Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The Zima Blade isn't actually USB-C powered - it's just a USB-C port carrying a raw 12V. No PD negotiation supported.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1bbD1kw334

Honestly, for me, total dealbreaker for a product like this. Not only will it never work with anything other than the original PSU, that PSU will likely fry anything else you plug it into.



Which is perfectly in spec. Feel free to email the USB Implementers Forum and let them know they are clowns and USB-C was a mistake.

USB-C simply describes a connector. USB-PD is one of many optional power over USB-C specifications you can use, or choose not to use. Heck, USB-PD v1 supports power delivery over USB-A connectors.


My understanding is that an in-spec USB-C power supply will supply 5V by default - then, upon negotiation with the client, can go up to a higher voltage.

In the case of the Zimaboard, this is basically a 12V barrel jack with a different shape. It just dumps 12V out on the pins with no negotiation or considerations of the client device.

I suspect if the downstream device was already 12V compliant, it might survive, but I wouldn't count on that nor would I be willing to test it.


USB-C must deliver a minimum of 3 amps at _at least_ 5V. If it delivers more than 5 amps it must contain a marker chip. The Zimaboard charger could deliver 4 amps at 12 v for 48 watt power delivery and be entirely within spec. (I haven't actually confirmed if this is what they do, so take it with a grain of salt)


This is incorrect. A USB-C power source can’t be in-spec if it doesn’t supply 5V by default. Other voltages or alt modes can be negotiated after that, but everything starts at 5V. This is defined in the base “ Universal Serial Bus Type-C Cable and Connector Specification”, not the optional USB-PD spec.


A common misconception, Wikipedia spells it out maybe clearer than I did: "A device with a Type-C connector does not necessarily implement any USB transfer protocol, USB Power Delivery, or any given Alternate Mode: the Type-C connector is common to several technologies."

The document you mention is the specification for implementing USB 3.0 on a USB type C connector.


That’s not correct. We’re USB-IF members, and I’ve read through large chunks of USB-IF specs. The spec I am referencing is the one that defines the actual connector. You cannot build a power source that uses a USB-C connector and doesn’t support 5V and call it “USB Type-C”.


> We’re USB-IF members

I hope so that you can pressure the Promoter Group into not making the same mistakes with USB-D. :)

Have a look at https://web.archive.org/web/20161220102924/http://www.usb.or... slide 45. Note how all the power requirements also list an associated USB spec.

Looking back I will give you that 5v is required for vconn.

> You cannot build a power source that uses a USB-C connector and doesn’t support 5V and call it “USB Type-C”.

Yet this whole conversation thread shows that is not the case. By not joining the IF you can do as you please.

A great example of this is the Ubiquti Theta cable (https://tinyurl.com/5asf8wpp) where they implemented a completely proprietary cable (as far as I can tell) with "USB Type-C" on both ends.


It's kinda silly that Android phone manufacturers came up with their own protocols. PD was long overdue, it's a godsend.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: