The EU is enforcing USB-C on portable devices

[tooki]

Perhaps you would share with the class rather than jabbing that it's easily found.

For me, googling "usb pd specification 1.0" brought this up on the first page of results:
https://caxapa.ru/thumbs/342141/USB_PD_V1_0-20120705-final.pdf

[tooki]

Also, I found this while searching, and found it interesting and think you might, too: https://microchipsupport.force.com/s/article/Why-UPD1001-UPD1002-are-not-recommended-for-new-designs-2

Why UPD1001/UPD1002 are not recommended for new designs
Nov 27, 2017

Problem Description:
Microchip launched components UPD1001 and UPD1002 which claim USB Power Delivery support but these products should generally not be used for development of new products due to their obsolescence.


Solution:
UPD1001 and UPD1002 were developed and released in accordance to the USB Power Delivery specification revision 1.0. USB Power Delivery 1.0 defined a methodology to implement serial packet messaging via AC-coupled signaling upon the VBUS conductor on USB Type-A and USB Type-B cables, for the purpose of careful negotiation of power up to 100W (including raising VBUS voltage up to 20V). This methodology also required the utility of new USB Type-A and USB Type-B cables and interconnects.
 
However, the USB Type-C specification was released shortly after the first USB Power Delivery 1.0 controller products were launched, and USB Power Delivery 1.0 is not supported on USB Type-C. A new USB Power Delivery revision 2.0 specification was created in order to support the USB Type-C cable/connectors which entirely changed the physical layer of the standard and made USB Power Delivery 1.0 products obsolete.
 
While USB Power Delivery 1.0 controllers can still be found available to purchase, these should not be used for development of new products because the USB Type-A/B cables and connectors which are required to support USB Power Delivery 1.0 are no longer available for purchase, and there is no capacity to interoperate with USB Type-C or USB Power Delivery 2.0 products on the market.

So while it remains true that USB PD was originally envisioned to run on (modified) legacy USB connectors, the fact that it was such a fleeting and obscure thing explains why I assumed it was always USB-C-only.

[Someone]

Perhaps you would share with the class rather than jabbing that it's easily found.

For me, googling "usb pd specification 1.0" brought this up on the first page of results:
https://caxapa.ru/thumbs/342141/USB_PD_V1_0-20120705-final.pdf

Also usb-if:
https://www.usb.org/document-library/usb-power-delivery

[tooki]

Right, but that’s for the current PD standard. The issue was finding V1.0, which is no longer on the USB-IF site.

[Monkeh]

Perhaps you would share with the class rather than jabbing that it's easily found.

For me, googling "usb pd specification 1.0" brought this up on the first page of results:
https://caxapa.ru/thumbs/342141/USB_PD_V1_0-20120705-final.pdf

Thank you - Google being Google that did not appear in ten pages of results of very similar search terms.

[tooki]

I hear you. It is maddening how the results can be totally different depending on where you are, what browser or OS you use, or trivial differences in wording.

[Monkeh]

So, I see it requires special cables (not that USB-C is any different, really, to cover the different power classes) and, worse, sockets with switches.

Indeed, it seems USB-PD is for practical matters USB-C only, whether that be C-to-C or fixed on the supply side. I suppose this is why the likes of Qualcomm QC took off initially.

[Simon]

I have an actual technical question related to this.

Consider the situation of EMC testing. When a charger ships with the product, the EMC test is done on the combination of the power supply and the product. If no power supply is shipped, the manufacturer is free to choose anything that is within the nominal specifications.

More than once in EMC testing changing the power supply resulted in the difference between passing and failing, sometimes by a quite large margin.

Therefore, it's likely that as manufacturers continue to not provide a power supply, then they will test with a top-quality "quiet" supply that give them, let's say, 10dB margin in some EMC test. If the top-quality supply sells for $20, while the cheap ones are $2, it's likely that a fair percentage of customers will get the "equivalent" cheap supply. This is already a dynamic with cell phone chargers.

You're quite right. That's a general problem with devices supporting "compatible" hardware. There is a gray area there.

What does this mean for EMC testing?

Not sure it will change much.
If the manufacturer sells a device with a charger, then this exact combination has to be tested.
If it doesn't provide a charger, then it can use whatever off-the-shelf charger gives the best results during testing.
That's already the case for a majority of manufacturers offering charging through USB, whether it is micro-USB or USB-C.

commercial emc is a piece of cake at these power levels, if I can get a 5V 1A to pass military standards first time then anyone making battery charger circuitry in the phone that cannot pass commercial with any supply is not fit for their job.

[Miyuki]

I have an actual technical question related to this.

Consider the situation of EMC testing. When a charger ships with the product, the EMC test is done on the combination of the power supply and the product. If no power supply is shipped, the manufacturer is free to choose anything that is within the nominal specifications.

More than once in EMC testing changing the power supply resulted in the difference between passing and failing, sometimes by a quite large margin.

Therefore, it's likely that as manufacturers continue to not provide a power supply, then they will test with a top-quality "quiet" supply that give them, let's say, 10dB margin in some EMC test. If the top-quality supply sells for $20, while the cheap ones are $2, it's likely that a fair percentage of customers will get the "equivalent" cheap supply. This is already a dynamic with cell phone chargers.

You're quite right. That's a general problem with devices supporting "compatible" hardware. There is a gray area there.

What does this mean for EMC testing?

Not sure it will change much.
If the manufacturer sells a device with a charger, then this exact combination has to be tested.
If it doesn't provide a charger, then it can use whatever off-the-shelf charger gives the best results during testing.
That's already the case for a majority of manufacturers offering charging through USB, whether it is micro-USB or USB-C.

commercial emc is a piece of cake at these power levels, if I can get a 5V 1A to pass military standards first time then anyone making battery charger circuitry in the phone that cannot pass commercial with any supply is not fit for their job.

There is a reason why chargers are made in Asia. EMC is just printing on the case. No company in US or EU will be allowed to manufacture and sell what they can do. This way distributor can just say it was a bad batch, or any other cheap excuse with no consequences even if something happens.
They commonly omit almost all filtering till it works somehow.
I for example have one charger so noisy when I connect it to the phone it just totally messes up the touchscreen (do this to multiple phones)

[tooki]

I for example have one charger so noisy when I connect it to the phone it just totally messes up the touchscreen (do this to multiple phones)

It doesn’t take much, and is in no way limited to cheaply made chargers: back in 2007, when the original iPhone came out, using the same Dock connector that they’d been using on the iPod for 4 years (around 3 of which with USB charging), Apple released a new USB charger woth the iPhone, because the iPod USB chargers were too noisy and messed up the touchscreens.

I have an Amazon brand 10-port charger that causes touchscreen problems too. Eh, at least it’s OK for charging power banks and running my clock…

[Someone]

Perhaps you would share with the class rather than jabbing that it's easily found.

For me, googling "usb pd specification 1.0" brought this up on the first page of results:
https://caxapa.ru/thumbs/342141/USB_PD_V1_0-20120705-final.pdf

Also usb-if:
https://www.usb.org/document-library/usb-power-delivery

Right, but that’s for the current PD standard. The issue was finding V1.0, which is no longer on the USB-IF site.

If you download/open that it does contain the legacy specifications alongside the newest details, which is why I couldn't determine if that part was still supported/current.

[tooki]

I actually skimmed the 1.0 and 2.0 versions side by side last night. The 2.0 is certainly still active. It’s just not used very widely. I did find a Xiaomi charger using it, and one single USB socket on Digi-Key for it.

[Simon]

I have an actual technical question related to this.

Consider the situation of EMC testing. When a charger ships with the product, the EMC test is done on the combination of the power supply and the product. If no power supply is shipped, the manufacturer is free to choose anything that is within the nominal specifications.

More than once in EMC testing changing the power supply resulted in the difference between passing and failing, sometimes by a quite large margin.

Therefore, it's likely that as manufacturers continue to not provide a power supply, then they will test with a top-quality "quiet" supply that give them, let's say, 10dB margin in some EMC test. If the top-quality supply sells for $20, while the cheap ones are $2, it's likely that a fair percentage of customers will get the "equivalent" cheap supply. This is already a dynamic with cell phone chargers.

You're quite right. That's a general problem with devices supporting "compatible" hardware. There is a gray area there.

What does this mean for EMC testing?

Not sure it will change much.
If the manufacturer sells a device with a charger, then this exact combination has to be tested.
If it doesn't provide a charger, then it can use whatever off-the-shelf charger gives the best results during testing.
That's already the case for a majority of manufacturers offering charging through USB, whether it is micro-USB or USB-C.

commercial emc is a piece of cake at these power levels, if I can get a 5V 1A to pass military standards first time then anyone making battery charger circuitry in the phone that cannot pass commercial with any supply is not fit for their job.

There is a reason why chargers are made in Asia. EMC is just printing on the case. No company in US or EU will be allowed to manufacture and sell what they can do. This way distributor can just say it was a bad batch, or any other cheap excuse with no consequences even if something happens.
They commonly omit almost all filtering till it works somehow.
I for example have one charger so noisy when I connect it to the phone it just totally messes up the touchscreen (do this to multiple phones)

I was reffering to the compatibility of the phone and power supply and the phones ability to meet the regulations every time with any USB brick supply, if the USB power supply fails in it's own right then that is nothing to do with the phone. So any properly designed phone will pass EMC regs will pass with any properly designed USB brick. So having to supply a USB brick to meet regs is no excuse for making you buy a USB brick with the phone.

Last time I was in an EMC chamber the first words out of the mouth of the test engineer after we turned it on was: is it on?

[Miyuki]

I was reffering to the compatibility of the phone and power supply and the phones ability to meet the regulations every time with any USB brick supply, if the USB power supply fails in it's own right then that is nothing to do with the phone. So any properly designed phone will pass EMC regs will pass with any properly designed USB brick. So having to supply a USB brick to meet regs is no excuse for making you buy a USB brick with the phone.

Last time I was in an EMC chamber the first words out of the mouth of the test engineer after we turned it on was: is it on?

It should be two separate devices.
Isn't it one of the original purposes of EMC to "guarantee" you can plug the device into the socket, and any phone into any charger?
But you test every device separately
I expect there is some reference USB PD against it phones are tested the same way as is standardized mains for testing

[Tomorokoshi]

I was reffering to the compatibility of the phone and power supply and the phones ability to meet the regulations every time with any USB brick supply, if the USB power supply fails in it's own right then that is nothing to do with the phone. So any properly designed phone will pass EMC regs will pass with any properly designed USB brick. So having to supply a USB brick to meet regs is no excuse for making you buy a USB brick with the phone.

Last time I was in an EMC chamber the first words out of the mouth of the test engineer after we turned it on was: is it on?

It should be two separate devices.
Isn't it one of the original purposes of EMC to "guarantee" you can plug the device into the socket, and any phone into any charger?
But you test every device separately
I expect there is some reference USB PD against it phones are tested the same way as is standardized mains for testing

I bolded the relevant statements.

First, as opposed to the specifics of phones, consider the general case of any appliance with any appropriate generic power supply.

There are a few cases we can discuss:
1. A specific appliance provided with a specific power supply.
2. A specific appliance provided without a power supply.
3. A power supply tested as a separate product.

Case 1:
A system of some kind is designed and specified. The power supply is chosen for various reasons such as cost, availability, power, EMC levels, other standards, etc. The rest of the system is designed to whatever function it provides. The combination system is tested at an accredited EMC lab. The power supply and the appliance are electrically coupled, and appropriate tests are performed.

Case 2:
A system of some kind is designed and specified. The power supply is left out of the provided system for various reasons. Cost, etc. The system must be powered to operate, so a power supply is used. To the extent possible, the power supply is left out of the EMC tests. Therefore, other variations of the EMC test procedure are used. For instance, in Case 1 the LISN connects to the AC lines of the AC-powered power supply. In this case, the LISN connects to the DC lines between the two. This is a very different EMC situation, typically requiring additional filtering on the DC input of the appliance.

Case 3:
A power supply is designed for generic applications. It is EMC tested with some type of load. However, obviously not all combinations of loads can be tested. For instance, consider that the power supply has a switcher at some frequency. The load may be other switchers and any range of frequencies and draw characteristics, some of which may cause the power supply to have EMC problems that weren't found in the EMC lab.

Simon's statement fails at the term "properly". What defines that? In Europe, it's basically the CE mark. This doesn't mean some particular combination will pass.

Miyuki's statement fails at the term "guarantee". The EMC standards are meant to prevent one system from interfering with another. These systems could be two internal parts, which is where the system test comes in, or two independent systems, which is the purpose of both emissions and immunity testing. In the case of plugging in the power supply, the test is done to some generic loads. However, the specific load of the appliance may be out of the range that a specific power supply was tested to.

In general I have two takeaways:
1. It's a nice idea. There will be unintended consequences.
2. Is this really the biggest issue that could be addressed with e-waste?

[SilverSolder]

I think this is likely to have similar unintended consequences, the inevitable result of technologically illiterate bureaucrats trying to legislate technology. Device power requirements vary widely, and USB-C is still a mess of different incomplete implementations. I could plug my work macbook into a USB-C charger for a phone and the plug would fit but it wouldn't work. The law requiring devices to be sold with a choice with or without the power adapter just means that in effect the power adapter will be an extra cost accessory rather than something included. I don't think we'll see devices sans charger suddenly dropping in price to account for that. Instead devices that include the charger will just cost more.

Inevitably, the next piece of legislation will require certain basic capabilities to be implemented by all ports and all cables!

[SilverSolder]

[...]
2. Is this really the biggest issue that could be addressed with e-waste?

Well...   do we really want to take the Replaceable Batteries, Expandable Memory, etc., discussion again?

It always ends with one group thinking it is OK to replace phones every 3 years so it's OK to weld them shut...  and might as well lump headphones and chargers in with that, just recycle it all.   While another group would like to be able to keep them running for 5, 7, 10, or more years, and keep using older accessories even if they do upgrade.

[coppercone2]

its just a port, no one is gonna make you make it power distribution compatible, so long you don't claim false advertising

Really all you need is 5V-1A , market demand will handle the rest

so long they don't push IC's we are OK, that connector shit is just so fucking annoying. If you are someone that NEEDS backups then you end up with way too many fucking cables. Because they break. They break unless you are a liar.

I am tired of being foiled by shitty little bits of bent metal.

[Monkeh]

its just a port, no one is gonna make you make it power distribution compatible

They are if you want to charge at more than 15W.

[coppercone2]

then you just add a fast charge port with optional charger using whatever connector you want, I don't think it says exclusive, just compatible.

I think the idea is that you don't get completely fucked by little bitty pieces of metal

[Monkeh]

then you just add a fast charge port with optional charger using whatever connector you want, I don't think it says exclusive, just compatible.

No.

2. Hand-held mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, handheld
videogame consoles and portable speakers, in so far as they are capable of being
recharged via wired charging at voltages higher than 5 volts or currents higher than 3
amperes or powers higher than 15 watts, shall:
(a) incorporate the USB Power Delivery, as described in the standard EN IEC
62680-1-2:2021 ‘Universal serial bus interfaces for data and power - Part 1-2:
Common components - USB Power Delivery specification’;
(b) ensure that any additional charging protocol allows the full functionality of the
USB Power Delivery referred to in point (a).

[Berni]

then you just add a fast charge port with optional charger using whatever connector you want, I don't think it says exclusive, just compatible.

I think the idea is that you don't get completely fucked by little bitty pieces of metal

I remember a friend having a Nokia phone that had a silly arrangement of having a USB port for data transfer but no charging. For charging you had to use the proprietary tiny barrel jack that the charger it comes with has. Why they did this i have no idea.

Having multiple connector just makes the internal design more annoying. Besides since USB-C is the current widely adopted standard means that any other connector you add would be considered a proprietary connector that is not compatible with what is out there right now.

I had to turn away people wanting to have there iphone charged on multiple occasions because i did not have the appropriate cable, as i am a android user. I did have a charger with a USB-A port that can supply many amps of 5V juice, i had a PC next to me that has one, i had a car cigarette plug charger that has one etc.. But it is no use sine without a lightning cable i can't get the 5V pixies into my friends phone.

This is why charger standardization requires the whole chain to take part. You need a charger that can be told to give the 20V fast charging when wanted, you need a cable and connector that can safely transfer this amount of power and you need the device to have the matching port and implement the compatible protocol so that it knows how to tell the charger to give it the 20V spicy pixies. But since devices go towards having just one port for everything it is nice if the port can do other stuff like USB 3.0

[f4eru]

Charge port standardisation is a really good thing, and is 10 years late. 
Better late than never....

[JPortici]

Better late than never....

"Let the market decide"

[coppercone2]

that's a serious part dependence and manufacturer preference. The little bit of metal I can understand, but making power IC specifics is crazy. I figure more variation in power circuits is better. I guess there are alot of manufacturers but come on

this just seems authoritarian now, talk about stifling power system design

some consortium is gonna get fat off this stuff and engineers are gonna get brain dead  the same person probobly wanted to do this with USB 1.0 and now we have something much more advanced because it was not regulated and there is competition. Who is gonna put R&D money into this shit when there is some bureaucrat calling all the shots? When is the last time you saw a company say 'hey.. maybe we can convince a international legislative body to justify our R&D". What planet these people from?

the connector is like a building code for door size, while messing with the circuit is like saying 'the door must be made of this wood or else, no other materials are allowed, and don't you dare fuck around trying to make better hinges'.

And when I think about it, its foolish of me to think that we are at 'peak interconnect' right now, there is probably innovation to be made there, its just an esoteric field of study that few understand and study, but its the easiest one to assume that its just a piece of metal. I guess i'm just angry at constantly having to look for cables.

The thing is, the most useful data is generated from users, so when you are field testing different connectors and supply topologies all the time, you learn stuff on a small scale, vs trying to make global changes. You ever fill out a global change paper in manufacturing? bedlam²

on the plus side, if someone invents a better connector, you can make this plan look like stone age fascism. Kinda like having dial up when everyone has cable.