Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [8023-POEP] Proposed Remedy for comments 183 and 184.

Hi Yair
 
There is some inconsistency in your calculations (I think)
 
You use the parameter k = P_peak/P_avg = 400/350. We had agreed that 400/350 = I_peak/I_avg in the Task Force (for 802.3at). There is a differece here coz when you are drawing P_peak, the port voltage drops by 1V. According to your calculations we should get an I_peak = 29.5x1.14/40 = 840mA. But on page 3 of your presentation you show I_peak as 820mA.
 
Regards
Anoop

From: owner-stds-802-3-poep@IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-poep@IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Darshan, Yair
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:19 AM
To: STDS-802-3-POEP@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [8023-POEP] Proposed Remedy for comments 183 and 184.

Hi Fred, Anoop and all,

 

As I suggested during the last Vport ad-hoc meeting, Please find attached my proposal for resolving comments 183 and 184.

I believe that the attached proposal answers to all concerns as raised by the group.

 

I am attaching 3 files:

 

  1. Presentation which explain the concept of the proposed remedy by first mapping all current numbers in the specification and as a result, suggest the technique to:

1.1    match PSE and PD numbers,

1.2    using PD constant power model

1.3   Keeping Table 33-12 Ipeak numbers while matching other parts in the specification.

 

  1. Word document that address all sub clauses and tables need to be modified.
  2. Excel file used to calculate all numbers.

 

Please let me know if you have any concerns with the proposed solution so I’ll have sufficient time to update it so we can save time during the meeting.

 

Yair