Talk:Common external power supply

Seeking information / references for YD/T 1591-2009 (updated PR China specification)

In researching the PR China standards for mobile device chargers (CCSA YD/T 1591-2006, later updated to YD/T 1591-2009) I have been unable to find detailed English language information and references for the updated (2009 December) version. Using Google translate with some Chinese language articles, I have been able to piece together some of the changes (compared to the original 2006 specifications) but I have not found any articles (English or Chinese) that provide answers to some remaining questions. I put together the following chart to illustrate some of the open questions. If anyone has access to the updated Chinese standard itself (CCSA YD/T 1591-2009) or knows of good English or Chinese references on this subject, I hope they will add that information here - or directly in the Wikipedia article.

Pugetbill (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed the table you compiled here a couple of years ago, which was never released to the article. Although avowedly incomplete, it looks like it contained useful reference info. Do you consider it to have info that is useful now, or is it hopelessly obsolete? Reify-tech (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, if completed, [and ignoring the relevant Wikipedia "No Original Research" problem - which I don't think can/should be ignored] it might be an interesting addition to the article, although the table was not originally intended (by me) to be used in the article itself. It was just something that helped me in my research for the article. I posted it on the talk page to identify the unconfirmed parts of the 2009 Chinese standard hoping it would inspire someone to find more info on that revised Chinese standard, CCSA YD/T 1591-2009. I don't read Chinese and was not able to verify what exactly had changed between the 2006 and 2009 revisions of that standard. I never saw any related edits or feedback from Wikipedia editors nor have I made any further efforts at researching the Chinese standard myself. I assume the other info in the table is still correct / accurate (and up-to-date?). For me, the most interesting "fact" that the table highlights is: Any charger that meets the OMTP {"preferred"} requirements, also satisfies the EU's Common EPS requirements and the Chinese CCSA YD/T 1591 requirements (and also, I believe, the ITU-T L.1000 recommendation). But the reverse is not always true since the EU and Chinese standards (and most of the ITU-T L.1000 recommendations) are a bit more flexible than the OMTP standard (regarding no load power consumption; captive cables; and the use of adapters). Pugetbill (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the status of the table. Since you appear to judge it not ready for release to the article, thank you for leaving it in Talk, as partial backup material. Unfortunately, I can't read Chinese either. If I can persuade a friend who is fluent in Chinese and also has technical knowledge to become a Wikipedia editor, I'll ask him to look at this. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

missed its purpose

While the idea behind the agreement was surely good, all major cell phone manufacturers now ship an USB power supply with their products, which means that the electronic garbage just changed its form. Not sure if there is a compliant way to get this current state of the industry into the article... WooShell (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This would be a good addition to the article I believe. I tried to find relevant information / articles on the web but... no luck so far. In order to stay true to Wikipedia's verifiability standards (Wikipedia:Verifiability) it would be important to find good neutral-point-of-view article(s) / source(s) for anything added to the article about the success (or lack of success) of this EU initiative. Especially since, regardless of what results/status the source reports, there are bound to be those with opposing views. I would expect debate along the old "more government" vs. "less government"; "unnecessary interference in free markets" vs. "reasonable regulation of commerce"; "environmental protection" vs. "government over-reaching"; etc., lines. It would appear to me that until/unless phone manufacturers start shipping phones without chargers, the primary goal of this EU initiative will not be achieved. Then there is the question of how much reduction (in the manufacture / waste of phone chargers) is necessary before anyone can claim the program was a success? Is any reduction in waste, regardless of how small, adequate justification for this standardization program? There is bound to be more than one opinion / viewpoint so the usual Wikipedia Core Content policies: Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, No Original Research apply. Pugetbill (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Follow up: Interesting / related reading =

ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/7432/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf

Study on the Impact of the MoU on Harmonisation of Chargers for Mobile Telephones and to Assess Possible Future Options

"…Executive Summary

…

Summary of Market Data and Charging Requirements

In 2009, 227 million mobile phones were sold in the EU28, increasing to a high of 239 million in 2010 and then declining to 206 million in 2012. Sales for 2013 are estimated to have been around 213 million. During this time, the share of data-enabled mobile phones increased significantly, with estimates suggesting they represented 90% of the European market in 2013. …

…

This study has estimated that approximately 0.05% of mobile phones were sold without a charger in 2013. This is a slight increase from 0.02% in 2012. …"

So one out of every two thousand smartphones (0.05%) sold in the EU is sold without a charger. Or, put another way, 1,999 out of every 2,000 smartphones sold in the EU in 2013 included a charger.

Pugetbill (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

English spelling

An editor today made several minor changes to the article, including changing several "-ise" spellings (harmonisation, standardisation, etc.) to the "-ize" equivalent (harmonization, standardization, ...). I'm not sure what the editor's motivation was but Wikipedia's Style Guide seems to discourage this kind of spelling revision except in specific cases.

See Wikipedia:ISE#British_English_with_.22-ise.22 and Wikipedia:Style_guide#National_varieties_of_English

"When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary."

One changed word was inside a direct quote (changed from "Adaptor" to "adapter"). In another case, the changes were made to Harmonisation / Harmonise as used in a direct quotation and in the title of a referenced article. Regardless of other spelling considerations, words in direct quotes should retain the spelling of the original quote / citation.

Lastly, two minor grammar changes were made at the same time but both changes altered the meaning of the sentences (one subtly, the other became unintelligible).

For all of these reasons I reverted the entire change today and made additional minor changes to improve clarity. Pugetbill (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you did the right thing, for the right reasons. Reify-tech (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

USB Power Delivery (PD) - maximum current restrictions at 5V?

I have a question and I'm finding it difficult to locate an answer. I'm beginning to suspect one statement in the "USB Power Delivery specification" section may not be accurate / verifiable:

"The USB PD specification provides the ability for 5 V devices to draw up to 10 W of power (5 V at 2 A) from USB "PD-aware" ports when using PD-aware USB cables..."

My question: what is the maximum allowable current at 5V for a USB dedicated charging port when connected to a device through USB-PD-certified cables equipped with micro-USB connectors?

Until / unless someone can reliably verify (with citation) the USB-PD "10W maximum" for 5V Power Delivery, I propose this sentence be modified to read:

"The USB PD specification provides the ability for 5V devices to draw more than (the USB Battery Charging specification limit of) 7.5W of power from USB "PD-aware" ports when using PD-aware USB cables."

According to the USB Power Delivery specification, the maximum current allowed for USB micro connectors at 12V is 3A (3A x 12V = 36W). Likewise 3A is the limit for 20V Profiles when using USB micro connectors (3A x 20V = 60W). The thing I find odd is that USB PD Profiles 1 through 5 only support 2A at 5V although they support 3A at 12V and 20V (for USB micro connectors). Why would 3A be acceptable at 12V and 20V but not at 5V? All of these profiles presume PD-certified cables are detected. If "old" (non-PD-certified) cables are in use, the original USB Battery Charging specification limit of 1.5A at 5V (e.g. 7.5W) is apparently enforced.

It is mentioned in the Power Delivery standard (I believe) that the 5 "Profiles" are just guidelines(?) so perhaps 5V @ 3A (i.e. 15W) is allowed / supported for USB micro-equipped PD cables / ports??? i.e. just because it is not explicitly included in one of the (optional?) profiles doesn't mean it is not supported???

I hope someone can provide a citation for a reliable / authoritative source that clears up this question. I've searched but have had no luck so far Pugetbill (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: the recently released USB Type C specification seems to make clear that USB Type C connectors / sockets CAN support 5V @3A (i.e. 15W). But I don't necessarily think any further changes/clarifications to the Common EPS article are necessary because of this. Pugetbill (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo of actual charger

Is it okay if this article has a photograph of an actual European power supply

Thanks
^TheSpaceFace _{C'mon talk to me. don't be a wimp} 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding a photo would be fine ("be bold") although I fear it may be only slightly helpful or informative. You can't necessarily tell from a photograph whether the depicted external power supply conforms to EN 62684:2010 (the EU Common External Power Supply specification) or not. i.e. two external power supplies can appear identical even when only one is designed to the EN 62684:2010 specification. The suggested photo might be of a Common External Power Supply sold in most EU countries (not Ireland which uses a different plug type) but it also may not be a Common External Power Supply.

Pugetbill (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common external power supply. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131208210437/http://www.usb.org/press/USB-IF_Press_Releases/Type-C_PR_20131203_Final.pdf to http://www.usb.org/press/USB-IF_Press_Releases/Type-C_PR_20131203_Final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

New Development worth adding? Possibly include criticism?

The European Commission announced they would be revisiting this issue, supposedly to try and force Apple into joining the world of USB-C. Would it be worthwhile to include this? Also developers claim that standardization would hamper development, would that be worth adding to this article? Bgrus22 (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think adding this info is appropriate. I had added some relevant text (with citations) at the time:

"In 2020, January, the European Parliament passed a resolution, calling upon the European Commission to adopt rules on the mandatory introduction of common chargers for all mobile devices. ..."

and now (late 2021) again to the "Pending/future European legislation" section:

"In 2021, September, the European Commission released a proposal for a directive, 'amending Directive 2014/53/EU on the harmonisation of the laws ... relating to the making available on the market of radio equipment.' The proposed directive would, among other things, require all hand-held mobile phones, tablets, digital cameras, headphones, headsets, handheld videogame consoles and portable speakers sold in the EU ('in so far as they are capable of being recharged via wired charging') to, 'be equipped with the USB Type-C receptacle, ... and be capable, ... of being charged with [USB-C] cables ...' Manufacturers of these devices would also be required to offer consumers the option of purchasing their devices without any charging device. e.g. without an external power supply."

It should be interesting to follow these EU plans/developments.

Pugetbill (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

MOVE proposal

I would like to propose that this article be MOVED (renamed) to EU Common external power supply (EN 62684:2010)

Background / rationale for the proposed move / name change:

The EU has recently (2020/2021) announced plans to produce a new power supply ("charger") standard / mandate for mobile devices (mobile phones, etc.) sold in the EU.

"...In 2021, September, the European Commission released a proposal for a directive, [requiring] all hand-held mobile phones, tablets, ... sold in the EU...to, be equipped with the USB Type-C receptacle, ... "

It's not yet clear (to me anyway) whether this new / proposed standard will be simply a revision of the previous EU "Common EPS" standard (EN 62684:2010) or something completely new and different. I suspect it will be considered something new / different. But even if it is only an extension of the existing standard, I assume the name of the standard/specification would still change to (something like) "EN 62684:2022 " (not the current "EN 62684:2010")

I suggest it would be less confusing for Wikipedia readers if we would create a completely new article for any new 2022+ EU standard rather than trying to incorporate all relevant information into this older article - which was created only for the 2009/2010 EU Common EPS standard. As preparation for that day when there is more concrete information about the new standard, I suggest we rename this current article to make it more clear that THIS article refers to the 2009/2010 Common EPS - not to the "next generation" (2022+?) EU power supply / mandate.

I don't think this article MOVE/name change is particularly urgent and I'll be interested to hear if anyone has concerns about this proposed MOVE or has questions or better alternative suggestions. But if, after some time, there are no objections or alternative proposals in the comments here / on this talk page, I'd be happy to make the suggested MOVE in the coming weeks / months.

Pugetbill (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)