Fwd: [eman] [EMAN-FMWK] versus [EMAN-REF]: [EMAN-FMWK] limitations?

[Leonard Tsai <leonard.tsai@xxxxxxxxx>]

UPAMD workgroup members.

  Here is a communication from the EMAN email list. For your reference. Maybe we should consider to discuss and seek synergy? 

Leonard

Begin forwarded message:

From: "John Parello (jparello)" <jparello@xxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: [eman] [EMAN-FMWK] versus [EMAN-REF]: [EMAN-FMWK] limitations?

Date: February 29, 2012 2:12:12 AM GMT+08:00

To: "Bruce Nordman" <bnordman@xxxxxxx>, "Brad Schoening" <brads@xxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: eman mailing list <eman@xxxxxxxx>

“but power is not restricted to flow
only away from the hub.  “

 

I direct the readers to our proposal for energy odometers taken from the ODVA. If this becomes prevalent (and it already is in the manufacturing space BTW) then the need for Energy Objects to have odometers for produced, consumed, and net energy seem quite pointed.

 

Jp

 

From: eman-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:eman-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Nordman
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 10:17 PM
To: Brad Schoening
Cc: eman mailing list
Subject: Re: [eman] [EMAN-FMWK] versus [EMAN-REF]: [EMAN-FMWK] limitations?

 

Certainly.  IEEE is in the process of standardising UPAMD, a standard for
distributing low-voltage DC power.  Originally designed for notebook computers,
the goal is now a wide variety of products.  From a power perspective a UPAMD
hub looks a lot like a PoE switch or mid-span, but power is not restricted to flow
only away from the hub.  
Similarly, HDBaseT supports power flowing in either direction.  It is in many ways
a superset of PoE.
As more devices get batteries, and as we have more stand-alone batteries and
local generation, the usefulness of more flexible power distribution only increases,
and technology is arriving to enable that.
In both of these cases, the devices getting power will be mostly or entirely
ones that have communication (usually IP) and so should be able to make good
use of EMAN.

In general, one can compute power metering or power supply relationships
from data on wiring topology.  The reverse is generally not possible.
This is why the wiring topology is so useful - arguably necessary.

--Bruce

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Brad Schoening <brads@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bruce,

 

Could you explain what you mean by 'bi-directional supply'.  I searched for the term 'bidirectional' in your document and wasn't able to find it.

 

Brad Schoening
e: brads@xxxxxxxxxx ⟐ m: 917-304-7190

 

 Redefining Storage Economics

 

 

From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:52:47 -0600
To: eman mailing list <eman@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eman] [EMAN-FMWK] versus [EMAN-REF]: [EMAN-FMWK] limitations?

 

Dear all,

From the IETF 82 meeting minutes, http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/eman.txt

[BC] - Is there something that can be done in the reference model that can't be done in the framework?

[BN] - Bidirectional supply issue is problematic in the framework because of the parent/child relationships. Reference model inherently focuses on net energy flow.

We would like to know if there are other things that this one (discussed in my previous email on the list), that the [EMAN-REF] could do while the [EMAN-FMWK] could not?

[EMAN-FMWK] = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eman-framework/, the official EMAN document
[EMAN-REF] = http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-quittek-eman-reference-model/

Regards, Benoit (as a contributor for the [EMAN-FMWK]

-- 
Bruce Nordman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
eetd.lbl.gov/ea/nordman
BNordman@xxxxxxx
510-486-7089
m: 510-501-7943

_______________________________________________
eman mailing list
eman@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman