RoHS, FCC, CE, other Certification for SAKC?

Ron K. Jeffries rjeffries at
Mon May 24 00:13:19 EDT 2010

I am skeptical whether SAKC can pass EMI
as a 2 layer PCB design.
Ron K. Jeffries

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 19:10, Adam Wang <adam at> wrote:
> Hi,
> +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
> chance.
> 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.
> Adam
> [1]
> _______________________________________________
> Qi Developer Mailing List
> Mail to list (members only): developer at
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe:

More information about the discussion mailing list