Didier,
Thank you for your comments and contribution.
UPAMD is attempting to specify the connectivity within the UPAMD domain consisting of devices primarily with UPAMD connectivity. The raw power source would seem to deviate from this goal.
We are expecting UPAMD power adapters to be supplied with a wide variety of raw power sources ranging from standard universal AC input power to vehicular system with input voltages ranging from 10V to more than 300V for electric vehicles, plus intermittent power sources such as solar panels, wind turbines, hand crank generators, to kinetic energy capture devices, to battery packs.
Some of these sources may be UPAMD compliant and feed into the system through a UPAMD port up to a port limit of <240W. Other bulk power sources can be defined by the manufacturer to meet their product goals and be compliant with the statutory requirements of the targeted markets. Some UPAMD ports may be bidirectional and allow power flow in both directions based on the needs of the system.
In addition to the Home/Office AC specification there is also a proposed Home/Office DC network initiative. We should expect both.
I believe the L.1000 specification is limited to 7.5W and 5V. UPAMD has a typical output voltage of 21V that can be negotiated to 60V if the source is capable. The power limits per connection have been set at <240W. The multiport adapters will serve many of these ports. We do have a current limit of <8A as defined by the connector design and pin limitations.
The balloting to remove the AC input specification was unanimous. Some comments suggested as series of appendices specifying alternative input specifications.
To answer your questions posed below:
The current connector design is shown in the draft of the document. The intention is to specify only the TARGET, device side, of the connection. This is a small, shallow connection system approximately 20mm x 6mm x 1.6mm deep and flush with the device surface. The cable side of the connection will be specified only in terms of force required to separate in a low retention position and in a high retention position and contact resistance. Low retention position is to satisfy the tripping type of disconnect from all angles. High retention connectivity is hard to reach locations and for high acceleration applications – vehicles, portable equipment, etc.
This connection schema is currently being prototyped and may be modified as needed.
Voltage and current specifications:
Default voltage is 21V at the source and 20V at the device to allow for voltage drop in the cable. Other voltages may be negotiated to <60V, if the source is capable of supplying them. Maximum current is targeted at about 6.5A for normal operation for 130W at the 20V operation. Higher wattages require negotiations for higher voltages.
The maximum exposed voltage on the exposed connector is the probe voltage, 3.3V through a large resistor with power available less than ½ mW. A mating connector, on the other end of a cable, will have this same potential while exposed.
Connection and disconnection energy in the cable is also controlled to energy levels <15 uJ.
This reports the current state of the specification. Changes may occur as needed.
Respectfully;
Bob Davis
Chair UPAMD/P1823
bobd@xxxxxxxx
408.353.5990 desk
408.857.1273 cell
bob.davis.scsi.com Skype
From: didier.marquet@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:didier.marquet@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:45 AM
To: aschneiderjr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; upamd@xxxxxxxx; bobd@xxxxxxxx
Cc: upamd-vote@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Straw ballot on INPUT POWER specifications.P
Dear all,
to discuss informally with you, in ITU-T where I am rapporteur of Q21 and coeditor of L.adapter phase2, of course, we have the same kind questions.
It seems the most common case would be home/office power plug, so that we have put a minimum specification of AC in L.1000 for the universal charger. For next step, L.adapter phase2 extension to other device, I think we could reuse the same.
On the output side, the issue is still the range of device family and for which family we need detachable cable. I think the greater benefit is for portable device and especially high power, in order just to replace the cable in case of failure not the whole charger and also to allow power connection everywhere just by bringing a light cable rather than heavy power supply. Of course not everybody agree on the family and the level of detailed specification we need on that.
For solar or car, previously in L.1000 we have just defined the output connector USB–A of the universal charger to be the same, in order to have the same detachable cable and power interface, but we have not defined more on the solar or car charger.
As a consequence of the discussion, I have 2 questions for you : is the specification of the universal connector ready ? can we refer to an IEEE standard for this connector ?
Have you find solution for the voltage(/current) setting ? or have you defined specific voltage 5 -12 – 19 – 24 V family for example ?
I hope it helps and that you can answer to me
Thank you very much,
Didier
Didier Marquet
Energy system senior expert
Tél: 33 1 45 29 52 51 Mob:33 6 715 739 70
Orange Labs
RESA/DEAN/ECD (Energy -Cooling - sustainable Development)
38-40 rue du Général Leclerc
92794 Issy Moulineaux Cedex 9 FRANCE
De : upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] De la part de Alex Schneider
Envoyé : lundi 13 février 2012 13:39
À : upamd@xxxxxxxx
Cc : upamd-vote@xxxxxxxx
Objet : RE: Straw ballot on INPUT POWER specifications.P
I vote to place informative information in two Appendices to the Standard, but not to include any Normative requirements. The two Appendices would be for AC line current and 12 volt DC supplies.
Alex Schneider
From: upamd@xxxxxxxx [mailto:upamd@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Davis
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 8:42 PM
To: upamd@xxxxxxxx
Cc: upamd-vote@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Straw ballot on INPUT POWER specifications.P
UPAMD,
At the meeting on Tuesday, and in the Power Subcommittee meeting, the issue of specification of the input power to a UPAMD device, acting as a normal source device has been raised. This straw ballot is to gather the opinions of the larger group as to how to specify power input requirements, if at all.
The question from the UPAMD meeting is:
Should we include source power requirements for UPAMD device?
1. Shall we specify AC input power requirements as shown in Section 11 of draft?
2. Shall we specify DC input power requirements?
3. Shall we specify NO input requirements?
Background:
The AC input requirements currently included in the draft Section 11, was contributed by Lee Atkinson early in the process of creating the draft. It represents a input specification for current AC powered, power units for laptop computers.
Since that time the committee has opened the input to AC and DC sources of a varied nature. This could mean a expanding set of input requirements depending on the source and the geopolitical usage environment.
Paul has farther commented:
“UPAMD-compliant power adapters are designed to accept flexible input power sources. They may accept AC input or DC input, or they may have multiple input power sources of any type. For example, a UPAMD power adapter may accept input power from a wall socket as well as from an internal battery. Another power adapter may only accept a 12V car battery input. The current draft of the UPAMD specification has defined input power requirements only for AC input. The current draft only states that DC input sources, if utilized, must properly comply with all the provisions in the specification, including the low-energy connect requirements.”
Please send your straw ballot comments and selection to upamd-vote@xxxxxxxx. As this is a straw ballot the response is not restricted to the current voting members. Your opinions do count.
Respectfully;
Bob Davis
Chair UPAMD/P1823
408.353.5990 desk
408.857.1273 cell
bob.davis.scsi.com Skype