> > pusher that has a form with a check box labeled "does this product
> > contain a microproccessor" with instructions to verify some other
> > mountain of paper if it's checked.

Those who live by the sword die by the sword.

If it DID contain one, no matter how hard you tried to explain that it
was triply redundant, watch dog protected, logic verified and tye code
checked by experts, you'd STILL have top go through the formal
procedures. They may share attributes with other systems, but a
microprocessor isn't a FPGA or a CPLD etc. Right? OK - rules are rules
and you have to follow them to the letter.

Now go and ask suitably qualified experts what a microprocessor IS.
Ask them what a microcontroller IS. Is there a clear distinction? (You
may have to choose your experts :-) ). If the product really really
really has nothing to do with things nuclear or safety or security or
.... you may wish to invoke this
rules-must-be-followed-to-the-letter-distinction. But probably not.
BUT it just may be that the red tape handler is also able to be
persuaded that a uC and a uP ARE sufficiently different, especially in
cases where it  really really really doesn't matter, to actually
approve your request when all facts are made know.

eg "Does this device contain a microprocessor".
"No, but see explanatory note below ...).

I suspect this is not a useful avenue, but ... :-)



      R
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.