Just wanted to mention I recently Burnt Up the charging circuit in a IF22A. At first I thought bad/defective components ( light still works). Then I burnt up two hand warmers. After I wondered , scratched my head and said WT_. I came to the conclusion this happened because of plugging into a Fast charge USB-C outlet on my power brick ( these outlets are capable of 12v). All these devices are shipped with USB-A to USB-C cables.
So was the light or the charger at fault.
I’m thinking it was the QC USB-C outlet. Some kind of way the circuit in the device must trigger the higher voltage, but not sure ( any thoughts are welcome ) I just noticed after looking, most if not all lights come with a USB-A to USB-C charging cable. Most of the time I don’t use internal charging, but I’ve gifted many lights with internal charging.
I heard ages ago that if you’re not sure if the doodad can even take anything higher than 5V, use an A-to-C cable, vs a C-to-C.
No idea if an A socket can put out anything other than 5V, but wouldn’t want to chance it.
Hmm…
I think I’ll avoid USB-C-to-C cables for charging devices that cannot handle over 5 volts.
Thanks for bringing this up, chops728!
(Ya learn something new everyday.)
EDIT:
According to AI:
“A regular USB A to C cable only provides 5 volts, which is insufficient to charge a 12V battery.”
I was always under the impression that the device requests the voltage and current it can handle from the power supply. If I were to hazard a guess, since it happened to 3 devices, I suspect that the power supply is at fault.
Who makes the psu?
Something tells me there is a simple explanation here. Would need to know the brand and model of the charger.
One possibility is that the usb c cable was super poor quality and could not handle the amperage.
My Samsung charger uses A to C and it charges my Samsung phones @9v
Power supplies with type A ports capable of 5, 9 and 12 volts have been available for at least 6 years. Possibly more.
The device is supposed to request the power that it wants.
So it’s likely a device problem.
I have seen some cheap devices that do caution to not use more than 5 volts.
Mmmm, so I guess “ages ago” is outdated by them newfangled telly-o-phones.
And the lappy tops before everything went to CnC.
I thought that wurkkos and sofirn figured out C to C somewhere around late 2020. Their first models with Type-C charging did have to use A to C cables but they were not damaged if you tried to use a C to C cable. They just did not charge.
InterTek is the USB charger, probably a vipon deal, No Telling
I know over the years I’ve used C to C on lights and other devices, even have A to C adapters. That’s why my first thought was the flashlight crapped out. Then when it was two more devices I decided to just use the type cable that came with the device. I’m like every one else, have a ton of devices with a pile of cables. I do keep handy the few heavier shorter ones I use daily though.
Decommission this charger right now. Every device that needs 5V only uses passive negotiations. Every voltage above that needs a pretty complicated digital communication protocol to successfully request those.
It is absolutely impossible for a 5V device, broken or not, to accidentally request anything else than 5V. This means the charger is throwing out random voltages, and it will kill other devices, even ones that can do more than 5V, sooner or later.
I’d recommend not buying USB chargers from brands other than Aukey/Anker/Ugreen/Baseus. (First gen Anker from 8-9 years ago had similar issues, newer ones are fine). Those have the best track record in my opinion. Apart from obviously the OEM chargers known brands like Samsung, Apple, Huawei, Lenovo etc. include with their notebooks and phones. Those are great too.
Imuto is another solid brand, I’m using one to drive a Switch and charge random devices
Firstly, Intertek is the name of the testing lab (NRTL) that carries out safety certification testing using ETL (Edison Testing Laboratories) branding.
Peers in their industry include UL, probably the most recognized, but others like TĂśV and its various branches, as well as SGS.
It is not the brand name of the power adapter.
But seeing it is a good thing, because that purportedly means (if legitimately displayed) that the device was subject to a relevant safety testing process.
The marks placed on electronic devices all have different meanings, whether electrical safety testing, radio interference compliance (FCC), materials compliance (RoHS), regional safety compliance (PSE Japan), or broader regional compliance (CE, UKCA), recycling/disposal warnings, and so on.
Each mark has specific meanings, and have differing levels of requirements, including testing, to display those marks, but not all are stringent, or sometimes even relevant to the products they are applied to.
But they do look “official,” imply that the device is vetted, and thus the moar the better to some Chinese manufacturers, who like to apply them to products even if they aren’t applicable, to make the product appear more legit. Companies do the same by claiming ISO certifications covering quality processes.
Given that the adapter in question has damaged multiple devices, it is not wise to continue to use it. Despite having a safety mark, it may be falsely applied; or just plain defective, or damaged on its own accord.
USB was originally developed as a standard to replace low power serial communications, not serve as a power delivery mechanism to charge devices, yet, but that’s the role it adopted, almost by default, and has arguably mostly usurped, at least among consumers.
That deficiency initially lead to a free-for-all situation, where different companies each developed their own unsanctioned standards to squeeze more power out of USB, like Apple 2.4, Samsung FastCharge, etc., and serve the needs of the growing popularity of the devices they produced.
The baseline voltage for USB has always been 5V. And according to USB standards, has only permitted greater voltages since the USB PD spec was defined, carried over Type-C.
With Type-A, there have been higher voltage implementations, using QC, but that is a proprietary standard developed by Qualcomm, and came into being only because the inadequacy of the USB power specs during the Type-A era.
In developing Type-C, and its envisioned role as the one connector for everything, the USB IF finally acknowledged that the role of USB had evolved, and that power delivery was a vital part of its duties, and thus the Power Delivery (PD) standard was born.
The USB IF was relatively lax in allowing data transmission speeds to lag, at USB 2.0 levels, when defining the types of compliant C2C cables in the spec. But one thing it did do was to ensure that every complaint cable must be capable of carrying 60W of power as a baseline, and higher levels if electronically marked to signal to devices that capability. Hence, the market is flooded with cheap “charging cables” that can do a good job at carrying power, but are stuck at USB 2 data speeds. Need something faster? Be prepared to pay the price.
PD is, and still the only sanctioned protocol over Type-C, which does not permit proprietary protocols like QC, so that companies that make products that employ QC3 and older in their products over Type-C are violating the spec.
Along with the greater power delivery capabilities (never mind the other roles Type-C can perform), came greater complexity. Type-C power connections are actively negotiated, and when not, such as when simpler devices lack the logic chips needed to talk, are supposed to fall back to basic levels of power, meaning 5V at up to 3A.
Whereas Type-A ports are constantly energized with 5V, Type-C ports are smart enough to not supply power unless signaled to, either passively via the presence of pulldown resistors, or actively, through negotiation of voltage and current levels.
Flashlights are dumb devices, and don’t have a particular need for high power. The basic 15W USB can deliver is adequate to charge a Li cell inside a light at a moderately fast rate, and given the cheap electronics in budget flashlights, I’m not sure I’d necessarily welcome a potential fast-charged pipe bomb every time I recharged a light to even begin with.
When Type-C ports first appeared in flashlights, they only worked with A2C cables because the makers didn’t bother to include the necessary resistors in their connectors to permit them to work properly with Type-C power sources. That may still be the case with some lights produced today, which is why the better reviewers note that aspect in their reviews. Which sadly is still necessary because the flashlight makers like to keep quiet about such things, and won’t commit to official positions one way or the other.
In short, Type-C is more complex to implement, and even the big companies, with the resources at their disposal, don’t do a perfect job.
When talking about budget flashlights, or other cheap devices, it’s wise to be wary, because the higher power levels can have greater ill consequences, especially when also dealing with lithum cells.
As far as I know in case of type-c PSU even 5V must be negotiated. By default there’s only low (like 3V) or no voltage on the power line and that is the reason why old or “dumb” devices can not be charged from type-c chargers. Those devices simply can’t communicate and expect a 5V as granted (which is true for type-a interface).
So properly functioning type-c charger cannot harm any device.
Default in VBUS is 0V. The small voltage is applied over a resistor on CC by the host. The value of this resistor tells the client how much current at 5V the host can supply. The client needs 5.1 kOhm from CC to GND, and as soon as the host sees these it applies 5V.
Any active PD negotiation for >5V is optional and takes place after this, once 5V is there.
Time to order USB C tester