold a Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (WT Act) providing that the apparatus meets the conditions of the IR2030. In addition the equipment must be lawfully CE marked and comply with all relevant EU directives. Apparatus that complies with the totality of the regulations do not require a licence to operate.

Use of equipment that does not meet the conditions of the licence exemption is an offence under the WT Act. ......

Note also, most of the recent replies have been in response to the (Canadian) request in #106 :

Can anyone post code that succesfully communicates between 2 HC-12 both set at factory configuration?

Cheers, Alan.

AllyCat said:

Firstly, those frequencies are specifically for "model control"

Click to expand...

Not only, but also...


That's the definition of a Heating Control System, for a rough-built worker's cottage, if ever I saw one

Him as well said:

In addition the equipment must be lawfully CE marked and comply with all relevant EU directives.

Click to expand...

That's more problematic...(not the EU bit, as obviously we can just ignore that now!) . I thought "CE" standards compliance was only for stuff you sell. Having to have your entire project tested (because there are no certificates for the components you've used i.e. HC-12 / SI4464) could be a bit pricey!

Isn't it ridiculous that government can take something so technical and well defined and muck it up so many ways?

CE compliance took over from UK certification.

In the past (before the EU) almost all radio transmitting equipment was tested and approved to UK standards (usually British Standards, but occasionally some others) . These standards covered things like electrical safety, EMC compatibility (i.e the ability to cause interference to other equipment or be susceptible to interference from other equipment). Approval exempt equipment was limited back then, mainly to stuff that radio amateurs built (and most amateurs built their own rigs back then) and therefore the old City and Guild Radio Amateurs Examination (which I used to teach, years ago) was aimed at ensuring that all licensed amateurs had enough technical knowledge to build safe "transmitting apparatus" that would not emit out-of-band transmissions. Much of the technical content of the Radio Amateurs Handbook and the work of the Radio Society of Great Britain was concerned with interference suppression, including helping neighbours overcome problems within their own receiving equipment.

We lost all control of approvals when we accepted EU law. I sat on a few EU regulatory committees, and generally they were dominated by the interests of industry and that of the EU to encourage free trade within the EU. Safety wasn't high on the list of priorities, and the old UK systems where standards were based on the need for safe equipment that functioned correctly and didn't interfere with other equipment was turned into a set of regulations designed to reduce cost for EU manufacturers, increase costs for non-EU manufacturers, and therefore removed the need for independent testing on a great deal of equipment and privatise what had, in the UK, been a government-managed system of safety oversight (remember the Kite mark?).

The end result is that the majority of Far Eastern made products that carry a CE mark have never been subjected to the sort of safety and performance testing that a UK approved product would have. I used to manage an EMC and LV Directives test and approval lab (a Notified Body in EU-speak) and can say with absolute certainty that every single item of Far Eastern manufactured equipment we ever tested for Trading Standard failed. Most were potentially lethal, all carried the CE mark. Trading Standards admitted that they doubted they caught more than 1% of what was being imported, and that's borne out by checks I've made on stuff bought from Ebay. All of the mains-powered stuff, without exception, that I've ever bought on Ebay has not been compliant with the LVD. Some has been lethal, with no double insulation, no earth, live and neutrals crossed (like my Chinese made lathe, where the fuse was in the neutral, until I rewired it to make it safe!).

My conclusion is that the CE mark is a complete joke and cannot be even vaguely trusted to show that something is compliant. It's faked far, far more often than it is used legitimately, IMHO.

Home made equipment that isn't sold to others is exempt from the need for approval and marking, but not from the need to show compliance, as I understand it. This means you can build your own system and as long as you are confident that it complies with the regs (mainly just the Low Voltage Directive if mains powered, plus the Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive if it can emit or be susceptible to any form of EM radiation) you should be OK. If you believe that the components you have incorporated into your item of equipment are compliant then I'm pretty sure you're OK.

1 - Running off 3 Duracell AA's, started off at 4.74v
2 - Running off a 2600maH 18650 LiPo, started off at 4.14v
3 - Running off a 1430maH new & unused iPhone 4s LiPo, started off at 4.14v

1 & 2 have been running for 12 days now.
1 is down to 4.12v from 4.74v.
2 is down to 3.89v from 4.14v.
3 has only been running for a day (following timing changes with code, reduced the post TX delay to 100ms from 250ms on 1 & 2).

No 1 is in the garage, approx 30m away through 2 brick walls.
No 2 is close to 100m away in a neighbours garden.
No 3 is in the house, probably only about 10m away.

Click to expand...

An update to my post from a while ago.

No1 (duracells) lasted for approx 33.5 days to 3.5v
No2 (2600mAh LiPo) lasted for approx 35 days to 3.5v

No3 never reached low batt as I re-wrote the 08M2 S/W to include power saving (sleeps).

The PIR modules (BISS0001 based) I was using were left overs from a project from 5 years ago
2 out of the 3 were pulling 3mA when idle - supposed to be < 60uA. Those two have now gone in the bin.

All 3 now running newer code with PIR's drawing < 60uA.

As for the Government mucking up the rules - this is the UK !, where any government body excels at screwing & over complicating things.

Neil.

My view is that if you live somewhere where you're unlikely to cause interference to anyone, stick to using low power transmitters with a relatively low gain antenna and only transmit short bursts of data relatively infrequently (say 30 seconds or more between data transmissions, then I'd not be overly worried about being strictly legal. There are many tens of thousands of imported radio link thermostats, weather stations, door bells, replacement remote control door and gate openers etc around that almost certainly aren't legal or correctly approved, anyway, despite carrying the correct markings. A look around Ebay will show hundreds of replacement remote control switches and controllers, aimed at replacing the (rather expensive) proprietary ones that things like roller doors come with, and there's a very good chance that a large proportion of them are not legal to use in the UK.

As an example, we had a roller garage door fitted a couple of years ago. I didn't want an electric one or remote control, but it's near-impossible to buy a manual one, and when I did find a supplier prepared to sell a manual version it was more expensive than the electric model. It came with two remote controls, that use rolling code encryption, operate on 868 MHz and appear to be correctly CE marked. I lost one, and called the supplier for the price for a replacement remote. It was round £70. After a lot of hunting around I found that there was no after market programmable remote that would work with the door we had bought (the after market programmable remotes are around £40, so worth looking at if you can find one that works with your door).

What I did find were people selling complete replacement receiver and remote kits, with two new remotes, for around £30. I bought one of these kits and it was easy to fit, uses Keyloq rolling code encryption and is as good as (from an operational and security perspective) as the original remote system. Out of curiosity I did some digging around into this kit and found that none of the parts are approved. It has a CE mark (faked) and when I looked at the actual frequency transmitted I found that it was 315 MHz, not that "clean" and way outside any of the UK licence-exempt device frequency allocations. This was sold by a UK seller, but is clearly using a radio link that was designed (I think) for the US market (I think 315 MHz is OK in the US for this application).

Given the clear evidence that there are a lot of unlawful low power devices around, I suspect that using an HC-11 or HC-12 on any of the lower 4 channels, with a relatively low power transmission (in ERP terms) is almost certainly going to be OK, in that I doubt very much that it would cause any interference (and so get noticed) and even if it was noticed there is near-zero chance that anything at all would be done about it.

CE mark discussions

Jeremy Harris said:

My conclusion is that the CE mark is a complete joke and cannot be even vaguely trusted to show that something is compliant. It's faked far, far more often than it is used legitimately, IMHO

Click to expand...

I would agree with that, CE is mostly ignored in the 'far east' and by a fair few small manufacturers of hobby stuff in the EU.

Home made equipment that isn't sold to others is exempt from the need for approval and marking, but not from the need to show compliance, as I understand it.

Click to expand...

I dont think that is the case, it would be unworkable plus ReV Ed would no longer have a buisiness.

srnet said:

I dont think that is the case, it would be unworkable plus ReV Ed would no longer have a buisiness.

Click to expand...

What I meant was that home made equipment that is not to be sold to others is exempt from the need for approval and marking, but should still be designed to be compliant with the regs and laws, not that there was any need for that compliance to be tested or proved in any way (unless there was an incident, perhaps).

For example, I use a Picaxe to control my J1772 compliant electric car charging point. The charging points (I've built three now) are required to be compliant with a few laws and regulations, in particular the LV Directive as well as the J1772 protocol for signalling to and from the car on-board charger, having the correct safety interlocks (defined in the J1772 protocol) and residual current fault detection, as well as double pole isolation should the car request power-off or a fault be detected.

I only use these chargers myself (two at different locations at home, one on a very long charging lead that will plug in to a 13 A socket). Building and using them was perfectly legal, as long as I ensured that they complied with the law that applies (the LV Directive and the 17th Edition Wiring Regulations). Compliance with the J1772 protocol was primarily about functionality, and I don't think there is a law that applies, but nevertheless the safety isolation elements of that were things I considered essential to adhere to, as well as just allowing the signalling wire to switch the remote (at the point where power comes from) contactor.

My interpretation of the regulations and law is that as long as I have designed the unit to be compliant and applied due diligence in the design of the hardware and software such that the finished units comply with all the relevant regulations and law, then I am not required to actually have it independently tested and approved. As it happens I did have it semi-tested, in that I got an electrician friend to do an inspection and electrical safety check on the first one I made, so I'm confident that the design and construction of this unit would pass the relevant approval tests, even though it doesn't have to.

Jeremy Harris said:

should still be designed to be compliant with the regs and laws

Click to expand...

Should (as in a good bit of advice) or must (as in a legal requirement) ?

I am not all convinced that the directives apply in general to DIY electrical\electronic stuff, where is this stated ?

You cite the 17th Edition Wiring 'Regulations' but whilst they are called 'Regulations' they are not law as such.

Sorry, still not clear enough. "Should" as in should, not "shall". This is my third go at saying the same thing, that there is NO legal requirement for formal approval for any home made kit.

With regard to good practice in regulations, then there is some good practice that is law, and must be complied with and some that isn't law and need not be complied with. However, failure to comply with the wiring regs isn't sensible in any way, shape or form, and could find you in court on a criminal charge very easily, for a host of different reasons. As a sideline, I work for the court, as an expert witness. People are charged with negligence, or even gross negligence, when things go wrong and they are found to be wholly, or partly, culpable by not having complied with things like the wiring regs. They may not be on the Statute Book, but that does not lessen their power when a person, by virtue of evidence given as to their competence in a particular subject, fails to follow them and an incident results.

Many posting here have, unwittingly, given evidence of their competence (or otherwise, perhaps). This is exactly the sort of evidence that may be presented in court to demonstrate that an individual may have a duty of care that extends beyond that expected of a member of the general public with no expertise in the subject of the case. We're straying off-topic here, but it is an important point.

The first time I gave evidence in a case involving negligence, I questioned the definition of a "competent person" with respect to someone who proffers free advice to another. The barrister who had requested my assistance, explained to me using a hypothetical case. A man is working on his car and is trying to change the brake pads. His next door neighbour is a vehicle technician. The neighbour offers advice over the fence on how to do the job. The vehicle technician never touches the car, he only offers verbal advice. The man follows his neighbours advice, but makes an error that he doesn't spot. The following day his brakes fail and he is killed in the ensuing accident. The vehicle technician neighbour is successfully prosecuted for gross negligence (what used to be called gross negligence manslaughter) and is given a lengthy prison sentence.

The moral here is that following regulations, even when they are not Statute Law, is a wise and sensible thing to do, as anyone one of us could be deemed to be a competent person by virtue of what we write here, elsewhere or by other evidence (I once saw a case where being in possession of a comprehensive set of specialised tools that had clearly been used by the defendant was used as evidence of competence).

You may have noted that I always give very clear warnings on any project I post here that involves working with voltages above the lower limit of the LV Directive. I do that for a very good reason - I know that by writing about such a project here I am making a reasonable case for demonstrating in court that I am a competent person to some degree, and could therefore be at significantly greater risk of finding myself charged with negligence, hence the warnings. Those warnings have no legal standing in the UK (a "hold harmless" condition is unfair under UK law, although perhaps not elsewhere), but they might be considered by the court as an indication that my intent was to ensure that no one without the required degree of competence should follow those instructions. As always, the court has to decide on what is and is not reasonable under the circumstances, as there is no legal definition as to what "reasonable" means (it's the "man on the Clapham Omnibus" legal point).

It is worth adding that Rev Ed, by hosting this site, carry virtually no responsibility for the content; that responsibility rests almost wholly with the person posting it, who is, in law, the author and the publisher (I had occasion to test this very point a few months ago).

Jeremy Harris said:

This is my third go at saying the same thing, that there is NO legal requirement for formal approval for any home made kit.

Click to expand...

No, that is clearly understood.

Whilst there is no requirement for formal (CE) approval for DIY stuff, are you saying you are breaking the law and can be prosecuted if your DIY project does not comply with the appropropraite directives ?

srnet said:

No, that is clearly understood.

Whilst there is no requirement for formal (CE) approval for DIY stuff, are you saying you are breaking the law and can be prosecuted if your DIY project does not comply with the appropropraite directives ?

Click to expand...

No, not at all.

What is clear is that you are responsible for any home made project, including its safety, and if you can show that you have made every reasonable attempt to ensure that what you have made complies with all the applicable regulations and laws (accepting that the 17th Ed is a regulation but that the LVD is law) then there is a lower probability of you finding yourself charged with negligence, or even gross negligence, if something goes wrong and you would have a fairly strong defence if you were charged.

For a criminal case to be brought against you it all hinges on whether or not the CPS think that there are enough grounds to show that you have been negligent, and the degree of that negligence would determine both the charge and the possible outcome. As someone who has been shown to have a degree of competence with things electrical, then the risk of prosecution is greater than for someone where there is no, or very little, evidence of competence. This is just because the law places a greater burden of responsibility, in terms of duty of care, on someone who is considered to have a degree of competence in the case subject than it does on someone who is less competent.

Given the litigious nature of our society, and the growth of "no win, no fee" legal services, there is also a significant risk of a civil action being brought in the event of an incident. The burden of proof in the civil courts (where I spend most time, with insurance cases mainly) is much lower than that in the criminal courts. This means that the case will be decided on the balance of probability as to a negligent action, rather than beyond reasonable doubt, and I've yet to see anyone not be found liable to some degree on the 50 or 60 cases where I've given evidence over the years (although 90% of those have been settled out of court, usually just before the final hearing).

The example I used above, of the J1772 protocol EVSE using a Picaxe, is a project I've deliberately not published here, because I have concerns about my liability if I were to do so. The reason is that it's unlawful to install a new external power circuit without Part P sign off, and there are very few electricians with the accreditation to inspect, test and sign off third party work. In my case I had the external circuits that I had fitted connected and tested by a Part P accredited electrician, who issued me with the required certificate that I lodged with my building control body, so it was then OK for me to connect to the load side of the remote DP RCBO in my EVSE that the electrician had already signed off (load side DIY work on an "existing" external circuit is OK).

If I was to publish my design for a J1772 EVSE here then there would be a risk that someone might think they were competent enough to install it, make an error and then have a bit of kit that has a very real possibility of presenting an electric shock risk. The protocol requires that the DP contactor that isolates power to the lead that connects to the vehicle be at the EVSE end and that there are safety interlocks that stop the contactor from operating unless the EVSE has signalled its maximum current capability to the vehicle, that the vehicle has responded by loading the pilot to the level required to signal that it's safe to turn power on, that the contactor turns off when the latch on the vehicle charge connector is pressed (so there is no power on when the connector is removed) and also that the EVSE can detect when the signal pilot wire in the lead is unusually loaded, for example by the connector being disconnected from the vehicle but dropped in a puddle of conductive liquid. There are a lot of potential failure modes, both in the hardware and the Picaxe software, and whilst I'm happy with the level of testing and validation I've done, I'm not 100% sure that I'd want anyone else to build a replica of my units and use my code, just in case there is a flaw that I've not yet spotted.

I think all this needs to be put back into perspective with regard to this thread's subject, which is primarily about the legality and risk from a low power radio link. Ignoring any attached equipment that the link may control (as that may have a plethora of safety issues related to the integrity of the link, or may have virtually none) then the real issue is whether a criminal case, or civil claim, might arise from building a home made radio device that operates with a non-CE marked low power transceiver, like the HC-11 or HC-12. My personal view is that the chances of any significant harm being caused by an HC-12 being operated at a notionally lawful 8dBm, or a very slightly unlawful 11 dBm, using channels 1 to 4, is vanishingly low. From the investigative work that others have done these modules seem to be fairly clean (in terms of out of band emissions) and unless there was some significant incident that could be tied positively to the use of these modules I find it hard to see how any case could be made for action in any court.

Jeremy Harris said:

Home made equipment that isn't sold to others is exempt from the need for approval and marking, but not from the need to show compliance, as I understand it.

Click to expand...

The pharase used to describe where CE marking and the directives apply is for 'products placed on the market', see the various definitions here;

http://www.ce-marking.com/what-is-a-manufacturer.html

It would seem unlikly that a 14 Year old in a school joined up a 08M2 and a HC12 is putting or even intends to put the project 'on the market'.

srnet said:

The pharase used to describe where CE marking and the directives apply is for 'products placed on the market', see the various definitions here;

http://www.ce-marking.com/what-is-a-manufacturer.html

It would seem unlikly that a 14 Year old in a school joined up a 08M2 and a HC12 is putting or even intends to put the project 'on the market'.

Click to expand...

We're saying exactly the same thing here.

All I'm doing is adding that just because there is lo legal requirement to have something tested, approved and CE marked does not mean there is no obligation on the part of the person building the item to try and ensure it complies, not because the law says they must, but because doing so reduces the risk of being found culpable in the event of an incident.

Clearly there is a very broad range of things being home built, from something as simple as an 08M2 driving an HC-12 to send data that flashes LEDs or operates a display at the remote end, through to something like someone using a Picaxe connected to an HC-12 to remotely control a 15 tonne excavator. The first would require little more than a cursory check, the latter would need a great deal more testing, code validation, etc, not only to work properly, but to ensure it was safe. The easy way to reduce liability in the latter case is to try to adhere to the approval standards that apply, even though there is no legal need to do so. By doing this, the designer/builder can use this in any defence they may have to make if there was to be an incident, as well as reducing the probability of an incident in the first place.

The key here is that we, on this forum, have no way of knowing what anyone is going to do with any device, or their level of understanding of the risks involved. At the educational level, risk assessments will be undertaken and projects designed such that the risks are acceptable for the age and experience group in the class.

In the hobby area, things are very different. I'm currently using a Picaxe to measure true AC power at our incoming mains connection (bidirectionally, as we have a big solar panel array) and transmitting data via the (now obsolete) ERF modules to other Picaxe control units that have solid state relays switching loads of a few kW at 240V AC. Clearly there are significant risks with such a project, risks which I mitigated by reading the relevant regs and laws and applying them, and testing to them, even though there was no legal requirement for me to do so. I did this simply to reduce my own degree of liability, as the documents for the unit I wrote include details of all the testing undertaken, in the hope that they could support any defence I may have to make if things went awry and I ended up in court.

Jeremy Harris said:

My conclusion is that the CE mark is a complete joke and cannot be even vaguely trusted to show that something is compliant.

Click to expand...

CE marking is a means of self-certifying that a product is compliant with all relevant standards. A CE mark does not prove compliance but establishes a breach of law when certified as such and it is not.

Manufacturers could always produce products with false marking and false certification, could present things as if they were compliant or certified when they were not.

Even if everything we purchased had to go via an independent testing house before we got it in our hands, there would be ways to bypass that.

EU member states collectively chose a self-certification approach to compliance rather than a more authoritarian regime. There will be pros and cons to whatever had been chosen.

hippy said:

CE marking is a means of self-certifying that a product is compliant with all relevant standards. A CE mark does not prove compliance but establishes a breach of law when certified as such and it is not.

Manufacturers could always produce products with false marking and false certification, could present things as if they were compliant or certified when they were not.

Even if everything we purchased had to go via an independent testing house before we got it in our hands, there would be ways to bypass that.

EU member states collectively chose a self-certification approach to compliance rather than a more authoritarian regime. There will be pros and cons to whatever had been chosen.

Click to expand...

I agree, but the sheer volume of electrical products with fake CE marks is now staggering.

I've almost completed building a new house, and as it's a "zero energy" house (in fact, it's a "negative energy" house) I wanted to fit low power lighting everywhere. As LED lighting is very variable in terms of efficiency, light colour, illumination effectiveness etc, I purchased loads of sample lights and power supplies. primarily so that we could choose which would best suit each room.

All were made in China, it turns out (even ones purchased from Germany, in the hope they might be of better quality). All were CE marked. None were compliant with the LV Directive and the majority of the power supplies caused so much radio interference that there is no way that they complied with the EMC Directive either.

Some of these LEDs came from well-known High Street stores (and to give them credit, when I took them back with evidence of non-compliance with the stated approval they did all withdraw them from sale). Some came from online suppliers, who, without exception, refused to do anything about the non-compliance, with many saying it wasn't their fault (in law it is, but I couldn't be bothered to argue the point with them all). Some came from specialist lighting stores, and some reacted positively, others said they would "look into it".

I know this is just one type of product, but some of the compliance failures were lethal. I had some GU10 LED downlights that, depending on how they were plugged in to the socket, had a 50:50 chance of the alloy case being connected directly to mains live!

Perhaps we'd have seen the same degree of fake marking if we'd retained the requirement for BS approval and Kite marking, I don't know. All I do know is that this experience has made me exceptionally wary of any electrical item from any source, that carries a CE mark.


PS: I resolved all the LED lighting issues by finding a very good Chinese supplier of bare LED low voltage lighting units, and then buying UK made power supplies for them that were compliant with the marked approval.