| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Bob Davis <bobd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: UPAMD, For those of you that were not able to participate in the
teleconference, retaining, or gaining, membership is through email
participation. Please participate by commenting on the goals as
accept/support, reject/no support, or with modifications that would make it
acceptable. Here they are again as modified in the last
teleconference: a. Life expectancy of 10 years, hopefully more Not mandated, define 3 grades, Mfg. can mark if certified
(need to determine by whom) b. Same connector for All device and adapter connections
if detached cable Against, suggest to break the power
range in 3 and define separate connector for each (with versions supporting power+communication
or just power). Also,
standardizing output voltages is the most important factor in promoting
interoperability and minimizing proliferation of adapters. c. Power range >10W – 130W delivered power to
device and is brand, model, and year agnostic Agree e. Adapter<->Mobile Device communications required
for higher power safety >0.7W (down from 7W ie 12-14v@50ma) Against,: It is a costly addition that is unnecessary
for the vast majority of applications. OK to create standard but not to
mandate implementation.
MUST have two versions: With and without communication-it is absurd to mandate
the communication overhead for the many applications that need nothing more
than a fixed voltage to operate. f. Standard designed to support Certification testing of
adapter and device (and cable) Agree g. Continuous communications growth to support growth of
UPAMD capability. Against, only judicious and infrequent
updates to support significant technology changes in order to avoid backward
compatibility h. Basic power delivery mechanism i. Must
support regular non-battery and battery powered devices
Agree. i. Device may be capable of being a source as well as a
sink of power Against 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 not clearly defined-can’t vote on this. 3 standard
power levels for adapters and connectors will enable implementation of safe and
inexpensive splitters that will solve this problem. j. Make independent of rapidly changing technology agree i. Multiple
battery technologies currently used – no common adapter or battery
voltage ii. Consider
isolation to meet medical power needs against k. Consider future mobile device design options Against- Standardization of shape and size do not serve justifiable
purpose-let the manufacturers compete in this area. 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
Against m. Apply KISS principle – Keep It Simple
Stupid within the other goals. Excellent
idea, should have been at the top of the list (is it too late now?) Best
regards, Isaac
Cohen 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 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 |