Re: Effect of a universal power connector on Energy Star and EPEAT compliance
On Jul 16, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Piotr Karocki wrote:
>> - Supply is in standby. Nothing plugged in, but waiting.
> What is difference in "supply in standby", "supply powering nothing", "supply in green mode"?
I am just indicating possible classes of states. This might be too many anyway... It would be up to the standard to define specific behaviors and names of behaviors.
"Nothing" could be the exact same as "standby." The only difference from my perspective would be allowing the user to diagnose the connection: "nothing" means nothing is connected, "Standby" means: "yeah, I know something is connected but I am in standby anyway."
I see "green-mode" as: The device and power-supply went to a lower-power configuration (not standby, just supplying and using less power.) E.g., computer is in sleep-mode but still consuming power.
> supplying, overload, short-circuit (if can be differentiated from overload), communication error, waiting for (any) device.
>
> By the way, general question: what should happen in "comm error"? Cut power to such socket? Switch to "low power - communication only"
>
>>> I think UPAMD should not transfer any not-own messages. Probably also from legal reasons :)
>> I guess that as long as the communications part of the standard:
>> - Only deals with adapter-to-device and device-to-adapter communications.
>> - Specifies standard behaviors for specific messages received from outside this adapter-device boundary.
>> - Serves the same functions as a dumb cable for other types of communications.
>> The legal issues should not be that problematic.
> Internet Service Providers has special exemptions (in law) to be not liable for effects of what they transmit.
>
> But IF, very big if, we choose to transmit something from one side of power supply to other side, we should thing about real power-line communication; i.e. pass-throu such networks...
>
> I think power supply CAN react to message from grid (e.g. "power would be lost"), but should send OWN message to devices.
And that's why I want it to be part of the standard!
The whole plane thing is how I see the standard evolving at some point in the future. It seems clear to me that at some point this same communication path can become useful for basic infrastructure messaging applications. It might be worthwhile to at least think about it from the start.
The pass-through communication is just a suggestion that has come up in this forum several times...
> And such "cascade UPAMD" could be another standard in family (communications, i.e. messages between grid and power supply).
> Maybe, supplies compliant with UPAMD v2020, would be supplies connected to grid, to own UPS, solar cell, and powering many devices. And standard could evolve from "power-supply to devices" to "smart (home) power grid" :)
Hear, hear!!