Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: UPAMD updated goals

 

 

Texas Instruments (Cork) Limited, Registered in Ireland under Registration Number: 294554, Registered Office: Riverside One, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin 2

 

From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Davis
Sent: 28 July 2010 03:41
To: 'upamd@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: UPAMD updated goals

 

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 – Disagree. Maybe 3 grades Consumer/Professional/Industrial!  Electrolytics wear out and it is open to too much abuse and specmanship!

b.        Same connector for All device and adapter connections if detached cable  Disagree. Suggest different connectors for power ranges maybe 3.

c.         Power range >10W – 130W delivered power to device and is brand, model, and year agnostic     Agree

d.        First adapter must work with last device and last adapter with first device. Standard Compatibility. Disagree. Allow for upgrades to standard.

e.         Adapter<->Mobile Device communications required for higher power safety >0.7W (down from 7W ie 12-14v@50ma)  Need to understand reasoning here, why are they needed for higher power safety?

f.         Standard designed to support Certification testing of adapter and device (and cable)  Suggest self certification, keep the cost down for the consumer and manufacturer

g.        Continuous communications growth to support growth of UPAMD capability. Agrees: need to right size communications for what is slow bandwidth communications: single wire essential.

h.         Basic power delivery mechanism

i.  Must support regular non-battery and battery powered devices  Agreed

i.          Device may be capable of being a source as well as a sink of power   Disagree

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   Agree

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 This I assume is related to connectors. Manufacturers should be able to compete on Adapter form factors.

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  Disagree.

m.       Apply KISS principle – Keep It Simple Stupid  within the other goals. KIVSS   V= Very

 

One question: how does one deal with the issue of EMC and ensure compliance to conducted and radiated emissions standards? Connecting a certified adapter does not mean that it and the powered equipment will meet EMC standards – and it will be difficult for the manufacturer to guarantee compliance for the potentially 1000’s of combinations and permutations of powered equipments.

 

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