|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Thanks, Please see my comments. I'll appreciate if you can address it prior the meeting so we can save time.
Slide 2: Please use the ad-hoc Acronyms as agreed on Annex J1 page 60 at the ad-hoc material. I am referring to bullet 2 when you say "P2PRunb". Do you mean End to End P2PRunb ?
The End to End P2PRUnb is system requirement that will generate eventually the current unbalance in addition to voltage unbalance PSE and PD. This parameter will not be in the spec. It is a guide line or "system" spec to us.
The parameters that will be specified are:
PSE PI Resistance and voltage unbalance.
PD PI Resistance and voltage unbalance.
Slide 3: No comments. It is correct. Furthermore I am going to propose to specify minimum resistance to PSE PI and PD PI per my presentation conclusions sent to the reflector and to the team regarding the channel use case analysis results. This is I believe supported and resolve the last two bullets in this slide.
Slide 4: I like the direction. It supports slide 3. It is also similar to the analytical way that I have shown in the last adhoc meeting (on slide 14 of our next meeting material) which is:
I understand that the Kpd part and Kch part was merged to Y term. Is this correct?
Slide 5. Looks good. Please show equation derivation to justify the method. It will helps also to those who interested to use it and run simulations to test the concept.
3rd bullet not clear. (Don’t otherwise provide a balancing technique)
5th bullet: Why "4 pair powering shall be sourced from a single DC supply" is Important if Voltage difference is specified?
Bullet 6: It is implementation issue. We cannot require it. You need to translate your intention to voltage, resistance, current to allow/disallow what you believe is best and we can discuss it.
Bullet 7: Yes agree. I am proposing the same for PSE and PD i.e. to specify Rmin.
Annex – derivation of equations: Please supply next meeting calculated examples so we can verify in simulation. Please use only adhoc numbers so we can use the same data base and Christiam and me can both check it.
Example at the last slide: The point is clear. Please use the adhoc data base from the same reasons above.
Hi Yair, All,
On 6/22/2014 8:03 PM, Darshan, Yair wrote: