Pages:
Author

Topic: ASIC Certification Requirements? - page 3. (Read 6920 times)

hero member
Activity: 568
Merit: 500
December 04, 2012, 01:23:13 PM
#22
How do they all expect to ship those products without the certification? Only time will tell.
What do you care for an FCC certificate, your Avalon won't have one? Gonna refuse it now?
ps clock buffers are used to flatten out spikes in the rise and fall of signals, so higher frequencies of those signals can be used to improve performance, as in, higher clock rates. Not to reduce noise of the device if it would produce it. But you already knew that, didn't you?

remember what happened with that other FCC compliance question? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-may-be-the-only-one-122477

This is not exactly correct, Avalon is on track to obtain FCC certification as stated. The fact of the matter is Avalon does not need a FCC certification to be shipped. If it need be, we can obtain an TCB and ship these out or use some other legal method. FCC at this point is really only to please the public, like talking about what clock buffers do. All in all this does means Avalon will have FCC certification in the future because it is a easier method of compliance compare to other legal options.
Although that is not my post you are quoting (the large letter-type is coinharders'), may I state that I said "your Avalon won't have one". I did read your future batches/products will, well done Sir.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 251
Avalon ASIC Team
December 04, 2012, 01:13:51 PM
#21
How do they all expect to ship those products without the certification? Only time will tell.
What do you care for an FCC certificate, your Avalon won't have one? Gonna refuse it now?
ps clock buffers are used to flatten out spikes in the rise and fall of signals, so higher frequencies of those signals can be used to improve performance, as in, higher clock rates. Not to reduce noise of the device if it would produce it. But you already knew that, didn't you?

remember what happened with that other FCC compliance question? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-may-be-the-only-one-122477

This is not exactly correct, Avalon is on track to obtain FCC certification as stated. The fact of the matter is Avalon does not need a FCC certification to be shipped. If it need be, we can obtain an TCB and ship these out or use some other legal method. FCC at this point is really only to please the public, like talking about what clock buffers do. All in all this does means Avalon will have FCC certification in the future because it is a easier method of compliance compare to other legal options.
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003
December 04, 2012, 01:07:32 PM
#20
How do they all expect to ship those products without the certification? Only time will tell.
What do you care for an FCC certificate, your Avalon won't have one? Gonna refuse it now?
You must actually read what came before this post then, you can post a proper response or even a valid question.

Edit: To answer your question, it would suck if a plane load of Avalon products were confiscated by customs or inspections. They are far more anal at certain things. I'd rather not play with the risk.

-----------------------------

On a different note:

What is there to stop any member of this forum from reporting a manufacturer of a device that isn't certified on a very basic level? See the point?

The FCC can fine or confiscate property that might be illicitly produced.
hero member
Activity: 568
Merit: 500
December 04, 2012, 12:37:59 PM
#19
How do they all expect to ship those products without the certification? Only time will tell.
What do you care for an FCC certificate, your Avalon won't have one? Gonna refuse it now?
ps clock buffers are used to flatten out spikes in the rise and fall of signals, so higher frequencies of those signals can be used to improve performance, as in, higher clock rates. Not to reduce noise of the device if it would produce it. But you already knew that, didn't you?

remember what happened with that other FCC compliance question? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-may-be-the-only-one-122477

Avalon just stated ITT that they would get certified by the FCC, look up.

No.
I have searched as well as asked Avalon if they have certified their hardware. But so far, no response.

I must have missed it, was it in our thread? Regardless, FCC certification is planned, but currently we are only able to push for FCC §15.19(b)(1)(ii) which is something along the lines of "assembled from tested and certified parts, complete unit not tested or certified", due to the nature of FCC certification which can take 6-8 weeks, I am very positive if we were to continue our shipping schedule, we will not have FCC certification when we start shipping our units at Jan 14th. However, we may obtain a OET TCB which is much faster along the lines of 1-2 weeks.
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1026
In Cryptocoins I Trust
December 04, 2012, 12:34:52 PM
#18
How do they all expect to ship those products without the certification? Only time will tell.
What do you care for an FCC certificate, your Avalon won't have one? Gonna refuse it now?
ps clock buffers are used to flatten out spikes in the rise and fall of signals, so higher frequencies of those signals can be used to improve performance, as in, higher clock rates. Not to reduce noise of the device if it would produce it. But you already knew that, didn't you?

remember what happened with that other FCC compliance question? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-may-be-the-only-one-122477

Avalon just stated ITT that they would get certified by the FCC, look up.

EDit: oh.. they might not get certified until after they start shipping. I'm dumb, move along, nothing to see here.  Wink
hero member
Activity: 568
Merit: 500
December 04, 2012, 12:27:41 PM
#17
How do they all expect to ship those products without the certification? Only time will tell.
What do you care for an FCC certificate, your Avalon won't have one? Gonna refuse it now?
ps clock buffers are used to flatten out spikes in the rise and fall of signals, so higher frequencies of those signals can be used to improve performance, as in, higher clock rates. Not to reduce noise of the device if it would produce it. But you already knew that, didn't you?

remember what happened with that other FCC compliance question? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/i-may-be-the-only-one-122477
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003
December 04, 2012, 11:52:22 AM
#16
The thought (of the 6-8 week delay) had crossed my mind, but I decided to keep that in my back pocket.

It makes me also wonder what this also implies as far as the bASIC modules that Tom was working on.

I looked back on the commentary when it was first brought up. It was about 1 month ago. Tom had said that he wasn't sure that his device needed FCC certification since it probably came within the scope of modules. Though, I do not know if that is true.

BFL said they had sent hardware to some lab and were waiting for the results at approximately the same time (give or take a day or two). What they sent is a mystery as they haven't even finished the outer casing (and don't have the chips).

How do they all expect to ship those products without the certification? Only time will tell.
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1026
In Cryptocoins I Trust
December 04, 2012, 11:45:31 AM
#15
I must have missed it, was it in our thread? Regardless, FCC certification is planned, but currently we are only able to push for FCC §15.19(b)(1)(ii) which is something along the lines of "assembled from tested and certified parts, complete unit not tested or certified", due to the nature of FCC certification which can take 6-8 weeks, I am very positive if we were to continue our shipping schedule, we will not have FCC certification when we start shipping our units at Jan 14th. However, we may obtain a OET TCB which is much faster along the lines of 1-2 weeks.

So... this worries me.

A quick search for the terms 'butterfly', 'bfl', etc. brings up nothing in the FCC database.

If certification can actually take 6-8 weeks, there is a 0 percent chance we will see an ASIC from BFL in December.

BFL needs to clarify this, they are once again lying to their customers if they have not sent their devices off to get tested yet.

Why does everything BFL do just reek of scam... there is seriously not a day that goes by that getting a refund does not cross my mind.
sr. member
Activity: 295
Merit: 250
December 04, 2012, 09:52:48 AM
#14
news for ya.  Not everyone is subject to FCC requirements.
news for ya.  Not everyone is subject to Title 26 (the tax code).  Yeah buddy, I don't pay income taxes.

Must it fall on me to educate y'all on just who is running the world's biggest scam?

Must if fall upon us to educate you, so you can form complete, informed thoughts and maybe even complete sentences.
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
Trust me, these default swaps will limit the risks
December 04, 2012, 01:01:43 AM
#13
Seriously, you think we care about FCC certification?  Ask anyone with ASIC on order if they'd rather wait an extra 2 weeks to receive an "approved" item; whaddya think they'll say?  "Ooo I'll get hiss whenever I move my radio within 3 feet of it. Who cares. Just gimme my magic money box, NOW!"

I'm right there along with ya'. Screw a certification. Better yet, send them all to me and I'll certify 'em for free  Wink
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003
December 04, 2012, 12:39:01 AM
#12
I have searched as well as asked Avalon if they have certified their hardware. But so far, no response.

I must have missed it, was it in our thread? Regardless, FCC certification is planned, but currently we are only able to push for FCC §15.19(b)(1)(ii) which is something along the lines of "assembled from tested and certified parts, complete unit not tested or certified", due to the nature of FCC certification which can take 6-8 weeks, I am very positive if we were to continue our shipping schedule, we will not have FCC certification when we start shipping our units at Jan 14th. However, we may obtain a OET TCB which is much faster along the lines of 1-2 weeks.
First, let me thank you for answering the question in an extremely easy to read and concise format.

Would an OET TCB certification be enough to pass through customs?

@ Readers

For more info on  OET TCB, please visit the following sites:

http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/
http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/procedures.html#sec1
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 251
Avalon ASIC Team
December 04, 2012, 12:01:21 AM
#11
I have searched as well as asked Avalon if they have certified their hardware. But so far, no response.

I must have missed it, was it in our thread? Regardless, FCC certification is planned, but currently we are only able to push for FCC §15.19(b)(1)(ii) which is something along the lines of "assembled from tested and certified parts, complete unit not tested or certified", due to the nature of FCC certification which can take 6-8 weeks, I am very positive if we were to continue our shipping schedule, we will not have FCC certification when we start shipping our units at Jan 14th. However, we may obtain a OET TCB which is much faster along the lines of 1-2 weeks.
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003
December 03, 2012, 11:31:42 PM
#10
I have searched as well as asked Avalon if they have certified their hardware. But so far, no response.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
December 03, 2012, 08:02:07 PM
#9
I actually remember the statement about the FCC currently having BFLs gear about a month ago. Good luck finding it though :/
But what did the FCC actually get?

There allegedly wasn't a working prototype (according to BFL) or even a finalized exterior to the product. (The Jalapeno's final design was still being worked through.)

Obviously nothing. Search the filings:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm
sr. member
Activity: 270
Merit: 250
December 03, 2012, 02:54:46 PM
#8
I really don't think this guy gets it   Huh
newbie
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
December 03, 2012, 11:17:09 AM
#7
news for ya.  Not everyone is subject to FCC requirements.
news for ya.  Not everyone is subject to Title 26 (the tax code).  Yeah buddy, I don't pay income taxes.

Must it fall on me to educate y'all on just who is running the world's biggest scam?
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
December 03, 2012, 11:07:22 AM
#6
Seriously, you think we care about FCC certification?  Ask anyone with ASIC on order if they'd rather wait an extra 2 weeks to receive an "approved" item; whaddya think they'll say?  "Ooo I'll get hiss whenever I move my radio within 3 feet of it. Who cares. Just gimme my magic money box, NOW!"

The approval isn't for you.  The approval is so the FCC doesn't shut down production and subject the manufacturer to penalties and fees.
newbie
Activity: 30
Merit: 0
December 03, 2012, 10:56:57 AM
#5
Seriously, you think we care about FCC certification?  Ask anyone with ASIC on order if they'd rather wait an extra 2 weeks to receive an "approved" item; whaddya think they'll say?  "Ooo I'll get hiss whenever I move my radio within 3 feet of it. Who cares. Just gimme my magic money box, NOW!"
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
LTC
December 03, 2012, 06:43:50 AM
#4
Clock buffers will rather increase than decrease electromagnetic emissions. What BFL engineer said was that by adding those buffers they will increase chip stability vs noise not that they will produce less EM noise (at least so I remember).
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003
December 03, 2012, 06:31:41 AM
#3
I actually remember the statement about the FCC currently having BFLs gear about a month ago. Good luck finding it though :/
But what did the FCC actually get?

There allegedly wasn't a working prototype (according to BFL) or even a finalized exterior to the product. (The Jalapeno's final design was still being worked through.)
Pages:
Jump to: