I might be stupid here but why don’t the manufacturers of these magnetic usb-c connectors just space the pins more out? Like Microsoft and Apple do with their connectors.
I know it’s supposed to have a similar footprint to a normal usb-c cord but like adding a couple of millimeters overal to the connector to ensure you don’t short your data and 20v lines goes a long way
Oh sorry! I assumed they were just hooked up as supplied in the schematic
The more space was kinda stupid yeah, even my Surface adapter isn’t that far apart.
The real solution to this would just be Apple and Microsoft not to hold trademarks on a magnetic connector so Framework make a first party one that’s just handshake and power connectors like the ‘new’ Magsafe connectors have.
I somehow didn’t feel comfortable using these connectors even though they’re super cool and literally have no reason to. - BTW project is awesome!
Just preordered my framework, wondering if there are still any concerns with the mag-charge card that @Moe_Wigs designed. If I were to print/assemble the expansion card and keep the data lines intact, would it be safe/reliable for just power delivery, or would it be a good idea to cut the data lines/add diodes or something? To clarify, I don’t intend to ever use the magnetic connection for data transfer, only for charging, but I’m useless when it comes to soldering/electronic stuff, so I would like to both have it safe and also do the smallest amount of modification possible.
I’ve been using this magnetic adapter from Amazon the last few days. It does the job but it sticks out a bit when inserted.
It seems the new style has gone this way - it appears smaller in diameter than the one posted here.
I’m not an EE or very computer savvy but it does say 24 pin which I think is the current standard, correct?
I’m wondering what the difference between that and the one similar to this thread is, as the one above is more prolific it seems.
That’s completely fair, I have my reservations about them too and would much prefer a magnetic connector with only VCC/CC1/CC2/GND, but others use them as they wish, and I still use mine lol.
I have the second one, it’s from an earlier card design–from what I’ve seen of the first kind, my type is skinnier and when connected to the laptop, it won’t contact the table. People have complained about the newer version (first type in your post) not allowing charging while flat on the table because it contacts the table before the laptop rubber ‘foot’ does. I believe the reason for the switch was the exact amazon listing for the first kind going down, so any others and ymmv.
If you find another listing that will work with the original card design at the top of this thread, feel free to let us know!
@inline_five that 24 pin connector should be fine. Something to note when it comes to cables/connectors is unless they are an adapter, it’s just pins on one side lining up with pins on another. The thunderbolt standard doesn’t come into play until you get to the devices. Thunderbolt 3 and 4 use 24 pins.
I’m going to try using the 24 pin magnetic connector on an eGPU enclosure. If that works out, I’m going to try and make an expansion card that makes the magnetic connector flush with the side. I have to balance that side project with school though, so it could be a while
Very cool idea in theory and I’ve seen (terrifyingly) people use these connectors with TB3/TB4 docks, so it should work, but keep in mind your signal integrity and bandwidth are going to be stunted slightly.
@Be_Far I just finished testing with the 24pin magnetic disconnect. In benchmarking, the disconnect performed 0.283% better, but I would consider that within the margin of error. No signal degradation in my case. Also, I’ve had the issue where applying slight pressure on the connection with the thunderbolt cable causes it to lose connection. This doesn’t happen with the magnetic disconnect (unless you apply enough pressure to remove the cable entirely).
I’m going to try this with a longer cable as well (6ft maybe) and see if I get the same results. If it’s good, I will try to find a solution that makes the magnetic connector flush with the side instead of sticking out. Might have to design my own PCB, which would be a little scary. I don’t think you can buy what is effectively a tiny spacer that is a 24 pin type c to type c that is just the right length.
Gotta balance this with school though
Also, I don’t know how to reply to replies 
So they’re effectively the same performance wise. My anecdotal old-wives’-talery is wrong then, good to know!
I tried using one of these magnetic USB-C connectors with my Framework, and it did initially work great, but after just a handful of times removing and re-connecting the cable I must have gotten unlucky and damaged some part of the USB-C interface on the Framework mainboard side.
Only the port I was plugging into is affected, but that port no longer works for any USB connections (even USB-A)–it now only works as a power input. Any USB devices are completely ignored.
I don’t necessarily need all 4 ports for USB-C (yet) so I’m willing to accept the damage from my own risk-taking, but I did want to provide anecdotal evidence that there is a very real risk of damaging your mainboard with these connectors.
Not releasing something because someone else might benefit from it doesn’t sound like the spirit of sharing to me. Framework themselves are sharing lots of specs so others can offer commercial products that work well with the Framework laptop.
Anyway, I’d like to pay someone else for good quality components since im not in the hardware creator space myself, and as the Framework community grows we need a scalable way to create stuff, and that means a good commercial way of doing business among ourselves.
Thank you for sharing this! Worth reading for everyone considering a 3rd party magnetic connector.
Who are you to determine how someone should feel about their own work? It can take a lot of time and effort to create or design some of these projects, and if people are good enough to release them in “good faith” then you need to honour that sentiment, not tell people they’re wrong to feel the way they do and it’s fine for other people to take that work and make a profit from it. It’s easy to complain and condemn someone, when you haven’t put any work or effort in to something yourself.
Framework have released information and files that suit it’s business model. The more modules and add-ons, the more appealing a framework laptop is, making more money for Framework. They haven’t released schematics, because, they can’t be sure no-one will take that work and use it to make boards that are cheaper and sell them or alter them to add features that might appeal to people.
I dont blame moe_wigs for feeling the way he does. I wouldn’t like it if someone took something I’d maybe taken days to create and then used that work to “line their own pockets” and neither would most people, including you, I suspect. I mean no-one is going to make a huge amount of money out of this, but, there is a principal involved. In Britain, at least, some pretty decent people have set up stores where less well off and needy people can access a weeks worth of shopping for £5, imagine if someone got that and then sold it on for £20. Not illegal, but, certainly unscrupulous and immoral. How would the people who set up that shop to help the more vulnerable feel? And what if someone hinted they were rediculous, why not exploit that good nature?
Because of the attitude of a few people, I’ve a feeling he wont be posting any more files and wont be frequenting the forums.
I’m actually pretty disappointed, I thought there would be hundreds of people making mods and add ons, but only two or three people seem to have any ideas. And you want to chase them away with a selfish and insulting attitude.
So, well done. Maybe I’m over reacting but, I think peoples ideals, if they’re well intentioned, need to be respected more and not taken advantage of.
That isn’t why at all, don’t spread misinformation. They are perfectly willing to share schematics and have done so. They are limited by NDAs as to whom they can be shared with. Check Louis Rossman for more info.
Some of the most vocal backers of this project will be found in the FOSS community. Just because something can be found for “free” doesn’t mean that somebody can’t make a profit. Nor do I begrudge someone trying to make a profit. I’m with @Geert_Schuring, it is in the spirit of this community to release schematics. Doesn’t mean that you can’t sell what you make. The entire reason for being of this company is doing what doesn’t make financial sense for other companies to do.
Well, you made my point for me. Certain NDAs, which I presume means “non disclosure”, I’m not spreading misinformation, I obviously mean’t they haven’t released them into general circulation. I haven’t got a copy but I’d like one.
NDAs imposed on framework by intel. Not framework’s choice to restrict access.
That doesn’t make sense. There are hundreds of schematics available with Intel chips. It wouldn’t necessarily impinge on Intels IP in any way. It sounds a bit like the issue of 11th gen boards needing a complete reset when they’ve entered a bad state, an Intel problem, apparently, but only seems to affect Framework.
If the schematics were released “into the wild” and given a healthy market for framework machines, some of these huge, mostly Chinese companies, that replicate existing designs, could release boards with AMD processors and DDR5 memory, among other additions. That would be real innovation. Who knows where it could end.
@Jason6 It’s not just Intel, every single chip likely has it’s own NDA, Framework has gotten permission that they will gladly share the schematic with you…once you too sign an NDA and they can control access.
Edit: No company needs the schematic to replicate FW’s design. There is nothing inherently patentable regarding it other than perhaps the expansion cards and the related system but that could likely be worked around…not that Chinese companies are known for respecting patent law. Any manufacturer could design a board with a CPU, RAM, Storage, and 4 thunderbolt ports.
I’m curious, is this on BIOS version 3.10? I faced a similar issue I was able to somewhat fix by downgrading to BIOS 3.07. I’m currently speaking to Framework support trying to fix it.
