RE: UPAMD updated goals
I like this idea very much. The initial negotiation of proper voltage and
current limit for the load should also include the ability for the load to
accept or reject the power, based upon its certification as Jim describes
below. This would accommodate other more restrictive environments should
they be defined in the future.
I think two sides participating in the scheme will make for a very safe eps:
* An EPS should ask a load what class of power requirements is has: base,
medical, other class to be defined. The load must respond with an answer or
the power negotiation should fail. If the load is in the base class of CE
devices, any UPAMD-compliant power adapter should be able to power it.
Best regards,
Paul
(970) 461-3077
Skype: ppanepinto
*** Please vote for open systems power at www.iwantmygreenplug.com and pass
it on - Thank you ***
-----Original Message-----
From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kardach, Jim
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:12 PM
To: s.colclough@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'upamd@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: UPAMD updated goals
In this case it would be a medical grade AC brick (which meets the
requirements) that would agree to work with the medical device. The
communications is just used to prevent a non-medical grade AC brick from
working with a medical device, but to allow a medical grade AC brick to work
with devices which have a subset of requirements or to prevent a medical
device from working with a non-medical grade AC brick.
JimK
-----Original Message-----
From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephen Colclough
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:31 AM
To: 'upamd@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: UPAMD updated goals
All,
How could leakage current definitely be controlled by the communications?
Yes, the comms could have a way for a medical device to tell the adapter to
not provide power unless it is a suitable medical rated adapter.
However, the leakage current may not depend on whether power is being
provided or not.
Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: Edgar Brown [mailto:ebrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edgar
Brown
Sent: 29 July 2010 18:24
To: Kardach, Jim
Cc: s.colclough@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'Piotr Karocki'; 'upamd@xxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: UPAMD updated goals
I completely agree with this way of thinking. Supporting a "medical profile"
would allow a medical device to decide if it is willing to accept power from
a specific adapter or to limit its functionality if it is not plugged to the
proper adapter (e.g., charge its batteries but not allow any patient-side
interaction). A medical-profile could provide support for specific
identifiers for which set of standards the device supports.
This should also mean that a Medical-certified UPAMD adapter should
constitute a superset of UPAMD, that is, it would support powering anything
that is non-medical (or exotic in some other way).
As I currently see it, the main areas that should be supported by UPAMD to
be able to handle a medical set of standards in a compatible way, would
probably be restricted to explosive atmospheres. That is, the requirement of
<10V & <50mA present at the connector unless explicitly activated (to avoid
possibility of sparks into a capacitive or inductive load.)
Regards,
Edgar
On Jul 29, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Kardach, Jim wrote:
> 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.