Thread Links  Date Links  

Thread Prev  Thread Next  Thread Index  Date Prev  Date Next  Date Index 
Yair, See responses below but to save time your answer to my questions are: 1. Should there be a minimum PSE resistance: Yair: Yes 2. What would that be: Yair: 0.1 Ohm The follow up questions would be: 1. How did you arrive at this number (My estimated component values and calculations are shown in my presentation) 2. Is this value for every pair (high side and low side)? My presentation used 0.12 Ohms for the high side and 0.29 Ohms for the low side pairs. Again, how they are arrived at are shown in the presentation. Another question: Are you ready to suggest a PSE resistance imbalance too at this point? Regards,
From: Darshan, Yair [mailto:YDarshan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Hi Jeff, Thanks for asking. My approach to specifying a behavior of a system or subsystem is as follows: It has to be 100% mathematically proven. This is the only way known to science as bullet proof. Simulation is a tool to test your math but is not replacing it. With good and solid math, you can save tons of work. JLH: Yair, simulation is the world standard for understanding the behavior of analog circuits.. In case you missed the comment, spice simulation is a mathematical technique based on circuit theory. I believe it is much more efficient and much more accurate. There is no such thing to specify something and leave it loose by justifying it with "It is low probability to happen". Why? Because you/we have no clue what will be in the future, what we have in the past. The ONLY WAY you can justify such "low probability" is to show mathematically and system performance wise why it is impossible. JLH: Once we agree on use cases for the channel, simulation is the best way to understand the maximum current in a pair  For your information such systems with very small resistance in the positive rail and larger in the negative rail do exists. But as I say ,to me it is not important if the exist now or tomorrow. I want a spec that after standard ratification, all the parameters affecting system behavior, are well defined. It is also highly important during compliance test to not allow false interpretation by creative test houses. JLH: we need the agreed upon use cases Now addressing what I said at the meeting: The goal is specifying the PSE PI model In a way that its P2P unbalance parameter will limit the max current over the lowest pair resistance to a tolerable maximum value. This is the only goal of the PSE PI model to me as a system vendor. JLH: I would add with reasonable cost and efficiency. Active balancing in the PSE would solve the problem but it is very costly and will burn quite a bit of power. If you did the math, you can see the I_max over a pair is not controlled only by Rdiff. See Ken presentation and see my work in the adhoc. To save you the time, here is the equation the controls I max: Imax=It*(1+PSE_P2PRUNB)/2. (Validated many time). It is the total PD current for all 4P. PSE_P2PRUNB is a NUMBER between 0 to 1. PSE_P2PRUN=P2P_Current_UNB=(RmaxRmin)/(Rmax+Rmin). (Ignoring voltage difference effect for simplicity) PSE P2P RUNB = PSE P2P Current unbalance by definition. Digging further in this equation you will see: Imax=It*(1+(RmaxRmin)/(Rmax+Rmin))/2. Now you can see that we are not using the P2PRUNB number but only its specified components. And one last step for fully understand the problem: Imax=It*(1+Rdiff/(Rmax+Rmin))/2. Now I show you the equation with Rdiff or Delta Resistance as you call it. You can see that Imax is function of Rdif BUT also a function Rmax+Rmin. You need two parameters to close the spec: Imax is given by system constrains such transformers etc. And you must have the flowing set of numbers: a) Rmax, Rmin. (you can compute Rdiff.) b) Rdiff, Rmin. (you can compute Rmax) c) Rdiff, Rmax. (you can compute Rmin) d) P2PRUNB and Rmin ((you can compute Rmax) JLH: Yair, the recitation of this material over and over again with the implication that others do not understand it or are missing the point is not helpful for coming to a consensus. I disagree with this approach. Several others made the same point. We understand your method and disagree with it. Having only Rdiff is not sufficient and leaves holes in the spec such major interoperability issue for example: You can have: Rdiff=RmaxRmin=10.9=0.1 ohms. Rdiff=109.9=0.1 ohm Rdiff=03.0.1=0.2 ohms. All the same Rdiff, but totally different Rmax, Rmin resulting with totally different Current Unbalance behavior that cannot be MATCHED WITH THE TOTAL END TO END REQUIREMENT. There is no other option per the math. Now after having knowing this what is the relevancy of low probability of this and that? And have bad specification WITH HIGH PROBABLITY FOR INTEROPERABILITY ISSUES? Yes I suggest that the PSE will include the following parameters:  Voltage difference spec.  P2PRUNB spec.  Rmin (tbd for now ) but I saw that we have a guarantee of at least 0.1 ohm. Other sets of numbers are possible as shown above. This is the best set in my opinion as it the closest to "implementation independent" requirement due to the fact the P2PRUN is a ration and not absolute number as Rdiff only. If you agree , very good. If you don’t please use math to show why. This is the only way to prove your argument. Yair From: Jeff Heath [mailto:jheath@ here is teLINEAR.COM] From: Jeff Heath [mailto:jheath@xxxxxxxxxx] Yair, I believe you had an objection regarding doing a PI specification using maximum delta resistances on slide 8 for instance. Your objection was that if Rps1 was 0.95 ohms and Rps2 was 0.0 ohms the percentage was too large. Given that the goal is maximum pair current, can you explain why this highly improbable PSE case is an issue? Are you suggesting that the PSE PI will include a minimum resistance? If so, what would it be? Regards,
