| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Everybody, As the teleconference was during my
vacation and at 2AM in the morning I was unable to participate. But if still
valid within 7 days after meeting, here are a summary of my views: VI. Start to review the overall goals of the
group. Solicit new input. a. Life expectancy of 10 years, hopefully
more Yes - support. b. Same connector for All device and
adapter connections if detached cable Yes-
support but single connector for all voltages and power needs (maybe with and
without retention/mechanical lock for various applications. c. Power range >10W – 130W delivered
power to device and is brand, model, and year agnostic
Yes- support. d. First adapter must work with last device
and last adapter with first device. Standard Compatibility. Yes- support. e. Adapter<->Mobile Device
communications required for higher power safety >7W. Yes- support. f. Standard designed to support
Certification testing of adapter and device (and cable)
Not in favour of mandatory certification testing. This should not be a
requirement. Instead it should be voluntary part of standard. g. Continuous communications growth to
support growth of UPAMD capability. Not if
this prohibit VI-d. h. Basic power delivery mechanism i. Must support
regular non-battery and battery powered devices
Yes- support. i. Device may be capable of being a source
as well as a sink of power No – not supported. I
think the extra complexity of being bidirectional should be put on the device requiring
such special performance maybe using two UPAMD connections (one for source, one
for sink?) Adapter should only be source via UPAMD connection. i. To supply
power other devices beyond the USB 10W power range.
Yes - support ii. Able to
share power for mission critical or business critical applications if willing Yes but not directly. This should be controlled by
device. But adapter must be able to relay such messages back and forth between device
and energy supply so that device may reduce consumption or shut down if
necessary. Adapter should be able to inform energy source or device about current
consumption and any limits imposed by energy source. j. Make independent of rapidly changing
technology i. Multiple
battery technologies currently used – no common adapter or battery
voltage Yes – support. The UPAMD
communication should be able to control voltage and max current arbitrary based
on communication. The Adapter<->Mobile Device communications should
enable this to be done. ii. Consider
isolation to meet medical power needs No – not supported.
Medical standards should be kept outside this standard – see KISS. k. Consider future mobile device design
options i. Smaller
profiles, headed for 10mm to 5mm? Different shape devices, non-edge usage No not now. I believe we are able to make a small
enough connector for most devices. Maybe for a version 2 of the standard as
this will break VI-b. Also such small devices will usually use less than 10W. l. Connector must not mate with any current
designs – product Safety issue – no confusion
Yes- support. m. Apply KISS principle – Keep It Simple
Stupid within the other goals. Yes - support. n. Environmentally friendly to eventual
disposal No – not supported. This issue should be
handled by other standards. Kind regards, Per |