Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Anoop and all. The problems were fixed. Main reason for the
problem was many rounds up of number that created small error. In addition I update and
simplified my proposal. (I hope..). Yair From: 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 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:
1.1 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.
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 |
Remedy for comments 183 and 184.xls
Suggested Remedy for comment 183 and 184 revision 001.pdf
Suggested Remedy for comment #183, 184.pdf