Re: [8023-POEP] PoEP

[Steve Robbins <srobbins@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title:

Jo and Mike,

 

In regard to the transient that happens on disconnect, I have experience with that.

 

Jo is correct; not all pins on the RJ45 will disconnect simultaneously.  Therefore, for a short time period the transformers will be severely imbalanced on the PSE side, resulting in a voltage transient on the PHY side.  I've seen these glitches go as high as 60V for a few nanoseconds.  We've actually seen at least one PHY chip that is instantly destroyed by this.  Just one or two insertion/extraction cycles kills it every time.  I killed several of these chips when I investigated this problem last year.

 

But the problem only seems to occur with one particular PHY chip from one particular manufacturer, who confirmed that they didn't have any ESD clamps on the high-speed signals in that chip.  This was one of the first Gig PHY chips on the market, so I guess some bugs are understandable.  FYI, I also found that I could add small external diodes that protected this device with minor degradation of the eye pattern due to parasitic capacitance.

 

All the other PHY chips we've tested at Ixia have survived 100 insertion/extraction cycles in a "worst case" circuit I built without any apparent damage.  But we haven't done an extensive study of all the PHY chips that are one the market; we've only tested the ones we use in our products. 

 

Obviously, with the higher current levels proposed for PoE Plus, there will be significantly more energy in these glitches, but normal ESD protection diodes should still be able to handle them easily.  Perhaps there should be a new annex added to the standard that explains this phenomenon, just to be safe.

 

Steve Robbins

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Derek Koonce
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 9:25 AM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [8023-POEP] PoEP

You are correct in the current Mike. I agree the cabling experts should answer this. However, if they have a lower number I would like to understand why versus the MIL and NASA specs. It would bee a good understanding for all of us designers to know what is the true standard for future cabling needs.

Derek Koonce

McCormack, Michael wrote:

Jo:

First, let me thank you for your work on these items.  

As I recall, the discussion that resulted in 420 mA centered on the group's understanding of the cable derating requirements.  If my recollection is correct, the cable derating would allow for up to 420 mA per conductor.  This per conductor rating of 420 mA does indeed mean that the pair would carry 840 mA.

The Study Group felt comfortable defining the characteristics of our devices but felt we should leave issues that are a result of cabling characteristics to the cabling experts.  You would need to incorporate the cable systems attributes that you feel are necessary to our device model in order to complete the total system model.

I am not a PHY expect nor even PHY competent, I will see that the issue of momentary disconnect under load is brought to the attention of those who are PHY knowledgeable.

Cheers

Mike

Michael McCormack
Texas Instruments, Power Interface Products
50 Phillippe Cote St.
Manchester, NH 03101 USA

Voice: +1 603 222 8686
Fax: +1 603 222 8580
Email: mike_mccormack@xxxxxx
Web Site: http://www.ti.com

---

From: Jo Walling [mailto:jo.walling@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 8:56 AM
To: McCormack, Michael
Subject: PoEP
Importance: High

Hi Mike,

I am just back from Edinburgh's ISO/IEC meeting.  We discussed there also your letter.  There are some points to clarify: 
1.) You mentioned that you would like to transmit 420 mA over EACH conductor.  Your sketch shows, however, transmission over the common mode circuit of two pairs, i.e. over two parallel condcutors.  Then you mention that the circuit components were laid out for 420 mA. 
2.) If 420 mA are on each conductor, then the circuit has to be laid out for 840 mA over the common mode circuit.
3.) The circuit does not yet reflect the capacitance and inductance of the cabling.  I guess this will have to be added by IEC 48B (Connector group)

Please clarify these points.

I have another question:  The blades on the RJ-45 plugs are crimped onto the condcutors.  As a result they are all not exactly on the same level.
The leads in the connector have also some inherent irregularities.   That means if the plug is pulled out of the connector, one of the condcutors of the common mode circuit is opened first, pulling to all likelihood an arc.  However the other conductor is not yet open.  As a result the transformer with the center tap is only on one side loaded.  This will create an induction in the other side, and may affect your chips.  Did you guys consider this?

In Edinburgh we intended first to get back to the now Task Group with a statement about the maximum ambient operating conditions, which have to be substantially reduced.  However the chair of SC25 requested that the component groups in IEC are involved first, prior to working out any recommendation.  You will hear about it more and more detailed either from Alan Flatman or Massod Sharif.



Kind regards,

Jo Walling

Dr.-Ing. J.- H.(Jo)  Walling
Consultant
, 431 Church
Beaconsfield, QC
H9W 3R9, Canada
(  Phone: (514) 695-8220 or (514) 695-6063
3   Fax:     (514) 695-8220
*   Email : jo.walling@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Please respond to
jo.walling@xxxxxxxxxxxx