| Electronics > Projects, Designs, and Technical Stuff |
| USB C vs type B micro for a new design. |
| << < (10/10) |
| ArchieAltz:
--- Quote from: ebastler on January 03, 2025, 10:48:48 pm ---In 15 years it will properly be hard to find USB-C leads. We'll be on USB-D or USB-E by then. :) --- End quote --- At that point I think just replace the connector |
| Njk:
--- Quote from: Buriedcode on January 05, 2025, 08:26:28 pm ---In other words - create yet *another* standard only adding to the vast number of different vendor connectors that standardisation is meant to reduce? (insert relevant xkcd comic here). I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that USB-C connectors are great for every application, and reducing E-waste isn't just about enviromentalism - its an inefficient use of resources, takes up space in peoples homes, costs more to the consumer. --- End quote --- Don't take me wrong, I'm not a Type C hater. The new connector seems well designed to fit the intended application area (a small mobile devices) perfectly. It's an excellent replacement for the mini and micro USB connectors in new designs. But actually, it's for a quite small (although popular) class of applications. My point of concern is some hype around it, which can result an undesirable side effects and implications. Some brave hearts will start considering it as an ultimate replacement for every existing DC power connector where it's electrically suitable, because it's so cheap and available. Although it was not designed for that purpose. For a power connector, the electrical suitability is not a primary choosing criterion. There are many others. For instance, in construction, it's strongly advised to keep the signal and power wires separately. Not because of safety or interference concerns. Basically, it's possible to lay a power cable once and use it forever. You can continue to use it even when the wire color fashion changed. But when an existing device has failed, the chances are it's no more available for purchase while the new device requires new signal wires. So you'll have to lay the signal cables again just because of that. So any signal wiring must facilitate frequent changes. For a power wires, it's not a requirement and this is why there must be separate conduits for a power and signal cables. Another brave hearts seems provoked to start using this wonderful connector where no connector is appropriate. Consider the two designs of the same functionality (IR adapter for the Fluke DMM). The first design (image 1) looks good but it uses a small USB connector (the type does not matter). It's placed such that the cable's angular momentum will try to wrench the connector's body out of the PCB. In addition to creating inconvenience for the user. The connector will not last long, even if it's of an ultra-modern type. The other design (image 2) seems less cool but the goal was to improve the robustness and convenience by elimination of the unnecessary intermediate connector. There are less points of failure and it's more future proof as the cable and even the IF bridge board can be easily replaced. Definitely, this design can last longer. Yes, it's all for occasional use so the durability seems not a primary concern. But listen to the IT security specialists. They're arguing that today everything must be designed with the security in mind from the beginning. I can add that the durability must always be in mind as well. Regardless of is it a formal requirement or not. Because that creates a good habit in the engineers. Today we must learn how to manufacture less, not more. It's not always possible, e.g. food or a shoes for kids but for a lot of things it seems doable if each the thing will last at least for the user's lifetime. From that point, the best thing is not that running faster but that which lasting longer. One Ukranian guy once told me that the old English agriculture tools from the early years of 20 century are of high value for the local farmers, because the steel quality is considerably better. As for the standardization, it seems the idea does not work as designed any more. It's not a problem to develop a standard, the problem is to enforce the compliance. Each time a standard proposal feels by someone preventing them from making money, they start crying about setting obstacles to the innovation process, etc. No way to discipline them, their lobbies are well-funded and strong (especially in the US), so the only practical way is to satisfy all of them. Take the EV charging connector as an example. How many different types of the same thing are standardized by ISO? BTW it seems there are little formal standardization documents for the consumer-grade DC power connectors. In the Western hemisphere anyway. I'm aware of the one abandoned IEC standard for barrel jack connectors, but the dimensions are different and the types which are in wide use today (like 5521) are all informal, like GoPro mount. So we have a lack of standards indeed. |
| Buriedcode:
--- Quote from: Njk on Yesterday at 09:14:40 pm ---My point of concern is some hype around it, which can result an undesirable side effects and implications. --- End quote --- Ahh OK so, its more use cases than the connector deseign/standard itself. Well yes, as has been stated many times, it was never meant to replace "everything", and I dont' think I have heard anyone or any company make such claims. This says nothing about the standard itself, more that people will mis-apply it. I also haven't seen any "hype" except perhaps in the maker community where there is a wide range of experience/education from professors, to tinkerers - not really a place to get solid data on connector applications. Or the worst place for any kind of technology information - youtube (sorry Dave) or tech journalists., where it isn't about engineering, its about sensationalism, likes, clicks, views. Again, doesn't count because thats pure opinion. --- Quote from: Njk on Yesterday at 09:14:40 pm ---Some brave hearts will start considering it as an ultimate replacement for every existing DC power connector where it's electrically suitable, because it's so cheap and available. Although it was not designed for that purpose. --- End quote --- Who? --- Quote from: Njk on Yesterday at 09:14:40 pm --- One Ukranian guy once told me that the old English agriculture tools from the early years of 20 century are of high value for the local farmers, because the steel quality is considerably better. --- End quote --- Not sure what agricultural tools (industrial use) have to do with USB connectors (consumer gear), but if your point is "they dont' make them as good as they used to" the answer is: they do, but they also make many cheaper versions, which people tend to use more, and fail sooner so they get a bad reputation. In the past there wasn't much choice of tools/applicances/products, so the ones that were made were made to a higher standard, these days there is a much broader range of quality (and therefore cost) to cater for different customer requirements/use-cases/budget. Also you're talking about surivivor bias - the old tools that used cheaper materials simply didn't last, so the only tools that have been in use that exist today are the tougher ones that had much higher build quality (and probably cost a lot more too). If you're making something that you expect to last 20+ years of constant use/abuse, then USB (connectors) just aren't designed for that, so its the wrong use case. --- Quote from: Njk on Yesterday at 09:14:40 pm ---As for the standardization, it seems the idea does not work as designed any more. It's not a problem to develop a standard, the problem is to enforce the compliance. Each time a standard proposal feels by someone preventing them from making money, they start crying about setting obstacles to the innovation process, etc. No way to discipline them, their lobbies are well-funded and strong (especially in the US), so the only practical way is to satisfy all of them. Take the EV charging connector as an example. How many different types of the same thing are standardized by ISO? --- End quote --- Again.. this is kind of a tangent. EV's are still an emerging market with many different manufacturers still trying to agree on standards. Are you suggesting that standardisation doesn't work because... a relatively new tech sector hasn't instantly agreed on a standard? I mean, I agree with you to a point, companies will always push against these things because it means they can't force customers to also purchase their proprietary accessories that are vital for the product's functionality, or aren't compatible with their rivals products. And in many ways this push-back is a sign it is needed. Also it is true that standards are often ignored/violated for more budget versions, but that doesnt' mean to say we shouldn't try to have a "standard" which has fixed specifications that "houlsdf" be adhered to. Again, if a product violates this, its the manufacturers fault, and they should be called out on it. I suspect on reasonably priced gear this isn't the case, but only for ultra cheap products that people buy and then unreasonably expect it to be of high quality. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Previous page |