| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
All, My input on the updated goals… a. Life expectancy of 10 years, hopefully more Yes - support. b. Same connector for All device and adapter connections if
detached cable Yes- support. c. Power range >10W – 130W delivered power to
device and is brand, model, and year agnostic
Yes- support. What about defining the voltage output range as well?
d. First adapter must work with last device and last adapter
with first device. Standard Compatibility. This is
a good goal to have in mind, but I would not insist on it if it meant that
future requirements could not be accommodated. e. Adapter<->Mobile Device communications required for
higher power safety >0.7W (down from 7W ie 12-14v@50ma) I support this concept, but why so low a value? This will add unnecessary
cost to the cheapest end of the market. Is there a problem with something like
a 5W adapter supplying power all the time? If a product needs to control power
going into it, then the product probably already does it. For example,
anything with LiIon batteries has to control the charge current to the cells
(as per IEEE 1625 or IEEE 1725). Why add another layer of communications for low
power devices? Sorry I was not at the meeting to have heard the discussion on
this change. f. Standard designed to support Certification testing of
adapter and device (and cable) Yes- support. g. Continuous communications growth to support growth of
UPAMD capability. Yes- support. 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 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- support. j. Make independent of rapidly changing technology i. Multiple battery technologies
currently used – no common adapter or battery voltage Yes. The Adapter<->Mobile Device
communications should enable this to be done. ii. Consider isolation to meet
medical power needs Changed my mind on this after
consideration and now do NOT support. The medical device manufacturer has to
consider safety and even now cannot use “off the shelf supplies” in
some cases. k. Consider future mobile device design options i. Smaller profiles, headed for
10mm to 5mm? Different shape devices, non-edge usage
Yes- support. 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 Not in favour to be included in this standard.
This is covered by existing and emerging legislation around the world and I do
not believe a specific standard for power supplies is the place to define those
aspects which will influence eventual disposal. Stephen Colclough Senior Manager Samsung Electronics QA Lab Blackbushe Business Park Yateley Hampshire GU46 6GG Tel: +44 (0)1252 863820 Fax: +44 (0)1252 863814 email s.colclough@xxxxxxxxxxx Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited Registered number: 03086621 Registered address: Samsung House, 1000 Hillswood Drive, Chertsey,
Surrey KT16 0PS, England This
communication (including any attachments) contains information which may be
confidential and/or privileged. It
is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) so, if you have received
this communication in error please
do not distribute, copy or use this communication or its contents but notify
the sender immediately and
then destroy any copies of it. Due
to the nature of the Internet, the sender is unable to ensure the integrity of
this message. Any
views expressed in this communication are those of the individual sender, except
where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the company the
sender works for. From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bob Davis 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 b.
Same connector for All device and adapter
connections if detached cable c.
Power range >10W – 130W delivered
power to device and is brand, model, and year agnostic d.
First adapter must work with last device and
last adapter with first device. Standard Compatibility. e.
Adapter<->Mobile Device communications
required for higher power safety >0.7W (down from 7W ie 12-14v@50ma) f.
Standard designed to support Certification testing
of adapter and device (and cable) g.
Continuous communications growth to support
growth of UPAMD capability. h.
Basic power delivery mechanism 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. 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. 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 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 |