WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.600
Continuing its march to take over the tech world, USB-C is getting an upgrade to handle up to 240 watts,

00:00:07.600 --> 00:00:10.880
which is enough to power most of the gadgets you use every day.

00:00:11.520 --> 00:00:15.040
It's an awesome feature, but it's also a little confusing.

00:00:15.040 --> 00:00:19.440
So let's break down how exactly this works, what devices will use it,

00:00:19.440 --> 00:00:24.560
and how to know if your electronics are compatible. The main reason that the USB implementers forum

00:00:24.560 --> 00:00:28.960
wanted to bump the max power delivery from 100 watts to 240 watts

00:00:28.960 --> 00:00:34.000
is to get closer to a world of near universal charging for consumer electronics.

00:00:34.000 --> 00:00:37.600
100 watts is more than nearly any phone would need,

00:00:37.600 --> 00:00:41.360
but as USB-C charging grew as more popular on laptops,

00:00:41.360 --> 00:00:46.560
that 100 watt limit rules it out for higher powered machines such as gaming laptops

00:00:46.560 --> 00:00:52.960
and mobile workstations that designers and engineers use. USB-C can even be used to power laptop docks and monitors,

00:00:52.960 --> 00:00:57.520
but that 100 watts again simply isn't enough for larger displays either.

00:00:57.520 --> 00:01:02.400
That means the upgrade to 240 watts will be good news for a huge number of everyday people,

00:01:02.400 --> 00:01:06.000
not just folks who have ever had a laptop charger break or go missing,

00:01:06.000 --> 00:01:09.440
but also those who have had a hard time getting a new one in a pinch

00:01:09.440 --> 00:01:12.960
because of the huge number of incompatible charging tips out there.

00:01:12.960 --> 00:01:17.840
I mean, there are so-called universal chargers with over a dozen interchangeable tips included,

00:01:17.840 --> 00:01:21.120
and even those won't fit in every laptop.

00:01:21.120 --> 00:01:27.840
Ask me how I know that. But what do you need to take advantage of this new standard?

00:01:28.560 --> 00:01:31.840
Well, this is where it gets a little tricky.

00:01:31.840 --> 00:01:36.080
You can't just send 240 watts of power down any old USB-C cable.

00:01:36.080 --> 00:01:39.280
Part of the reason for this is that the new USB power delivery specification

00:01:39.280 --> 00:01:45.040
that allows for such high wattages works by bumping up the maximum voltage to 48 volts,

00:01:45.040 --> 00:01:51.840
while keeping the 5 amps of current the same. And if you remember from high school physics that volts times amps equals watts,

00:01:51.840 --> 00:01:57.040
48 times 5 is 240. So back to talking about power.

00:01:57.040 --> 00:02:02.800
When you use higher and higher voltages, you increase the risk of electrical arcing that can damage equipment.

00:02:02.800 --> 00:02:06.720
Now, this isn't a big deal when connecting a cable or a wireless plugged in,

00:02:06.720 --> 00:02:11.840
but when you go to unplug it, that's when arcing can cause a serious hazard.

00:02:12.400 --> 00:02:17.600
This means that 240 watt USB-C cables have to be engineered differently.

00:02:17.600 --> 00:02:21.440
So that cord you got three years ago isn't going to work.

00:02:21.440 --> 00:02:26.080
The good news is that older USB-C cables are being deprecated or phased out,

00:02:26.080 --> 00:02:31.440
but this is obviously going to take some time, so what should you look for?

00:02:31.440 --> 00:02:34.480
Well, the USB implementers forum was nice enough to come out with

00:02:34.480 --> 00:02:38.080
official logos for cables that can support 240 watts of power,

00:02:38.080 --> 00:02:45.280
which should make your search a little easier. But be wary that you'll need to pay attention to determine the data transfer speeds.

00:02:45.280 --> 00:02:49.440
Of course, the chargers themselves also need to support the new standard,

00:02:49.440 --> 00:02:56.480
and there's an official logo for that too. Keep in mind these logos are probably going to be on the packaging and not on the cables themselves,

00:02:56.480 --> 00:03:01.840
so don't go rooting around the pile of bare cables or loose chargers in a bargain bin

00:03:01.840 --> 00:03:07.680
and expect whatever you pull out to work. But if you don't see those logos anywhere, remember that the USB implementers forum

00:03:07.680 --> 00:03:12.800
is officially referring to these cables and chargers as extended power range, or EPR.

00:03:13.440 --> 00:03:17.440
So if you see these letters on a cable or a charger that you're looking at,

00:03:17.440 --> 00:03:22.400
you're probably good to go. And of course, the ports on the device you're actually trying to power

00:03:22.400 --> 00:03:31.520
need to support the new spec too. So look out for USB power delivery 3.1, which is part of the USB Type-C 2.1 spec,

00:03:32.240 --> 00:03:39.520
just to make it all nice and confusing. The spec is very new, so don't expect to see tons of compatible cables, chargers,

00:03:39.520 --> 00:03:46.640
and laptops on the market just yet. And there will be some devices that even this new USB revision won't be powerful enough to charge,

00:03:47.200 --> 00:03:52.320
such as those really beefy tank-like gaming laptops that have multiple chargers.

00:03:52.320 --> 00:03:57.680
They're not going to work with a single cable. But as the USB-C standard becomes more and more capable,

00:03:57.680 --> 00:04:01.440
the hope is that in the near future, basically any contemporary corridor

00:04:01.440 --> 00:04:03.920
charger will power whatever portable gadget you have.

00:04:04.480 --> 00:04:08.720
And full-power USB-C wall sockets might even become a common thing as a result.

00:04:09.520 --> 00:04:12.400
Until then, though, make your own labels.

00:04:12.960 --> 00:04:16.240
Thanks for watching. Like, dislike, check out some of our other videos,

00:04:16.240 --> 00:04:18.880
maybe something on USB Type-C or charging, or maybe...

00:04:20.000 --> 00:04:27.840
Oh, what's the gallium nitride? That's cool. And don't forget to comment below with video suggestions and subscribe and follow.
