Test/Review index of all tested usb chargers, any comments?

http://lygte-info.dk/info/ChargerIndex%20UK.html

If the above list does not work, it can be found on my website.

Somebody asked for a list of dangerous chargers and the number of tested chargers was not to large to make a total list.

One of the reasons I post the list here is to get comments about what information to include.

And is the skull to dramatic?

I do not expect to update this list (At least not much), when finished the updated list will be on my website.

I do have about 10 chargers more that will be tested over the next months, this includes some multi port high power, Apple and many other.

If somebody would like other chargers to be tested, please post a link to a shop/ebay with shipping to EU. If I have it in queue or some charger that looks like it I will ignore it, but other chargers I will consider. If you have a old original smartphone charger, that you are not using anymore, I might also be interested (I got the HTC and LG that way).

I like the idea with multiple skulls when one is not enough :slight_smile:

Thanks for the list!

The skulls are not too dramatic. It’s a good way to easily see when something is dangerous.
Thank you for your work HKJ!

+1

It’s kinda scary that the majority of them have safety issues.

Very helpful summary - I love the skulls. :wink:

That is because they are cheap ebay chargers, anything below a few $ fails. More expensive chargers may also fail, but the fail percent is much lower.

The list is going to be very interesting to look at when I am finished with my current queue. I have tested some more and the cheap chargers are again a problem.

If somebody would like other chargers to be tested, please post a link to a shop/ebay with shipping to EU. If I have it in queue or some charger that looks like it I will ignore it, but other chargers I will consider. If you have a old original smartphone charger, that you are not using anymore, I might also be interested (I got the HTC and LG that way).

Thanks HKJ. I bought a genuine Nillkin adapter based on your review. Without your in depth testing, tear-downs and inspections, most of us would have no idea what to buy to safely and properly recharge our devices. I was surprised how many chargers and adapters are dangerous counterfeits/no-name models that deliver “dirty power” and lousy performance.

Also, thank you for not being a shill by avoiding affiliate links in all of your posts.

I think it's perfect!

But wont maintenance of the list be a pain in the bum? Every time is see a large table, or a some kind of long list, I think about the "iframe feature" (insert media) of the forum. Hmmm ... But that would only make sense if it was hosted/maintained elsewhere

like this ;-)

http://www.lygte-info.dk/info/indexUSB%20UK.html

A bit more explanation to the safety rating:

I wanted two or 3 fail levels, the first one being failure at the 5000 volt test, the next one being failure at the 2500 volt test and then there are chargers with very low safety distance or non-safety capacitors. The first one will fail the voltage test, the second one will usual (but not always) fail the 5000 volt test, but usual survive the 2500 volt test. The problem with non-safety capacitors is that a failed capacitor may short and that can be deadly.

This can happen when the phone is charging and you are not touching it, maybe due to a lightning strike a few km away. Next time you touch the phone while charging and you have a solid ground connection will be very bad luck.

My skull ratings means:

1 skull: The charger failed the 5000 volt test or I found something inside it that is a bit doubtful.

2 skulls: The charger failed the 2500 volt test or the capacitor is a non-safety capacitor or I found something serious inside it.

no skulls: The charger may pass a CE test, but I do not have any proof it does.

Checkmark: The charger do pass a CE test, I now this is true because I have seen the test report or I trust the company and know the charger is real (I only trust a few large companies).

Passing a test for use in US is seldom relevant, because most chargers are marked 230VAC, i.e. they can be used in Europe and must live up to the CE regulations. The standard used in US and EU is the same, but the test values and safety distances varies.

Do all browsers accept this redirection?

If anybody has problems seeing the contents in the window please post a note.

If nobody has problems I may change the first post to use it.

As I wrote at the start I do not plan to update this thread at regular intervals, but if I can use a Iframe without problems that would fix the update issue.

Wonderful to have this.

I note sometimes the black horizontal line separator is omitted between a couple of items — in one case they look almost identical.

Is that meant to gather 2 items together if that black line is omitted, as being similar?

A header line with “Last Revised Date ” would help keep people aware it’s not always current.

I know Iframes have some security issues, that’s all I know about them. Don’t know if it’s specific to the user/browser or the web page host or ??
Normally they’re blocked by my personal settings (in NoScript)

No, it must be an issue with your browser. Try another browser and see if it persist.

I do not really like to maintain that and the first post must be exactly the same as the page on my website (Except for some difference in styles).

I take that as a no vote to Iframes.

I’m actually curious how original brand name chargers from Samsung and Apple would perform in your tests.

+1

Appreciate the list and the underlying time/effort you’ve put into keeping us safe. The skulls are good.

I have no idea about the security issues around iframes, but they work for me.

I already have some new Apple chargers, performance looks acceptable to good and I will also expect safety to be good.

If would also like a real Samsung, I expect performance will be about the same as the fake, but safety will be better (It will not be missing the plastic shield).

> missing lines
Yep, peculiarity of either Firefox, or of the default zoom setting I had in Firefox; zooming out makes all the divider lines show.
And default Chrome shows all the divider lines.
It’s just that at some point a single line of pixels gets omitted on my screen. No worries about that.

> Iframe
If the blog host here understands them and can assure us they’re ok here, I can set my security (NoScript) to allow them on this site (or maybe limited to this one topic).

I mention it because someone else was hoping to use them in another thread a few weeks ago, so I guess it’s a general interest tool. No clue where it is or isn’t secure-able, sorry.

I would love to see some charts.

From my laptop i tried, firefox, explorer and chrome. All seems to work

From my phone (samsung galaxy s3 - android) i tried both the native browser, and chrome. Both seems to work.

Other than that I have no experience with iframe. I dont' know about the security issues of iframes, but a google search of iframe issues gives a lot of hits on not to use them. So maybe it's not a good idea.

If there are any web-programming gurus with iframe experience in here, feel free to chime in :-)