Leonard,
I hate to disregard the U in UPAMD. “Universal”
to me means “All devices”, not “All computers”. I gather that you feel (1) cell
phone manufacturers are standardizing on a micro USB connector that plugs into
the phone, presumably with alternative chargers powered by computer USB ports, cigarette
lighters, and wall outlets (2) camera manufacturers prefer to have you remove
the battery from the camera for charging in a separate unit (3) so laptops are
the bulk of what is left. If so, we may be trying to close the barn door after
the horse is out.
I suspect more users will leave their power
adapters behind in hotel rooms than will use them to power multiple generations
of any type of device. But limiting themselves to a single power adapter will
lighten their load when travelling.
My dictionary defines the word “premolar” related
to the teeth of a mammal and I suspect you intended to type something else, but
it would be presumptuous for me to reply to what I think you mean. Please
clarify.
Alex Schneider
From: upamd@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leonard
Tsai
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 9:21
PM
To: Alex Schneider
Cc: <upamd@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Universal Power vs.
Universal Physical Connector
I
had considered such reasoning before proposing UPAMD with focus on battery
powered nB. The primary challenge is because some of these devices already
unified behind one standard. For example, mobile phone maker agreed on micro
USB as charging port. This does not premolar an UPAMD adapter to have a
separate USB port to an external micro USB cable then to your phone. Similarly,
the same USB port can power PSP, etc.
The
problem area are digital cameras (most are not able to charge from USB and
newer DC need to take battery out to charge).
I
think there is no limit to the adapter to support multiple standard charging
port. This is why I did not consider to charge non-NB in the original scope.
I travel a lot and the adapters are a big part of weight for my carry on.
Sent from my iPad 3G
While a major point of this effort is to allow power adapters to
outlive the devices they power, I believe a second point is to enable a user to
get around with ONE adapter for all his electronic goods. A personal narrative
may illustrate the point.
On a vacation trip last week, my wife and I brought two cell
phones, two digital cameras, and a computer. Had we brought our granddaughter
the head count would have doubled. Because we bought our cell phones from the
same manufacturer and in the same ??eneration?? they
can share each other??
chargers. But the cameras do not use the same power adapter, and the laptop is
totally separate. The laptop has a dual mode adapter which can run either from
the 120 volt wall outlet or from the 12 volt cigarette lighter outlet in the
car. We have a separate charger in the car for the phones.
Although the computer was primarily run on the adapter, none of the
other devices needed charging more than once during the week. Had these devices
shared a UPAMD, one would have sufficed.
If we are serious about reducing electronic waste, a good place to
start is not forcing the consumer to buy a second charger when he gets an
additional device. The charger not bought is never a disposal problem.
Alex Schneider
From: upamd@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leonard_Tsai@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:24
PM
To: MIKE.FINCH@xxxxxx;
UPAMD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Universal Power vs.
Universal Physical Connector
I agree with Mike. USB spec is good up to 10W and that
is where the UPAMD pick up and go forward.
I doubt that USB will even go into 130W range.
Even with notebook and netbook, the common power adapter
these days are 35W (netbook) and 65W (notebook) mainly; I don?? have the exact number but I expect these 2 class
represents the majority of the shipment. The 95W and 130W are for those
beasty gaming notebook and mobile workstation.
Leonard
From: upamd@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Finch,
Mike (GE Indust, ConsInd)
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010
9:20 AM
To: Paul Panepinto; UPAMD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Woolf, Karen (AS)
Subject: RE: Universal Power vs.
Universal Physical Connector
The answer may be in your question. The apple IPod can be
charged from a USB charger, it does not require apple to change their connector
on the product, just the connector on the other end of the charging cable.
I think we should leverage USB as much as possible, in thought
process and extensibiility as it has been extremely successful in the
marketplace
Mike
From: upamd@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul
Panepinto
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:16
PM
To: UPAMD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Woolf, Karen (AS)'
Subject: RE: Universal Power vs.
Universal Physical Connector
Hi Karen:
I appreciate the detail you provided
in your thinking on this topic. When I look at the iPhone, iPad, iMac and
iPod, it is clear these devices are extremely popular. It?? unlikely that Apple is willing to change its connectors or be
forced to add a separate power connector.
While having everyone adopt a
load-side power connector is the ideal, it will add years to the time it will
take to develop a standard, if ever possible with this as a requirement.
Seems to me, first priority for the
UPAMD is to eliminate eWaste caused by premature disposal of power adapters
designed to serve just one product. Other benefits of UPAMD are energy savings,
convenience and a wealth of energy monitoring and control applications that are
possible with a smart power adaptor. The convenience of having every load
device able to provide a universal physical power connector may be too much to
ask and can prevent the group from succeeding.
I am just sharing my direct
experience with executives from many of the world?? largest CE vendors. Is this really a battle we want to wage
now? Might it behoove the UPAMD to develop the standard and later evolve
towards a common physical connector? We shouldn?? underestimate the resistance CE vendors have to the concept of
universal power. Forcing a physical connector on their devices might be
too much to ask.
Just my opinion. Thanks for
sharing yours.
Regards,
Paul Panepinto
VP Ecosystem Development
Green Plug, Inc.
From: Woolf, Karen (AS) [mailto:karen.woolf@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 5:54
PM
To: Paul Panepinto
Subject: RE: Universal Power vs.
Universal Physical Connector
With regard to Paul's comments:
I understand
his concerns with the difficulty of defining and making mandatory a physical
connector between the power cord and the mobile device, and I recognize the
challenge presented to manufacturers. We have to consider the current work
various countries and industry groups have done toward this goal, the
costs and form factor considerations for the devices themselves, and
the limitations that requirement might impose on power supply flexibility.
But I would say that far from being optional, this is the MOST important
of all of our goals.
Both as a
consumer and as an engineer, I have experienced the frustration caused by
having to locate (and then organize and lug along) myriad power
adapters and cords before traveling or going to a test site - and the
inevitable problems that occur when one is forgotten, or one of the many
all-too-similar plugs turns out not to be the right one. I know it will be
hard, and require a great deal of coordination, to create universal,
mandatory standard for this - but from the user's point of view, the only
thing harder to deal with than the supply-side adapters needed for
international travel is the tangle of cords one has to manage in one's own home
or workplace. If our team's work can eliminate this problem, or at least
significantly mitigate it, I think that beyond the impact in our own technical
worlds, we will have a concrete and visible impact in the daily
life of ordinary consumers.
So while it
presents a mighty big hill for us to climb, I'd like to encourage the group to
think of the potential benefits, in the longer term. After the short-term cost
and design impacts are dealt with, this could ultimately reduce costs as
those components become common. For the travel industry, imagine the benefits
of every plane, train, car, and hotel being able to make available to every
customer built-in power sources for most of their devices, without the cost of
providing dozens of form factors. For engineering teams, it would have a great
impact if we could take many of our measurement devices from a commercial site,
to a military base, to a testing lab, and not have to worry about having a
power source. Also, think of the "public relations" benefits to both
IEEE and the world of standards in general. While most of our standards have
substantial benefits to our industries and the public, most people don't know
much about it. Like the 1394 standards for wireless, this would provide another
example of the importance and usefulness of having and following standards that
any consumer or engineering manager could point to - which ultimately helps us
all.
To address
concerns that Paul (and others with similar - and perfectly legitimate! -
worries) has raised, maybe we should consider some areas of flexibility. For
example, perhaps we should make abundantly clear in our documents the
difference between providing power, and providing data transmission. Many
devices currently have one cable for both - but when the device is truly
"being mobile", generally only power supply is needed. We might
consider some statement encouraging the use of wireless means of data transfer
to address this. While I know that wired transfers are sometimes really
necessary, so some devices may still need two connections, it might help with
the adoption process if we at least make it clear that we haven't ignored that
consideration. We also might consider having more than one (although of course
as small a number as possible) "standard" connector devices can choose
to use - just having two or three "choices" in our standard might
help it be applicable to a much wider range of devices, because we could cover
quite a lot of size and power-"quantity" concerns by offering just a
little flexibility.
Sorry for
having been long-winded, team, but for those who haven't been on the list the
whole time, I hope it will be helpful to share some of my own personal
reasoning behind this goal.
Hello:
We??e
gotten feedback that there are too many considerations to expect in a
reasonable timeframe the entire electronics industry to adopt a single
load-side power connector. Our approach is to view the universal power
adapter as 3 components: (a) a power supply capable of powering any load within
its maximum output power range; (b) a universal connector on the power supply
to allow vendor-specific power cords to work with it, (c) the load-side power
connector.
While it is important for the power
supply to offer a common physical connector so that it can work with any load,
in order to prevent getting bogged down in an elusive attempt to develop a
common load-side physical connector, perhaps the latter can be an option and not
a mandate.
Is there a reason this working group
must define a mandatory, physical load-side connector spec?
Regards,
Paul Panepinto
VP Ecosystem Development
Green Plug, Inc.
=============================================================================================================== This message may contain information which is private, privileged or confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender and destroy/delete the message. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. =============================================================================================================== |
|