Re: Simple analog signaling for an AC adapter
I'm not sure I follow your argument. Are you suggesting that we
abandon this effort?
I very much expect that UPAMD -> Legacy Dell and UPAMD -> Legacy HP
adapters will be readily available. Even Legacy --> UPAMD is possible
too. As long as UPAMD works at both ends of its cable, it doesn't
really care what happens between it and the mains.
No current adapter meets all the goals of the standard. In addition,
the connector will be changing unless something radical happens to
change the current direction of the connector group. Once the
connector changes, everything else will is up for grabs anyway, since
things will have to change.
Mark
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:06 PM, <Gary_Verdun@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paul et al,
>
>
>
> I agree that once a significant footprint of UPAMD power supplies is out
> there we may begin to unbundle AC adapters and systems. But if every
> customer needs one in several locations before they no longer need to
> acquire one with every product then we will have to bundle until every
> customer has 2 or more of these power adapters. With a typical product
> replacement cycle of 2-3 years we could expect this to happen for a typical
> user in somewhere between 2 to six years unless you think they will all go
> out and buy a bunch of expensive adapters to go with their first product.
>
>
>
> Just think of how long it would take to build a “Critical Mass” of power
> adapters. Most end users will need more than just one adapter before they
> reach the point of not wanting one with a product. Let’s say one at every
> hotel room and one in every home/business office and conference room in the
> world. How many billion adapters are needed to fulfill this requirement and
> how long would it take to manufacture these?
>
>
>
> Dell’s corporate customers that have standardized on Dell notebook computers
> will have to replace all of the adapters in their facilities and throw the
> existing ones away. I’m sure this is the case with HP as well. We all need
> to understand and recognize that in order to get to the point where all
> systems use this adapter and are universally available we must first force
> the disposal of all existing notebook AC adapters. Forced Obsolescence will
> initially increase the waste stream as many fully functional devices
> currently in service will be disposed of and replaced with the new devices.
>
> USB power supplies have been available and shipping with small devices long
> before the spec was created so I’m not sure notebook adaption would follow
> that trend. Cell phones very often also have different business models than
> the PC industry.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gary Verdun
>
> Technology Strategist
>
> Dell | Office of the CTO
>
> office + 1 512 723 6251, fax + 1 512 723 9929
>
> CTO Office on One Dell Way
>
>
>
> From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Panepinto
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 4:14 PM
> To: 'Atkinson, Lee'; 'Mark Anderson'
>
> Cc: 'Edgar Brown'; 'upamd-comms@xxxxxxxx'; garrytomlins@xxxxxx; 'Piotr
> Karocki'; 'upamd@xxxxxxxx'; 'Leonard Tsai'
> Subject: RE: Simple analog signaling for an AC adapter
>
>
>
> Hi Lee et al:
>
>
>
> In a perfect world, I see the unbundling happening a lot sooner, once a
> standard is indeed agreed upon. Thanks to the wide adoption of USB for low
> power products, I actually get annoyed when I get yet another USB power
> supply with my product. I have a draw full of them – and most have
> detachable cables so I can use them with custom connectors for my Bluetooth
> headset, certain fruit company products, GPS navigation system - every low
> power product I have.
>
>
>
> In very short order after a global standard is indeed developed by an
> organization with the credibility of the IEEE, vendors will unbundle. Power
> adapters will become high-margin accessories instead of bundled give-aways.
> How many laptops plug into wall sockets directly? The vast majority plug
> into AC power strips. But, the CE vendor is not burdened with bundling AC
> power strips with their products, because they work with everything and
> everyone probably already has several AC power strips at their desk.
>
>
>
> Within just a few years after a standard is adopted, the majority of people
> will no longer need or want yet another power adapter. They’ll already have
> their lightweight travel adapter, their gonzo high output power adapter and
> perhaps a desktop power hub or two by then.
>
>
>
> CE vendors benefit by changing a “give-away, bundled item” into a
> “high-value, paid-for accessory option.” Darnell estimates 2.2B EPS will be
> produced this year. In a world of standard power adapters, that number will
> eventually go down significantly, especially as multi-port power hubs become
> commonplace. That means CE vendors will lose the revenue benefits of the
> bundled EPS, but gain higher margins for fewer sales of better power
> solutions. It should be a wash for them.
>
>
>
> The effect on the conventional power supply vendor is more unclear. They
> have a vested interest in large volumes of disposable power adapters.
> Universality strikes at that business model.
>
>
>
> Comments?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Paul Panepinto
>
> UPAMD Power Subgroup Chair
>
> (970) 461-3077
>
>
>
> From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Lee
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:35 PM
> To: Mark Anderson
> Cc: Edgar Brown; upamd-comms@xxxxxxxx; garrytomlins@xxxxxx; Piotr Karocki;
> upamd@xxxxxxxx; Leonard Tsai
> Subject: RE: Simple analog signaling for an AC adapter
>
>
>
> Mark, I think the reason that printers don't ship with USB cables is
> because it gives retailers a chance to sell them for $20 each...
>
>
>
> For as long as I can see, the OEM will need to provide an AC adapter with
> the product.
>
> - Especially for a notebook, the size of the AC adapter must be mated to the
> performance capabilities. Yes, we allow a 65watt adapter to be used with a
> 120watt notebook, but the old adapter is not going to supply full
> performance. And in reverse, nobody wants to carry a 120watt adapter with
> their mini-note.
>
>
>
> - I'm not sure that anybody is going to solve the problem of EMI
> compliance with untested combinations. Even when the source of these is
> within our control, we still have to match and test combinations of AC
> adapter suppliers and end product.
>
>
>
> We're a long ways from a worldwide mandate on common adapters, even within
> a narrow segment of product (say, just notebooks) there is significant
> difference of opinion as to whether such a standard should be mandated. For
> the standard to really be effective and get broad adoption will face very
> serious review. My marketing's view is that our simple 3 pin analog method
> was just engineering run amok, no matter that we can all point to specific
> benefits for customer and our supply chain---Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Anderson [mailto:emer@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:06 PM
> To: Atkinson, Lee
> Cc: Edgar Brown; upamd-comms@xxxxxxxx; garrytomlins@xxxxxx; Piotr Karocki;
> upamd@xxxxxxxx; Leonard Tsai
> Subject: Re: Simple analog signaling for an AC adapter
>
>
>
> I think the big win is going to come when you no longer have to ship
>
> adapters, much like printers no longer ship with USB cables.
>
>
>
> I am 100% behind cost savings. I am not however, for watering down
>
> the standard. I think adding a resistor will cause no one to use
>
> active messaging, and I think all devices should be.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Atkinson, Lee <Lee.Atkinson@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Edgar, in fact the only guy I know using a digital communication method
>> for
>
>> ID is Dell. To Gary V's question, have we rationalized the messages that
>> we
>
>> want to send to the sink, with expected latency ? Have we also confirmed
>
>> what kinds of devices would use active messaging?
>
>>
>
>> My thinking on a few topics;
>
>> a. There is no A/D or microprocessor needed for a simple proportional
>
>> signal. Though A/D and processors are common in notebooks, simpler devices
>
>> could use as little as a transistor and resistor (if they need to discern
>
>> the power capability of the AC adapter at all).
>
>>
>
>> b. The only negotiation for power is simply to declare a connected load;
>> we
>
>> are on the path of a single terminal voltage and not a sink programmable
>
>> voltage (as was contemplated at first and would have required the more
>
>> complex signaling).
>
>> Spark Free does not need the ID pin, certainly our Cupertino friends
>> vary
>
>> to terminal voltage as a function of VCC load (the spark in this case is
>
>> particularly interesting, since they are the only notebook company I know
>
>> that positions its output voltage when connected).
>
>>
>
>> c. If the communications protocol needs to announce the power capability
>> of
>
>> the AC adapter, it can do so in a number of ways (by either static or
>
>> dynamic signaling, via either the ID pin or the VCC mains). We don't
>> really
>
>> even need an ID pin to confirm basic power capabilities.
>
>> One area that has not been confirmed is the need to build UPAMD around
>
>> infinite gradients of power capability; I agree that a static analog ID is
>
>> going to have problems discriminating a 53watt adapter from a 54watt
>
>> adapter. But if we believe that a finite set of power capabilities (eg,
>> 20w,
>
>> 40w, 65w, 90w, 130w) then an analog method will be sufficient (we only
>> need
>
>> the equivalent of a 3 or 4 bits of data).
>
>> HP Smart actually becomes digital (low impedance to VCC) at the power
>
>> limit, so an arbitrary power capability can be messaged. If we want
>
>> messaging of a change in power capabilities we could achieve this
>
>> dynamically thru the same analog signal.
>
>>
>
>> d. There is nothing to prevent digital communication on the same path as
>> an
>
>> analog descriptor. A pullup is a pretty benign thing on a digital path.
>
>>
>
>> I laughed out loud when I saw Garry's mail (that 'a resistor and a wire
>> are
>
>> a big deal'). I think Garry has been spying on emails with my marketing,
>
>> who have perpetually questioned any value towards even our 10 cent
>> solution
>
>> in HP Smart. To a degree, I cannot argue with my marketing's argument
>
>> against a "scale of dis-economy;" meaning, volume never erases the cost of
>
>> real material. I am not HP's AC adapter purchasing or development
>> engineer,
>
>> but I can tell you exactly how many cents we pay for the connector and
>> wire.
>
>> I can tell you as well the increased failure rate in the field by just 1
>
>> added wire on the connector. Pretty much the world except for Dell and HP
>
>> don't deploy any kind of ID. Volume cannot erase real costs for copper,
>
>> epoxy and silicon.
>
>>
>
>> The truth is that unless I can prove to my own marketing that we've
>
>> enabled a really compelling feature for the AC adapter, I will be unable
>> to
>
>> get their support for the UPAMD effort. What can we do to make a
>> convincing
>
>> story that we've been sensitive to the value requirements of mainstream
>
>> consumer products ? Lee
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edgar Brown
>
>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:03 AM
>
>> To: upamd-comms@xxxxxxxx
>
>> Cc: garrytomlins@xxxxxx; Piotr Karocki; upamd@xxxxxxxx; Leonard Tsai
>
>> Subject: Re: Simple analog signaling for an AC adapter
>
>>
>
>> As an analog and mixed-mode designer I learned quite some time ago that it
>
>> is preferable not to use an analog system when a digital one can do a
>> better
>
>> job. Tolerances, repertoire of possible responses, long time constants,
>> and
>
>> safety are all rather easy to handle and expand through digital means, but
>
>> can become very complicated and costly through analog ones. My fears in
>
>> allowing for a completely analog 'communications' system to coexist with a
>
>> digital one would be:
>
>>
>
>> (1) we compromise overall safety
>
>> (2) we make it harder to satisfy the stated goals (e.g., life expectancy
>> of
>
>> standard, adapter/device compatibility over life of standard, and
>
>> certification support)
>
>> (3) we could be hindering standard adoption rather than promoting it.
>
>> (4) we might have to create a full digital communications standard from
>
>> scratch (thus increasing overall cost)
>
>> (5) we would be increasing the cost of adapters and devices that wish to
>
>> implement the digital parts of the standard.
>
>> (6) we could be limiting what can be accomplished by the digital
>
>> communication system (e.g., speed, compatibility)
>
>>
>
>> We have to keep in mind the point that Leonard and Piotr have made, once
>
>> devices and adapters are being produced in quantity, the differential cost
>
>> between an analog method and a digital one will mostly disappear. At that
>
>> point, all adapters and devices will have to keep around analog
>
>> communications subsystems just to remain compatible, with no real added
>
>> benefit.
>
>>
>
>> I would expect the cost curve to follow the same adoption path as many
>> other
>
>> technologies (1) first the high-cost high-margin devices will adopt the
>
>> standard (for which functionality would be key), (2) added-value
>> multi-port
>
>> adapters will follow suit, (3) both of these will create a market for ICs
>
>> and off-the shelf subsystems for UPAMD thus reducing implementation costs,
>
>> (4) lower cost devices and adapters will start adopting the standard. I
>
>> would expect such adoption curve to be followed with or without analog
>
>> communications, and I actually see that requiring analog communications as
>
>> part of the standard could hinder rather than accelerate adoption.
>
>>
>
>> Although I can see how a purely analog system can work, I cannot see how
>> it
>
>> can easily satisfy goal 5 (higher power applied only when it is safe to do
>
>> so); goal 4, as the aging of analog components will make it harder to
>
>> guarantee safety or compliance for the life of the adapter; or goal 6, as
>
>> the certification of analog systems across age and component variations
>
>> would become harder to accomplish. (An example that comes to mind is the
>
>> UCD9248 IC from TI, as it states in its errata that it cannot reliably
>
>> identify a considerable section of its address range because it relies on
>
>> resistors and analog values to set it.)
>
>>
>
>> Gary and/or Arjan, can you come up with a more fleshed-out proposal on
>
>> alternatives for how this analog communications would work? A reference
>
>> design would be ideal, but at the very least it should attempt to address
>
>> safety and digital communications compatibility.
>
>>
>
>> For the sake of argument, if we assume that digital communications would
>> be
>
>> following a differential CAN standard over a separate pair, what
>
>> modifications would be required to make analog communications work?
>
>>
>
>> We can discuss on this Tuesday's communications subgroup meeting.
>
>>
>
>> Edgar
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On Dec 8, 2010, at 8:00 PM, <Leonard_Tsai@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> <Leonard_Tsai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> Coming from ODM point of view, the digital communication cost will
>
>>> disappear
>
>>> fast than you expect. Most of the power adapter today already include
>
>>> digitally control IC. Adding an interface of digital communication
>>> channel
>
>>> may increase small $ in the beginning but will disappear once healthy
>
>>> competition starts.
>
>>>
>
>>> Analog way is a bigger problem as it creates testing requirement for
>
>>> production line and room for error.
>
>>>
>
>>> Leonard
>
>>>
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>
>>> From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tomlins, Garry
>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 8:20 PM
>
>>> To: Piotr Karocki; upamd@xxxxxxxx
>
>>> Subject: RE: Simple analog signaling for an AC adapter
>
>>>
>
>>> I agree with Lee and Arjan:
>
>>> This is heading down a path of unnecessary and complex functionality that
>
>>> leads in turn to a complex and expensive implementation. I beleive it
>>> will
>
>>> not be attractive to the major equipment ODM's who will need to adopt
>>> this
>
>>> if
>
>>> it is to be a success.
>
>>> We should have a simple analog low cost option.
>
>>> In my experience in servicing the adapter market for high volume
>
>>> electronics
>
>>> adding a pin, a wire, a resistor a pin to an IC is a big deal - let alone
>
>>> a
>
>>> separate communications system!
>
>>> My vote is for a simple analog option as described. I believe this will
>
>>> have
>
>>> a good chance of adoption and would be a success for the project.
>
>>> Garry
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Texas Instruments (Cork) Limited, Registered in Ireland under
>>> Registration
>
>>> Number: 294554, Registered Office: Riverside One, Sir John Rogerson's
>
>>> Quay,
>
>>> Dublin 2
>
>>>
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>
>>>
>
>>> From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Piotr Karocki
>
>>> Sent: 08 December 2010 11:50
>
>>> To: upamd@xxxxxxxx
>
>>> Subject: Re: Simple analog signaling for an AC adapter
>
>>>
>
>>> I don't agree with Arjan.
>
>>>
>
>>> We could either "describe current situation" or "shape the future".
>
>>>
>
>>> Our standard could allow resistor-based "communication", something,
>
>>> something, and full communication (required voltage etc.).
>
>>> But as one of goals is to allow to connect every device to every supply
>
>>> (and,
>
>>> in near future, connections in form of grid; power hubs, power storage
>
>>> etc.),
>
>>> every supply has to have full communication option. Making provision to
>
>>> understand simpler communication (as resistor based) makes supply more
>
>>> costly.
>
>>> Say, we have hundred million devices. Half of them - resistor based
>
>>> communication, and tenth of them - full model of communication (4/10 of
>
>>> them
>
>>> some 'in-between' form).
>
>>> Or, we could force whole 100 000 000 devices to have full model of
>
>>> communication.
>
>>>
>
>>> But it is the only way to make this full communication cheaper - as it
>
>>> would
>
>>> be "more mass" production. It would be ONE standard...
>
>>> And the only way to make possible to connect device from 2010 to power
>
>>> supply
>
>>> from 2050 or vice versa. This scenario is not impossible - when standard
>
>>> becomes "grid version"... How often you change wiring in your house?
>
>>>
>
>>> ________________________________
>
>>> From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of arjan strijker
>
>>> [arjan.strijker@xxxxxxx]
>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:26 PM
>
>>> To: Atkinson, Lee; Bob Davis; upamd@xxxxxxxx
>
>>> Subject: RE: Simple analog signaling for an AC adapter
>
>>>
>
>>> I agree with Lee that UPAMD should also support low cost devices.
>
>>> A simple resistor to ground inside the device could tell the adapter what
>
>>> voltage it requires.
>
>>> More sophisticated device can still do power negotiation etc.
>
>>>
>
>>> With regards,
>
>>> Arjan Strijker
>
>>>
>
>>> From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Lee
>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:08 AM
>
>>> To: Bob Davis; upamd@xxxxxxxx
>
>>> Subject: Simple analog signaling for an AC adapter
>
>>>
>
>>> Bob, here is a quick presentation on the method that HP uses for
>
>>> signaling from the adapter to the notebook. We've had this system in
>>> place
>
>>> since 2005 or 2006, and have shipped maybe close to 150million systems
>
>>> that
>
>>> use the common "HP Smart" system (including notebooks, all in one
>
>>> desktops,
>
>>> and small form-factor desktops).
>
>>>
>
>>> My suggestion is that we at least baseline a system that will allow
>
>>> some
>
>>> scalability of the communication method; at least, allow very low cost
>
>>> devices to connect to a UPAMD power source and work reliably even if
>>> their
>
>>> functionality is limited. I'm not sure that a lot of simple devices that
>
>>> would use UPAMD have a need for all the messages that the adapter could
>
>>> provide, or would be able to negotiate variable power consumption. I
>>> think
>
>>> we
>
>>> all agree, there is very little precedence for using sophisticated
>
>>> signaling
>
>>> in the common DC powered devices now in the market. Though I agree the
>
>>> simple
>
>>> methods are limited, if we can deliver a scalable solution there will be
>
>>> fewer reasons for the industry to not adopt UPAMD.
>
>>>
>
>>> Thanks again--Lee
>
>>>
>
>>>
>>> ===============================================================================================================
>
>>> This message may contain information which is private, privileged or
>
>>> confidential of Compal Electronics, Inc.
>
>>> If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the
>
>>> sender and destroy/delete the message.
>
>>> Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of
>
>>> any action in reliance upon this information,
>
>>> by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
>
>>>
>
>>>
>>> ===============================================================================================================
>
>>
>
>