|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Thanks for this work.
I saw some issues please see detailed review inside the file attached. The main issues are:
- In Table 145-16 you have duplicate names. It is not clear which is IUnbalance-2P.
- It will be better to propose numbers for the additional item 5a based on technical consideration. It looks that the end result of this work is to get effective higher Icon-2P_unb margins which, I guess is not the objective of this presentation/baseline. The purpose of this base line is to decouple between the maximum current unbalance current on a pair in PSE and PD that meets current unbalance requirements and the current that the PSE has to be capable to supply over 2-pairs which need to be a minimum value. For this purpose, you need just to specify that:
Icon_pse_capable_2P (or whatever the name is) = Icon-2P_unb+0.002 (I used this concept for ILIM-2P). This will create the gray area required between the two-definition of “max current” and “current capability “ and will resolve the confusion you have raised.
- As for the need (or not ) for margins in Icon-2P_unb value, please see darshan_03_0917.pdf that will update these numbers due to other reasons based on analysis and you will get a bit more margins (You saw this during our discussions and we can talk more about it if needed.
Please see the attached baseline for review.
Description: Adobe PDF document