Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *with pics and graphs*

shotgun

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
80
I've read this entire string and a few thoughts keep sticking out in my mind. At the risk of being cynical here, I'm going to go out on a limb.

DC is pretty basic stuff and regardless of the marketing (by light, tester, and battery makers), it remains basic. After all, the current draw of a steadily hot filament is far more consistent than many other tasks performed by batteries. The following could also be logical:
  • Some bad battery lots are being thrown in with some good battery lots at the factory. It's nasty business, but it happens. One should never underestimate greed -- some more than others.
  • Brand names invest money in their names. They have a "vested" interest in protecting that name branding. Non-brand names invest little or nothing in their names so they sell value against the brand names. Caveat emptor.
  • Doing a good job -- and not getting caught doing a bad job -- is the same thing.
    [*]Users should not mix bad batteries with good. Distributors should not sell them either.
  • A good adjustable Fluke meter (or other) can test your batteries (with a load applied).
    [*]When does metering good consistent voltage across the terminals (with resistance at current) still reflect a bad battery? Need more insight on that one.
  • Inconsistency with testing devises is caused by inconsistent testing devises. They cost 40 bucks for Pete's sake! They're helpful, but far from lab bench quality. What's with the NASA reference? I'm sure post-Apollo-13-NASA is more concerned about accurate battery measurements than 20-percent increments on an LED array (and post-Apollo 13 astronauts now test their batteries with their tongues while holding a light bulb).
  • Any "pulse" applied with recovery is no more "real world" than a steady load without recovery would be to other users -- unless it's a marital aid. Flashlights are a relatively steady drain.
  • Marketing hype is not fact, it's sales. It's worse when it's believed.
  • I've spent a lot of money on a light/batteries/devise. I can not have been duped. Unfortunately, the sale is over.
  • When in doubt, buy something.
Cynical indeed, it's time for a Prozac. Sometimes a turd is just a turd.



 
Last edited:

mdocod

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,544
Location
COLORado spRINGs
shotgun- I like your thinking...

but in rebuttal, It should be noted that Amondotech has taken as active interest in communicating with us directly on this matter, and is already taking steps to conduct tests to fix the issue with the manufacturing company. This type of interaction with the customer base is rare with large companies, but very apreciated. If they manage to get things back "up to par" i'll definetally consider purchasing CR123s from them again. Let us not forget, that the titanium NIMH cells have proven to be pretty darned good cells. I think Amondotech is a good company, who is having problems with a bad CR123 manufacture.

Not to mention, the bright orange cells LOOK COOL!! (hehe, sorry)
 

mtbkndad

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
1,295
Here is my concern about this thread;

People are making statements about the quality or lack of quality of Titanium batteries based on the ZTS tester and it run time PROJECTIONS. Silverfox already mentioned that numerous batteries do not follow the specific runtime profile the tester uses. If Titaniums are one of the brands that do not fit the profile, then statements of Titanium's capacity based on this tester WITHOUT first doing run time tests to verify that the results of the ZTS tester are accurate are not very scientific and can give very misleading information.

I am looking forward to the results of Wayne and Jim's testing if they get together.
I would like to know if batteries that have a lower measured voltage under load and then a lower PROJECTED percent capacity left actually have that same proportionate result. For example if a 100% battery at 1 amp gets 1 hour a 40% battery should only get 24 minutes of run time. A battery that rates 60% by the ZTS should only give 36 minutes of run time.
With the Cadex C7400 that Wayne has and the ZTS Jim has there should be no trouble-

1. First finding batteries that have different projected capacities.
2. Doing controlled runtime tests that will determine how accurate the ZTS projections are for Titanium batteries.

I own a good number of CR123A lights and have been using Titaniums for months and see very little variation in actual run time in the lights I use. I use lights extensively in my work both day and night and have probably used close to 100 Titanium batteries since the new Titaniums came out. I just have not seen the variations in actual run times that everybody seems to be so worried about.

The fact that Titaniums work better in some lights then others is well known and Quickbeam addressed this in his review. I have found that to be true of other brands too.
I think it would be good to do a study of what batteries do and do not perform according to the run time PROJECTIONS of the ZTS tester and their actual run times.
This would be particularly good before too many people start trusting this device and basing battery purchases on a "standard" that may or may not be accurate.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:
 
Last edited:

JimH

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,714
Location
San Jose, CA
It's a well known fact that batteries that are targeted to a specific type of application may suck in other types of applications. If a battery chemistry is tweaked to perform optimally in high drain applications, it may suffer, in comparison to the competition, when analyzed at a low drain rate, and vice versa.

In defense of the ZTS tester, the Ansmann tester appears to use a different pulse loading algorithm and different reference curves. However, in all of the tests I have done so far using both testers, the ZTS tester seems to be more forgiving than the Ansmann tester. The results of the 2 testers have been relatively consistent and tend to validate the results of the other tester.
 

mtbkndad

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
1,295
JimH,

I understand what you are saying but am not sure you are understanding what I am saying. Any testers that give projections of % of battery life are suspect until the batteries can be tested in a controlled test that will verify the accuracy of the projections. If I say 2+2=8 and a friend of mine says 2+2=8 all I have verified is that we both have the same potentially very wrong result.
Have you done accurate runtime tests to verify the accuracy of the % battery life projections of your testers with each of the brands of batteries you have used them on?
How many Titanium batteries have you used to date?
Have you found their run times to be very inconsistent in the same device?
I mean very inconstistent. 1 hour one time, 24 minutes another time, 38 minutes another time, etc.?

This is what your posts are communicating about Titanium batteries.
I am just saying with the nearly 100 I have used I have found them to be quite consistent. There were two matched pairs a while back that were not great but that was it.
Also how many brands total have you tested?
I remember you mentioning 3.

I am not trying to be argumentative I just see shortcomings in the thoroughness of your testing.
I am curious, how will you interpret your data and the effectiveness of your testers if you find a battery that rates say 40% has roughly the same run time as a battery that rates 100%? What if a battery that rates 20% or 60% or 80% has the same run time as a battery that rates 100% because that brand of batteries does not have a burn curve that is accurately projected by your devices?
This could be the case whether we are talking about Titaniums or any other brand that Silverfox may have been referring to when he said some batteries do not follow the projections of the testers. It seems to me that batteries could have slightly varying voltages and still have their full mAh capacity. This could effect your results.
Without accurate controlled run time tests to verify the accuracy of the projections you have been posting I find your results premature and even potentially unfairly harmful to Amondotech's battery business.

Please understand if I had been getting inconsistent runtime results with Titaniums in the same lights I would have switched long ago.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:
 
Last edited:

OutdoorIdiot

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
216
Location
UK
mtbkndad, I don't see you as being argumentative at all. You have now stressed, in 3 posts, the importance of verifying the ZTS / Ansmann predictions against real-world results.

I would like to stress that for a fourth time! I agree entirely. It would be great if someone could invest the time, effort and expense in this kind of experiment (perhaps even the Titanium cell manufacturers, who now have an interest in the matter thanks to this thread). I would like to see how the predictions hold up to the reality. The "reality", of course, is infinite in scope, e.g. everything from 1 cell in a low-drain light, to multiple cells in high drain lights, to combinations of serial/parallel (as in the SureFire M6 which started this thread) which might yield surprising results. And all the various applications would need to be tested with various brands of batteries. So anyone conducting this test would need to be very dedicated in terms of time and finances.

However, even a small step in this regard would certainly be of benefit, e.g. in helping readers decide things like whether a particular brand of battery is indeed problematic, either for all applications or just certain demanding applications. It would also help readers decide whether they think it is worth investing in a ZTS / Ansmann tester for their own needs.

I would also hope people do not lose sight of the other important thing (as I see it) that this thread has highlighted, which is that the SureFure M6 with the MN21 HOLA is a particularly demanding light. Not only is it very high-drain, but also, it (rather unusually, I think, among flashlights?) uses a combination of serial and parallel arrangements for the batteries. I would also love to see an investigation into exactly what happens to the batteries in an M6 over the course of the runtime, and just how important it is to ensure that the batteries are initially at the exact same voltage, and in exactly the same "state" with regard to measured "life-remaining."
 

SilverFox

Flashaholic
Joined
Jan 19, 2003
Messages
12,449
Location
Bellingham WA
Hello Daniel,

I have been playing with the Titanium cells and the ZTS tester and decided to take a look at what the various values the ZTS tester reports mean.

I checked a cell that measured 100%, then went down the scale through 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, and 0%.

Here is the graph.

ZTSComparisononTitaniumCR123C1A.gif


To get an idea of what the ZTS tester is looking at, I expanded the graph to only look at the first 7.2 seconds of the test.

ZTSComparisononTitaniumCR123C1AEXPA.gif


While there is some variation, it is not as great as I expected from the results of the ZTS tester.

Tom
 

OutdoorIdiot

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
216
Location
UK
Those are shocking graphs, thank you SilverFox!

Am I missing the point here, or do they show that a battery that gives a "0%" reading on the ZTS, can, under a 1A load, last even longer than one that reads "80%"? Okay, it delivers a bit less power because of the lower voltage, but it still can give a decent current for a long time.

If I am reading the graphs correctly, then that would explain why some people are insisting they are happy with their Titanium batteries, if they are being used in a *relatively* low-drain application.

I wonder what the graphs for those same batteries would look like under a 2.5A load (which I gather is roughly what the M6 demands)?
 

SilverFox

Flashaholic
Joined
Jan 19, 2003
Messages
12,449
Location
Bellingham WA
Hello OutdoorIdiot,

The other thing to keep in mind is that with a regulated light you may not notice any difference at all.

I have been told that the factory quality control is based on run time. Wayne takes samples of the cells he receives from the factory and also checks them for run time. He is going to the factory later this week to discuss this with them. It will be interesting to see what develops.

Tom
 

JimH

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,714
Location
San Jose, CA
mtbkndad said:
I am not trying to be argumentative I just see shortcomings in the thoroughness of your testing.
To say that there are shortcomings in the thoroughness of my testing is a vast understatement. I have done very little testing so far, and even my testing procedures may be suspect (SilverFox is helping me get better).

I have reported the total extent of my testing and my results. I have so little sample to work with that you might even say my results were statistically insignificant. Much, much more testing needs to be done. I have got the ball rolling, and SilverFox has taken the next step.

Based on SilverFox's results and my results, I think, at this point, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the data we have is that no conclusion can be drawn from the data we have.

It may have been premature, but we are just reporting the initial data of what must undoubtedly be a much larger project, which includes all of the points you have mentioned.

If I were doing this for my work, I would start by writing a detailed test plan stating exactly the purpose and scope of the testing, the objects of the testing (batteries and testers), step by step test procedures, process control and quality control measures being taken including review procedures, and the output of the testing (i.e. what will be included in the final test report). The test plan would have to be reviewed and approved before testing could even begin. This project would be a full time job for at least several months.

Somebody, please shoot me and put me out of my misery before I ramble on forever.
 

OutdoorIdiot

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
216
Location
UK
JimH said:
Somebody, please shoot me and put me out of my misery before I ramble on forever.

I will happily shoot you! After first of all complimenting you on your modesty, and thanking you for your work in this thread which has been of interest and benefit to me and doubtless many others!:)

Here are some thoughts on those graphs from SilverFox a couple of posts ago:
  • Should the validity of ZTS measurements now be under as much scrutiny and apprehension as the thought of sticking Titaniums into a SF M6 with HOLA?
  • Looking at the 7-second "zoom-in" graph, the voltage seems to correlate very well with the ZTS readings. So, in spite of the ZTS attempting to use current as well as voltage in it's methodology, is it perhaps still "swayed" too much by voltage?
  • That said, looking more carefully at the graph (by putting a straight-edged object on my monitor) it does seem that the battery that gave a "0%" reading does indeed have a curve that "dips" quite significantly more than the other curves. Significant?
 

SilverFox

Flashaholic
Joined
Jan 19, 2003
Messages
12,449
Location
Bellingham WA
Hello Jim,

:devil: BANG... :devil:

If we get to the point that no conclusions can be made, we will be sure to draw on your "expertice"... :)

For the rest of you that are not in on this "inside" joke, Jim was involved in a series of lab tests in school where his group consistently came up with no conclusions. The went to great lengths to document the basis for their "non conclusions," and ended up getting an A out of the class.

Tom
 

wquiles

Flashaholic
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
8,459
Location
Texas, USA, Earth
mtbkndad said:
Here is my concern about this thread;

People are making statements about the quality or lack of quality of Titanium batteries based on the ZTS tester and it run time PROJECTIONS.
Maybe it is just me, but if you read the very first post from "seery", there is nothing about projections there - just pure real-world experience with a real SF M6, not a tester/simulator/etc.. To me this is still the main issue of this thread - why are these real-life results not aligned with the original expectations?

Wayne seems pretty interested and involved in finding out more about what is causing this unexpected behavior (cheers to Wayne!), so hopefully we will either learn more about the problem and/or end up with even better cells from Wayne and company ;)

Will
 

OutdoorIdiot

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
216
Location
UK
SilverFox said:
The went to great lengths to document the basis for their "non conclusions," and ended up getting an A out of the class.

:lolsign:

Damn! If only I'd thought of that for my lab work. My approach was to not hand anything in. As far as I can remember, I didn't get an A...

Mind you, the basis for my non-conclusions normally involved beer, and I'm not sure how I'd go about documenting that.
 

JimH

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,714
Location
San Jose, CA
Back to the original topic, I just ran across a manual for a watt meter used by the RC crowd. It has an interesting section on balancing batteries for inclusion into battery packs. Here is an excerpt from that section that I found interesting.
[quote="Watt's Up" Watt Meter and Power Analyzer User's Manual RC Electronics, Inc. ]
A battery pack whose individual cells are all balanced delivers the most energy since all cells are exhausted at the same minimum voltage. If any cell is "out of balance" it may reach the minimum safe voltage before the others and continued pack discharge will damage the cell.

If the cells in a pack all equally contribute to the overall pack voltage they are considered "in balance". So we can check each cells voltage at various states of pack charge and see if their voltages are the same. If they are, the pack is balanced. If not some individual cell reconditioning or replacement is necessary.

Cell balancing measurements need at least 0.02 volt resolution so that we can tell the difference between a 1.22 and 1.20 volt cell. More resolution is better because it allows us to recognize the lower voltage cell which will get exhausted first. The "Watt's Up" 0.01 Volt resolution is great for cell balancing where resolution is more important than accuracy. This is because we are mostly comparing our batteries to each other seeking equality rather than wanting to know what particular voltage they're at.[/quote]

What I find interesting is that they say the resolution needs to be 0.02v.

It looks like the ideal way to balance cells would be to graph the discharge of each cell at the expected load, then select cells that had identical curves when overlaid on top of each other.
 

SilverFox

Flashaholic
Joined
Jan 19, 2003
Messages
12,449
Location
Bellingham WA
Hello Jim,

While that works very well with re-chargeable cells, it is a bit difficult to do with primary cells.

Tom
 

mtbkndad

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
1,295
wquiles,

I read the entire thread from the beginning before I made my first post.
The thread started as a thread documenting problems with the Titanium's in the M6.
Wayne addressed that problem. (For the time being use other batteries in the M6.)
The thread then took on a life of it's own, it was the second half of the thread I was referring to.

SilverFox,
Thank you very much for your work here and your continued efforts that benefit members of CPF.

JimH,

Do not do anything extreme, I hope to try to get up that way for a get together if your group has one some time this summer. If you or anybody shoots you, who will bring Jim's famous baked beans? :D :D :D

Wayne,

For what it is worth, I have been very satisfied with my Titanium batteries
and will continue to use them as my primary CR123A. I have lots of hungry little lights to feed. :sweat: :crackup:



Take Care,
Daniel
mtbkndad :wave:
 

seery

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,628
Location
USA
Amondotech has stood behind there product, today they issued a credit to my Paypal account for the New Titanium CR123's I sent back. Thanks to Duane at Amondotech for being a man of his word.

Wayne - What would you estimate as an ETA should the factory tweak the formula on your 123's? Are you going for a New Titanium HD in addition to the standard New Titaniums? HD of course = high-draw. Thanks for all your effort in making things right and working to give us a better product.
 
Top