121–130 of 146 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do those affiliate codes support the original reviewer guy, or just the operator of the website (if they are different people)?
Does it matter? As someone that has hunted for cables reviewed by Benson I really wish I had known about this website. They are both providing a service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frankly the C plug spec seems overly convoluted. Each cable needs one of 3 resistors depending on them being a A/B-to-C cable, 1.5A C-to-C cable, or 3A C-to-C cable. Note that the A-to-C cable may well be able to carry 3A, but it shall never use the 3A C-to-C resistor (what many of the cables he find as faulty does). Note that all this resistor shenanigans are all independent of the Battery charging spec that has bee…
USB-C does lots of things, including high voltage charging, backwards compatibility, and reversible orientation. Yeah, you could make it simpler, but then you'd have to start giving up some of those features, at which point now you've just reinvented USB-A again. It's just as complicated as it needs to be. And for godssakes, the pin-out diagram isn't that complicated; it only has 24 pins! There's no excuse for flippi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it matter? As someone that has hunted for cables reviewed by Benson I really wish I had known about this website. They are both providing a service.
It's definitely useful. I just wouldn't want Benson's review work to become unsustainable because of lack of funds, jealousy, or whatever.
Seems to be a kind of bait-and-switch operation, see this G+ comment by Lance Nanek: >>It's pretty common on amazon for some good items to be shipped to get some good ratings, then for the seller to replace them with cheap, almost non-functional, shoddy replacements. It's happened to me before with bicycle equipment (pushing the button on a rear light pushed right through the casing, etc.). So it's entirely possible…
These are the wonders of globalization. USA consumer protection laws don't apply to foreign manufacturers using noname brands.
That's false if you buy stuff on Amazon. That's true if you buy goods on a chinese website. USA consumer protection laws certainly apply since Amazon is a US corporation. Otherwise Amazon would be selling controlled substances like it's an Rx.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frankly the C plug spec seems overly convoluted. Each cable needs one of 3 resistors depending on them being a A/B-to-C cable, 1.5A C-to-C cable, or 3A C-to-C cable. Note that the A-to-C cable may well be able to carry 3A, but it shall never use the 3A C-to-C resistor (what many of the cables he find as faulty does). Note that all this resistor shenanigans are all independent of the Battery charging spec that has bee…
> Each cable needs one of 3 resistors depending on them being a A/B-to-C cable, 1.5A C-to-C cable, or 3A C-to-C cable. No, for C-to-C connections, the resistance is provided by the host ("downstream-facing") port, not the cable. The resistor in an A-to-C cable is basically emulating the signal that would otherwise be provided by the host. There's no such thing as a "1.5A C-to-C cable"; all type-C cables are required…
1.5 A is required to be supported by USB-C, while 3 A is optional. Everything over it is covered by USB Power Delivery, which requires a marking of the cable which of the 5 profiles are supported.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
USB-C does lots of things, including high voltage charging, backwards compatibility, and reversible orientation. Yeah, you could make it simpler, but then you'd have to start giving up some of those features, at which point now you've just reinvented USB-A again. It's just as complicated as it needs to be. And for godssakes, the pin-out diagram isn't that complicated; it only has 24 pins! There's no excuse for flippi…
"only" 24 pins? That's still 6 times more than the previous standard...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure you can blow up any test equipment with a sufficiently screwed up test subject.
Sure, but reverse voltage should be nowhere near sufficient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really test each USB cable you buy like that?
We're talking about a guy whose job is to test USB cables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think something is broken on mine then. It takes an hour and five ten minutes to go from 15% to full from a wall charger. Are you sure it only takes 15-20 mins?
Second data point. Mine takes about 35 minutes to go from near empty to full if I use the supplied wall charger, and is substantially slower if I use most other things (though oddly, my Anker DC->AC 2-port USB-A charger is able to support rapid charging). When you plug it in, turn it off, then back on. Down at the bottom, near the fingerprint, it should indicate the type of charging you're getting. I've seen three mo…
TL;DR; USB-C cable had GND tied to Vbus and Vbus tied to GND (opposite as it should be) Honestly, I'm surprised that this isn't something that thelaptop and other such USB adapters aren't equipped to deal with. This is only slightly worse in my book than a USB adapter being fried from shorting the Vbus and GND pins together
That's worse than a short. A short pulls the Vbus to 0V, leading to high currents on the source, so whatever overcurrent protection it has kicks in. What he had here, instead, was -5V on the Vbus pin, way outside the acceptable voltage range (which is probably something like from -0.5V to 5.5V). It's no wonder everything fried. The protection against reversed voltages like that would be a crowbar diode between Vbus a…
However there is other kind of protections like this : http://www.edn.com/design/analog/4368527/Simple-reverse-pola...