Does ANYONE make a protected 18350??

[night.hoodie]

My computer is 9yo, my flashlight even older, my car is beyond classic status, so please take with a grain of salt that IMHO I think you're living in the past... fyrstormer, back in the day, men were men, and Li-ion cells had protection strips, but it isn't 2016 anymore. I cannot more strongly recommend, based on my own experience, that unprotected IMR are very decent in safety, capacity and performance, and even though I have destroyed a handful (idky with 14500, I just could not catch the knee, killed 5 fantastic and expensive and no longer available AW cells in six months), most that I used are still in use. I think what occurred is what I would call voltage training: I know what 3V light output looks like, compared to 4V light, or 6V light, or 2V light. It just sort of happened. IOW when my 3.7V lamp powered by a 4.2V IMR appears it is being powered instead by a 3V CR123A, I can just tell and swap cells. It gets trickier when my 6V lamp is being powered by 2x NiMH, because the light output considerably lower and far steadier, but I still know the brightnesses between full cells and empty to catch the NiMH around 1.15V to swap them. As I admit, I did ruin 5x IMR14500 cells, and further, my only solution was to stop using them... saved the last 3 I have for careful future use, and glad I did because recently I needed the format in another light.

Adding a protection circuit yourself is possible, assuming you have tools and steady hands. I think it was rare but not uncommon practice for some ancient CPF members to do this, and if not mistaken, there is a tutorial in CPF archives. Strikes me now as odd we never saw a cell sheath product with protection that could be reused for unprotected cells. Also, it is a shame flashlight manufactures that make/sell Li-ion lights which utilize IC drivers (a computer!) did not universally adopt a standardized low-voltage cut-off. Kind of obnoxious, actually, that low voltage cut-off is more often missing from modern drivers, even today.

Good luck with your quest.

 

[alpg88]

i could not find one either, i use unprotected imr cells in series, so far no issues. li co0 i would not use unprotected in series, but imr is safer. i left a light on once and forgot about it, it drained cells to 0 and killed them, but they did not vent or explode.

i have another 200w hotwire, i use 5 unprotected efest cells there, (according to them it is imr chemistry) no issues so far.

 

[night.hoodie]

The IMR14500 I ruined were overdischarged many times. It took more than a few blatant overdischarges to kill each of them, and they held out admirably, but in the end my inability to swap them at the right time and leaving them drained under load to near zero voltage took its toll. Eventually, the cells would no longer bounce back to @2.5V after rest, and coaxing them higher had diminishing returns on remaining charged capacity. Recently I obtusely left a Keeppower IMR18350 under load for several hours after it was depleted. I rested it a few days, its rest voltage returned to 2.54V, and I marked it, charged it back up and returned it to cyclical use without noticing anything whatsoever... other than that I marked the cell. The IMR brands I have used, AW & Keeppower, I am impressed with enough to continue using without change.

 

[ChrisGarrett]

I'd never heard of Illumn before, but unfortunately those batteries won't work anyway. Note that their length is 39mm, same as the Efest protected 18350s that I tried that don't fit.

If AW was able to make 16340s with protection circuits that were only 1mm longer than spec, why can't anyone seem to make a protected 18350 with the same minimal size penalty?

Because back then, 16340 lights weren't pulling that much current and one didn't really need the circuit to do much. Smaller circuit, smaller cell and tolerances were easier to fudge AND being li-co chemistries, the public wanted protection circuits in the hobby's infancy.

18350s can now deliver 10A+, which means a bigger/thicker (?) circuit to accommodate that current. Manufacturers don't really care if you're not paying attention and they're designing their lights for the greatest output/performance and that's a naked 18350 high drain hybrid cell.

Sorry, but pay attention, carry spares, or switch to something else. Most lights will step down to the next lowest mode, start blinking like crazy, or just shut down, so you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to figure things out.

Chris

 

[fyrstormer]

Yeah...I don't have any lights that come close to pulling 10 amps. Jesus Christ on a stick, that would be bright. My brightest light pulls just shy of 3 amps and it can light up a large room all by itself. Lots of flashlights still don't pull that much current. Your claim that protected 18350s are pointless because the most powerful lights designed to use those cells would overload the protection circuits is hereby deemed invalid, on account of proposing that the most extreme use-case dictates the needs of the entire market. My lights that I want to put protected 18350s into pull maybe 1 amp each, and the only reason I want to use 18350s in them is for the extra capacity. 16340s can keep up with their current demands just fine, they just don't last as long as 18350s do.

You need to look past flashlighting as a hobby. Protected cells are safer for people to use for work, not just for lighting up trees down the street to admire how bright their toys are. With more and more flashlight manufacturers switching to 18350-compatible designs but still not including built-in low voltage cutoff circuits, there is an increasing market for 18350 cells that can't be abused to the point of catastrophic failure.

Lastly, I've disassembled a few protected 18350s now and the circuits are NOT larger than they used to be. They are still ~2-2.5mm thick, including the circuit board, surface-mount components, and electrical contacts that attach to the cell terminals. No, the problem is the protection circuits are tacked onto cells that are already the maximum allowable length for the 18350 spec, and those cells are already wasting space with a large gap between the cell body and the positive terminal. A cell-packaging company (like AW used to be) would have to order cells with low-profile button-terminals attached, so there would be room to add a ~2-2.5mm protection circuit without exceeding the 18350 size spec. (oh, and not double-wrapping cells like KeepPower did would also help.)

 

[scout24]

Edit- Nevermind...

 

[ChrisGarrett]

Yeah...I don't have any lights that come close to pulling 10 amps. Jesus Christ on a stick, that would be bright. My brightest light pulls just shy of 3 amps and it can light up a large room all by itself. Lots of flashlights still don't pull that much current. Your claim that protected 18350s are pointless because the most powerful lights designed to use those cells would overload the protection circuits is hereby deemed invalid, on account of proposing that the most extreme use-case dictates the needs of the entire market. My lights that I want to put protected 18350s into pull maybe 1 amp each, and the only reason I want to use 18350s in them is for the extra capacity. 16340s can keep up with their current demands just fine, they just don't last as long as 18350s do.

You need to look past flashlighting as a hobby. Protected cells are safer for people to use for work, not just for lighting up trees down the street to admire how bright their toys are. With more and more flashlight manufacturers switching to 18350-compatible designs but still not including built-in low voltage cutoff circuits, there is an increasing market for 18350 cells that can't be abused to the point of catastrophic failure.

Lastly, I've disassembled a few protected 18350s now and the circuits are NOT larger than they used to be. They are still ~2-2.5mm thick, including the circuit board, surface-mount components, and electrical contacts that attach to the cell terminals. No, the problem is the protection I circuits are tacked onto cells that are already the maximum allowable length for the 18350 spec, and those cells are already wasting space with a large gap between the cell body and the positive terminal. A cell-packaging company (like AW used to be) would have to order cells with low-profile button-terminals attached, so there would be room to add a ~2-2.5mm protection circuit without exceeding the 18350 size spec. (oh, and not double-wrapping cells like KeepPower did would also help.)

Oh well, I tried.

Like I said, the cell manufacturers don't care and the flashlight makers are going to continue making lights for unprotected 18350s.

But by all means, let us know when things change.

Chris

 

[alpg88]

vast majority of lights that require 18350, are single cell lights. single cell lights do not need cells to have pcb, you do not need 10A draw from 1 18350 cell light to require imr, even 3A draw needs imr, since 3A is more than 2C for a 800mah cell, and 2c is all none imr can discharge at reliably.

 

[night.hoodie]

I have never seen a protected IMR until just now. I am stunned and not sure I believe it. But if true, maybe Efest also made some protected IMR18350s?

 

[ChrisGarrett]

I have never seen a protected IMR until just now. I am stunned and not sure I believe it. But if true, maybe Efest also made some protected IMR18350s?

Those aren't exactly 'new.'

To the OP's credit, he's asking why manufacturers of either lights, or cells, don't get on the same page and design lights to accommodate the added length that protection circuits command, or on the flip side, he wants an 18340 cell from the cell makers, to offset the added 2-4mm that the protection circuit adds.

Me, I want a money tree to grow in the backyard.

Chris

 

[fyrstormer]

The difference between my want and your want is, my want is within the realm of possibility.

Yeah, I get the point, I'm the only one who cares about this. Everyone else is content to babysit their batteries. My design philosophy is that devices should know how to keep themselves working properly. (in engineering speak, they should be "robust".) It's fine if people want to override safeguards, but the safeguards should still be there by-default. Batteries that can be drained to the point of critical failure (if not catastrophic failure) should not be sold to end-users for daily use. It's different with nickel batteries, because they benefit from being run down to zero volts periodically, but lithium batteries react badly. It should be part of every lithium battery's design to include a low-voltage cutoff circuit. The fact that the battery industry is trending away from this irritates me, because at least in our little market niche the device manufacturers are not adding the necessary safeguards that the batteries lack.

Even if they started building every flashlight with a low-voltage cutoff tomorrow morning, that would still leave me up the creek with flashlights I bought years ago that don't have room for me to add extra circuit boards into them.

 

[night.hoodie]

I place here a failure on the flashlight industry, and I mean nearly every maker that reaches the level of "manufacturer," has failed somewhere, perhaps in the details more than overall, but the most annoying failure... /sigh..../ The modern LED driver is a computer, really it is, and that most of these deployed computers fail to do so much that they may as well be doing (the driver is there anyway!) is tragedy. It is just extremely lame that so few manufacturers, rather than all, include low voltage protection in their drivers, among exploiting other capabilities/possibilities. Instead there's a jillion of these cheap dumb HMLS flashlights. What overwhelming and insurmoutable cost changes occur if they included low voltage protection when they mass produced the driver? Fail. Nearly all pretty much dropped the ball as far as blatently being blind to consumer interests, regarding cell treatment at least. I see a lot of effort but not much variance in innovation.

 

[ChrisGarrett]

The difference between my want and your want is, my want is within the realm of possibility.

Yeah, I get the point, I'm the only one who cares about this. Everyone else is content to babysit their batteries. My design philosophy is that devices should know how to keep themselves working properly. (in engineering speak, they should be "robust".) It's fine if people want to override safeguards, but the safeguards should still be there by-default. Batteries that can be drained to the point of critical failure (if not catastrophic failure) should not be sold to end-users for daily use. It's different with nickel batteries, because they benefit from being run down to zero volts periodically, but lithium batteries react badly. It should be part of every lithium battery's design to include a low-voltage cutoff circuit. The fact that the battery industry is trending away from this irritates me, because at least in our little market niche the device manufacturers are not adding the necessary safeguards that the batteries lack.

Even if they started building every flashlight with a low-voltage cutoff tomorrow morning, that would still leave me up the creek with flashlights I bought years ago that don't have room for me to add extra circuit boards into them.

Design and manufacturer your own light.

Problem solved.

Until you do, the Chinese manufacturers will continue doing what they do.

You seem to be crying, a bit?

Chris

 

[xxo]

Batteries that can be drained to the point of critical failure (if not catastrophic failure) should not be sold to end-users for daily use.

They are not intended for direct sale to consumers, at least by reputable Li-Ion battery manufacturers, they are intended for OEM for companies making battery packs and the like with all of the safeguards.....the ones we get are gray market that someone sold without authorization and/or by re-wrappers that sometimes add protection circuits. Li-Ions are also not standardized for consumer use like common alkalines and NiMH's because they are not marketed or sold for such use by the original manufacturers.

I do agree that low Voltage protection should be built into anything designed to run on them.

 

[fyrstormer]

Design and manufacturer your own light.

Problem solved.

Until you do, the Chinese manufacturers will continue doing what they do.

The manufacturing capacity necessary for that is beyond my capabilities since I live in an apartment with a 1-month-old infant. I've certainly contemplated various self-made flashlight designs over the years, though. The more achievable goal is building batteries that meet my requirements; I just haven't found the slightly-shorter cells I'd need to actually do it. I'm still looking.

You seem to be crying, a bit?

I will remind you of this statement if I ever catch you complaining on CPF about pre-existing products not meeting your needs.

 

[fyrstormer]

They are not intended for direct sale to consumers, at least by reputable Li-Ion battery manufacturers, they are intended for OEM for companies making battery packs and the like with all of the safeguards.....the ones we get are gray market that someone sold without authorization and/or by re-wrappers that sometimes add protection circuits. Li-Ions are also not standardized for consumer use like common alkalines and NiMH's because they are not marketed or sold for such use by the original manufacturers.

I do agree that low Voltage protection should be built into anything designed to run on them.

Actually there are plenty of li-ion batteries being sold by flashlight companies nowadays. Most of my protected 16340 cells are Olight brand nowadays, since I can't get AWs anymore. Olight also sells 18350 IMR cells -- unprotected, of course -- directly to consumers. Even Surefire sells li-ion batteries now (though they've chosen to go with LiFePO4 -- also unprotected). Kinda hard to call that "grey-market".

 

[ChrisGarrett]

Actually there are plenty of li-ion batteries being sold by flashlight companies nowadays. Most of my protected 16340 cells are Olight brand nowadays, since I can't get AWs anymore. Olight also sells 18350 IMR cells -- unprotected, of course -- directly to consumers. Kinda hard to call that "grey-market".

Yeah, but no flashlight manufacturer makes their own cells. They buy the smaller ones from the Chinese manufacturers and possibly the bigger ones from the Japanese/S. Koreans, if we're lucky.

Chris

 

[fyrstormer]

When did I say anything about the manufacturers of the raw cells? Raw cells aren't sold to end-users anyway. It's the companies who wrap and label the raw cells who should be including low-voltage cutoff circuits.

I'm getting sick of people trying to convince me my requirements are invalid. I define requirements for a living. I assure you, I've spent a long time thinking about this and I know what I'm looking for. I ruled-out all the available alternatives before making this thread. Do you know where I can get what I'm looking for? If so, please tell me, and I will thank you for it. If not, you are wasting my time (and probably yours as well, unless your objective is to troll me for your own amusement).

 

[ChrisGarrett]

When did I say anything about the manufacturers of the raw cells? Raw cells aren't sold to end-users anyway. It's the companies who wrap and label the raw cells who should be including low-voltage cutoff circuits.

I'm getting sick of people trying to convince me my requirements are invalid. I define requirements for a living. I assure you, I've spent a long time thinking about this and I know what I'm looking for. I ruled-out all the available alternatives before making this thread. Do you know where I can get what I'm looking for? If so, please tell me, and I will thank you for it. If not, you are wasting my time (and probably yours as well, unless your objective is to troll me for your own amusement).

No, nobody makes an 18347 with a protection circuit added to to equal 35mm in total length.

Who you picking in the Alabama Georgia game next week?

Your requirements aren't the requirements of most people in the flashlight game, so sorry for you.

That's your answer.

Chris