UK vs US

[Kappie]

Can someone please explain to me what is the differance between the US spec and the UK spec for TX's?

I was going to buy a TX from ebay, but the seller said it was US spec???

[Ultymate]

The US spec T/Xs are allowed a higher output than us here in Europe indeed I think France may have less than the rest of us but not 100% sure on that. Further to this there are legality/insurance issues if using a T/X without the the correct type markings

[Erfolg]

How do we go on if using say an old 35 Micron or 27 Waltron. Which were all produced before markings?

[Clive Matthews]

I presume that the original question was concerning 2.4 GHz TXs. If not, it's a completely different answer.

 

As a recent convert to 2.4 GHz, I'm slightly puzzled as to the need for 1 Watt EMP which I understand US sets emit. My old eyes struggle to cope with the range I get with 100mw!

 

I have slight concerns about the long term use of low power non ionizing radiation. Effects are only just becoming evident; mobile phone's being our first source of information. In the USA many brain surgeons are seeing increased cases of cancer due to this type of exposure. Therefore, I see the reduced CE output as being a bonus.

Edited By Clive Matthews on 27/03/2009 15:22:31

[Erfolg]

Clive

 

I seldom clamp my transmitter to my ear. When I do, it is not for minutes at a time, nor several times a day.

 

However I am more concerned by radiomagnetic emmissions from Mobile Phone Masts, over head power distribution, emmissions from my old TV .  

 

I am intersted with regard the strength of the transmmissions from Mobile Phones.

 

With regard to the emmissions from USA sets, I would need more information to form an opinion.

 

I always thought CE stickers meant that the device was type approved for the whole of the EU. Am I mistaken, if so, what does it signify.

 

So at the moment would always go for more power.

 

Erfolg

[Clive Matthews]

'So at the moment would always go for more power.'

 

But why? I am getting a range of at least 800 metres. I can't see even my largest planes orientation after that.

 

If one has any concern about non ionizing radiation and already has more than sufficient range, why on earth would they want more emitted power?

 

Don't get me wrong here, I'm happily using 2.4GHz in several applications (such as cooking food!) as well as a mobile phone (which means that I have to accept the need for mobile phone masts). I also work with 10 to 12 GHz microwave transmitters (and never get in the path of those transmissions no matter how attenuated!). I'm not afraid of the technology but am AWARE of the potential dangers as I am sure you are. You might not clamp a TX to your ear, but it won't be far away from your eyes and the roof of your mouth (don't fly with your mouth open). You might also spend 5 hours a day using it.

 

My opinion is that more than 100mw output is completely unnecessary and could be harmful. Simple as that.

[Bryce Allcorn - BritFlight.co.uk]

CE approval is a sticker that means the manufacturer/distributor is stating the item meets the relevant safety standards and (possibly) EMC legislation for that type of product - Bert will be able to add to this.

 

It is not a measure of anything specific and plenty of companies apply the sticker and "self certify" without doing anything, even now.

 

My father designs equipment that is legal in the USA but in the UK it is too powerful and operates on different frequency ranges, i.e. the transmitter for the water meters in the states work on the lower end of the EU mobile phone bandwidth.

 

I used to work with wave guide up to 40Ghz and have seen some pretty nasty burns from very low power amplifiers - due to the frequency and the intensity of the "beam" rather than the power.

 

Regarding USA 2.4Ghz, you may find it operates on a slightly different bandwidth that isn't legal here, you may also find it is more powerful.  If a transmitter has CE marking and UL marking, the chances are it is legal in the USA and Europe, no CE marking then its not legal here.  If a USA transmitter is used here and is on a slightly differnt freq/bandwidth) then it is illegal and you are breaking the law - if anyone found out.

 

 Cheers,

 

 

Bryce.

[Bert]

On my Spektrum stuff the CE mark has an exclamation mark next to it which signifys that it complies with European legislation but not for all member countries.

 

Bert

Edited By Bert on 27/03/2009 19:37:49

[Erfolg]

My prefference to having higher power is based on the premise that if it is safe for the USA it will be safe here. That is from the users perspective.

 

The advantage of power, is that in general it increases the safety margin, in a functional sence. In this case reduces the possability of going out of range.

 

I do hear you say, but I have never lost a plane because it is out of range. Yet in the past I have heard modellers excliaming, my model is not responding. Which may have been a range issue. With higher power this is generally less likely.

 

I do not feel strongly about the issue, other than preffer a universal, level of regulations. Rather than than one set for the USA, one for the EU and another for.................

 

I For my self, I abide by the law, I do question why, and find I do not necessarily agree with all the regulations.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Clive Matthews]

I agree Eric, although the occasions that I have witnessed loss of control have been relatively close to the transmitter and due background 'noise' either from within the model or another TX switching on.

 

Both situations are (if we are to believe all the claims) eliminated with 2.4GHz sets without the need for excessive power. The levels of background noise may be lower at flying sites because the presence of microwave cookers and Wi-Fi hotspots is unlikely.

[Erfolg]

It is the words "excessive power" which I find contengious. Why is it excessive, what is the proof, how do you define excessive adequate.

 

If it is not excessive for the USA, why is it excessive for us. If the French have lower outputs, are ours excessive.

 

Being a "Common Market", why should the regulations differ between countries?

 

A model went in today at our club, on 35, why is not apparent, it could have been loss of signal. It was some distance of at height, when it suddenly went into a spiral dive. I have no proper evidence, yet it could have been a lack of signal, yet again it may have been something else.

[Clive Matthews]

Believe me, I'm not trying to be contentious! I used the word excessive in the context that in my opinion and experience, the output is more than necessary  to achieve a reliable and adequate range.

 

I am expressing an opinion based on that experience, both industrial and hobby. The debate is open to differing opinions, which are welcomed. Who knows, I might change my mind! I have no axe to grind other than those presented opinions.

 

Many models are lost each year at our club. I would say 35MHz and 2.4GHz are used equally. 95% of losses have a traceable cause. Most are pilot error, some are structural failure. Of the causes traced to radio problems nearly all were due to interference with the 35MHz signal. These were mostly from 'on board' noise (electric models). I have seen a model loose signal due to range problems twice, both times the signal was restored when the pilot extended his aerial! One, 2.4GHz, was close in and no cause found, the receiver was replaced by the supplier.

 

There is a huge difference in population density between the USA and most European countries. There IS a problem with background radio noise in densely populated areas and this may well be causing some physiological effects as well as interference. As to the French situation, I have no knowledge.

 

The question which I am asking, is why is more power needed? I qualified this question with the stated opinion that current CE approved equipment has sufficient range for purpose.

 

Forgive me for repeating this; I use a JR 2.4GHz transmitter, it is a CE approved model, it has more range than I can use in flying model aircraft. How would 10 times more power benefit us?

 

[Erfolg]

The trouble with this debate, it is only opinion, no fact, no verifyable data.

 

I can imagine that someone in the USA, stating, in my opinion you really need..., because we have no issues with range, or other related matters......................

 

Just as relevant.

 

If we rely on legislation and codes, then we have nothing to fear from present or the higher USA electro magnetic emmissions from our sets, or phones, etc. as they all comply with the present ICRP recommendations and findings.

 

I have bought my set in the UK, it has its magic sticker and by and large I comply with legislation (as a law abiding citizen).  Yet still would preffer to be able to source my equipment from any where in the world and be confident that it is both safe and legal. We are constantly being told of the benefits of "Free Trade", the "World Economy" etc. This seems an area with artificial barriers.

 

It does seem that harmonisation, should be very simple, for such a small market.

 

With regard to being strictly legal, I have wondered how legal many of the RC toys are that are now freely available. If they are not, "does it matter"  

[Clive Matthews]

Fact - CE marked equipment has sufficient range for purpose.

Fact - You can buy CE marked equipment anywhere in the world.

Fact - Microwaves heats body tissue, that one in the kitchen operates at 2.45GHz! I know that the power is 400 times higher but a candle will burn flesh the same as a blow torch - just slower.

Fact - Corneal burn and skin tissue heating is an established effect from prolonged exposure to microwaves. Where is the aerial on a 2.4GHz transmitter?

 

This is not intended to scaremonger, At the powers we use, we would have to have very prolonged contact to provoke effect. The effects of a day in the sun have far greater danger. I happily use this gear myself. But again I ask, where is the need for more power? You are not addressing this question. I also can very easily imagine someone in the USA stating 'more power is better'. It doesn't mean that it would suit us any better though does it?

 

Like you, I prefer to be free to purchase my equipment anywhere in the world, although the advantage has somewhat diminished recently. There does have to be some control over radio equipment however, for our benefit. And no, a lot of those toys are not legal. How would you feel if your model was 'shotdown' by a non complient TX?

[Bryce Allcorn - BritFlight.co.uk]

Erfolg,

 

The legislations depend on a lot of existing systems and infrastructures,  it isn't a simple as just harmonise the lot...  Radio frequencies are a major point with all this - The USA have their radio frequencies all allocated for specific roles (military, emergency services, phones, ham radio, car alarms, credit card readers, toll booth sensors, the list goes on and on) and its a bit much to change everything just so we can buy a radio transmitter that is legal world wide!

 

For example, many of the old British Standards were harmonised with European Standards and became EN's.  In America many of the standards (called UL) are closely linked to the old BS numbers and more modern EN standards.  Again EMC legislation (which governs transmisison power, noise and much much more) is different in some parts of Europe and the USA - hence why Berts Spektrum radio has a ! after the CE marking.

 

It is as simple to look at distances/speeds in Europe, the USA and the UK, we have miles and yards, Europe has km and meters and the states mostly still use miles - I remember a few years back driving through Ireland and finding some signs in mile, some in Km.

 

And in America they can't even get gallons right!

 

Cheer,

 

Bryce

[Erfolg]

Bryce

 

You sound like a burocrat on the run.

 

We are only talking about one issue, output power.

 

The technical arguments do not merit any further discussion, higher outputs are safe , if you trust in the ICRP.

 

If we are talking free trade and consumer interest, it is a lack of political will and may be commercial self interest.

[Hamish]

Is it possible that across the pond they want to fly by camera which would be a reason for the increased power?

[Erfolg]

Hamish

 

You could well be right, there may be some in the UK or the rest of the world who wish to do the same.

 

If safety is your concern, then recommendations from the ICRP must be a major element, in addition ensuring that your equipments specification is adequate for the envisaged duty. On this score I guess the USA has the edge.

 

Strangely I have to date not been aware of any well documented safety issues from any of the mass market imported toys. Which I would guess are tageted at the world market. That is part of the reason there cost is so attractive.

 

I do not think that the significant reduction the price of the equipment we RC Modellers buy, will get any more into the hobby. Although a few people with toys have turned up at our field. Perhaps 1 in a 100 stick with modelling. Most of those will have been modellers in the past.

 

I have been more concerned from the use of Methanol, and epoxies with regard health than my RC equipment. I do not see the risks as even significant, yet due care and responsible handling is nesessary. Just as a kettle of boiling water has it hazards. Yet a thimble full is the same temperature, but less potential for damage. The difference  in damage between a large thimble and a smaller thimble, are generally not easy to detect, when poured on your hand.

 

Let us get away from scaremongering to defend what may be an adequate transmitter output, relative to a slightly more powerful transmitter, or "it is the law", and see things for what they are, different. The real issues are"does it matter", to whom and why.

 

I want a free market, I guess it would even please manufacturers. People who type approve like regulation, it is how they make money. Some goverments are into control and regulation to a lesser or greater extent. UK distributers probably like things as they are, as it helps define there market and limits competion. So what is in the modellers interest?

[Bryce Allcorn - BritFlight.co.uk]

Why isn't there a banging head against wall smiley?

 

In the USA the rules for EMC and Safety standards allow higher transmission power levels.

 

In Europe it has been deemed that the transmission powers are different (lower), be it for safety of the user or safety due interference etc. 

 

These have nothing to do with allowing or restricting us to fly our planes at a greater range but everything to do with complying with rules set by the relevant authorities - also note that although in the UK we've had these rules for equipment  (which do change upon new technical evidence) but in the USA they didn't for a long time and even then they copied (and modified) ours.

 

Walk round with the antenna from your 2.4 Ghz set in your mouth* (set turned on and throttle open ) for a while and see what happens.

 

If you don't like it then move to the USA or provide full technical evidence that you are correct! 

 

 

*Don't do this, I feel I need to add a subnote just warning you that this could be dangerous.

[Tim Mackey]

This seems to be getting rather complicated and in danger of getting OOH. 

                             The power output of the UK sets is absolutely fine.

                   It can allow a model to be flown far beyond the range of vision.

                 If used correctly there is no evidence of danger to human health

 

What the yanks and the french do is their business.  The End