| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
The alternative for most devices (APs, IP Phones, etc.) is to have an external class 2 power supply that connects to an outlet and then supplies the same class 2 power that would have been delivered over PoE to the access point/ip phone/whatever-device. The result is an additional physical device at the hospital room outlet, a system with 2 connectors, not one (the connector to the AC outlet and the connector for the class 2 power to the device), which is introducing an ‘always hot’ class 2 circuit into the environment (from the outlet to the device), as well as potentially a source of sparks or shocks both at the outlet and at the device/hot-plug class 2 interface. In contrast, the PoE interface, which by specification will not present a voltage capable of more than a very small current until the load is confirmed and identified, is less hazardous.
Chad – reading this text, I see something further when one talks about eliminating PoE. We must consider the alternative. Can you find a way to include the below?:
The alternative for most devices (APs, IP Phones, etc.) is to have an external class 2 power supply that connects to an outlet and then supplies the same class 2 power that would have been delivered over PoE to the access point/ip phone/whatever-device. The result is a system with 2 connectors, not one (the connector to the AC outlet and the connector for the class 2 power to the device), which is introducing an ‘always hot’ class 2 circuit into the environment (from the outlet to the device), as well as potentially a source of sparks or shocks both at the outlet and at the device/hot-plug class 2 interface. In contrast, the PoE interface, which by specification will not present a voltage capable of more than a very small current until the load is confirmed and identified, is less hazardous.
George Zimmerman, Ph.D.
President & Principal
CME Consulting, Inc.
Experts in Advanced PHYsical Communications
310-920-3860
From: Chad Jones (cmjones) <00000b60b3f54e8d-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 2:30 PM
To: STDS-802-3-PDCC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [802.3_PDCC] Update to BS7671 comments
All, I met with Geoff today (as we agreed to take something offline to not slow down the PDCC meeting). As a result, I’ve made some additions to the comment against 716.419.3.3 in the document. The comment doc can be found here: https://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/PDCC/public/BS7671%20comments.pdf
Regards,
Chad Jones
Principal Engineer, Cisco Systems
Executive Secretary, IEEE 802.3 Working Group
Chair, IEEE P802.3da Task Force
Principal, NFPA 70 CMP3
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-PDCC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-PDCC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-PDCC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-PDCC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-PDCC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-PDCC&A=1