Topic: ASIC Certification Requirements? - page 2. (Read 6908 times)

If by "bragging" you mean push the idea of fines as well as inform Tom about it. Then, Yeah, pretty much.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1313908

You can read about it somewhere around these two links (plus or minus several days of messages)

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1314335

@ Slok
Keep in mind the FCC conversation happened in several threads at that time.

No, that is not true. It was forum member MeSarah that started the FCC questions in the bctfpga thread. Much after everyone here jumping on him, the "BFL rep" asked, when the smoke was cleared a bit, "well Tom, how about that FCC regulation?"
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1308803

Maybe they were bragging, like they were about their October release dates? Or just submitted their designs (the computer ones) to check if everything will be ok? Just totally speculating here.

I should point out that compliance doesn't require testing by any specific entity. The manufacturer could be fined if the hardware doesn't comply. But typically the just test themselves.

That's different from a certification, which is issued by a testing company.

But you can produce non-certified hardware legally as long as you've tested it and it does comply.

In the last 5 months, only 8 products have been submitted from the states of Kansas and Missouri. Rogers Labs in Kansas had something close, but no cigar. I also checked images of several dozen products with addresses in China. And all of France, too.

If you recall, the BFL rep was the one who brought it up along with someone else. Then, Tom got agitated about it. BFL rep said they had sent "something" to the lab about two weeks at that point. But beyond that nothing else was said.

This forum.

You likely also have UL certification on every electronic item you own. UL is not a required certification. So, those FCC badges may also be "just-in-case" certifications that the mobo companies got, just to point to and say, "See, corporation with huge contracts to buy this from us? We are certified!" Or they may be required for some other reason. I really don't know.

I suspect almost no one else on this board does, either, and I only brought up the "Mobos don't require it" point because too many people seem to be so confident in their "BFL required FCC/UL certification!" claims.

Edit: re post above: yes, power supplies get their own separate certifications, so since BFL will be buying those from someone else, they don't have to worry about them, since they will have already been certified.

Sorry for the slow reply; I will be mostly offline until the middle of next week.


Unfortunately I do not know a whole lot about FCC compliance and certification.  My background is in compilers and VLSI; it's well known that I'm really bad at designing PCBs



I would say "astronomically unlikely".

Noise is a somewhat vague term and can mean a lot of things.  Adding clock buffers is something you do in order to stabilize the on-chip clock signals.  It is not something you do to reduce the device's electromagnetic emissions.  In fact, if you care about EM emissions you really ought to go with a clockless design, but that's starting to get off-topic...

You raise some very interesting questions about whether or not BFL has obtained FCC certification, but I don't think this has much to do with Nasser's vague "clock buffer" comment.

Somebody else mentioned that BFL had to acquire unusually high-current "wall wart" adapters.  Again, I know very little about FCC certification, but I do know that the requirements drop drastically if the power supply is a separate device; this is why so many electronic devices use wall-wart adapters: you can certify the device and the wall-wart separately.  Or maybe that's Underwriters Labs certification.  Anyways, I don't know much about this.

I have 3 motherboard boxes sitting beside me from Asus, Biostar, and Intel, and all of them have the FCC badge thing printed on them.

The way I read the regs, anything with a processor driven by its own clock source needs to go through certification.

A quick Google search shows that FCC has considered requiring FCC regulations twice, and rejected the idea both times. So, if motherboards don't require FCC certification, then why do ASIC boards?

And the one who raised the FCC question in the btcfpga thread was called a bfl shill by moderator(s):

Precisely, which is my point of asking the Vendors if they are certified!

Otherwise sabotage is pretty darn easy. Which is probably what Tom was so upset about when it was brought up about a month ago. (BFL didn't have [a finished] certification either back then to the best of my knowledge)

So either they do now, or they may run the risk of a snitch. (well, so does Tom but someone has to ask Dave if they know anything about the certification process)

These ASIC devices would be unintentional radiators and with all probability would easily pass certification on a technical level.

The bigger concern to me is that a competitor, troublemaker or some FUDge-packing FUDster might complain about a lack of certification and get my ASIC shipment delayed or confiscated.

Good question.  I live on what's commonly known as Massachusetts.  I'm hesitant to say I live within the United States because I'm unsure which of the multiple definitions for "United States" applies.  For example, Title 26 §3121 defines it:


That's not me.

Question: Do you live within the United States?

The BFL equipment I mine with, and the BFL devices I have ordered, do not need FCC certification.  If you were planning to quote from Title 47 USC Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs, I can tell you it has not been enacted as Positive Law.  A non-positive law title is "an editorial compilation of Federal statutes."  It's not Congress' exact words, it may vary, and therefore does not apply outside of the federal districts overlaid on the states.  Except, of course, by contract; by agreement.
http://uscode.house.gov/about/info.shtml
http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml

Um... right, OK. So it's not your post because the font is different? BitSyncom was not correcting you because of the large font, but because of the substance of the post.

It doesn't change the fact that is exactly what you said (making it your post).

This is trivial anyways, I guess I won't argue about it...    

No, that was me quoting you what he used, not my original post. I never used that letter size.

Umm, bro, that is your post. The only thing I did was bold and put a bigger font on your unedited statement.... unless I'm confused and you and Reeses are hanging our IRL?