| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
All, I wanted to open a discussion on the power class proposal referenced in i-321. http://www.ieee802.org/3/cg/comments/Comment_i-321_Stewart_3cg_clause_104_modifications_v1.pdf The proposal assigns class power voltage, current and power values to make required corrections to cable resistance and to accommodate the following use cases:
All other changes derive from the above introduced values. The proposal attempts to cover all suggestions offered during a large number of discussion during and between cg sessions in the Vancouver meeting. In the time since the proposal was submitted a couple of weeks ago I have collected a number of additional inputs from the cg task force. My goal in sending this to the reflector is to kickstart public and private discussions with the goal
of streamlining our efforts in cg next week. It is worth pointing out the there are a number of possible end markets: eg building automation and industrial automation. We have gotten really good input from these end markets and strive to enable relevant cabling resistances while remaining
aware of economic and technical feasibility. While process automation is an exciting market as well, efforts to marry PoDL to process automation Intrinsic Safety (IS) requirements stalled early on. Therefore process automation requirements are not directly considered in this PoDL
contribution. The vast majority of the feedback from colleagues has regarded the 3 proposed voltage ranges. Mainly the comments address the appropriateness of supporting 1 vs 2 vs 3 voltage ranges. Please feel free to reply on this thread or offline. I will attempt to come prepared to modify proposed text to reflect the will of the group. Cheers, Heath Stewart To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-10SPE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-10SPE&A=1 |