|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Regarding ‘the list of facts’ on page 1
I don’t recall a straw poll or a motion showing wide consensus that we have two types of 4P systems of the type you call out. Can you point me to such a poll or motion if I have missed it? If not it would be good to establish this in the meeting in Norfolk in the entire Task Force as it seems a bit outside of the scope of this ad-hoc to decide this.
I am aware that there are a considerable amount of components such as magnetics that are designed for 600mA operating in 2 pair systems but aren’t most of these I would guess are cost optimized for operating 600mA in 2 pairs, not 2 X 600mA in 4 pairs. The main issue here would be heating which is a factor of 2 higher.
In any case, having available components for any power level is a good thing however, this is an implementation issue and the OEM is free to use any and all components available for their power level and operating temperature range.
I am again not aware of an objective or motion for this Task Force that states we are going to make a specification based on available ‘at’ components (other than the channel e.g. cable, connectors) that may or may not be available today.
Please see updated version of the above.
I did some work to explain some issues raised during our last ad-hoc regarding the question of what is the total PD power that below it we don’t have to meet xxxP2PRUNB requirements.
Please review and let me know if it is clear and it make sense to you.
I would like to discuss the issue on Thursday.
Power over HDBaseT Subcommittee
Chief R&D Engineer
Analog Mixed Signal Group
1 Hanagar St., P.O. Box 7220