# Cytac vs AW139 Charger



## QPhaze (Mar 17, 2010)

4Sevens just stopped selling the AW139 charger in favor of the Cytac Dual bay charger.

According to their website:


> This is a new charger that is an upgrade from our previous "AW139" charger. It has a faster charge time and no longer requires spacers to fit the RCR123A batteries!



Anyone have experience with the Cytac charger?
If it has faster charge time, couldn't this be worse for the battery?

Thanks!


----------



## NutSAK (Mar 17, 2010)

Judging from this trade forum post, the Cytac appears to be a DSD charger.

This would be a downgrade from the "AW139". :shakehead

EDIT: Never mind. That can't be. The DSD is not adjustable--you have to use spacers for 14500. :thinking:


----------



## old4570 (Mar 17, 2010)

http://cytacjenny.en.ec21.com/offer_detail/Sell_CY_015_Universal_battery--8291277.html?gubun=S


----------



## NutSAK (Mar 17, 2010)

Yes, that must be the one.


----------



## Natedog100 (Mar 17, 2010)

I bought one of these from 4sevens on Sunday. It arrived last night and I charged up my AW18650 this morning. Worked without a hitch. It is the charger in the link above (http://cytacjenny.en.ec21.com/offer_...7.html?gubun=S).


----------



## mfm (Mar 18, 2010)

10430,10440 batteries,
+ Power Output: DC4.2V-500mA
= UL Approval?

Maybe someone should ask 4Sevens for the UL listing number...


----------



## QPhaze (Mar 18, 2010)

I feel like I should give in and get the Pila charger, but I already ordered the AW139 from 4Sevens, and they just shipped the Cytac instead... :sigh:


----------



## Mr Happy (Mar 18, 2010)

> CAUTION:
> * Put the batteries in fire-proof container
> * Never leave batteries unattended when charging
> * Do not put batteries on wood surface or carpet when charging


Good to see this kind of advice getting some prominence.


----------



## mfm (Mar 21, 2010)

Can someone post hires front and back pictures of this Cytac?

Until proven otherwise, I will assume that this is really a TrustFire TR-001 charger (famous for CC-only charging and that the primary transformer side is likely to blow up) with a fake UL logo added.


----------



## PolarBearX (Mar 21, 2010)

^that sounds nasty....and I was just considering this one too

PBX


----------



## carrot (Mar 21, 2010)

So far this charger has been working well for me. I have used it on 17650, 18650, and RCR123. It has a problem charging flat tops.

There is no UL logo, and the Cytac casing appears to be the same as the Trustfire casing. However, given the Chinese tendency to reuse molds, etc, it may very well have different electronics. 

Does anyone have a Trustfire they can photograph the internals of?


----------



## Mr Happy (Mar 21, 2010)

The quoted charge rate of 500 mA is the same as the TrustFire too.


----------



## mfm (Mar 21, 2010)

carrot said:


> There is no UL logo, and the Cytac casing appears to be the same as the Trustfire casing. However, given the Chinese tendency to reuse molds, etc, it may very well have different electronics.
> 
> Does anyone have a Trustfire they can photograph the internals of?


Seems the "UL approved" at the Cytac site was BS then, but better than fake logo.

Not my pictures, but anyway:

http://www.upload.ee/image/99223/TR-001.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8290/insidexc4.jpg
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/5006/insidenoflashyj0.jpg

Newer version:

http://kkk_6-66.users.photofile.ru/photo/kkk_6-66/96031730/113481981.jpg
http://kkk_6-66.users.photofile.ru/photo/kkk_6-66/96031730/113496030.jpg

Older version:

http://dealextreme.com/forums/Default.dx/sku.4151~threadid.307352


----------



## alfreddajero (Mar 21, 2010)

For those of you that have this charger and also the 139, do you think that this is a much better charger over the 139. I got mine from 4 7's back in the day and I was thinking that i should order another.


----------



## old4570 (Mar 21, 2010)

I may have a Cytac charger to play with shortly ? 

I have the UF-139 and Trustfire 001 , so looking forward to seeing what the Cytac brings to the table . :thumbsup:


----------



## alfreddajero (Mar 21, 2010)

Thank you sir.....i have sent 3 emails to 4 7's and still have not heard from them. This would be better coming from the members here that own and use both.


----------



## carrot (Mar 21, 2010)

My pictures came out poorly, but the inside is somewhat different, although clearly a revision of the Trustfire board. Some of the components on the top are different, although the trace on the back looks identical or near identical.

The board in the Cytac says: TR0001B1, 94V0, 2009-11-1, P1504CU-B, E171766


----------



## mdocod (Mar 21, 2010)

Smells like a TR-001 to me. Until proven otherwise I guess we can just hope that the cytac is using better guts. 

Eric


----------



## GarageBoy (Mar 22, 2010)

Hope its not a DSD


----------



## jirik_cz (Mar 22, 2010)

How long does it charge 18650 battery? Trustfire charger was really slow.


----------



## mfm (Mar 22, 2010)

mdocod said:


> Smells like a TR-001 to me. Until proven otherwise I guess we can just hope that the cytac is using better guts.





jirik_cz said:


> How long does it charge 18650 battery? Trustfire charger was really slow.



I'd say that there is little doubt that this is the exact same thing that you will get if you order a new TR-001 from DX.

However, we don't know if the updated circuit board is better than the older versions. It probably is, as the ones that blew up were of the oldest version. It would be interesting if someone can examine the charging algorithm of the updated charger.


----------



## old4570 (Mar 22, 2010)

The Trusfire starts OK but as it charges the current drops , and probably too far , I just checked mine at it was about 70mA with the battery @ 4.1v so as you get to the end it trickle charges lower and lower , making for a very slow charge towards the end ..

The WF-139 is still pushing 140mA to 170mA at the same point ...

It would be nice if say 500mA was maintained to about 4.15v and then the current begain to drop of say 100mA every 0.01v over 4.15 , so by the time you got to 4.19v , your charging at 100mA , and @ 4.2 it fully cut of [ turned of ] .

Now that would be a heck of a charger .


----------



## Stillphoto (Mar 22, 2010)

Is the moral of the story to pick up a WF-139 at this point if that's the price range we're looking for?


----------



## old4570 (Mar 22, 2010)

Stillphoto said:


> Is the moral of the story to pick up a WF-139 at this point if that's the price range we're looking for?



Moral ? If you need batteries charged quickly , you may wish to consider the Soshine charger ' s . 

You can do worse than the UF-139 , and there is no real info on the Cytac ..

Hopefully I will receive one for testing shortly .


----------



## Mr Happy (Mar 22, 2010)

old4570 said:


> It would be nice if say 500mA was maintained to about 4.15v and then the current begain to drop of say 100mA every 0.01v over 4.15 , so by the time you got to 4.19v , your charging at 100mA , and @ 4.2 it fully cut of [ turned of ] .
> 
> Now that would be a heck of a charger .



Well strictly speaking it would be nice if it maintained 500 mA (or more) right up to 4.20 V and then started dropping the current without any further increase in voltage.

I believe the Pila IBC charger gets closer than any other consumer charger to doing this (other than the RC hobby kind of charger).


----------



## mdocod (Mar 23, 2010)

Mr Happy said:


> Well strictly speaking it would be nice if it maintained 500 mA (or more) right up to 4.20 V and then started dropping the current without any further increase in voltage.
> 
> I believe the Pila IBC charger gets closer than any other consumer charger to doing this (other than the RC hobby kind of charger).



Correct. The IBC charges at an almost perfect 600mA right to 4.20V (charging voltage, not open circuit cell voltage) and then holds 4.20V as the current tapers off until it reaches 50mA. This is the correct charging method for li-ion cells and the IBC does it flawlessly.

There seems to be some evidence that the DX SKU 6105 *might* also use a true CC/CV method and its even faster than the IBC. I think it's fair to assume that the QC will be a fair bit lower though.


----------



## QPhaze (Mar 24, 2010)

So I just received the charger. I've taken some pictures:
http://lazyhack.com/img/IMG_1067_small.jpg
http://lazyhack.com/img/IMG_1070_small.jpg
http://lazyhack.com/img/IMG_1072_small.jpg
http://lazyhack.com/img/IMG_1074_small.jpg
http://lazyhack.com/img/IMG_1075_small.jpg


----------



## mfm (Mar 24, 2010)

QPhaze said:


> So I just received the charger. I've taken some pictures:



Thanks. It seems that the curcuit board is an actual "UL recognized component" from "*FAI WONG ELECTRONIC P C B CO" *but that only means it is meeting requirements for component locations, distances between connections etc. It doesn't mean the charger is "UL listed" and it doesn't tell anything about the function as a charger, but it's a good start.


----------



## skyfire (Mar 31, 2010)

just a little update for all who are interested.

ive had my cytac charger for almost a week now, biggest reason why i purchased it was because i dont want to fumble around with spacers cause i use rcr123. as of now i only have rcr123, but will be getting some 14500, 17670, and maybe 18650.

so far the cytac charger from 4sevens works very well. a friend of mine has the UF WF-139, and the cytac is much better designed in regards to the spring loaded contacts. he is using trustfire 2500 (blue) 18650, and are extremely tight fit in the WF-139, its difficult to take the cells out of the charger when 2 cells are in. the blue trustfire 2500 measure about 68mm i think. 
on the cytac charger though they slip in and out easily, and makes good contact. my rcr123 makes good contact as well. his WF-139 is having contact problems with 1 of his 18650 cells too.
he told me it took about 8 hours to charge up his 18650s from fully discharged with the WF-139.

so far im very pleased with it, especially for its price. i was originally going to pick up a pila ibc, but it seems to be a headache charging my rcr123.

carrot has mentioned the cytac is finicky about charging flat-top cells though. i also want to thank carrot for the recommendation.


----------



## carrot (Mar 31, 2010)

Me too, I have been using the Cytac since I got it and I am happy to report it has not yet burned my house down.


----------



## Black Rose (Mar 31, 2010)

Has anyone figured out the algorithm (CC or CC/CV) for this charger yet?


----------



## 4sevens (Mar 31, 2010)

I believe it's CC/CV.

The slightly higher charge current and no longer needing a spacer was not the only reasons we picked this charger up. 
We studied the circuitry and it's superior to the uf-139.


----------



## QPhaze (Mar 31, 2010)

I'm glad to hear that! :twothumbs


----------



## hazna (Apr 2, 2010)

so it terminates properly at 4.2V and does not trickle charge?


----------



## mfm (Apr 2, 2010)

hazna said:


> so it terminates properly at 4.2V and does not trickle charge?



The old version of the same charger (TR-001) didn't: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2939460&postcount=10

Someone will have to test how the revised version works.


----------



## Streak (Apr 2, 2010)

How would the Cytac compare with the Maha MH-C777PLUS-II??


----------



## mdocod (Apr 5, 2010)

I have run enough tests at this point to say with confidence that the cytac charger is not the holy grail of cheap chargers. Far from it unfortunately.


No CC/CV charge method
No termination (light turns green, but it does not terminate there)
Endless trickle charging to hold ~4.26V
Average charge rate far lower than advertised

See the full evaluation Here.


----------



## jirik_cz (Apr 5, 2010)

Doesn't seem to be "superior" to AW WF-139 at all :shakehead


----------



## thesinmuffin (Apr 8, 2010)

So, what is the best charger to get with AW batteries? Still the Pila charger? Is there a car adapter for that?


----------



## lebox97 (Apr 8, 2010)

see this Consumer Cradle Charger Thread for current info.

several LI-ION chargers have DC power cord option including the PILA IBC and WF-139...

Tod


----------



## mdocod (Apr 8, 2010)

I just did a charge speed testing comparing the 1st gen WF139 to the Cytac CY-015 and 3 other popular chargers. 

The Cytac came in dead last for charging speed. 

You can see the results in the roundup thread linked above. (post #37)

Eric


----------



## jsalmika (Sep 30, 2010)

mfm said:


> The old version of the same charger (TR-001) didn't: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2939460&postcount=10
> 
> Someone will have to test how the revised version works.



Has someone tested this and compared Cytac CY-015 with the Trustfire charger? Is there any justification for the double price (although still not expensive)?


----------



## jsalmika (Oct 28, 2010)

mdocod said:


> I have run enough tests at this point to say with confidence that the cytac charger is not the holy grail of cheap chargers. Far from it unfortunately.
> 
> 
> No CC/CV charge method
> ...



mdocod, when was the Cytac CY-015 being tested? Confirmation about whether it was the most recent revision or one of the older versions would be beneficial in determining the information value of the test report.



mfm said:


> However, we don't know if the updated circuit board is better than the older versions. It probably is, as the ones that blew up were of the oldest version. It would be interesting if someone can examine the charging algorithm of the updated charger.





old4570 said:


> Hopefully I will receive one for testing shortly .


 
old4570 (or any other), have you already been able to run comparison tests regarding the CY-015 charging algorithm?


----------



## jsalmika (Oct 28, 2010)

4sevens said:


> I believe it's CC/CV.
> ...
> We studied the circuitry and it's superior to the uf-139.



What makes you "believe" it is CC/CV?
In which more specific way was the circuitry "superior"?


----------



## hank (Oct 29, 2010)

> "believe"
I have the same questions. Details would be appropriate.

Reposting, edited, something I posted in the other thread:

I found this from Turnigy, who make the well recommended Acucell 6 "hobby" charger"

http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbycity/s...Product=14285a

It's an envelope, big enough to hold cylindrical Li-ion cells connected with magnets or clamps. A 18650 cell, with 2 magnets, 2 alligator clamps and several inches of wire will fit entirely inside one of these envelopes. That's how I'm charging lithium-ion.

It shouldn't make you overconfident, it won't contain much fire very long, but ....

"Turnigy ... fireproof bag, designed to stop and contain the fire caused by incorrectly or poorly used lipos, especially during charging. We urge all customers to always practice extreme caution when charging and never leave a charging battery unattended and never charge in an area that could be affected by fire. The LP-Guard is made from a fibreglass woven fabric. Similar to fireproof suits worn by firefighters."

This is blunt language worth repeating for new people coming in:
"never charge in an area that could be affected by fire"
----------
And as my native plants expert said, looking at a California mountainside 
-- it's not "IF" you have a fire, it's _when_ you have a fire that you need to plan for.


----------



## samgab (Jul 31, 2011)

4sevens said:


> I believe it's CC/CV.
> 
> The slightly higher charge current and no longer needing a spacer was not the only reasons we picked this charger up.
> We studied the circuitry and it's superior to the uf-139.


 
According to tests by HKJ, the Cytac doesn't follow the CC/CV method. Rather, the current curve just seems to be a simple inverse of voltage with a peak at around 4.24V.

But since this thread came out, the 4Sevens single bay charger (V2) has been released, which does follow the correct method.


----------

