By "bloat" I was referring to the hardware bloat from four to 24 pins - the number of pins for a serial device when from 25 to 9 to 4 to 24. (DB9 was not the ultimate in connection reduction) Or does USB-C have aspirations in becoming HDMI?
Every device that needs charging has some type of buck or boost regulator in it. So why not fix on ONE charging voltage. 12V should do nicely. I can imagine that any device runs (or can run reliably) on the raw USB power input - they will all be regulated in one way or another. It will be a long time before I believe that a connector that small will deliver 240W reliably and safely. Two pins in parallel to carry 5A and a contact resistance of 50mΩ give over a Watt of power dissipation, which seems a lot for a connector of that size (I'm comparing it to a TO220 case power transistor).

I've only ever bought one USB-C lead, for an iPad Pro. There were a lot to choose from, and I just bought the first one I found of the right length - they are universal, aren't they? So any would work. And it didn't.

It will only be a matter of time before the de-factor USB-C connector is a 24-position connector with 4 contacts fitted, and the number of wires in a de-facto standard lead has also been reduced to four.

HDMI is the CHEAP JUNK implementation of DVI, which was a rather durable connector. At least some of the HDMI connectors used the poorer types of paper- phenolic PCB material and had a nasty tendency to break off way to easily. I would really like there to be some rules as to what quality level of materials can be imported, so that the real junk can go straight to the recycle centers without ever being sold. AND, for that matter, forbid the sale of any coaxial power connection with the center negative. ( That is a peronal prejudice of mine, though).

 

To implement a C spec on such LED light makes no sense, and to mandate it means the LED light got more complicated and more expensive.

No. A USB C connector for power doesn't require supporting all the features of USB C PD. For 5 volt-only devices requiring only power, all that's needed is a USB C connector AND two resistors on the USB C "cc" connections to signal it wants 5 volts at a particular current level (2.5 amps maximum).

If these resistors are omitted, the device will not receive power when plugged into a USB C PD charger with a USB C – USB C cable. It will work when connected with a USB C – USB A cable.

 

. . .forbid the sale of any coaxial power connection with the center negative. ( That is a peronal prejudice of mine, though).

Everything about the electric guitar spec is sub-optimal!
I've not seen many centre-negatives that have not been guitar pedals.

 

Of course we need to understand that the primary motivation for all of these "improvements" has nothing at all to do with any actual benefits. The primary motivation is to make the current version obsolete, so that the newer versions will sell. Consider that for a bit!!! THE MAIN PURPOSE IS TO FORCE ANOTHER VERSION ONTO THE USERS BY MAKING THE PREVIOUS MODEL OBSOLETE.
It has nothing to do with providing any actual improvement, but only about creating the new market.

 

Of course we need to understand that the primary motivation for all of these "improvements" has nothing at all to do with any actual benefits. The primary motivation is to make the current version obsolete, so that the newer versions will sell. Consider that for a bit!!! THE MAIN PURPOSE IS TO FORCE ANOTHER VERSION ONTO THE USERS BY MAKING THE PREVIOUS MODEL OBSOLETE.
It has nothing to do with providing any actual improvement, but only about creating the new market.

So we reduce the number of new cables going into landfill by sending all the old ones to landfill.

 

Everything about the electric guitar spec is sub-optimal!
I've not seen many centre-negatives that have not been guitar pedals.

I have a dead $1200 video camera with a center negative power connector. It came in a box-lot with a bunch of positive center connected video equipment.

 

What I call STUPID, with no apology, is using that same connector for higher voltages.
It seems that some folks have no problem with the ability of a multi-output charger being able to destroy an $1500 smart phone, or some other device. And certainly it will happen. Already at this site an instance of just that was mentioned in a long past threa

As I explained in post #27, if you have a decent phone purchased later than 2014, it probably has "Quick Charge" or other high-rate charging. This means it can use > 5 volts IF AND ONLY IF the higher voltage is negotiated. And yes, QC has been incorporated into the USB C PD standard.

So how many smart phones have do you have documented evidence for that have exploded from overvoltage?

Yes, Ya'akov did destroy a device by plugging in a 12 volt supply that had a USB C connector – this supply was not and didn't claim to be USB C PD compliant. It was a 12 volt-only supply built by idiots who wanted a small connector.

Total documented devices destroyed: ONE. Not connected to a USB C PD charger.

 

Here's an interesting fact about center-negative wall warts. If you cut the connector off, either to splice on a different connector or to connect it directly to a project (very guilty of both!), chances are extremely high that the red conductor in the cable will be negative.

Why? Because cables with a molded barrel connector are a bulk commodity, color-coded for the usual center-positive convention.

 

Of course we need to understand that the primary motivation for all of these "improvements" has nothing at all to do with any actual benefits. The primary motivation is to make the current version obsolete, so that the newer versions will sell. Consider that for a bit!!! THE MAIN PURPOSE IS TO FORCE ANOTHER VERSION ONTO THE USERS BY MAKING THE PREVIOUS MODEL OBSOLETE.
It has nothing to do with providing any actual improvement, but only about creating the new market.

Rubbish.

 

So if that is not the motivation, then what is the motivation?? Certainly not to improve the quality of life for humanity, is my guess.

 

As I explained in post #27, if you have a decent phone purchased later than 2014, it probably has "Quick Charge" or other high-rate charging. This means it can use > 5 volts IF AND ONLY IF the higher voltage is negotiated. And yes, QC has been incorporated into the USB C PD standard.

So how many smart phones have do you have documented evidence for that have exploded from overvoltage?

Yes, Ya'akov did destroy a device by plugging in a 12 volt supply that had a USB C connector – this supply was not and didn't claim to be USB C PD compliant. It was a 12 volt-only supply built by idiots who wanted a small connector.

Total documented devices destroyed: ONE. Not connected to a USB C PD charger.

And if it can do high-rate charging at 12V, then surely it can also do low-rate charging at 12V, then it only needs a 12V supply. So why can't everything have a 12V supply? Producing a power supply that only has to do 12V is going to make a more efficient device than one that has to be able to produce a variety of voltages on demand. No negotiation required. No possibility of outputting too high a voltage.

 

Why in the world would I want a multiple voltage supply for a single voltage application??? Certainly not for the convenience of charging something else with it, nor on the chance that someday I might buy a phone that uses a different voltage for charging. I have a phone charger for charging my phone, and I have a 12 volt powered 5 volt phone charger in the vehicle for the rare possibility that I might someday need to use it. For powering my computers I have the 19.5 volt chargers that are not able to provide any other voltage without an internal modification. I would not choose to charge a phone with one of them because there is no benefit at all.

 

If you don't get it, you don't get it.

Technology changes.

 

If you don't get it, you don't get it.

Technology changes.

Yet we still have the same mains supply voltage and frequency that we had a century ago.

 

the wall warts are being made to put out nearly 0 watts when not being used

Plug the wart into wall, it uses power.
A good design should sense if a load is attached, then switch on the wart. Hard to have no waste if solid state sensing, but perhaps easy to do if the C port had a reed swtch of some kind that could be the switch that turns on the unit when a device is plugged into it. Yes it can be done, it just gets more complex and more costly and less reliable. But maybe consumers can tolerate that?

Maybe the EU should just limit how many battery devices one can own, have to buy what you want through the govt, this way they can control how much "stuff" can be a drain on the source, helping to curb the abuse of power.

It's just getting silly. If the electric/grid folks can't figure out how to make more power and how to transfer it, then they should be replaced, hire SpaceX folks to do it.

 

But why do you have a problem with the USB C port standard? It's to reduce electronic waste. What's wrong with that?

It costs money to implement the USB-C spec. Not all devices will charge in most efficient manner with C spec. Also, the C spec is more about negotiating for more power, and is not so much about efficiency.

12v 2A = 24v 1A, but we prefer the lower amps between source and device, that's less waste from resistive elements, BUT, we really don't have a clue as to the efficiency of those two modes between the input of the C on device to the device batt. The C spec only defines how the two ends can negotiate for a mode of power, it does not specifiy the efficiency down to the batt being charged. A "fast" charge does not necessarily mean more efficiency.

And I think we all miss the underlying problem, by which the C spec makes it even worse. We went from USB-A 5v around 5-10w to a C-spec that can provide 240w. Yep, makes sense when we have an energy source problem. The problem is not solved by trying to get +1-3% in efficiency by allowing nearly 25x the power. If you allow 25x the power then it's a given devices will be made to exploit the access to that power. It's the Bill Gates problem, give Windoze 12meg of RAM and a 60watt 386 and Windoze will use 10meg and keep the cpu warm, then make it 32GB RAM and 96watt core cpu and Windoze will use 28GB or RAM and keep that cpu warmer.

 

Post #54, data transfer?
USB spec defines it.
Is that related to C spec in that EU mandate doc?

A clip-on LED reader light needs no data transfer, nor does it need 48v fast charging. To implement a C spec on such LED light makes no sense, and to mandate it means the LED light got more complicated and more expensive. Spend an extra 5 on light to save 2 on power waste. So in essence, consumer pays more for the power folks to make more money.

What's next, a PWM mandate so that every device is void from power wasting resistors for light dimming?

I don‘t think two SMD resistors will add much to the price.

 

No. A USB C connector for power doesn't require supporting all the features of USB C PD. For 5 volt-only devices requiring only power, all that's needed is a USB C connector AND two resistors on the USB C "cc" connections to signal it wants 5 volts at a particular current level (2.5 amps maximum).

If these resistors are omitted, the device will not receive power when plugged into a USB C PD charger with a USB C – USB C cable. It will work when connected with a USB C – USB A cable.

If the device is limited to 5v chargng only, then what does C port matter? It could be A mini or micro, or even an 1/8 phono jack. The mandate says "devices" would need to be C port. Why would app-ill need to pull phones off the market?

To your point, it fortifies my point, not all devices devices need to be C port, nor support PD spec. So then why the mandate?

 

I wouldn't want to be an electricial wiring a whole house with USB-C. Those 24 wires are awfully fiddly when all you have is a quarter-inch-wide screwdriver and a pair of wire cutters with three notches in them from when you once cut through a live cable.

Sorry, but this triggered my Limerick mode :-

Our one-time odd-job man, called Clive,
Was lucky, no doubt, to survive.
He thought he’d be able
To cut through a cable,
But shorted the Neutral to Live.
~~~
Of course, as we realised then,
He wasn’t the brightest of men.
His performance was poor
So we’d give him a score
Of just 1.3 stars out of ten.

 

Sorry, but this triggered my Limerick mode :-

Our one-time odd-job man, called Clive,
Was lucky, no doubt, to survive.
He thought he’d be able
To cut through a cable,
But shorted the Neutral to Live.
~~~
Of course, as we realised then,
He wasn’t the brightest of men.
His performance was poor
So we’d give him a score
Of just 1.3 stars out of ten.

Lord Finchley tried to mend the Electric Light
Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right!
It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan.

Hilaire Belloc. 1911.