Cheap Chinese AIS Transponder

[Bi111ion]

I was wondering if the same product turned up in a better known brand. The HP-33 has the same case and similar interface to the HP-33 A but without AIS Tx/Rx. The case and the interface looks very similar to the
Furuno GP-33, SBAS GPS with firmware differences such as supporting Furuno's propitiatory CAN protocol. Pictures of the
rear of this product (the US model here so not CE marked) show that it is made in China. The EU one is
http://www.force4.co.uk/11014/Furuno-GP-33-GPS.html£430 on force4. Perhaps in the same factory as the Matsutec HP-33. The same case and similar software is used on the Furuno RD33 Remote Display. I would not be surprised if the HP-33 A comes out as a Furuno model soon as their integrated GPS/AIS is monochrome and looks a bit dated as far as I can see.

 

[AngusMcDoon]

I was wondering if the same product turned up in a better known brand.

I would agree with you. As I said right back at the beginning, I expect the price of AIS transponders from mainstream manufacturers to tumble before long, and this is a contributory reason, as well as larger uptake. For the Solent anti-AIS brigade (which I can understand), the clutter will only get worse.

 

[nigelmercier]

... it is likely that such a bit of kit will eventually be badge engineered into another product...

...The case and the interface looks very similar to the...

Bingo!

 

[st599]

I don't use this forum very much but I am not sure what is going on. It has been determined that the unit in question is CE marked. Why are people still arguing about importing non-compliant ones? Is there someone selling even cheaper AIS transceivers that are not CE marked? Are people just reading some of the posts and reacting to them with out reading the thread. I have heard it said that the internet is mainly for arguing with strangers but this seems to be taking it to extremes.

The Conformite Europeene CE mark looks the same as the China Export CE mark. Is it the correct CE mark on the unit?

 

[st599]

As you are obviously referring to me, I'll reply. I did not say than any Chinese transponder will send out erroneous messages. That is just your inferring a meaning that I neither said nor intended to mean. I said that an untested one could if it was made with substandard components, and gave a good example of how that could happen. As the OP confirmed that the device under question is CE marked (and almost certainly FCC as well) many posts back, it appears that there is no AIS transponder made that is not appropriately tested, so that's why they operate as they should - i.e conformance testing working to keep the airwaves in order.

We both agree that conformance testing is essential for a transmitting device. I accept that the device in question is tested and conformant. I also accept that FCC testing is equally as good, although the reason why I discussed CE is because that is the regime operating where the OP is importing the device into, so I don't see the need to discuss FCC. So as far as I can see we have no disagreement.

CE Conformance testing wouldn't test against the AIS spcifications - they're ITU specs, the CE only tests against relevant European Engineering Notes. I could easily build a TV transmitter that could legitimately have both a CE stamp and the relevant R&TTE test reports but never be able to be viewed on any TV known to man.

 

[AngusMcDoon]

CE Conformance testing wouldn't test against the AIS spcifications - they're ITU specs, the CE only tests against relevant European Engineering Notes. I could easily build a TV transmitter that could legitimately have both a CE stamp and the relevant R&TTE test reports but never be able to be viewed on any TV known to man.

I agree that CE conformance testing won't test against the AIS specification, but the R&TTE will check the radio power output and frequency stability, which is what you would expect a transmitter to be tested against so that it doesn't cause interference on other channels. I agree a tested one could output burble at the right power and frequency. That would then be a trading standards issue.

 

[Bi111ion]

The Conformite Europeene CE mark looks the same as the China Export CE mark. Is it the correct CE mark on the unit?

Again, yes it is the correct mark (see video and eg Wikipedia for a comparison, the cert is aso clear it is EU compliance). Some of us are looking in to how you authenticate a CE compliance certificate, as that seems worth knowing.

 

[nigelmercier]

Again, yes it is the correct mark (see video and eg Wikipedia for a comparison, the cert is aso clear it is EU compliance). Some of us are looking in to how you authenticate a CE compliance certificate, as that seems worth knowing.

Bill sent me the CE certificate, I've uploaded it as an image (quite large so left as a link on purpose, I've already reduced it to 50%)

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j54/nigelmercier/CE_zpsbd15d9e3.png~original

It looks genuine to me, an obvious scan of a document.

 

[st599]

Again, yes it is the correct mark (see video and eg Wikipedia for a comparison, the cert is aso clear it is EU compliance). Some of us are looking in to how you authenticate a CE compliance certificate, as that seems worth knowing.

There is no central database. You apply for CE via a Notified Body which has applied for and been appointed as a test centre by the EC (not the EU - there are hundreds of them).

The list of tests centres is called Europa Nando.

You need to read the guidance to see which Directives are relevant for the CE mark.

To check if the certificate is valid you need to find out which Notified Body the certificate is issued by,

Then you check that the NB can test against all the relevant Directives.

Then you need to contact the NB to see if the certificate is genuine.

 

[st599]

The test house "Toby" seem to have been granted a licence by "TUV Rheinland China" - if that's authentic (and I'm not saying it isn't, I don't know) and they cover all the directives, you should be good to go.

 

[BruceDanforth]

Here are the required standards I think:

http://www.allaboutais.com/index.php/en/standards/standards-of-ais

 

[Bi111ion]

Here are the required standards I think:

http://www.allaboutais.com/index.php/en/standards/standards-of-ais

Hmm the test certificate is about electromagnetic compatibility. Maybe that is what CE conformity tests for. The documentation with it claims it meets various IEC and ITU standards. Is there a different testing process for this? To be fair the Furuno web site doe not give much more info about its AIS class B transponder - just a list of IEC and ITU standards.

It is true that the AIS protocol is much more critical in its implementation than other marine devices such as DSC (even EPIRB is simpler although frequency stability is critical). The AIS protocol need to obey complicated rules and have very accurate timing so the possibility to screw up in firmware is greater. That said I am not aware of any reports of problems with faulty designs in AIS systems.

It is even quite likely that they all bought the software for the AIS protocol from the same source (or a very few sources). There are specialist firms such as Fidus http://www.fidus.com/product-development/development-portfolio/ who write AIS firmware for software defined radios. I suspect that it is not the sort of thing where companies are reimplementing it themselves. As said before on this thread they are more likely to skimp on the radio frequency amplifier and careless analogue design. But in modern electronics making a good 3W VHF transceiver is not really that taxing.

 

[BruceDanforth]

The standards quoted on the CE certificate 'harmonise' other standards to an extent but you'd need to cross check exactly which. I think the standards mentioned on allaboutais.com go beyond simple EMC as some are specific to AIS but I've not been able to obtain the full texts for free. You may be able to get them through your university library if interested - they will probably describe the tests in detail.

 

[AngusMcDoon]

Hmm the test certificate is about electromagnetic compatibility. Maybe that is what CE conformity tests for. The documentation with it claims it meets various IEC and ITU standards. Is there a different testing process for this? To be fair the Furuno web site doe not give much more info about its AIS class B transponder - just a list of IEC and ITU standards.

I would expect that it needs be tested against the R&TTE conformance test as well as it's an intentional transmitter. I seem to remember that all intentional transmitters have to be tested against the low voltage one too irrespective of their voltage used, but I'm not sure if I recollect that correctly. EMC compatibility is a given for just about everything that uses electrickery in a switching way (i.e. containing electronics, but not a torch).

 

[st599]

Hmm the test certificate is about electromagnetic compatibility. Maybe that is what CE conformity tests for. The documentation with it claims it meets various IEC and ITU standards. Is there a different testing process for this? To be fair the Furuno web site doe not give much more info about its AIS class B transponder - just a list of IEC and ITU standards.

It is true that the AIS protocol is much more critical in its implementation than other marine devices such as DSC (even EPIRB is simpler although frequency stability is critical). The AIS protocol need to obey complicated rules and have very accurate timing so the possibility to screw up in firmware is greater. That said I am not aware of any reports of problems with faulty designs in AIS systems.

It is even quite likely that they all bought the software for the AIS protocol from the same source (or a very few sources). There are specialist firms such as Fidus http://www.fidus.com/product-development/development-portfolio/ who write AIS firmware for software defined radios. I suspect that it is not the sort of thing where companies are reimplementing it themselves. As said before on this thread they are more likely to skimp on the radio frequency amplifier and careless analogue design. But in modern electronics making a good 3W VHF transceiver is not really that taxing.

The CE test has nothing to do with the unit functioning as an AIS transponder. Is it safe, does it meet EMC regs, does it transmit in band at the correct power?

 

[Plevier]

The Certificate of Conformity list the manufacturer as Shenzhen ShenChuang Electronics Co., Ltd Huayang Tech is the supplier.

Where does that come from please?
The certificate posted by Nigel - apparently obtained from yourself - gives Shenzhen Shenhuayang Electronic Technology Co Ltd as both applicant and manufacturer, not Shenzhen ShenChuang (which is what that weblink goes to).
Searching for Shenzhen Shenhuayang Electronic Technology Co Ltd takes you to Huayang Technology (HK) again.
It appears to be the same outfit.
http://huayang-tech.en.gongchang.com/
http://huayangtech.en.made-in-china.com/#details

It doesn't look to me as though ShenChuang has any connection with it. Have I missed another link somewhere?

(This is not a knocking post, just trying to get it straight. I would be very interested in one of these devices if it's confirmed to be OK.)

 

[Bi111ion]

It doesn't look to me as though ShenChuang has any connection with it. Have I missed another link somewhere?

(This is not a knocking post, just trying to get it straight. I would be very interested in one of these devices if it's confirmed to be OK.)

Maybe you are right and I missgoogled (or you know google decides to look for something different from what you typed!). I blame my finger that I cut with a bread knife and is impairing my typing. It did at least give me practice with steristrips.

Now you point it out Shenzhen Shenhuayang could be the Huayangtech but in Shenzhen rather than HK.

 

[Plevier]

Someone in Auckland now offering this device (at USD560) http://www.neptunes-gear.com/products/gps-plotter-with-ais-class-b-transponder-4-3

Confusingly it says on their website
Please note - this unit does NOT have FCC or CE AIS type approval. It may not be legal in your country!!
but then gives a link to a CE approval certificate, the same one that Nigel posted, http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0201/5460/files/HP-33_CE_Certificater.pdf

Assuming this certificate is valid, as I understand it covers CE certification for EMI emission and EMI immunity. However do they mean that further type testing is required to verify its AIS performance to spec? But that wouldn't be CE would it?

You can download the full operating manual from this website too, http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0201/5460/files/HP-33A_User_manual_Final_version_20131014small.pdf

 

[Bi111ion]

You can download the full operating manual from this website too, http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0201/5460/files/HP-33A_User_manual_Final_version_20131014small.pdf

Thanks that is really useful. Susan at Huayang said it wasn't available as a pdf when I complained their link was broken. I try to keep all manuals for boat stuff on a Google Drive that synchs with the boat computer, that way I can check things when not on the boat and so can some of my regular crew members.

 

[st599]

Thanks that is really useful. Susan at Huayang said it wasn't available as a pdf when I complained their link was broken. I try to keep all manuals for boat stuff on a Google Drive that synchs with the boat computer, that way I can check things when not on the boat and so can some of my regular crew members.

Could you private message her contact details as I'm interested in the MOB100 device?