| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Paul, The possibility of any UPAMD
compliant adapter/source working with almost any UPAMD device/load requires
the communications link. For example; 1.
A 40W adapter with a
65W battery powered load: The device would ask and find out that there is not
enough power available for the full functionality and charging and would either
reduce performance to the 40W level or use the 40W source to supplement the
onboard battery or more slowly recharge the battery during idle period by doing
its best energy management practices. It is adaptive. Even a 25W adapter
could charge a 130W battery powered system sloooowly, but not run it at full power/performance.
This is better than no power. 2.
A 40W adapter with a
65W non-battery load: The device would consider operation at a 40W rate and if
not capable use, tell the user that a larger adapter is needed and shut down. 3.
A 130W adapter/source
can run anything but is more expensive and possibly heavier to lug around. But
is also probably the one that I would carry to be ready for anything. 4.
There is a cost
dividing line around 65W -75W INPUT based on the country power rules for power
factor correction. I would expect to see a lot of adapters just under that
line with lower prices. Above the line the cost delta for different power levels
will probably be less significant. 5.
Sourcing from one
device to another is a negotiation between them: The first answer from a device
could well be NO for many devices. For systems build for business and mission
critical application, the answer could be “I can spare 27 watt-hours of
power for you”. This is all in the communications link. I can easily
see supplying power to a peripheral, beyond the 10W USB limit, for a printer,
display etc, as needed as well as another device. The device would protect
itself as always. NO REQUIRED but possible. Most modern battery powered and
non-battery powered systems do operate at different power level through a multiplicity
of methods but there will be place where the offered power in insufficient for
anything other than a complaint from the device. Bob From: upamd@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Panepinto Hello: Cost goal is an interesting topic. Is the goal of UPAMD to
make any appropriately-sized external power adapter able to provide power to
any load in the specified power range? Besides the obvious environmental
benefits of interoperability, what is the reason for this goal? From my perspective, interoperability buys you: ·
EPS become as interoperable as AC power strips – and no longer
become the burden of the CE vendor to bundle with products. They will
only be separately sold items, just like AC power strips are today. ·
If digital communication is the basis for the interoperability,
the potential exists for dynamic tuning of the power adapter based upon
different load conditions and providing access to the demand-response system to
a whole class of CE devices that won’t have a direct Zigbee or other
Smart Grid interface. A DC power strip that is reusable across many
devices and is durable can easily afford the added component cost of such
capability. Depending upon the feature-set of the UPAMD spec, it will be very
difficult to make it a cost-neutral spec. If UPAMD removes the need for
any CE vendor to provide an EPS except as a separately paid-for accessory and
if UPAMD-compliant EPS are to be durable, one can argue that the cost of smart
EPS are much less than conventional EPS, even if the component costs are
higher. Best regards, Paul (970) 461-3077 Skype: ppanepinto *** Please vote for open systems power at www.iwantmygreenplug.com
and pass it on - Thank you *** From: upamd@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kardach, Jim Some additional goal
suggestions:
* Cost goal. Architecture should show a path to scale to cost unity
with today’s AC bricks (within 5 years?)
* Efficiency goal. Architecture should allow products to be built
to meet (or should not prohibit or make difficult) the EnergyStar 2.0 EPS
requirements (most governments regulating around these specs) within the cost
goal Jim From: upamd@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tomlins, Garry 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 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 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 |