141–146 of 146 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parallel scoffs at your measly 24 pins. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_port
Only 25 pins? Why not 40? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_ATA
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but reverse voltage should be nowhere near sufficient.
Do you mind explaining why? Short circuits are common, and are mitigated against. Reversed voltage is exceedingly rare, especially for USB C with mirrored contacts.
FWIW because the USB PD device is connecting two separate grounds, this same failure could have happened from a single broken ground wire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only 25 pins? Why not 40? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_ATA
I'll see your 40 pin parallel and raise you an 80-pin SCA connector. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Connector_Attachment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How on earth do you think the tech review industry works? 99% of the reviews you've read utilize free gear provided by the vendor. Some publications have taken steps to curb potential excesses, but at least when I was freelancing (2000-2005), almost all writers were provided gear for free, and allowed to keep said gear. Ethical journalists can attempt to ignore the impact of gratis equipment, but it's difficult in th…
There's a big difference between giving review samples to journalists to review and publish on their own sites, and giving samples to be reviewed in bulk on Amazon in the same context of customer reviews and aggregated together with the same scores, with only a footnote of disclosure. Getting review samples isn't the problem; the reviews are just being published in the wrong manner. It's particularly inexcusable that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a big difference between giving review samples to journalists to review and publish on their own sites, and giving samples to be reviewed in bulk on Amazon in the same context of customer reviews and aggregated together with the same scores, with only a footnote of disclosure. Getting review samples isn't the problem; the reviews are just being published in the wrong manner. It's particularly inexcusable that…
The "Verified Purchaser" tag is just so that people know the reviewer actually received and ideally evaluated an actual unit, as opposed to a sockpuppet review. What's your issue with his review? He actually reviewed the actual units, compared them to the specs, and gave his professional opinion. All in a place where it can do the most good, as opposed to posted to some defunct Google blog.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mind explaining why? Short circuits are common, and are mitigated against. Reversed voltage is exceedingly rare, especially for USB C with mirrored contacts.
The purpose of test equipment is to diagnose weird situations - hence why OP broke two of them trying to understand what was happening. Its requirements are to be as robust and transparent as practical. The other end of the cable could likely be bare wires connected ad-hoc with alligator/mini clips. FWIW because the USB PD device is connecting two separate grounds, this same failure could have happened from a single…
That doesn't set a clear-cut boundary, does it? What seems practical to you might be impractical to the test equipment maker - especially when cost is considered. Should the test equipment be robust enough to handle 1000+ amps? I'd say no, someone else (maybe even you) might say yes.