DNA 200 Watt

[Vlad1]

The current draw for charging has to be done through software. As indicated, based on the specs and info provided by evolv, if it draws more than 500mA when data lines are present it is malfunctioning.

You keep talking about having the connected device protect the supply and I keep telling you the supply is supposed to be engineered to protect itself as well as the device. Much more can go wrong with what's connected to a USB port than drawing over 500mA -- as mentioned a shorted 10c cable will do the trick. If that fries a supply or bus, it deserves to die. So to answer your question, no, the device side of a USB interface should not be required to have a completely fail safe overcurrent protection system built into it because doing so is 1. Impossible (the failure could be upstream of the device, such as in the cable) and 2. Wasteful because a truly fail safe system where device current draw is programmable would be relatively expensive on the device end. On the supply end, it can be much cheaper to design a true fail safe because the supply has a fixed absolute max current it is designed to deliver in addition to the fact that one supply is intended to connect to a number of devices. As an example, a good hub design would have one of these at each port: Fast-Tripping Resettable Fuses Can Protect USB Circuits

I don't know where you keep getting I'm asking about protecting the supply but your misunderstanding my questions. In fact one of the re-posts in the original post the PC did take appropriate measures and prevent damage to the PC when the malfunctioning DNA 200 was connected, so I understand in some cases the connected PC may prevent Overcurrent when the DNA doesn't. My questions are mainly regarding the DNA board and what Over Current Protection it had if any. I've found another post that appears to answer several of my questions that I'll post with my original questions again.

I don't see anything in the data sheet that indicates there's USB Over Current Protection.

So this makes me wonder do these boards have USB Over Current Protection? (based on the attachment it appears there is)

Shouldn't they if they don't? (based on the attachment it appears it should)

If they do what could explain these examples? (This is the main question now)

If they do is it only mechanical in nature? As in by utilizing only the electronic components?

Couldn't there be USB Over Current Protection logic programmed into the firmware? I don't think there is since mine appears to work as designed and some of the others appear the CPU is functioning and communicating via USB with the PC and Escribe but no software restrictions appeared to be activated when they were charging above 500mA while connected to PC.

What about circuit isolation, couldn't there be isolation so if a component failure does occur it could be rendered inoperable or as an open circuit so as not pull more current than it was designed for and potentially damage the source charging power source?

(I think I see the portion of one of my questions that may have lead you to believe I was asking about the source. I'll leave that as is since not all pc's in use have the same protections but I'll bold the preceding portion to be more obvious to that question.)



So believing these boards are supposed to limit current to 500ma when connected to PC and that there is Overcurrent Protection built in, and the ease of finding similar malfunctioning devices like was in the original post.

This brings up other questions in regards to some other reported problems like boards or USB chips getting hot when connected to PC. Since it's clearly not isolated to just a couple devices that are charging over the stated current limit it seems logical the other reports of boards or chips getting hot when connected to PC could be due to similar malfunctioning boards or the inadequacies / failures of the Over Current Protection as well. Even a resettable fuse like you linked earlier would have provided some form of protection to the board of the poster that was showing charging at a little over 3 amps.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I don't know where you keep getting I'm asking about protecting the supply but your misunderstanding my questions. In fact one of the re-posts in the original post the PC did take appropriate measures and prevent damage to the PC when the malfunctioning DNA 200 was connected, so I understand in some cases the connected PC may prevent Overcurrent when the DNA doesn't. My questions are mainly regarding the DNA board and what Over Current Protection it had if any. I've found another post that appears to answer several of my questions that I'll post with my original questions again.


View attachment 509553


I don't see anything in the data sheet that indicates there's USB Over Current Protection.

So this makes me wonder do these boards have USB Over Current Protection? (based on the attachment it appears there is)

Shouldn't they if they don't? (based on the attachment it appears it should)

If they do what could explain these examples? (This is the main question now)

If they do is it only mechanical in nature? As in by utilizing only the electronic components?

Couldn't there be USB Over Current Protection logic programmed into the firmware? I don't think there is since mine appears to work as designed and some of the others appear the CPU is functioning and communicating via USB with the PC and Escribe but no software restrictions appeared to be activated when they were charging above 500mA while connected to PC.

What about circuit isolation, couldn't there be isolation so if a component failure does occur it could be rendered inoperable or as an open circuit so as not pull more current than it was designed for and potentially damage the source charging power source?

(I think I see the portion of one of my questions that may have lead you to believe I was asking about the source. I'll leave that as is since not all pc's in use have the same protections but I'll bold the preceding portion to be more obvious to that question.)



So believing these boards are supposed to limit current to 500ma when connected to PC and that there is Overcurrent Protection built in, and the ease of finding similar malfunctioning devices like was in the original post.

This brings up other questions in regards to some other reported problems like boards or USB chips getting hot when connected to PC. Since it's clearly not isolated to just a couple devices that are charging over the stated current limit it seems logical the other reports of boards or chips getting hot when connected to PC could be due to similar malfunctioning boards or the inadequacies / failures of the Over Current Protection as well. Even a resettable fuse like you linked earlier would have provided some form of protection to the board of the poster that was showing charging at a little over 3 amps.

The DNA 200 uses software to limit the amount of current it uses. That is the extent of the overcurrent protection. If the board draws more current than specified for each specified operating condition, it is malfunctioning. If you have identified a significant percentage of boards that are malfunctioning in this manner, that is a bug that, as retird encouraged you to do, should be reported on the evolv forum.

I've already answered your question about devices and overcurrent protection generally. The DNA 200, like most USB devices, does not have a true fail safe current limiting mechanism for device end of the USB. You clearly seem to think it should and your incessant questioning about it seems intended to convince others as well. I obviously disagree.

 

[Mad Scientist]

.......... (Pushed the wrong link .......... A malfunction lol)

 

[Vlad1]

The DNA 200 uses software to limit the amount of current it uses. That is the extent of the overcurrent protection. If the board draws more current than specified for each specified operating condition, it is malfunctioning.

I've already answered your question about devices and overcurrent protection generally. The DNA 200, like most USB devices, does not have a true fail safe current limiting mechanism for device end of the USB. You clearly seem to think it should and your incessant questioning about it seems intended to convince others as well. I obviously disagree.

Sorry my questions appear to bother you. What you call "incessant questioning" is a result of me needing to re-post the exact same questions over and over in order for you understand their meaning, without you picking 4 words out of a sentence to respond to the particular part you choose. As to my questions being intended to convince anyone of anything, well we can all think as we please and if a question convinces you of something your entitled to that. You can ignore me and not respond to my questions and will probably save us both a lot of time. I'll continue digging and see if I can come by any credible information to pass along if I do.

 

[retird]

The DNA 200 uses software to limit the amount of current it uses. That is the extent of the overcurrent protection. If the board draws more current than specified for each specified operating condition, it is malfunctioning. If you have identified a significant percentage of boards that are malfunctioning in this manner, that is a bug that, as retird encouraged you to do, should be reported on the evolv forum.

I've already answered your question about devices and overcurrent protection generally. The DNA 200, like most USB devices, does not have a true fail safe current limiting mechanism for device end of the USB. You clearly seem to think it should and your incessant questioning about it seems intended to convince others as well. I obviously disagree.

I'm waiting to see all of the incessant questioning and suppositions touted in this thread and almost every other dna thread to be posted in the Evolv forum where they can be answered adequately. Best answers can come from the source. Just ask James or John.

Vlad1 is spending a great deal of time and effort in this thread and almost all others pointing out what he feels are bugs and flaws. One can appreciate his effort but can also ponder the motive. They may or may not be flaws or bugs but at any rate just ask them of those who can best answer them. If they are bugs and flaws who better to communicate with than Evolv? That way all the supposition and innuendo can be put to bed and not become social media fact just because someone reads it here.

EDIT: Just a link to a very recent post in another thread:

NEW YIHI SX MINI ML CLASS!

 

[Mad Scientist]

Sorry my questions appear to bother you. What you call "incessant questioning" is a result of me needing to re-post the exact same questions over and over in order for you understand their meaning, without you picking 4 words out of a sentence to respond to the particular part you choose. As to my questions being intended to convince anyone of anything, well we can all think as we please and if a question convinces you of something your entitled to that. You can ignore me and not respond to my questions and will probably save us both a lot of time. I'll continue digging and see if I can come by any credible information to pass along if I do.

Now I'm confused. What credible information do you continue to seek? I believe the questions you asked have been answered at least three times. Does the DNA 200 have a true fail safe system for USB current limiting: no. Should it: no.

To answer some questions you haven't asked, does any commonly available USB device, other than medical devices, have true fail safe current limiting: no. Do most USB battery charging devices report real time current use so you could tell whether they too may use more current than you think they do: no.

I guess I am getting the sense that you consistency dig and look for ways to trash the DNA 200 and it's getting old. If I'm wrong, I apologize. [sarcasm alert lol] After all, in normal use, I always set my DNA 200 to a few watts with no preheat on a high thermal mass build so no vapor is produced, but low and behold when I increase power to something that actually produces any vapor, it might not be in TC mode and that is something that really concerns me

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm waiting to see all of the incessant questioning and suppositions touted in this thread and almost every other dna thread to be posted in the Evolv forum where they can be answered adequately. Best answers can come from the source. Just ask James or John.

Vlad1 is spending a great deal of time and effort in this thread and almost all others pointing out what he feels are bugs and flaws. One can appreciate his effort but can also ponder the motive. They may or may not be flaws or bugs but at any rate just ask them of those who can best answer them. If they are bugs and flaws who better to communicate with than Evolv? That way all the supposition and innuendo can be put to bed and not become social media fact just because someone reads it here.

EDIT: Just a link to a very recent post in another thread:

NEW YIHI SX MINI ML CLASS!

It's the perceived motive that's getting under my skin.

 

[retird]

I always set my DNA 200 to a few watts with no preheat on a high thermal mass build so no vapor is produced, but low and behold when I increase power to something that actually produces any vapor, it might not be in TC mode and that is something that really concerns me

I too have pondered that. I'm thinking since there is a function that determines Kanthal/nickel etc. tied to temperature rise then that results in what we are seeing. Once it determine the non-temp mode it stays there until a new coil is identified. It may be (if this is a major issue) that a firmware tweak to allow one to choose manually between kanthal/temp wire that can function as a lock out may be beneficial to consider. I read that this issue is not mainstream by most users but I may be wrong in my thinking but a manual function could resolve it for those who need it. The way I vape it never drops to non-temp but I can force it if I want to.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I too have pondered that. I'm thinking since there is a function that determines Kanthal/nickel etc. tied to temperature rise then that results in what we are seeing. Once it determine the non-temp mode it stays there until a new coil is identified. It may be (if this is a major issue) that a firmware tweak to allow one to choose manually between kanthal/temp wire that can function as a lock out may be beneficial to consider. I read that this issue is not mainstream by most users but I may be wrong in my thinking but a manual function could resolve it for those who need it. The way I vape it never drops to non-temp but I can force it if I want to.

Lol -- I was being sarcastic. To get the DNA 200 to do that requires using it in a way that no one would. Edited the post to make sarcasm explicit.

 

[retird]

Lol -- I was being sarcastic. To get the DNA 200 to do that requires using it in a way that no one would. Edited the post to make sarcasm explicit.

Yep, when I force it out of TL it isn't an adequate vape either. As alway it is hard for me to tell sarcasm from just written words and has to be pointed out to me...lol....

 

[jazzvaper]

It's the perceived motive that's getting under my skin.

And, not the first time for this "motive", a better description would be modus operandi. It is a characteristic Internet "method"(read ploy).

How do you spell demagoguery?

 

[Vlad1]

@retird @Mad Scientist
Anyone can perceive whatever they like I have no hidden agenda and the questions I posted are valid questions and concerns and should be for everyone IMO. It seems there is a bit of paranoia with the fanboys and they want to find each and every fault to be with the maker, atty, coil, user etc.. anything other than their beloved DNA. A perfect example of that is the dropping out of Temp mode that took me almost two full pages of posts in this thread to get @retird to finally acknowledge the bug and quit blaming the maker or 510 connection etc.. When all else fails attack the poster and question their motive.

As to the post in the SXMini Ml thread that bothers you.. The poster was specifically asking about the ML and the DNA 200 so I posted my experience with the SXmini M and the DNA 200 for comparison since I have both . If you have both I'm sure he'd be happy to see your experience as well. As it stands now both of you are deviating from my original questions and I'm not really interested in following you down that path.

 

[Woofer]

Anyone can perceive whatever they like I have no hidden agenda and the questions I posted are valid questions and concerns and should be for everyone IMO. It seems there is a bit of paranoia with the fanboys and they want to find each and every fault to be with the maker, atty, coil, user etc.. anything other than their beloved DNA. A perfect example of that is the dropping out of Temp mode that took me almost two full pages of posts in this thread to get @retird to finally acknowledge the bug and quit blaming the maker or 510 connection etc.. When all else fails attack the poster and question their motive.

Things that make me go hmmm.

 

[retird]

@retird @Mad Scientist
Anyone can perceive whatever they like I have no hidden agenda and the questions I posted are valid questions and concerns and should be for everyone IMO. It seems there is a bit of paranoia with the fanboys and they want to find each and every fault to be with the maker, atty, coil, user etc.. anything other than their beloved DNA. A perfect example of that is the dropping out of Temp mode that took me almost two full pages of posts in this thread to get @retird to finally acknowledge the bug and quit blaming the maker or 510 connection etc.. When all else fails attack the poster and question their motive.

As to the post in the SXMini Ml thread that bothers you.. The poster was specifically asking about the ML and the DNA 200 so I posted my experience with the SXmini M and the DNA 200 for comparison since I have both . If you have both I'm sure he'd be happy to see your experience as well. As it stands now both of you are deviating from my original questions and I'm not really interested in following you down that path.

The ML thread is discussion about a new device that we don't have yet ( I may be wrong but you don't have a ML either). You are right the poster asked about the ML class and was undecides about the ML and the DNA. (I've been asking about it too) and you replied about the M-class (not what he was asking). Thread has nothing to do with the m class. To be blunt the only one going from thread to thread finding fault is you. Sorry to be so blunt, or maybe seeing it wrong for which I would apologize, but you started the "fanboy crap" again...(injecting dissension among the ranks at ECF) .no need for that IMO....

Question (again I'm being blunt):

Are you going to post your questions and what you believe are flaws to the Evolv forum so those who can professionally answer have the opportunity to respond? I, for one, would be interested in knowing for certain if you suppositions are founded or not as my training and technology knowledge of the inner workings of the DNA are limited in comparison to those who designed it.. Clears the air for all of us I think.

 

[Mad Scientist]

@retird @Mad Scientist
Anyone can perceive whatever they like I have no hidden agenda and the questions I posted are valid questions and concerns and should be for everyone IMO. It seems there is a bit of paranoia with the fanboys and they want to find each and every fault to be with the maker, atty, coil, user etc.. anything other than their beloved DNA. A perfect example of that is the dropping out of Temp mode that took me almost two full pages of posts in this thread to get @retird to finally acknowledge the bug and quit blaming the maker or 510 connection etc.. When all else fails attack the poster and question their motive.

As to the post in the SXMini Ml thread that bothers you.. The poster was specifically asking about the ML and the DNA 200 so I posted my experience with the SXmini M and the DNA 200 for comparison since I have both . If you have both I'm sure he'd be happy to see your experience as well. As it stands now both of you are deviating from my original questions and I'm not really interested in following you down that path.

I answered your questions. You don't like the answers so you keep asking.

 

[Mad Scientist]

@retird you are spot on so I posted the question myself in the evolv forum. Hopefully I framed the issue correctly.

USB and charge current limiting characteristics of DNA 200 - DNA 200 Early Adopters Forum

 

[nic_fix]

to the party that asked, no the dna40 did not have reverse polarity protection. many fried theirs because of this.

guys, I think you are both wrong! no device is required to have usb over current protection and many don't. that is why modern motherboards like sandy bridge and beyond have protection. older motherboards will be fried. if you are still running a p4 I am sorry for you anyways. no, seriously I can dead short a modern board and the computer will instantly shut down completely. modern psu's are integrated into this and also have protection on the +3v rail. in fact, all rails. if you draw too much on sata it will do the same. same on pcie. so why worry about this?

 

[Woofer]

to the party that asked, no the dna40 did not have reverse polarity protection. many fried theirs because of this.

Incorrect, the DNA 40 has, boards prior to that did not have.

 

[Mad Scientist]

to the party that asked, no the dna40 did not have reverse polarity protection. many fried theirs because of this.

guys, I think you are both wrong! no device is required to have usb over current protection and many don't. that is why modern motherboards like sandy bridge and beyond have protection. older motherboards will be fried. if you are still running a p4 I am sorry for you anyways. no, seriously I can dead short a modern board and the computer will instantly shut down completely. modern psu's are integrated into this and also have protection on the +3v rail. in fact, all rails. if you draw too much on sata it will do the same. same on pcie. so why worry about this?

Yup, that's what we have been saying. The device end doesn't have and shouldn't need overcurrent protection. The hub end has that job. A properly designed hub will not shut down even if any device connected to it is dead shorted. It will stop supplying power to that device.

 

[nic_fix]

agreed but not entirely sure. recently building a high end machine psu protection saved my .... twice. not sure about usb but if you short pcie I am witness to it shutting down instantly lol.

scientist I am not sure what is going on here. is vlad disagreeing about this? yes, it is nice if a device has protection but you can't count on that anyways. any good modern mother board, charger or hub has protection. I would not count on every device I plug in to protect my motherboard. I would count on my motherboard to protect itself! I should. that is like saying if you have a faulty blow dryer or toaster it should protect itself and your home does not require a circuit breaker! I do not see how this is even being argued. always the supply has the protection in proper circuit design!

I am pretty sure dna 40 did not have protection but I could be wrong about that. perhaps early ones. fried a hana that way as did several other people I know of. still, I do stand to be corrected on that. the usb I know I am right about but please don't argue here.