Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by burgeralarm 3782 days ago
According to the engineer who tested the cable:

"Most devices with a well-specified connector will not have any reverse bias protection in them because both it shouldn't be needed and for the technical reasons of power loss and space used.

Reverse protection is usually done with diodes, the canonical "one-way valve" of electronics. Diodes have a voltage drop across them, usually 0.6V for standard and 0.4V for Schottky types. Using one of these to protect one rail means you'll have about 1W lost to heat when charging at 3A. They are also not small for the currents involved with high-speed charging, being about 7x6x2.5mm for the smallest ones I can find that can handle 3A.

Devices don't usually have too much in the lines of over current protection outside of something like a polyfuse because the device will dictate the current used; if everything is okay in the device it'll set the charging rate and it only needs the most basic of protections in the case that something goes grossly wrong with the device. Sources are what really need overcurrent protection as they don't "have a say" in how much current is drawn."

1 comments

I mean, yeah, it makes sense. You can reasonably expect chargers/cables not to be quite this jacked up, and in turn, you save space in a space-constrained device. It's just a hard pill to swallow thinking that a stray cable could ruin my device like that.

(Power dissipation aside, I did manage to find some smaller Schottky power diodes that could easily handle the current. There's also the possibility of using a MOSFET, which would turn into Rds(on) * Iavg, so something like 0.15W for Rds(on)=50mOhm, which is much more manageable. I'm just a shade tree electronics guy, so I realize there was probably enough data to make a decision to forego said protection.)