What about the third-party test report of Samsung Note7 mobile phone explosion?

On the morning of 20161kloc-0/8, China tell lab under the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology officially provided the first test report of Samsung Note7 burning mobile phone submitted by domestic consumers to CCTV's Consumer Proposition column.

Previously, CCTV's "Consumer Proposition" column had accompanied two consumers, Zhang Si Tong Hehui, who suffered from the explosion of the National Bank version of Note7, to one of the most authoritative testing institutions in China, Taier Lab, to test the explosive Note7 mobile phone they bought. Thiel Laboratories, after several days' analysis of the cause of the burning, came to the final conclusion that Zhang Sitong's mobile phone was "badly burned, and the cause of the fire could not be inferred", while Hui's mobile phone "did not find traces of external heating in the sample, and the thermal damage of the sample was caused by the spontaneous combustion of the battery, which started to burn from the lower right corner."

On September 19 and September 29, Samsung issued two statements, claiming that through the detailed analysis of the explosion of consumers' mobile phones in China, it was concluded that the product damage was not related to the battery, but was caused by external heating. South Korea's Chosun Ilbo reported that Samsung suspected that this was a vicious act of China consumers defrauding compensation, and was discussing criminal prosecution against China consumers who advocated false explosion.

In the same laboratory, why did the mobile phone sent by consumers "spontaneously ignite" and the mobile phone sent by Samsung "was caused by external heating"?

Wu, director of the Environmental Safety Department of China Taier Laboratory, told the reporter of Consumer Rights and Interests that after careful analysis of the mobile phones sent by two consumers, their expert team found that the Samsung Note7 mobile phone of Liaoning consumer Zhang Sitong was badly burned, so it was impossible to infer the cause of the fire. The Samsung Note7 mobile phone from Guangzhou consumer Hui "found no traces of thermal damage caused by external heating", and analyzed the internal structure of the battery by X-ray imaging and computerized tomography. "I found that the lower right corner of the battery was obviously missing and the edge was blurred. There are traces of aluminum melting inside the battery. "

From these X-rays, it can be clearly seen that the lower right corner of the mobile phone battery is unclear and wrinkled. The remaining battery capacity in other positions is relatively clear.

More obviously, CT scan shows that there is a black hole in the lower right corner of this battery, and the metal loss is serious.

In the end, Thiel Lab came to the conclusion that the reason for the burning of Hui's mobile phone was "caused by the spontaneous combustion of the battery".

The reporter noticed that on September 29, 2006, Samsung announced the China National Bank version of Note7 mobile phone, informing China consumers: "We entrusted authoritative testing institutions at home and abroad-China Teil Laboratory (CTTL) and Exponent Laboratory for testing. The test results showed that the burning part was not in the battery area, and no obvious signs of damage were found inside the battery, which was presumed to be caused by external thermal shock. So, why did China Lab come to the opposite conclusion?

The relevant personnel of China Taier Laboratory explained that their tests are all responsible for the samples. In the last test, Samsung provided them with a burnt-out mobile phone. As testers, they only know that one of the samples sent by Samsung is from Beijing and the other is from Dongguan, but it is not clear which two consumers these samples belong to.

Samsung also mentioned another testing organization, Exponent Laboratory, in its announcement on September 29th. After investigation, the real name of this laboratory is Yibo Technology Consulting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and its office address is located at No.76, Pujian Road, Shanghai. 20 16 10 13, the reporter came here for an interview.

Reporter: Can you tell us something about your company? What does your company do and why can it detect mobile phones?

Staff: I don't know.

Reporter: Then can you call out the person in charge?

Staff: I'll call him. He can't talk now.

Reporter: Can we do a mobile phone test here?

Staff: It's not convenient to say.

Reporter: What does our organization do?

Staff: Our name is Yibo Technology Company.

Reporter: Can I do mobile phone testing?

Staff: It's not convenient to talk.

Reporter: Then why is it not convenient to say?

Staff: I can't say. I'll contact you then.

The reporter found that the agency entrusted by Samsung was very mysterious. Not only did the reporter ask questions, but even the staff were avoiding reporters. As for Samsung's mobile phone testing, we didn't receive any response from this lab until June 65438+1October 65438+August when the reporter published the manuscript.

Samsung said it was a safe version, but I actually believed it.

Previously, the "Consumer Proposition" column interviewed Zhang Sitong, the fifth consumer of the Note7 mobile phone of the Bank of China. Hui, who sent the mobile phone for inspection with Zhang Sitong this time, is the fourth consumer on the Internet to buy the Note7 mobile phone of the Bank of China.

Hui, 25, is a digital electronic product enthusiast. He has been focusing on Samsung's new flagship Note7 mobile phone.

On September 2, 20 16, Hui saw that Samsung recalled 2.5 million Note7 phones around the world, but at the same time issued a public statement in China, saying: "China consumers can buy the version of the Bank of China officially released in China on September 1 6." Subsequently, Samsung emphasized in several statements that Samsung conducted a detailed analysis of the mobile phone burning incident reported by the China media, and the test results showed that "the product damage was caused by external heating."

Out of trust in Samsung, Hui ordered a brand-new Samsung Note7 mobile phone through the mall on September 25th, 2006. On the outer packaging of this mobile phone, it can be clearly seen that the production date is 2065438+September 2006, which belongs to the security version confirmed by Samsung. However, what he never expected was that this brand-new mobile phone only stayed at his house for 13 hours and then exploded!

Hui Renjie: "At that time, I was charging my new mobile phone and admiring it. Suddenly, I felt how the phone became thicker, and at the same time, a black heat flow sprayed on my thumb. The instant pain made me spill my hand and my mobile phone fell on the computer. "

When the mobile phone burns, the room is full of smoke, and the air is filled with a pungent smell of acid, which is very uncomfortable. There is also a sound inside the mobile phone. Hui was frightened because he was alone at home. He felt shivering and unable to breathe.

As can be seen from these live pictures, the mobile phone has been seriously damaged, still smoking, the corners are beginning to tilt, and even the battery inside can be seen.

And this laptop brought back to Renjie was burnt out.

Hui told the reporter of CCTV's "Consumer Advocacy" column that he believed that Samsung had bought this mobile phone because Samsung had publicly said that it was a safe version, and then it exploded! He felt cheated and fooled.

Run 3 thousand kilometers just for a fair exam

After the phone burned, Hui Renjie immediately contacted Samsung's official customer service. The next day, on the afternoon of September 26th, Samsung sent someone to investigate. But what I didn't expect was that there was no news after the Samsung staff left. Three days later, Hui was surprised to find that Samsung emphasized for the third time in the public statement on September 29th that the Note7 mobile phones of the Bank of China sold in China market were still fine, and they "could ensure the safety and reliability of the products".

Besides these, there are more surprises for Renjie. This time, Samsung not only said that there was no problem with its products, but also entrusted two testing institutions and got the same test results. "The burned part is not in the battery area, and no obvious signs of damage are found inside the battery. It is speculated that it is caused by external thermal shock." In other words, there is nothing wrong with the Samsung mobile phone itself. The reason for the problem is that users in China improperly use or even deliberately destroy fakes, resulting in the illusion that the batteries are burnt out.

After reading these, Hui feels that the problem is very serious. "Samsung itself is both an athlete and a referee. I think it is definitely unscientific! " Hui hopes to conduct an open and fair test on this explosive mobile phone in his hand. Therefore, Hui Renjie asked Samsung if Samsung could test this phone under its own supervision.

However, Samsung rejected his request.

Hui Renjie: "Until now, they still refused to test the cause of the accident with me. Because I still let them take the test, I gave them my mobile phone. "

Hui is worried that if the mobile phone is "hot outside" after leaving his sight, he will jump into the Yellow River and can't wash it clearly.

Having witnessed how the mobile phone burns and explodes, Hui hopes to restore the truth and prove that his mobile phone really caught fire internally, not externally, as Samsung said. Hui consulted a large number of technical materials on the Internet and contacted a number of testing institutions to try to find out the truth of the problem. But the response is the same every time-the testing organization does not accept personal entrustment, the price is outrageous, and it is difficult to detect faulty mobile phones. .

2016101,CCTV's "Consumer Proposition" column contacted Hui and invited him and Zhang Sitong to investigate the cause of the burning of Samsung Note7 mobile phone. From this day on, Hui and Zhang Sitong traveled 3,000 kilometers in Guangzhou, Shanghai, Tianjin and Beijing with the reporter of Consumer Advocacy, looking for equipment, seeking methods and visiting experts from all walks of life. Finally, two consumers decided to entrust China Taier Laboratory for testing.

Unlike Samsung, which sent it to the prosecution last time, Hui and Zhang Sitong entrusted CCTV Consumer Proposition for inspection. Although it is the same testing organization, it is based on the same testing methods as last time-X-ray imaging and computerized tomography, and internal structure analysis of the battery. But the conclusion is exactly the opposite of last time!

Is Samsung's previous so-called testing basis true and fair, or is it a false fabrication?

At the beginning, Hui Renjie watched his mobile phone explode spontaneously. Now the test results of authoritative laboratories also prove that the explosion of his mobile phone was not caused by external heating.

What puzzles Hui is: Why is the conclusion of Samsung's repeated tests "external heat"? Why in the same laboratory, the mobile phone sent by Samsung and the mobile phone sent by consumers come to diametrically opposite test conclusions?

Now Samsung Note7 mobile phone has been recalled as a defective product in China market. Thiel Lab has proved that the explosion of Note7 mobile phone of Bank of China is spontaneous combustion rather than external heating. So, is Samsung's so-called testing basis for claiming that its mobile phone is "safe and reliable" true and fair, or is it a false fabrication?

Samsung claimed to have detected explosive mobile phones many times and found that they were all externally heated. Are there any elements that deceive consumers in China? Can these tests made by Samsung and the samples of explosive mobile phones sent for inspection be made public to domestic consumers?

If Samsung continues to violate the legitimate rights and interests of consumers in China and refuses to disclose its testing process and samples to consumers in China, who can help consumers in China find the truth?