| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Please
see my response within. Thanks,
Peretz
Shekalim 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 [Peretz] - reject, depends on the applications b.
Same connector for All device and
adapter connections if detached cable [Peretz] accept c.
Power range >10W – 130W delivered
power to device and is brand, model, and year agnostic[Peretz] Support d.
First adapter must work with last
device and last adapter with first device. Standard Compatibility. e.
Adapter<->Mobile Device
communications required for higher power safety >0.7W (down from 7W ie
12-14v@50ma)[Peretz] reject f.
Standard designed to support
Certification testing of adapter and device (and cable)[Peretz] accept g.
Continuous communications growth to
support growth of UPAMD capability. [Peretz] reject, could be done only for major technologies change h.
Basic power delivery mechanism i.
Must support regular non-battery and
battery powered devices[Peretz] accept i.
Device may be capable of being a
source as well as a sink of power [Peretz] accept, but as an optional feature 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[Peretz] accept 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[Peretz] accept 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[Peretz] reject m.
Apply KISS principle – Keep It
Simple Stupid within the other goals.[Peretz]
accept 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 |