| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
a. Life expectancy of 10 years, hopefully more- I support.
b. Same connector for All device and adapter connections if detached cable - I mostly agree with this. I would be ok with a (small) family of connectors and standard adapters between them.
c. Power range >10W – 130W delivered power to device and is brand, model, and year agnostic - I support
d. First adapter must work with last device and last adapter with first device. Standard Compatibility. - I support
e. Adapter<->Mobile Device communications required for higher power safety >0.7W (down from 7W ie 12-14v@50ma) - I support
f. Standard designed to support Certification testing of adapter and device (and cable) - not as important to me, certification might be an undue burden. If there are many, many manufacturers out there, a certification authority would be very busy.
g. Continuous communications growth to support growth of UPAMD capability.- don't support. Backwards compatibility becomes a problem
h. Basic power delivery mechanism - I support
i. Must support regular non-battery and battery powered devices
i. Device may be capable of being a source as well as a sink of power - I support
i. To supply power other devices beyond the USB 10W power range
ii. Able to share power for mission critical or business critical applications if willing
j. Make independent of rapidly changing technology - I support
i. Multiple battery technologies currently used – no common adapter or battery voltage
ii. Consider isolation to meet medical power needs
k. Consider future mobile device design options
i. Smaller profiles, headed for 10mm to 5mm? Different shape devices, non-edge usage
l. Connector must not mate with any current designs – product Safety issue – no confusion
m. Apply KISS principle – Keep It Simple Stupid within the other goals.
At the Aug 3,4 teleconference/WebEx meeting the vote of the committee will be held (and the email follow-on) for the resultant goals.
Respectfully,
Bob Davis
UPAMD/P1823 Chair
From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Per Hassel Sørensen
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:28 PM
To: Bob Davis; 'upamd@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: UPAMD updated goals
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