Jeremy Harris
100 MW
etriker said:Jeremy Harris said:etriker said:No one answered this question for him.
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=42159&p=617748&hilit=laptop+power+supply#p617163
You're right. Sometimes there are things that get missed, but that thread's a couple of weeks old now.
Back on this thread topic, I've been digging around and found that the Imax labelled version is identical, except for different sticky labels on the case: http://www.rchelicopterselect.com/i-max-rc-b3-pro-balance-chargers.html
I strongly suspect that these are re-worked units from Imax that are being sold cheaply with another label stuck on the case. Not sure what the implications are in terms of long term reliability, but based on the very small sample of one I'd say that there's no reason for this unit to now be any less reliable than the genuine Imax badged unit that costs several times the price.
The first switch mode supply transformer markings look to be covered by the insulation that's been added around the double E ferrite core. It does seem to have separate primary and secondary bobbins, with good isolation between the terminations, so I'd suggest that the chance of a primary/secondary short is negligible. It's also been varnish impregnated, as there are clear signs of varnish around the edges of the tape. I'd expect this if it really is an Imax part, as the same charger with their badge on it is being sold here by reputable companies, and the law here for selling unsafe, or unapproved, electrical goods is pretty draconian.
So does 9v +18v=36v ?
Sorry? Why ask a question like that in this thread? How's a bit of simple (and wrong) arithmetic related to the discussion in hand?
Getting back on topic, it looks like it's only the front label that's been changed, the rear label seems identical to the Imax B3 shown here:

etriker said:You showed him this ?
http://endless-sphere.com/forums/download/file.php?id=90229
If I've made an error there, please point it out and I'll correct it. I did check it carefully, but may have made a mistake, as it seems you're implying.