RE: UPAMD updated goals
It seems that medical devices "or exotic" devices (those which have higher level of requirements which you wouldn't want to burden on the majority of the market) could be handled in a compliant way.
Just as its already been requested that not all devices support communications, you could create a profiles for exotic devices (like medical device AC bricks) which would have to meet additional requirements (like from the medical industry). This could be enforced in hardware through the communications mechanism (which would have to be required for exotic profiles) where both the exotic AC brick and device would negotiate to see if all requirements are met before becoming functional.
This would introduce the concept of profiles, and the need for the communications option to support profiles (to support market segments with special needs).
JimK
-----Original Message-----
From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephen Colclough
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 9:46 AM
To: 'Piotr Karocki'; 'upamd@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: UPAMD updated goals
Piotr,
Thanks for the clarification.
On medical devices, as you say, a lot of products are used at home. If a
user could plug any UPAMD into his medical device, then EVERY adapter will
have to meet the medical requirements.
Regards
Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Piotr Karocki
Sent: 29 July 2010 17:18
To: upamd@xxxxxxxx
Subject: 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.