Re: [802.3_4PPOE] 57V
I think the “does not apply” requirement only needs to be applied to the Type 1/2 language - the newer Type 3/4 language doesn’t seem to require it.
Dave
> On Jul 16, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Yseboodt, Lennart <lennart.yseboodt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi George,
>
> Fully agree with your addition. One more improvement:
>
> Type 3 and Type 4 PDs shall withstand any voltage between 0 and 60V between any combination and any number of pairs without permanent damage.
> 'The requirement above does not apply to voltage between the two conductors of a twisted pair.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Lennart
> ________________________________________
> From: George Zimmerman [george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 20:27
> To: Yseboodt, Lennart; STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [802.3_4PPOE] 57V
>
> Lennart - that is simple and works for me to describe the voltages. The 'between' I think is important, as it fixes your issue, and the 'any combination' works to both hit all the polarity issues.
> I think we need to add the 'without permanent damage' to the end to keep the same meaning, giving:
>
> Type 3 and Type 4 PDs shall withstand any voltage between 0 and 57V between any combination and any number of pairs without permanent damage.
>
> Does that work for people on the Type 3/4, or do we need the additional statement:
> 'The requirement above does not apply to voltage between the two conductors of a twisted pair.
>
>
> George Zimmerman
> Principal, CME Consulting
> Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications Technology
> george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 310-920-3860
>
> (PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS. THE OTHER WILL STILL WORK, BUT PLEASE USE THIS FOR CME BUSINESS)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yseboodt, Lennart [mailto:lennart.yseboodt@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10:28 PM
> To: George Zimmerman; STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [802.3_4PPOE] 57V
>
> The "-57V to 57V" can be read as requiring 114V must be tolerated.
>
> My attempt:
>
> Type 3 and Type 4 PDs shall withstand any voltage between 0 and 57V between any combination and any number of pairs.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Lennart
> ________________________________________
> From: George Zimmerman [george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 10:14
> To: STDS-802-3-4PPOE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [802.3_4PPOE] 57V
>
> I agree that we don't want to remove the ambiguity in the existing text. I like, however the -57 to 57 v rather than 0 to 57 v at any polarity.
> I don't think we should be writing it in terms of tests, but rather use the pin sets defined in the table, as Dan suggests.
> This leaves me with Dans text, just without the 'on either mode a or mode b'
>
>
> George Zimmerman
> CME Consulting, Inc.
> 310-920-3860
> George@cmeconsulting.onmicrosoft,com
>
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 10:06 PM, Dave Dwelley <ddwelley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Dan -
>
> I'd prefer:
>
> "Type 1 and Type 2 PDs shall withstand any voltage from 0V to 57V at the PI indefinitely without permanent damage.
>
> Type 3 and Type 4 PDs shall withstand any voltage or combination of voltages from 0V to 57V across any combination of Mode A and Mode B conductor pairs (defined in Table 33-13) indefinitely without permanent damage.
>
> These tests shall be run with the two conductors of each tested pair tied together."
>
> This preserves the ambiguous text from AT for Types 1 and 2 while making Types 3 and 4 clear and stopping the across-a-pair problem.
>
> Dave
>
>
>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 8:55 PM, Dan Dove <dan.dove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Here is a proposed language regarding 57V.
>>
>> Feel free to respond, add, change as appropriate.
>>
>>
>> <iihfbecf.png>
>> Dan Dove
>> Chief Consultant
>> Dove Networking Solutions
>>