or they just copy-pasted some copy from the FP6711 datasheet for their website but their IC isn't based on that at all, which I wouldn't be surprised about
Now that I look at the schematic more, it does seem a little suspicious.
- The package diagram (espeically the text below it)
looks very LTC-ish, but it's odd that there is no pin 1 indicator nor the thermal pad common in these small DFNs.
- The inductor symbol is distinctively curly (does anyone recognise the software/library which has it? I think I've seen it before but not recently) in the rev 1.0 FP6711 datasheet (2007) and Batteroo's, but not in the later FP6711 datasheets.
- The fonts. "22uF" (an actual u, not a Mu unlike the inductors), "Pin 1", and "Vout" definitely look like they were added hastily afterwards. You can see the right side of the capacitors are cut off. "btr004" is also in the wrong font (serifs vs. sans for the original) and not even centered in the IC body.
- Compare the spacing of the "V" and "O2" vs "O1" on the right side. Their spacing doesn't look right.
- The lines extend into the IC body on SW2 and GRD1 (but not the other pins). The position of the SW2 label is also higher than SW1. GND doesn't line up with GRD1 and GRD2 either.
Why would Fitipower, if they did design the IC, take a schematic
image from an existing, very old datasheet and edit it with an image editor?
I feel like we have been trolled by Batteroo
Attached image of the comparison in case they try to "fix" it.
Edit: the "block diagram" is equally ridiculous. Look at those wire jumps, the gaps/overlaps, and the positions of VO2 and the ground pins. The error amp with no - input... did they just erase the feedback pin from the FP6711