RE: Possibility for low cost voltage setting

["Leonard Tsai" <leonard.tsai@xxxxxxxxx>]

 

I don’t recall we discussed about 802.3at.

 

Also, I am not sure if it is relevant but in future, many of the mobile device will not have RJ45 due to ID design, size, power, etc. consideration. 

 

From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Feldman, Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:09 AM
To: Leonard Tsai; LEI / Rene Koch; Paul Panepinto
Cc: UPAMD
Subject: RE: Possibility for low cost voltage setting

 

Was there any discussion in to making the interface the same as in IEEE802.3at-2009? The standard already has a universal connector (the RJ45) which is present at the majority of portable computers, and allows the delivery of 12.95W (Type 1 devices), 25.5W (Type 2 devices) or 51W (2xType 2 devices).

It would save the cost of a connector and the standard already has a provision for negotiating power and allocating power.

 

---

From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leonard Tsai
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 6:24 PM
To: 'LEI / Rene Koch'; Paul Panepinto
Cc: 'UPAMD'
Subject: RE: Possibility for low cost voltage setting

 

As voltage drop by different length and grade of power cable, this maybe not as ideal as digital communication. Just my opinion…

 

Leonard

 

From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of LEI / Rene Koch
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 9:18 AM
To: Paul Panepinto
Cc: 'UPAMD'
Subject: RE: Possibility for low cost voltage setting

 

I do not think you need that second setting. The application can regulate the current by itself by adjusting that feedback or voltage setting signal. Less voltage means less current.
Unless you are talking about single fault conditions; in which case you have a similar problem when using digital communication.