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 =>
Support, but consideration of changes in EPS over the past 10 years,
and of current trends, suggests that the first devices will be outdated
(in efficiency, form factor, appearance, etc.) in a decade's time.
b.
Same
connector for All device and adapter connections if detached cable => Support.
c.
Power
range >10W – 130W delivered power to device and is brand, model, and
year agnostic => Support, but achieving the
entire power range and any reasonable equivalent of the International
Efficiency Marking Protocol level V (ex. Energy Star 2) in a small and
cost-effective (and therefore marketable) EPS is likely to be a
considerable challenge. Worth defining upper and lower voltage limits?
d.
First
adapter must work with last device and last adapter with first device.
Standard
Compatibility. => Support - devices and
adaptors must be backward compatible.
e.
Adapter<->Mobile
Device
communications required for higher power safety >0.7W (down from 7W
ie 12-14v@50ma) => Support - must be a safety
gate when such significant powers / voltages are potentially
deliverable.
f.
Standard
designed to support Certification testing of adapter and device (and
cable) => Support - should be part of the
UPAMD higher value offering.
g.
Continuous
communications growth to support growth of UPAMD capability. => Support, as mains power, and mobile devices and
their usage will no doubt change over years to come.
h.
Basic
power delivery mechanism
i.
Must
support regular non-battery and battery powered devices => Not sure I understand this: If it means that a
UPAMD adaptor should be able to work with a non-UPAMD mobile device
then I do not support. Conflicts with safety requirement e. above.
i.
Device
may be capable of being a source as well as a sink of power
i.
To
supply power other devices beyond the USB 10W power range => Support.
ii.
Able
to share power for mission critical or business critical applications
if
willing => Support.
j.
Make
independent of rapidly changing technology
i.
Multiple
battery technologies currently used – no common adapter or battery
voltage => Support - a continuous voltage
range, or a finely-graded set of discrete voltages, is surely
the only way to guarantee future inter-operability.
ii.
Consider
isolation to meet medical power needs =>
Support, but only if specification for
non-medical devices is not made unduly complicated or expensive.
k.
Consider
future mobile device design options
i.
Smaller
profiles, headed for 10mm to 5mm? Different shape devices, non-edge
usage => Support, connector form factor
should be future-proof too.
l.
Connector
must not mate with any current designs – product Safety issue – no
confusion => Support, unless there is an
existing connector & communication standard that we can piggy back
on. Obviously the connector shouldn't mate with current mains leads
(Euro connector etc). However, communication should avoid any safety
issues with accidental fits.
m.
Apply
KISS principle – Keep It Simple Stupid within the other goals. => Support - the other goals are already non-simple
enough!
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
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