| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Thanks. if 130W is a hard limit, than a PoE-derived standard
is most likely not going to be an option, due to the current UL limitation of
100VA for the infrastructure cabling (so it does not require a certified
electrician for installation). Note that there are talks to increase PoE's
maximum power to around 85W. From: Bob Davis [mailto:bobd@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 6:34 PM To: 'Leonard Tsai'; Feldman, Daniel Cc: 'UPAMD' Subject: RE: Possibility for low cost voltage setting Daniel, The
required power domain is 10W<> 130W. For 48V operation this is
beyond the 802 spec. The RJ-45 was/is listed as one of the options to be
considered. There
is also pressure against that high a voltage. But this has not been
decided yet. Bob
Davis UPAMD
Chair. From: upamd@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leonard Tsai 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 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 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
|