Barrel jacks were awesome, they could go in any orientation. The only downside was the many different forms of barrel jack and lack of a standard. My question is: why isn’t there a cylindrical USB port? You would be able to rotate it any way you want within 360 degrees!

As a matter of fact, why isn’t there a cylindrical power plug? You’d get the benefits of a recessed plug like Type-C (EU) and Type-F (Schuko), you’d get the benefits of reversible plugs like Type-A (North American) and more so as you get 360-degree rotation, and it would be MUCH harder to break/bend compared to two flimsy pins (the UK plug has three thicker pins, but a chunky cylinder would be much more difficult to bend than the pins)

If it was a hollow cylinder (a bit like a vacuum-insulated water bottle), you could feasibly fit some small electronics in it, so things like flush low-power USB chargers and smart home sensors could be made.

The contacts would likely need to be outside the cylinder, similar to the “neutral” pins on Schuko plugs. There would likely need to be some plastic tabs to keep the power bits from touching the non-power bits, and then the socket itself would be able to freely rotate.

Actually, why don’t regular sockets freely rotate? Then it would solve all the issues of non-reversible plugs not able to go upside down and reversible plugs not able to go sideways.

Speaking of cylindrical objects, what happened to camcorders? They sound like the most comfortable and easiest way to record videos, with straps and everything. They were compact, portable, and wasn’t heavy as all heck.

this is my rant about cylinders, thank you for your time.

  • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    What’s your beef with the F-type connector? The centre pin is the coax core, compression tool to terminate the coax, solid connection, rated to some absurd frequencies, all round easy connector, no soldering or extra pin required.

    Source: I installed two-way satellite dishes for a time and still use those connectors on my HF antennas as a radio amateur - yes, I know, 75 Ohm - can’t say it’s ever stopped my 10 mW beacon from being heard 13,945 km away.

    • In not the person you replied to, and I can’t speak about the engineering merits; but as a user I hate F-type connectors. They’re bad enough when you have to only install them once in the lifetime of the connected device - it’s the threaded screw that’s the worst, I think, for which no non-technical user owns a tool beyond their fingers, from which the bevel invariably strips the flesh; although I’ve also bent enough of those pins trying to get something connected in an awkward place, or because I was tired, or being sloppy. It’s not a connector that’s convenient for amateurs, and most of its users were and are amateurs.

      As a connector for multiple, frequent dis- and re-connection, it’s an utter disaster. Sure, that’s not what it’s designed for. It was designed to be a semi-permanent extension of permanent wiring, and I’m sure it’s great at that.

      The context of the whole thread, though, was end-user, repeated, frequent connections for people who have to be reminded by a manual that the thing needs to be plugged in. Coax is horrible for that.

      • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        The context of the whole thread, though, was end-user, repeated, frequent connections for people who have to be reminded by a manual that the thing needs to be plugged in. Coax is horrible for that.

        so you want BNC

        • BNC is better, but I’ve only encountered it, like, twice.

          Honestly, I’ve never been happier since USB-C took over. I compare today to the early 90s and having 8-12 different connectors - two of which looked identical but were incompatible - to hook up a single Sun workstation. I clearly remember dreaming of a day when there would be a single connector for everything, and we’re really close. Higher wattage demands and video connectors (HDMI, DP, DVI) are the only hold-outs - and I’m not sure why USB-C hasn’t conquered video yet, unless it’s a cost thing, because it’s certainly capable.

          • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            you don’t see BNC as often because it’s more expensive, bulkier, requires different crimping tool and has a separate soldered pin. but if you need to connect and disconnect things often and quickly, then it’s a good connector. i bet you’ve seen (RP-)SMA a lot instead, but this one is also more expensive than F, has separate pin and is too small to easily make a connector for common 75 ohm cables. reducing diameter would mean higher loss

          • aesthelete@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            USB-C likely will take over video eventually. I use it for video on two out of three of my monitors and the Nintendo switch can be used that way.

              • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                13 hours ago

                I agree, but somehow the low end portable monitors seem to already have USB-C support. I bought a monitor for like $60 and it had USB-C.

                I’m not quite sure why regular size monitors are lacking the support.

    • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      i keep hearing that F stands for Flimsy. no idea where that came from, unless something is seriously wrong with crimping technique. i guess there’s a tradeoff between CCS or copper cable with durability of pin/center conductor vs bending radius, and some people don’t like how it turns out, while ignoring that it’s cheap and not really designed for multiple disconnections

      but yeah, as long as everything is matched good-enough then it’s a cheap way to connect low loss, cheap cable (75 ohm only. otherwise i’m in the N/SMA/BNC camp, UHF connectors are unreasonably obsolete)

      • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        23 hours ago

        For my shack where I move stuff around, testing gear, radios, switches, etc. I’ve standardized on SMA, on my feed line which hasn’t changed or been disconnected for a decade, F-type.

    • litchralee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      My primary complaint with the F-type connector is that it only does half the job: a proper connector should make a reliable and consistent mechanical and electrical coupling. For the latter, the F-type fails miserably, on account of having no protruding pin of its own: reusing the center conductor as a “pin” is at best slapdash, and at worst fails to account for inconsistent conductor cross-sections.

      When affixing an F-type connector onto a new segment of coax, unless great care has been taken to slice the cable cleanly, the center conductor often ends up with a arrow-shaped tip which also flattens the round cross-section into an oval. This tip is now a minor danger to people, in addition to no longer being assumed as round. This certainly doesn’t help with reliable mating later.

      Furthermore, a solid copper tip is not ideal for a connector, unless the opposite coupler that grasps the tip is made of copper as well. But copper can’t be used to make springy receivers, so inevitably another metal must be used. But the prevailing composition of contacts for connectors are either solid brass or are plated (eg gold). But a sharp copper tip will end up scratching the mating surfaces over time.

      And this is just the start of the F-type’s follies. The user experience of turning a 7/16" fine thread in narrow spaces is exhausting. With no consistent specs for the F-type, some cheaper connectors have the thinnest possible hex head to fit a wrench on. Compression F-type is better, but then we have to compare to other connectors.

      In the broadcast and laboratory spaces, BNC is the go-to connector, with easy mating and quarter-turn engagement. It also comes in 50 and 75 Ohm variants (albeit confusingly). In telecoms, the SMA connector is used for its small size, and larger coax might use the beefy N connector. Some of these variants are even waterproof. Solderless is an option. All these connectors are rated by their manufacturers for a minimum number of mating events.

      In all circumstances, according to this chart, the RF performance of BNC, SMA, and N are superior to F-type, which has only ever been used for TV, CCTV, and certain low-frequency clocking systems. I’m not sure what you mean by “rated to absurd frequencies”, but surely SMA’s (up to) 25 GHz rating would be tremendously and wildly insane in comparison to 1-2 GHz for F-type.

      So that’s my beef. It’s just a bad connector, used only because it’s cheap.

      • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        I saw that chart too. When you click on the F-type link you learn it’s rated up to 4 GHz. The summary table is off for several connectors.

        You cannot argue that the mating is poor if it’s rated to 4 GHz.

        There is nothing wrong with using the centre pin of the coax, it’s one less join in the chain and it’s rated at over 500 matings. It’s not for lab equipment, but if you want to connect something and leave it there for the next decade, there’s nothing better.