USB-C was supposed to simplify our lives, but instead it’s a total mess

Re:USB-C was supposed to simplify our lives, but instead it’... by Dylan16807 on Thursday October 01, 2020 @03:39PM (#24655328)

Any device that becomes significantly more dangerous when the breaker trips at 25 instead of 20 amps is relying on way too thin of a safety margin and I would consider it a lurking hazard on any circuit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USB-C was supposed to simplify our lives, but instead it’... by catblast on Thursday October 01, 2020 @04:02PM (#24655581)

That is not how safety margins work. Safety margins are meant to give a buffer for unforeseen circumstances, they are not a ticket to just cheat. With this logic... why stop at a 25A breaker (30 in the US)? Why not just plug a 20A device into a 100A breaker, or no breaker at all?

No safety margin can account for purposeful circumvention, which is what connecting a 15/20A outlet to a 30A circuit is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:USB-C was supposed to simplify our lives, but instead it’... by Dylan16807 on Thursday October 01, 2020 @04:45PM (#24655991)

You see no difference between 20 vs. 25 amps and 20 vs. 100?

I didn't say any difference was unacceptable, but a significant difference for 20/25 should not be accepted.

If the danger gets gradually worse for every 5 amps on the fuse, that's fine. Then the excess danger at 25 or 30 amps is only a tiny fraction of the excess danger at 100 amps. Good work.

If the danger has a sudden sharp increase at a certain amperage, then that amperage threshold needs to be further away than a mere 20/25 difference. Or even 20/30.

[ Parent | on HN ]