ATMEGA128RFR2, FCC

Go To Last Post
14 posts / 0 new
Author
Message
#1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I want to design a small electronic product that has Zigbee (or Atmel LwMesh) capabilities -- for commercial sale (in the US).

I am very leery of the FCC certification process.  I noticed that on page 32 of the ATMEGA128RFR2 data sheet, it states,

 

Compliant to EN 300 328/440, FCC-CFR-47 Part 15, ARIB STD-66, RSS-210

 

What exactly does that mean?  Does it mean the chip has an FCC ID number?

 

Are there any good modules (i.e., w/ a DIP package) that have module level certification (that can be transferred to a system) that incorporate Atmel (AVR) products?

 

Edit: ideally, a module with an integrated (chip or trace) antenna, rather than some sort of coax connector for an external antenna

Science is not consensus. Science is numbers.

Last Edited: Fri. Oct 16, 2015 - 12:26 AM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1

The chip itself can not have FCC certification. The statement means that once integrated into a design, that design will be certifiable.

 

I'm not aware of any modules with DIP package, people generally have moved on from DIP. Atmel makes modules (ZigBit) based on ATmega256RFR2. So does Dresden Electronik, but they may be a bit expensive. But in small quantities will probably be cheaper than FCC certification.
 

NOTE: I no longer actively read this forum. Please ask your question on www.eevblog.com/forum if you want my answer.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I've seen a lot of modules that have DIP packages, though SMT would be fine too.  What I was referring to was something like this:

 

https://www.sparkfun.com/datashe...

 

On page 38:

 

IMPORTANT: The XBee-PRO® XSC OEM RF Module has been certified by the FCC for use with
other products without any further certification (as per FCC section 2.1091). Modifications not
expressly approved by Digi could void the user's authority to operate the equipment.

Science is not consensus. Science is numbers.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1

Well, yes, some Digi modules come in DIP. But they will also need an external MCU for driving them, so I was not really considering them. Since you've mentioned stack names, I assumed you want to run your software on the module itself.

 

Some Dresden Electronik moduules come in DIP, but they have 1.27mm pin pitch.

 

NOTE: I no longer actively read this forum. Please ask your question on www.eevblog.com/forum if you want my answer.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I open to options w/ regards to software/interfaces.  I am familiar w/ Atmel's code, so that's what I was thinking.  Ultimately, ease of certification is key.  I'd like a solution that uses Atmel chips, but if there are no modules built around Atmel components that are already certified, I will need to look at other options.

Science is not consensus. Science is numbers.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1

Here are modules built around Atmel chips:

http://www.atmel.com/devices/ATm...

https://www.dresden-elektronik.d...

 

There may be others.

NOTE: I no longer actively read this forum. Please ask your question on www.eevblog.com/forum if you want my answer.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

The German product looked really promising.  They even noted that it has FCC modular certification.  However, upon closer examination, it is a non-transferable certification, and only valid in end products designed by Dresden...  What is the point of going to the trouble of obtaining FCC certification if it is not transferable to the system the module is incorporated in?

Science is not consensus. Science is numbers.

Last Edited: Wed. May 20, 2015 - 02:33 AM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

If I use something like the ATZB-24-A2 (which appears to be fully certified), am I correct in my understanding that I am pretty much limited to BitCloud (i.e., LwMesh only works on the SoC's in Atmel's catalog?

Edit: the above is moot, because the ATZB-24-A2 is end of life.

 

The ATZB-S1-256-3-0-C looks interesting (if it weren't for that annoying RF connector).  However, per the FCC certificate, it says,

 

The antenna of this product, under normal use condition, is at least 20cm away from the body of the user.

Warning statement to the user for keeping at least 20cm or more separation distance from the antenna

should be included in the User manual. So, this device is classified as Mobile device.

 

This seems to state (pretty clearly) that any device incorporating this module should not operate within 20 cm of a human body.  If this is true (with this module's 3dBm output), how do cell phones get around that limitation?

Science is not consensus. Science is numbers.

Last Edited: Wed. May 20, 2015 - 03:56 AM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

hobbss wrote:

If I use something like the ATZB-24-A2 (which appears to be fully certified), am I correct in my understanding that I am pretty much limited to BitCloud (i.e., LwMesh only works on the SoC's in Atmel's catalog?

The other way around. LwMesh works on anything. And can be ported to something it does not work on in a matter of minutes. BitCloud only works on SoC. But ATZB-24 is obsolete anyway.

 

hobbss wrote:
The ATZB-S1-256-3-0-C looks interesting (if it weren't for that annoying RF connector).
RF connector there is just for testing, you don't have to and should not use it in your design.

 

hobbss wrote:
This seems to state (pretty clearly) that any device incorporating this module should not operate within 20 cm of a human body.  If this is true (with this module's 3dBm output), how do cell phones get around that limitation?
I have no idea, I've never seen limitations like this. They might have been there, but I have not paid attention. I'd find any other FCC filing to check if this is not a boilerplate stuff, which everyone just ignores in the end.

NOTE: I no longer actively read this forum. Please ask your question on www.eevblog.com/forum if you want my answer.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

hobbss wrote:
how do cell phones get around that limitation?

This has been a matter of great debate - not to mention scaremongering.

 

The small-print of all cellphone manuals contains a whole load of stuff about (also for cellular modules, BTW).

 

Google "Specific Absorption Rate", SAR ...

Top Tips:

  1. How to properly post source code - see: https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment... - also how to properly include images/pictures
  2. "Garbage" characters on a serial terminal are (almost?) invariably due to wrong baud rate - see: https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/serial-communication
  3. Wrong baud rate is usually due to not running at the speed you thought; check by blinking a LED to see if you get the speed you expected
  4. Difference between a crystal, and a crystal oscillatorhttps://www.avrfreaks.net/comment...
  5. When your question is resolved, mark the solution: https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment...
  6. Beginner's "Getting Started" tips: https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment...
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I am [unfortunately] aware of SAR.  That would be WHY this module has the 20cm limitation.  I'm just curious as to how phones get around that.

Science is not consensus. Science is numbers.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1

They write this in the manual in a small type. And if users don't follow the instructions, well it is not company's fault.

NOTE: I no longer actively read this forum. Please ask your question on www.eevblog.com/forum if you want my answer.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

alexru wrote:

 

RF connector there is just for testing, you don't have to and should not use it in your design.

 

 

I realize that, but the vertical height may cause me a problem.  If I purchase in sufficient quantities, would Atmel be willing to sell the module w/o that connector populated?  (or would something like that constitute a "change," nullifying the FCC certification?

 

The old [obsolete] ATZB-24-* came in a variant w/ a connector and a variant w/o a connector.

Science is not consensus. Science is numbers.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1

I have no idea, you need to ask local sales rep for that. But I'm very skeptical. This connector is used during the manufacturing test and not placing it would mean that some parts of the test will have to be omitted.

 

NOTE: I no longer actively read this forum. Please ask your question on www.eevblog.com/forum if you want my answer.