Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

A look inside a fake Samsung quick charge USB charger which has a price associated with a quality charger, but safety and quality that isn't.

This is a good demonstration of how seemingly convincing chargers with prominent branding on them can be a risk to the safety of you and your expensive equipment.

On a plus note it's got a cute way of implementing the voltage control if it ever does it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN-728RHYbM

Files

Fake Samsung charger with interesting circuitry

I had another go at getting this thing to communicate with various devices and step the voltage up for higher power delivery, but drew a blank. It just didn't happen. It would have been handy to have a USB-C breakout PCB to check voltages, since the middle output didn't seem to activate at all, even for 5V. This is one of many clone power supplies being sold on eBay at a higher price than a safe and compliant charger from somewhere like IKEA. There's absolutely no guarantee of safety with the grey import units. A good USB charger is an essential part of modern digital life, so it pays to get a good one and also a decent cable for your higher power items. These units from unaccountable sellers often pose a high shock and equipment damage risk through cost cutting and bad design. The circuitry is quite intriguing because of the way they have implemented the ability to initially have a standard 5V supply, but then allow two different ICs to negotiate a higher voltage with the connected equipment and then override the preset 5V reference to raise it to the desired level. The two power supply modules are quite unusual for having separate rectifiers and smoothing capacitors on the primary side. They could have used a single rectifier and smoothing capacitor. I wonder if it's to avoid interaction, or just based on a duplicated single power supply design. The use of a TL431 shunt regulator with a near-50/50 divider to hit its threshold of 2.5V with a supply rail of 5V is quite neat. The primary side control chips are almost certainly a clone of another prominent IC like a Viper 22A If you enjoy these videos you can help support the channel with a dollar for coffee, cookies and random gadgets for disassembly at:- https://www.bigclive.com/coffee.htm This also keeps the channel independent of YouTube's algorithm quirks, allowing it to be a bit more dangerous and naughty. #ElectronicsCreators

Comments

Mike Page

Clive I hope you get to Shenzhen to see the fully fake shops.

Anonymous

Found this link to a chinese website that is listing the SDC5091T chip, looks to be a power management chip rated at 15w. Couldn't get a PDF of the schematic, but it does have a pin out guide further down the page. https://www-zthw-cn.translate.goog/show-286-1928-1.html?_x_tr_sl=zh-CN&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

Torbjörn Lindgren

Newer USB testers are available with both USB A and C inputs (and outputs), and are able to query and list all the various fast charging capabilities it may or may not have, like available voltage, amps, QC2/3/4, PD1/2, PPS (and if PPS how small voltage steps it can do). Some can also do "trigger" functions and/or have Bluetooth so you can track and show the data on a bigger screen or log time-graphs. So might be time to get a new one, that way you could have found what it advertised, and test the USB-C port using your existing load. Examples: FNIRSI FNB58 or AVHzY CT-3, but there's plenty others. Someone asked about the $10 cheaper FNB48, definitely an option - the 58 appears to adds PD 3.1, specifically EPR (28/36/48V@5A fixed voltage, aka 240") and AVS (variable voltage, 15V to 28/36/48V depending on wattage, basically PD 2.0/3.0 PPS except higher minimum and maximum voltages). Looks like the CT-3 feature set is similar to the FNB48 but cost like the 58 so good catch. Right now the extras in the FNB58 really isn't that useful - I know there's PD 3.1 cables but IIRC not yet any charger nor devices? I guess it could be useful to have for later, lots of PD 3.1 devices are coming later in 2023 AFAIK.

Bjorn V

The simple 1 USB port fake black Samsung chargers can be identified by the part number printed on the outside. That part number on the fake one is ETA-U90EWE, which is actually the part number on the white original Samsung charger. The genuine black Samsung charger uses ETA-U90EBE as part no. So I bet this "mistake" in part no can also be the case with other fake Samsung charger types. I used some of those fake Samsung type 1 single USB port chargers for a while, until one night in 2018 when I was still awake and charging my smartphone in the other room when suddenly heard circuit breakers tripping and all the power in the house when off. I found my way to the fuse panel and found out that the fuse on the wall outlets and main switch had blown. So I pushed them both back on, and they stayed on, but suddenly I smell something burning. I took a tour of the house and when I got to the room where my smartphone was charging I found the culprit. That fake Samsung charger was burning with an eight inch flame around it, I ripped the charger from the power strip by pulling the USB cable, and threw it into the sink where I was able to extinguish it with water. Fortunately, the smartphone was not damaged, and i was still awake when this occured and could take action. I have smoke detectors in almost every room,and also in the room where this occured, but the fire started on the otherside of the room then where the smoke detector is installed. Never used a fake charger for a smartphone again since that day.

John Lundgren ~ Acme Fixer

I had a power strip, a "surge protector" catch fire, and fortunately I was home at the time. And fortunately it had a metal outside so it contained the fire. I have not allowed another surge protector in my home since. Any surge protection should be done in the breaker panel with an approved protector.

bigclive

I wonder if the thing would have self extinguished after the circuit breaker initially tripped.

Anonymous

By then it might be too late. Phone chargers in bedrooms get pretty abused - phones taken while the cable still plugged in, causing very loose connections and broken pins in countries that use flat blade pins (US, Australia, etc), then there are chargers jammed under beds... so if the flame self extinguishes (they do use self-extinguishing plastics in China, right..?) but it's too late because the underside of your bed has already caught alight.

Nani Isobel

Sometimes you wonder if they're cheating on purpose or not competent. Including the metal weight makes it clear which. That's funny.

Anonymous

There are Chinese chargers that are actually genuinely decent and then there is... this. With new phones not coming with chargers at all, normies are going to buy this stuff, thinking it's real but simply cheaper than the genuine store and fake junk is going to become more and more of a problem. Samsung could fix this by not charging ridiculous rates for the genuine article, so cheap Aliexpress/eBay/Amazon chargers aren't even considered.

Bjorn V

i don't think it would self extinguished. After i yankt the burning leftover with the usb cable still attached, and carry it to the sink, it was still burning quiet strong. The usb cable that i used was a very good one with very low resistance, and with a good charger, this cable could pull above 2A. When my smartphone was charging, the battery was almost flat, so the fake Samsung charger was charging at the highest current for a while when this occured. I bought these fake ones in a lot of 10 for 5€ or so, from Wish. For low current applications, they work, but i don't trust them for high current above 1A.

Anonymous

There are genuine chargers with just bad designs, but the metal weight and the rip-off of the Samsung trademark means it's 100% a deliberate counterfeit.

Anonymous

I think the "6606ACA" chip is the Fitipower FP6606AC, a "simplified USB Power Delivery 3.0 protocol controller". There's a datasheet on the LCSC website: https://datasheet.lcsc.com/lcsc/2106021033_Fitipower-Integrated-Tech-FP6606ACDW4_C2836669.pdf

Charles

I love the teardowns of counterfeit/fake products. It pretty much guarantees you're going to see cutting corners that shouldn't be cut etc. In that sense, this product was built too well to be maximally amusing. But it's probably a little less likely to kill the user, so that's probably a fair tradeoff.

Antisoda

This sort of fakery scares me. On one hand, you have the regular "Shamsung" housefire-in-a-box, often easily recognized, fake electronics –But on the other hand, you have the cheap, but otherwise well-made electronics with seemingly good quality, from a brand that appears to try to establish a reputation… …but after a while, corners start getting cut, components get switched out with cardboard-derivatives, and slowly and unnoticed, the once-good stuff get turned into housefire-in-a-box.

Charles

All the major brands treat accessories as a major profit centre - which they are. The first one that realizes the brand goodwill they could generate by selling quality accessories without a big ol' Major Brand Name Tax would be a game-changer... But I can't see it happening. MBAs gonna MBA.

Richard

This makes me so mad risking lives to make a dollar