EU Regulation 2025/2052: All power adapters 25-100W must be USB PD by Dec 2028

[Monkeh]

No they're not. For a start, you measured current, not power. This is AC, and a non-resistive load, that doesn't fly.

Ahhhh, power factor now.

Ah, you've picked up on one tiny piece of the puzzle.. but still remain stubbornly oblivious to the rest.

Give them 240w, then at some point 240w will be used.

Do you see it yet?

I have over 3kW available everywhere in my house. Nothing which doesn't require that power uses it. Anything which does, does. What's available in a common DC connector has nothing to do with this.

No. I don't see your delusions.

[default0.0player]

No they're not. For a start, you measured current, not power. This is AC, and a non-resistive load, that doesn't fly.

Ahhhh, power factor now.

Ok, PF=0.05, where do you think all that 24mA goes, just rides the util lines free of charge?
What should be the PF of these "regulated" PD warts?

Any do-nothing amps, from 0<=PF<=1 is wasted power. When a utility can bring amps 1mi and back again w/o loss, let me know.

As example, PF=1 and it's 100w inside your house, when its 90F outside and you have the AC running. 100% waste of real 100w, 100% paid for by you.
Flip side, it's 20F outside so that 100w isnt really wasted now, keeps your toes warm, for a price.

Power factor is not efficiency. If you connect an ideal inductor to the mains, the active power is 0W and the PF is also 0, you'll also be charged 0 in electricity bill because the meter for household only measures active power. However, >70W power supplies are legally required to have power factor correction that's why there are many 65W PD chargers. The problem with a low PF is that long transmission lines often have reactance much larger than resistance, a heavily inductive load will cause a large voltage drop.

PSU's just plugged in doing nothing.

Small older 5v cubes, most 15w or less, no leds or anything, 0 (zero) reading. Sub 1mA.

An Amazon Basics "PD/iQ" wart, 60w max, 18ma = 2.16w

An Anker 140w PD/iQ, has an lcd display with 3 modes, 24mA = 2.88w

Interesting. If those measurements are accurate then those power supplies are illegal to import to the US because they do not meet DoE Level VI no load limits (10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(ii)). I believe the limits in the EU are similar. Is it possible that the current waveform in discontinuous mode is fooling your meter?

The top contributor to wasted power on consumer electronics is modern standby. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/windows-modern-standby-bullshit-that-dont-sleep-but-pretends-to/

[Randy222]

The top contributor to wasted power on consumer electronics is modern standby. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/windows-modern-standby-bullshit-that-dont-sleep-but-pretends-to/

Power factor is not efficiency.

Yeah, well, tell that to the thermal and magnetic circuit breaker people.

If my 3w device needs 100A to work, that's rather non-efficient if you ask the generator people, let them know that although the EU only needs 2million amps for real power, the generator and transmission needs to pump 10million amps.

We are not talking about the end device alone. The problem is an end-to-end problem.


As for the standby in devices, I didnt even mention that problem, which is a problem. I am not sire how it could be implemented in say a laptop, but there is RAM hat can retain it's state even after the power is removed, so it should be possible to keep the hibernate state there w/o using any power, then you wake it with the power button. But you point out what I said before, does the end-user really need the power wasting standby mode, cant they just stomach the few sec slower boot from the SSD? I still have some XP win7 as VM parked on spindles, and they still boot rather quickly, not as fast as my stuff on the SSD, but totally acceptable boot times.

[aeg]

US code, just as dumb as EU code.

I mostly agree.

One big power supply vendor discontinued a segment of their product line when the regulations went into effect instead of redesigning to meet Level VI.

Non-class-A have no efficiency rules at least not under your code cited

Yes, they do. Class A are covered by 430.32(w)(1)(i) and non Class A are covered by 430.32(w)(1)(ii).

1) I already asked other to test, crickets.

If you want to drive across the border and mail me one (so I don't have to pay tariffs), I'd be glad to plug it into my Yokogawa power meter.

[tooki]

Well, you can argue all you like, but it was defined as HD Ready by the industry association. There is a reason Full HD was defined specifically as 1920x1080.  They permitted these shenanigans to allow for cheaper 42" plasma TVs to be made, since it was difficult to make the cells small enough for Full HD. (Only Panasonic achieved it.)

Pioneer had numerous 1920x1080 plasmas, too.

None 42".

Plenty of manufacturers managed to make 50" 1080p panels;  Samsung, LG, Panasonic, and Pioneer all had them.  AFAIK Hitachi never quite managed it, their 1280x1080 panel was their best attempt before they threw in the towel.  NEC only managed 768p.  Incidentally, LG launched the first 1080p plasma, it was a 71" beast and had a 900W rating (71PY1M).  Back when energy ratings were a mere suggestion.  Launch price of $70,000 in 2006.  Panasonic followed up just one year later with a 42" 1080p model. 

Getting a PDP to 42" 1080p was a masterpiece in engineering, the pixel cell size is so small, very hard to keep the panel stable whilst also getting good contrast and acceptable brightness.  Yet I've seen 15+ year old Panasonic plasmas in that form factor with no-to-minimal image burn and perfect pixel stability, so the Panny engineers managed it somehow.

Ultimately, this was what killed plasma though: 1080p was enough of a push, but 4K was just unimaginably complex.  The cells would never be stable enough, and the power consumption for even SDR brightness would make it very difficult.  Forget about HDR.  Plasmas could barely exceed 150cd/m^2, my OLED can do 1000...

Oops, you’re right. For some reason when I was reading your post, my brain apparently completely glossed over the ‘42”’ qualifier.

My TV is a 2008-model-year Panasonic I bought new in 2009, 42” full HD, still going strong.

[Randy222]

Small ~60w(max) amazon basics PD

Using a different meter, seems to not measure anything below 10mA.

10mA+ is measures everything.

With iPhone 13 attached the charger is delivering 14-18w

meter says 118.9vac 60Hz
0.6 PF
26VA
0.21A

The meter is obviously reading real watts , (VA x PF)

0.6 PF is pretty crappy! Online keeps suggesting PD chargers are near 95%. 

[tszaboo]

0.6 PF is pretty crappy! Online keeps suggesting PD chargers are near 95%. 

How is this different from any other power supply?
Like, congratulations, you found a bad one... And proved nothing.

[Randy222]

0.6 PF is pretty crappy! Online keeps suggesting PD chargers are near 95%. 

How is this different from any other power supply?
Like, congratulations, you found a bad one... And proved nothing.

[default0.0player]

Most PD chargers(and older smartphone chargers) have poor PF. Desktop and laptop power supplies have active PFC.

[Randy222]

Most PD chargers(and older smartphone chargers) have poor PF. Desktop and laptop power supplies have active PFC.

So if PF is crap in most PD, how does this help the problem EU is trying to solve?
Or is it something they just dont care about because poor PF is simply the status-quo?

If the small ~60w PD items get active PFC, how much bigger do they get, how much more expensive do they become, how much more "toxic" components are added, and how does it impact MTBF? Perhaps repeat questions, I assume the EU folks already asked these questions when debating if they want to change the energy compliance words mandating all PD's need to be 80%(min) on PF. Wouldnt it be a major win if the avg PF for PD's used in EU went from say 60% to 70% ?

[SiliconWizard]

What makes you think the intent is to solve any problem?

[Randy222]

What makes you think the intent is to solve any problem?

The EU made the statement, the push to all USB-C was to 1) save power, and 2) reduce landfill.

Certainly politicians have mostly lied to the public over last ~4000 years, so in that sense you're right. 

[tszaboo]

Most PD chargers(and older smartphone chargers) have poor PF. Desktop and laptop power supplies have active PFC.

So if PF is crap in most PD,

You don't know that. You tested ONE device and made conclusions for all devices. I would throw an insult at you, but that obviously doesn't work, instead you just made it to my ignore list.

[default0.0player]

Most PD chargers(and older smartphone chargers) have poor PF. Desktop and laptop power supplies have active PFC.

So if PF is crap in most PD,

You don't know that. You tested ONE device and made conclusions for all devices. I would throw an insult at you, but that obviously doesn't work, instead you just made it to my ignore list.

This needs more clarification

I tested 6 PD chargers and all of them have PF ranging from 0.55 to 0.7. A PF below 0.707 means the charger consumes more reactive power than active power. And no, the reactive power is not in a traditional sense of inductive/capacitive load. It's due to high total harmonic distortion (THD) so parallel capacitors won't work in this case.

In contrary, all laptop and desktop power adapters have PF of over 0.95. So if you want APFC PD chargers look for laptop adapters with a USB-C output socket

The regulation is IEC 61000-3-2, it has harmonic current restrictions rather than a PF target. Generally speaking, when the power is greater than 75W, the harmonic current exceeds the legal limit and APFC has to be added. However I have seen many 100W and even some 140W GaN chargers without APFC so I guess they are either in grey area or illegal.

[Randy222]

You don't know that. You tested ONE device and made conclusions for all devices. I would throw an insult at you, but that obviously doesn't work, instead you just made it to my ignore list.

I didnt make the statement that all were crap PF. 

[Randy222]

I tested 6 PD chargers and all of them have PF ranging from 0.55 to 0.7. A PF below 0.707 means the charger consumes more reactive power than active power. And no, the reactive power is not in a traditional sense of inductive/capacitive load. It's due to high total harmonic distortion (THD) so parallel capacitors won't work in this case.

In contrary, all laptop and desktop power adapters have PF of over 0.95. So if you want APFC PD chargers look for laptop adapters with a USB-C output socket

The regulation is IEC 61000-3-2, it has harmonic current restrictions rather than a PF target. Generally speaking, when the power is greater than 75W, the harmonic current exceeds the legal limit and APFC has to be added. However I have seen many 100W and even some 140W GaN chargers without APFC so I guess they are either in grey area or illegal.

We can test 600 of these mini warts, they will all be crap PF.
If someone has a 60w or a 240w PD wart and measures 85+ PF, please post make/model.

[Randy222]

I am fair to the gripe.
The 140w anker I just got a couple of weeks ago, ~$84can, showed .98 PF while delivering 18w.

So I dont disagree that the better & way more expensive items are "better".