Gledopto GL-DR-001Z electrical safety (TLDR: fire hazard!)

Hi

I don’t have any site where I could post this, so I decied to post this here.

I got one cheap Zigbee Gledopto DIN-rail mounted energy meter - relay device from Aliexpress some time ago just to check if it’s good/safe enough to be used. The price was some 17€ which was very compelling.

Unfortunately the design follows the way-too-common cheap-as-possible, and this does not comply to EU standards.

Power input circuit for the high voltage buck regulator:

  • No X rated EMI capacitor
  • ZNR 07D471K — 7mm disc, 470V varistor (Bourns equivalent) with 4.7R in series.
  • M7 marked single rectifier diode
  • Aishi CD11GAS — 4.7µF 400V 105°C elco (2.5mm pitch!)
  • 100R series resistor
  • Second Aishi elco

Picture of the top side with some components removed.

Picture of the bottom side of the DC rectifer on the PCB:

I measured approx. approx 1.3mm distance from the rectified mains VAC to the 0V/GND reference of the DC side with a Mitutoyo caliper between the elco legs.

(Paid) AI generated conclusion from a long thread
The device uses two 400V electrolytic capacitors in a half-wave rectifier supply operating from 230V mains, where the rectified peak voltage reaches 325V — leaving only 75V headroom before the capacitors’ absolute rating. The onboard 7mm MOV provides inadequate surge energy absorption and insufficient clamping speed for fast transients, meaning voltage spikes from the mains reach the capacitors before the MOV fully conducts. A fast spike can momentarily overstress the capacitor dielectric, initiating internal breakdown and heating that boils the electrolyte, ruptures the case, and ignites the flammable vapour.

The PCB clearance distances between the high-voltage supply section and the low-voltage Zigbee circuitry measure approximately 1.3mm at the electrolytic capacitor pads — well below the 3mm minimum required for basic insulation through air at OVC III per IEC 60664-1. The creepage distances along the PCB surface are correspondingly short, falling well under the 4mm required for basic insulation and far below the 8mm required for reinforced insulation for FR4 material group IIIb at this installation category. While inadequate clearance creates a direct arc risk through air under transient overvoltage, it is the creepage path that becomes the dominant hazard under real installation conditions.

In unclean or outdoor-adjacent installations — including distribution panels in garages, outbuildings, or industrial premises — condensation, dust, and contamination deposit conductive films on the PCB surface. These films dramatically reduce the effective surface resistance along the creepage path, initiating tracking at voltages far below what the dry board would withstand. Once a carbon track forms it is self-sustaining even after the contamination dries, as the carbonised path has permanently lowered resistance regardless of subsequent drying. The creepage path from mains potential to the logic side then supports a sustained arc capable of igniting the FR4 substrate — a failure mode that neither the installer nor the upstream distribution panel fuse can be relied upon to prevent.

Also to consider
I made some preliminary thermal tests with 5A constant load through the relay. It seems to heat up too much compared to it’s specifications and a high power heat pump is likely to be too much for the relay.

I have a M.Sc degree from 2003 and I have been designing industrial electronics ever since, so I have some expertice of what I’m talking about.

The PCB might be possible to modify to meet clearance and creepage distances but the time and component costs are likely to render that unpractical - if not for hobby purposes.

I hope this is seen by any who consider the device for their home automation or any other project.

Kind regards, ej

4 Likes

Thank you for this write up and warning for others that may be looking into it, if possible make a post for a version that complies with safety standards you have there for comparison on what it should look like.

2 Likes

Hi

I don’t have excatly same type of device to show that complies with regulations. However this floor thermostat review can be used as an example of at least of much better design safety-wise. Read: I didn’t measure all distances pedantically from the images.

There seems to be enough clearance distance, and milled slots/cutouts on the PCB between critical parts of the PCB to increase the creepage distance.

Whole (not mine) review is here:

Then it’s possible to even more increase electrical safety with conformal coating. This image of a CTS602 control board shows that. The conformal coatings in electronics have high dielectric strength reducing the possibility of arching, they don’t wet even in moist and dusty/dirty environments, and they don’t corrode the copper on the PCB nor the component pins. Not all materials/laqcuers have these specifications.


I hope this serves the purpose of explaining better PCB design enough :slight_smile: .

Kind regards, ej

1 Like

Not enough people consider using certified smart home stuff on mains and just use the cheapest Chinese junk. This puts their house at risk from fire.

The Moes brand seems to put better effort in than most but it isn’t certified for Australia. I purchased one and completely removed all their mains-derrived power supply. I constructed a power supply and also connected a solid-state relay on the output certified to our local requirements. Warranty voided of course, but it works really well

I am an electronic engineer and I design equipment that gets sold all over the world, so luckily I am well-versed in regulatory requirements. I just wish everyone out there would use properly certified accessories. They might cost more money but they won’t burn your house down.

2 Likes

EU, even while highly regulating this kind of stuff, has made it easy for under-quality products to enter the marketplace. The EC marking is something that the manufacturer puts on the device and with that informs that the device compiles to regulations. There is no centralized test bureau that would or could test every device, and this allows e.g. China to focus on making more money by being able to create cheap stuff that people buy because they don’t know and/or understand the risks.

The manfacturer or importer has the responsibility if something serious happens, however it’s of little comfort when your house burns down or even when lives are lost. And buying directly from outside of EU puts all responsibility to the buyer.

Picture of the device enclosure and the markings:

This is a good example of what makes things even more difficult, at least for EU customers. China has this “China Export” mark that is very similar to CE marking.


In this case tha marking seems not to follow either excactly, however being much closer to China Export mark.

This doesn’t help at all when people buy cheap stuff from China and misinterprest the China Export mark to be official CE mark.

Kind regards, ej

2 Likes