All Testing passed

I must applaud the inclusion of the multiple certifications for Europe and North America.  At least this will alleviate any possible delays based on testing.

I am curious as to what the "Canadian thing" was that had to be tested?

Kevin,

I'm not as confident as you seem to be that the testing done so far will

"alleviate any possible delays based on testing".

The FCC rules, Title 47, section 15.3 "Definitions", paragraph i, say:

"Class B digital device.   A digital device that is marketed for use in a

residential environment, notwithstanding use in commercial, business

and industrial environments.  Examples of such devices include, but

are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and similar

electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general public."

But apparently, Class B testing has not been done, even though the

RPi is being marketed as a PC for use in residential environments.

There is another section, 15.32 "Test procedures for CPU boards

and computer power supplies",  but it doesn't seem to have been

followed, from what we know.  It refers to testing within an enclosure

with the cover removed.

Here is an update regarding CE mark compliance: http://www.electrocomponents.com/media/press-releases/2012/04/10th/

Thanks for that most useful link. Great news hopefully.

I am sure looking forward to tasting my RaspberryPi

jbeale,

  good find!

There are some odd things in that press release.

The first paragraph mentions that it is designed for children and IT enthusiasts

to develop programming skills, but the second paragraph mentions "industrial or

office environments".   It seems unlikely to find either children or IT enthusiast

programming skill developers exclusively in industrial or office environments.

The second paragraph mentions a warning statement to ensure that customers

are fully aware that equipment used in a residential environment may be susceptible

to radio interference.   I think the primary concern in residential environments is not

susceptibility of the equipment, but interference caused by the equipment,

which is not mentioned.

This susceptibility warning seems to imply that it's OK to market to residential

users with only a Class A certification, provided that a disclaimer is provided. 

I'm not sure about the EC rules, but the FCC rules apparently don't allow this.

FCC OET Bulletin 62 (1993), which was pointed out to me on another thread,

says, bottom of page 8:

"If a digital device is sold or offered for sale to *any* (empasis in original) residential

users (including commercial or industrial companies that could employ the equipment

in a residential environment) then it is a Class B digital device regardless of its price

or application.  Marketing through a general retail outlet or by mail order to the general

public with a simple disclaimer, such as "For Business Use Only," is not sufficient to

qualify for Class A."

Page 9 also says: "Portable computers, because they are designed to be used anywhere,

are considered Class B devices regardless of their price or restrictions placed on marketing."

The second paragraph of the press release mentions that the boards were tested to comply

with directive EN500081-2 (1993).  But that is an emissions standard, not a susceptibility

standard.  We were told that susceptibility to cats was tested, were we not?  Hopefully the

boards were also tested to a more recent emissions standard than 1993.

Liz made a reply to comment on the "Testing Completed" R-Pi blog as shown below:

liz on April 10, 2012 at 10:25 pm said:     

"Quite – a week in the testing chamber is *very* speedy, and we were only ever aiming for Class A; RS and Farnell were very clear that the board only has to be certified that far before the educational release. There’s been no “revision to easier limits”, I’m happy to say."

I'm not a compliance specialist so I don't know all the FCC Part 15 implications.  It would be sad if the first run of boards was only available outside the US. 

On the same page, Liz also made this comment:

liz on April 10, 2012 at 7:04 pm said:      "Happily, we’ve found it doesn’t need a shielded enclosure to reach Class B, although it will require a (very minimal) redesign."

Now I don't know if she's referring to CE "Class B" and/or FCC "Class B" but perhaps a redesigned consumer/residential use version will be available relatively soon*, anyway.

* well, what's a few more months, at this point?

"and we were only ever going for Class A"   oh really??

what good is class A for a device designed for children

to use at home with a TV?

The 28 March front-page story "An update on CE compliance" says:

"On the basis of preliminary measurements,  we expect emissions

from the uncased product to meet category A requirements comfortably

without modification, and possibly to meet the more stringent Category B

requirements which we had originally expected would require a

metalised case."

That sounds to me like they were in fact hoping to meet Category B,

with Category A as a fallback position.

As I understood it, the initial release was to be to allow enthusiasts to develop software and accessories that would be useful to the educational world when the full release takes place in September.

Ironically, Schools are the same as offices and only need to be class A.  While enthusiasts developing software and hardware may wekk be doing so in the home, they should be suitably equipped to resolve any interference issues themselves (i.e. mobve the radio away from the workbench).

Someone mentioned the ESD packaging earlier, this is likely to be one reason Class B needs a case - it was testeed with one ESD test, but direct contact to pins is another matter

It would be nice to see the results for ourselves, to see how close it was to Class B in each area.

Ellis,

   I think the purpose of residential Class B requirements is not so much to prevent

interference within one residence, (that is easily resolved as you say), but to

prevent interference with a neighbor who may have no idea which direction

the interference is coming from.  So even enthusiasts may be ill prepared to

resolve such issues.

Probably all that you need to do if you are getting complaints, is to clamp some ferrite clamps on the cables connected to the R-PI. Without these "antenna's" it's very unlikely such a small board will still radiate.

Probably all that you need to do if you are getting complaints, is to clamp some ferrite clamps on the cables connected to the R-PI. Without these "antenna's" it's very unlikely such a small board will still radiate.

Martin,

  From the pictures, it looks like the guys in the test chamber did in fact use some ferrite clamps,

but apparently it still didn't meet Class B requirements.  Awaiting details.

Anyway, the FCC rules are designed to prevent a device from being used in a residence

without Class B certification.  As opposed to preventing unsophisticated users from using

such a device.  The intent of the rules is to avoid having to ask your neighbors to add clamps

to whatever devices they may be using that could be causing interference.

Using ferrite clamps during testing is a common way to indentify which of the cables is radiating. It says absolutely nothing about whether the device passes any tests with or without these clamps. Using them is simply a testing tool.

@Martin,

Quite  a lot of devices are shipped with ferrite lumps of different sorts on the cables (I've hade a Cannon camera with one on the USB lead and a network switch with one on the power cable as well as being invloved in product developments where the ferrites were on the cable but inside the box). It's an expensive solution but may the best bet if the cost of a re-design is significant. Of course the device is no longer compliant if a different cable is used and the documentation should reflect this.

Michael Kellett