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.

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.

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.

Just picking up on one point from one of the above posts, I do not believe that ".... the RPi is being marketed as a PC for use in residential environments."

Although the bare board uncased 'version', which is currently the only one available, is being ordered by 'home users', I would not say that it is being marketed or advertised as being particularly suitable (yet) for that particular section of the market.

We must remember also that the compliance testing was carried out under carefully regulated conditions by people who are experts in their fields.

It is a shame that some posters on here (and one in particular) seem to have nothing better to do than to continually criticise the foundation, and to try and pick holes in, and to undermine the excellent work they are doing.

Do I detect the presence of a troll perhaps?

David,

  You are trying to make a distinction between "being ordered by home users" and "being marketed

to home users".  But the FCC rules define "marketing" as selling or offering to sell, so I don't think

this is a valid distinction.  Anyway, the RPi promotional videos, such as Quake3 and XBMC are

clearly aimed at home users rather than industrial. 

If there are any home users, the device is considered Class B.  It doesn't need to be the majority

or anything like that, although in the case of RPi, I have no doubt that home users will in fact be

the majority.

You say that compliance testing was carried out by experts, and no doubt that is true.

I look forward to hearing how they justify Class A testing for the RPi.

For details on the FCC rules, see Bulletin 62 here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet62/oet62rev.pdf

I just scanned the document mentioned, and it lists as exempt: things like digital watches that use less than 6 nanowatts. I find that 6 nanowatts very very little. I measured my 1980ies watch once, and got about 0.3 micro amperes. So about 450 nW. I'm pretty sure that that watch is pretty harmless at that powerlevel even if it would TRY to interfere with radio communications.

I just scanned the document mentioned, and it lists as exempt: things like digital watches that use less than 6 nanowatts. I find that 6 nanowatts very very little. I measured my 1980ies watch once, and got about 0.3 micro amperes. So about 450 nW. I'm pretty sure that that watch is pretty harmless at that powerlevel even if it would TRY to interfere with radio communications.

The Foundation certainly promoted the board as an effective media computer, running XBMC and OpenELEC very nicely.  They even had prominent articles about that on their blog, and they also showed it hosting  normal Linux desktop distros and have many times said "It's just standard Linux".  This ensured that the board would attract interest from ordinary consumers worldwide, and hence end up going into normal domestic consumer situations worldwide too, not just into the hands of electrical engineers and radio amateurs who know how to deal with EMC problems.

There can't be the slightest doubt that this was intentional.  They didn't try to restrict the audience for batch #1 to techies only, quite the opposite, so feeling aggrieved when the need for full domestic certification was explained to them was fairly comical.  They ensured that it would have to be so by their promotion.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

This ensured that the board would attract interest from ordinary consumers worldwide, a....

 

There can't be the slightest doubt that this was intentional.  They didn't try to restrict the audience for batch #1 to techies only, quite the opposite, so feeling aggrieved when the need for full domestic certification was explained to them was fairly comical.  They ensured that it would have to be so by their promotion.

Well, I think I tend to believe them that they thought the first batch would not attract end-users. They thought (timeframe: sept 2011) that the software wouldn't be ready and that most people would not want to sink their money in a $35 paperweight until the software would be ready.

In fact, people ARE willing to invest in a nifty paperweight if it probably will be able to work as a computer later on. People ARE willing to bet that it will do what they want within reasonable timeframe. People ARE willing to do this because it only costs $35+shipping+tax.

Let me ask you this way: I have a product here. It'll be useful about half a year from now when we have the software ready. Do you want to buy it now? I expect 95 out of 100 people to sya: no. That's what they expected. In the meanwhile work on the software continued and they showed off their progress on the software front. Fine.

So, due to the software already on its way, due to some demos showing impressive stuff many people have changed their minds and ordered the devices now already. That changes the game a bit.

By selecting two of the world's largest electronic component distributors to work with them, the Raspberry Pi Foundation have done all they can to target Techies with the first batch.  Had they teamed up with Amazon, whou would, arguably, have been better equipped to handle the volumes of orders and interest, one could, quite reasonably have assumed that they were targetting end-users.

Each of the software demonstrations has been an early version, far from ready for end-users - much like the demonstrations of Windows 8 last year.  You could not claim that the Windows 8 developer tablets given away were for end-users, likewise, it is quite reasonable to consider the iniital release a techie-only prodict.

I can go to B&Q and buy a gas boiler, but it would be illegal for me to fit it myself.

Hey. If you don't read the replies / arguments, feel free to shut up instead of just repeating your previous post.

Roger,  

You wrote: "Well, I think I tend to believe them that they thought the first batch would not attract end-users."

You may believe them, but BIS has said this is a consumer device, not a development board,

and must be tested accordingly.

Ellis,

  Do you have any evidence that Windows 8 developer tablets were not certified for home use?

The FCC rules consider portable computers to be Class B devices.

There are two issues here that I think are getting confused. 

The foundation hoped to use a "developer board" exemption to the CE rules,

but that was denied by BIS. 

The FCC rules don't distinguish techie from non-techie end user,

they distinguish home use from exclusively industrial.  Even a techie home user

is considered by the FCC to be a home user subject to Class B

@Roger: Please try to maintain a civil tongue here.  This isn't the Rpi blog and forum where only comments that praise the Foundation are permitted.  We discuss things as they are here, and what I described is EXACTLY what the Foundation did, it's not hidden, and it's not opinion, it was open for all to see.  They can only blame themselves for a level and breadth of interest that made the BIS declare the exemption for development boards inapplicable to Raspberry Pi.

And it went even beyond what I described.  They made sure that Raspberry Pi was in all the common media, not just in technical outlets, riding the wave of the BBC micro and at every opportunity stating their plan to save UK education, which caused extremely widespread interest.  They knew exactly what they were doing, so to profess surprise at the need for certification of a mere handful of development boards --- oh wait, it was 10 THOUSAND --- stretches incredulity to breaking point.

Since software and firmware can have a critical effect on the EMC of a device and the O/S was in beta. I suspect that the combination shipped quite possibly had not been tested.

Luckily I am in the EU so the FCC rules do not affect me.  If it must be Class B certified to ship in the USA, hard luck to all the US enthusiasts, you will just have to wait for Revision 2 and I'll get my Raspberry PI sooner.  IIRC one of the goals of the project was to boost programmign and electronic skills amongst UK students.  If other juristictions want to give the UK a head start so be it!

As for the popularity on launch, I think you will find that at least one message board targetting consumers had messages posted by third parties about the new $25 computer, encouraging users to "Order Yours Today" as if it were a limited offer - hardly something the Raspberry Pi Organisation wanted and probably the underlying reason why BIS advised that CE marking was reqiuired.  Incidentally, BIS have no authority to interpret the regulations in conjunction with the facts to determine absolutely whether CE Marking is indeed essential for the first batch.  Only the courts have such authority.