RoHS, FCC, CE, other Certification for SAKC?

Adam Wang adam at
Sun May 23 22:10:09 EDT 2010


+1 to the Rohs, to have this requirement is easily to request all
parts of vendors to apply for the RoHs documents.

To if we must decide for an commercial device or development board,
may take considerations:
a) be a development board; since there are other companies declared it
without certifications. But hardware itself had better to have EMI/EMC
solutions with claim after done certifications to get more marketing

b) be a commercial device; since SAKC proposed to have versatile
capabilities on IO which implied certifications are necessary. So far
if one, 3 party or ourselves who wants to build a whole product with
case to let SAKC like companies produce it as Digital
Multimeter/Measurer, scopes, etc. Without a doubt that SAKC board must
have strong design with noise reduction. To meet this, prior to design
the main board as well before integration with mechanical parts later.

"EMC design can be approached in either of two ways: one is CRISIS
APPROACH, and the other is the SYSTEM APPROACH. In the crisis
approach, the designer proceeds with a total disregard of EMC until
the design is finished, and testing or --worse yet -- field experience
suggests that a problem exists. Solutions, implemented at this late
stage, are usually expensive and consist of undesirable "add-ons"

The systems approach considers EMC throughout the design; the designer
anticipates EMC problems at the beginning of the process, finds the
remaining problems in the breadboard and early prototype stages, and
tests the final prototypes for EMC as thoroughly as possible. This way
EMC becomes an integral part of both the electrical and mechanical
design of the product. As a result EMC is designed into--and not added
onto--the product, and this is a more cost-effective approach." which
is said by Henry W. Ott in his "Noise Reduction Techniques in
Electronic Systems book[1] in p5.

>From the histories of BEN development, we approved it was a crisis
approach on its original desgin. We got pain and more times on
undesirable "add-on" last year. So I'd rather to say that let have h/w
itself possessed of system approach firstly. Then we do certifications
if real product truly comes out.


More information about the discussion mailing list