RE: UPAMD updated goals
Isaac Cohen wrote:
>> a. Life expectancy of 10 years, hopefully more
> Not mandated, define 3 grades, Mfg. can mark if certified (need to determine by whom)
Why? "life expectancy" is determined by becoming obsolete, not as MTBF.
>> 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).
But such "break" with three connectors forces you to bring everywhere three power supplies - for small devices (phone), for medium devices (mp4 player), and for big devices (laptop).
> e. Adapter<->Mobile Device communications required for higher power safety >0.7W
> Against,: It is a costly addition that is unnecessary for the vast majority of applications.
> OK to create standard but not to mandate implementation.
"Against", regardless of how is communication defined? One of option is analog loop, so (for device) it is single resistor - not so costly :)
>> i. Device may be capable of being a source as well as a sink of power
> Against
Why? It is "may", not "should".
Stephen Colclough wrote:
>> e. Adapter<->Mobile Device communications required for higher power safety >0.7W
> I support this concept, but why so low a value?
a) for safety reasons
b) it is not low power - it is sufficient power to power electronics which could request more power (and, one of communication options is using analog loop); for such electronics 10 mW should be enough :)
>> 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.
Of course they cannot NOW use such supplies - there are no such supplies. But if UPAMD supply would meet medical requirements, it would be allowed to power medical devices. And IEEE just approved family of medical electronics standards, IEEE 11073. Most of such devices are to be using at home, not hospital.
>> 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.
Ok, but UPAMD should not require features, that could be satisfied only by breaking environmentall friedliness.