# RE: PSE vs. PD power dissipation again

Title: RE: PSE vs. PD power dissipation again

Dave,
that is a concise summary alright.

One more thing that we should try to consider is the overall market.
We should try to give the best tradeoffs to the center of mass of that market.
Let's try to make the center of mass better.

Otherwise, it is easy for each of us to try to make the spec favor our part of the market (PSE or PD).
Since I would do PSE's, say, I would favor lower PSE cost and higher port density, so option 1.

In a way, I hate to ask for marketing input here, but that might be the best way to help
to choose the best of the 2 options.

For example:
If we all think that the largest part of the market will be rather large PD's (maybe 8 to 12 watts)
that need a big input capacitors, then Option 2 might be the best.

If we all think that the PD designs will be all over the map in terms of power
and required DC/DC capacitance, then option 1 might be the best.
I'm talking here about numbers of units shipped, not just the fact that there will be 1W PD's and 12W PD's.

We should lower overall (relative) cost of the system:
# of PSE ports shipped
cost per PSE port
# of PD ports shipped
cost per PD port

thoughts?
- Rick

-----Original Message-----
From:   Dave Dwelley [SMTP:ddwelley@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Thursday, March 22, 2001 5:46 PM
To:     stds-802-3-pwrviamdi@xxxxxxxx
Subject:        RE: PSE vs. PD power dissipation again

At the risk of repeating some of this discussion, let me summarize the
PSE-PD dissipation issue as I see it. If I've made a mistake in any of the

We seem to be split into two camps:

Inrush limit by PD:
- No dissipation in PSE, which means we can integrate multiple switches
- Requires inrush circuit in PD = more \$\$ in PD (amount of \$ subject to debate)
- Puts power dissipation in PD FET always = bigger PD FET
- Requires rapid overcurrent disconnect in PSE
- A PSE with this design cannot power up a PD with no inrush limit

Inrush limit by PSE:
- Requires big FETs in the PSE to survive 500mA/100ms wire short
- Can power any PD - with or without inrush protection
- Dissipation can be in PSE, PD, or shared
- Must allow extended over-current faults before turn-off - adds to PSE
dissipation
- Can power big PD cap faster (500mA vs 350) if the PSE is sized to

We need to endorse only one of these two, since they have mutually
exclusive features.

Option 1 really only has one compelling feature, which is low watts in the
PSE. We can integrate multiple option 1s in one chip. Multiple option 2s
can't be integrated without some accommodation - sequential turn on,
dynamically controlled current limit - something. There are secondary
benefits to option 1 - it won't power up non-inrush-controlled PDs, which
almost gets us the "second check" that Roger has been asking for, and it
won't put a heavy load on a power-managed PSE for long durations during a
wire short.

Option 2 has some nice features, most notably the ability to power up
nearly any PD. It can also ride out a brief short on the wire without
disconnecting the PD. A minor downside is that the PSE power supply must
absorb a fair-sized overload if a PD classified as a low power device (with
power allocated thusly) suffers a wire short. If we chose option 2, we
encompass a wider range of PD designs, including some very low cost
options. But it limits the ability to integrate multiple channels down the