https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
And still nothing submitted or approved.
Topic: ASIC Certification Requirements? (Read 6908 times)
Probably several. Anything critical of BFL is a "troll thread" according to the BFL ringleader.
Wasn't there a troll thread a out this 2 months ago?
I stand corrected. I just again viewed the Jalapeno and it has a red light on it. I guess that this is the product the red light issue is in reference to. Not being a butthead with the following statement, but originally it was designed to couple as a coffee warmer, thus a red light may be warranted on in this case.
Maybe the Single could be made into a rice cooker.
And the mini-rig could be a breadmaker/oven.
Give BFL some credit! There's no way they're going to put a red light of any nature on any of their products because green is the way to go.
Possibly that's the reason for all the delays? Green LEDs were out of stock.
Maybe if they add some clock buffers to the red LEDs they will turn green?
I stand corrected. I just again viewed the Jalapeno and it has a red light on it. I guess that this is the product the red light issue is in reference to. Not being a butthead with the following statement, but originally it was designed to couple as a coffee warmer, thus a red light may be warranted
~Bruno K~
Give BFL some credit! There's no way they're going to put a red light of any nature on any of their products because green is the way to go.
Possibly that's the reason for all the delays? Green LEDs were out of stock.
Maybe if they add some clock buffers to the red LEDs they will turn green?
I just finished scanning again the FCC site, this time doing the rest of the N/A states (other countries/pass 6 months) and still didn't find a single item resembling a mining rig from any of the four ASIC concerns, but I did get to view a many neat products.
~Bruno K~
~Bruno K~
Why are you looking for ASICs on FCC's site?
Actually, I was mainly looking at the images, doing a process of elimination that way, but when an image had potential of being a rig, I read the specs. Roger's Labs in Kansas was the only outfit that had a product closely resembling a rig/board, but it wasn't.
Therefore, to date, not a single one of the four outfits have submitted any devices to be tested.
~Bruno K~
Huh, missed that, thanks.
Why are you looking for ASICs on FCC's site?
When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
I just finished scanning again the FCC site, this time doing the rest of the N/A states (other countries/pass 6 months) and still didn't find a single item resembling a mining rig from any of the four ASIC concerns, but I did get to view a many neat products.
~Bruno K~
~Bruno K~
Why are you looking for ASICs on FCC's site?
I just finished scanning again the FCC site, this time doing the rest of the N/A states (other countries/pass 6 months) and still didn't find a single item resembling a mining rig from any of the four ASIC concerns, but I did get to view a many neat products.
~Bruno K~
~Bruno K~
There are limitations on the colors of switches and lamps, i.e. no red LEDs (which indicate danger).
Danger Will Robinson!
The agency will attempt to set the unit on fire.
Give BFL some credit! There's no way they're going to put a red light of any nature on any of their products because green is the way to go.
I heard thier cumming out with the pornominer.......it has nothing BUTT red lights
There are limitations on the colors of switches and lamps, i.e. no red LEDs (which indicate danger).
Danger Will Robinson!
The agency will attempt to set the unit on fire.
Give BFL some credit! There's no way they're going to put a red light of any nature on any of their products because green is the way to go.
There are limitations on the colors of switches and lamps, i.e. no red LEDs (which indicate danger).
Danger Will Robinson!
The agency will attempt to set the unit on fire.
Fine, I'll post the link. Go here http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/pc_hardware_faq/8_16_What_does_FCC_approval_cover_and_what_needs_to_be_approved.html
Scroll down about 1/4th of the way to the heading Motherboards, and read for yourselves.
Scroll down about 1/4th of the way to the heading Motherboards, and read for yourselves.
Although that is not my post you are quoting (the large letter-type is reeses'), may I state that I said "your Avalon won't have one". I did read your future batches/products will, well done Sir.
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?
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
Wait, I did what to whom in their what?
When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
I just finished looking at all the images on the FCC site for the past six months, scanning the list of 500 at a time put in alphabetical order and check every Kansas, Missouri and France submission, along with all those from China that were not a known brand, plus over a 100 from Hong Kong and Taiwan when the name of the company was foreign to me. Nada!
~Bruno K~
hehe.
it means someone is lying here.
either you, or them.
but you already give the proof...sooo..
not really a surprise there.
When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
I just finished looking at all the images on the FCC site for the past six months, scanning the list of 500 at a time put in alphabetical order and check every Kansas, Missouri and France submission, along with all those from China that were not a known brand, plus over a 100 from Hong Kong and Taiwan when the name of the company was foreign to me. Nada!
~Bruno K~
Quote from: Rassah link=topic=128840.msg1380011#msg1380011
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.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1308803
Quote from: Rassah link=topic=128840.msg1380011#msg1380011
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.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1308803
Quote from: Rassah link=topic=128840.msg1380011#msg1380011
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Rassah link=topic=128840.msg1380011#msg1380011
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.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1308803
Quote from: Rassah link=topic=128840.msg1380011#msg1380011
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Rassah link=topic=128840.msg1380011#msg1380011
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.
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.
Quote
(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
That's not me.
This forum.
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?
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.
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.
@ Eldentyrell
I would like you to elucidate on a point related to clock buffer and electromagnetic noise.
Question: Do you remember when one BFL representative started to mention FCC requirement for certifying a device and various other certification required for producing a device that complies with various international regulations?
I would like you to elucidate on a point related to clock buffer and electromagnetic noise.
Question: Do you remember when one BFL representative started to mention FCC requirement for certifying a device and various other certification required for producing a device that complies with various international regulations?
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
Is that the reason why additional clock buffers were added? To reduce noise?
(Admittedly, this is unlikely, but possible)
(Admittedly, this is unlikely, but possible)
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.
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?
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?
Quote
from: cablepair on November 02, 2012, 10:45:55 PM
http://www.ztex.de/
http://www.butterflylabs.org
http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/cairnsmore/cairnsmore1.html
http://fpgamining.com/products/x6500-rev3 / also sold at cablesrus.com
Why letting everyone else off the hook? I think its pretty damn obvious to figure out.
For the record: I will contact the FCC and find out what changes we need to make if any to keep within regulation.
http://www.ztex.de/
http://www.butterflylabs.org
http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/cairnsmore/cairnsmore1.html
http://fpgamining.com/products/x6500-rev3 / also sold at cablesrus.com
Why letting everyone else off the hook? I think its pretty damn obvious to figure out.
For the record: I will contact the FCC and find out what changes we need to make if any to keep within regulation.
And the one who raised the FCC question in the btcfpga thread was called a bfl shill by moderator(s):
Quote
diaboloD3 on November 04
BFL is the only company that can afford shills, using all that investor money to do it. Prove you're not a BFL shill by providing an order receipt from a major BFL alternative.
BFL is the only company that can afford shills, using all that investor money to do it. Prove you're not a BFL shill by providing an order receipt from a major BFL alternative.
What do you care for an FCC certificate, your Avalon won't have one? Gonna refuse it now?
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.
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)
What do you care for an FCC certificate, your Avalon won't have one? Gonna refuse it now?
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.
Quote
(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
For purposes of this chapter—
(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
That's not me.
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
Question: Do you live within the United States? http://uscode.house.gov/about/info.shtml
http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml
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
http://uscode.house.gov/about/info.shtml
http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml
No, that was me quoting you what he used, not my original post. I never used that letter size.
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.
Although that is not my post you are quoting (the large letter-type is reeses'), may I state that I said "your Avalon won't have one". I did read your future batches/products will, well done Sir.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
I have searched as well as asked Avalon if they have certified their hardware. But so far, no response.
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
I really don't think this guy gets it
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?
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?
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.
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!"
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).
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.)
I actually remember the statement about the FCC currently having BFLs gear about a month ago. Good luck finding it though :/
All vendors must/should pass this certification requirement. Please feel free to use this thread for any Vendors which are bringing their products out to market.
----------------------------------
Reposted:
Be careful. If you point out inconsistencies and ambiguities in BFL's announcements Josh will start rageflaming you. Spoken from experience.
@ Eldentyrell
I would like you to elucidate on a point related to clock buffer and electromagnetic noise.
Question: Do you remember when one BFL representative started to mention FCC requirement for certifying a device and various other certification required for producing a device that complies with various international regulations?
Background 0: A BFL representative when asked about their own compliance with such regulations went on record to state that their device was currently in testing. (presumably at a lab)
Background 1: Later, after that debacle, when asked if there were any functional prototype devices, the BFL representative stated there were none at that time. (November)
Question: How can a device be sent to the FCC labs for testing and certification if there is no working and functional prototype?
Is that the reason why additional clock buffers were added? To reduce noise?
(Admittedly, this is unlikely, but possible)
Note: I presume that the clock buffer are/were to reduce noise localized to the chip. But I have to ask, was the noise leaking further than the immediate area of the chip? Did it fail FCC certification or inspection? Further, if there are no prototypes, then what was sent in late October for evaluation? [Speculation]
----------------------------------
Reposted:
Hence, this is why the framing of the information....seems a bit off.
Be careful. If you point out inconsistencies and ambiguities in BFL's announcements Josh will start rageflaming you. Spoken from experience.
I would like you to elucidate on a point related to clock buffer and electromagnetic noise.
Question: Do you remember when one BFL representative started to mention FCC requirement for certifying a device and various other certification required for producing a device that complies with various international regulations?
Background 0: A BFL representative when asked about their own compliance with such regulations went on record to state that their device was currently in testing. (presumably at a lab)
Background 1: Later, after that debacle, when asked if there were any functional prototype devices, the BFL representative stated there were none at that time. (November)
Question: How can a device be sent to the FCC labs for testing and certification if there is no working and functional prototype?
Is that the reason why additional clock buffers were added? To reduce noise?
(Admittedly, this is unlikely, but possible)
Note: I presume that the clock buffer are/were to reduce noise localized to the chip. But I have to ask, was the noise leaking further than the immediate area of the chip? Did it fail FCC certification or inspection? Further, if there are no prototypes, then what was sent in late October for evaluation? [Speculation]
Jump to: