# Sanyo Eneloop CR123!



## xiaowenzu (Aug 6, 2007)

Haha, now that got your attention didn't it? :laughing: Anyways, I just had a brain-flash. Like, why don't they make it!? It would easily be the *KILLER* batt of the decade. Imagine 3VOLTS of low discharge joy sitting for 1 year in your SF U2 losing only 85% charge at the end. Now lets cross our fingers and hope they will make them! hehe


----------



## Empath (Aug 6, 2007)

It would require the battery to consists of two cells in series, and a charger specifically designed for it. The small size of the cells involved would likely restrict the capacity to impractical levels.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 6, 2007)

Empath said:


> It would require the battery to consists of two cells in series, and a charger specifically designed for it. The small size of the cells involved would likely restrict the capacity to impractical levels.


 
Well can't they just squash the AA to make it short and fatter? I'm sure it can be done, it's just that I can't do it. AA is not that much different than a CR123 size wise. :thumbsup:


----------



## Windscale (Aug 6, 2007)

I'll second that.

AA Eneloop at 2700mah would be an awful killer.


----------



## boosterboy (Aug 6, 2007)

most misleading thread title EVER:shakehead


----------



## h2xblive (Aug 6, 2007)

On a slight tangent, why don't companies make a rechargeable 3.0v lithium (cr123) cell? It would be nice to have a drop in rechargeable replacement for our SureFire lights...


----------



## Windscale (Aug 6, 2007)

h2xblive said:


> On a slight tangent, why don't companies make a rechargeable 3.0v lithium (cr123) cell? It would be nice to have a drop in rechargeable replacement for our SureFire lights...


 
There are RCR123As 3.0V in existence. They have been out for quite long. But many experts in CPF seem to suggest that we should avoid them as they are really 3.7V with an extra resistor which can easily malfunction. Also although 3.0V RCRs are in existence, they are not happy substitutes for primary CR123As. I have a few lights which behave this way. Hope someone will produce a proper rechargeable option for CR123As soon.


----------



## h2xblive (Aug 6, 2007)

Windscale said:


> There are RCR123As 3.0V in existence. They have been out for quite long. But many experts in CPF seem to suggest that we should avoid them as they are really 3.7V with an extra resistor which can easily malfunction. Also although 3.0V RCRs are in existence, they are not happy substitutes for primary CR123As. I have a few lights which behave this way. Hope someone will produce a proper rechargeable option for CR123As soon.



But why do manufacturers produce 3.7v cells? I can't think of a device that is designed to run off of non-recharbeable batteries, that would use such an exotic voltage.


----------



## GarageBoy (Aug 6, 2007)

Thats because thats all the chemisty offers...
why are NiMhs 1.2V


----------



## SilverFox (Aug 6, 2007)

Hello H2xblive,

The voltage is the result of the chemistry. Different chemicals combine to result in different voltages.

The 3.7 volt chemistry was designed to replace 3 NiMh, NiCd or Alkaline cells.

Tom


----------



## h2xblive (Aug 6, 2007)

SilverFox said:


> Hello H2xblive,
> 
> The voltage is the result of the chemistry. Different chemicals combine to result in different voltages.
> 
> ...



I understand if the 3.7v chemistry was designed to replace 3.6v nicad or nimhs (3 batteries in series), but what about the shape? Why design a cell that is the shape of a cr123s if it wasn't designed to replace cr123 cells?


----------



## N162E (Aug 6, 2007)

xiaowenzu said:


> Imagine 3VOLTS of low discharge joy sitting for 1 year in your SF U2 losing only 85% charge at the end. Now lets cross our fingers and hope they will make them! hehe


I'd rather they retained 85% of the full charge.


----------



## h2xblive (Aug 6, 2007)

N162E said:


> I'd rather they retained 85% of the full charge.



Hehehe


----------



## springbok (Aug 6, 2007)

xiaowenzu said:


> Haha, now that got your attention didn't it? :laughing:


 
VERY VERY cruel post. i got so excited when reading the title. :nana:


----------



## barkingmad (Aug 6, 2007)

What about LiFEPO4 Lithium rechargeables - they are a nominal 3.3v from what I remember - work fine in my Fenix P1D-CE (enabling all modes) whereas normal 3.7 Li-ion 'work' but you lose the low power modes.

LiFEPO4 are also supposed to be a lot safer... the downside is reduced capacity compared to normal Li-ion cells and they usually use a different charger to Li-ion.


----------



## robm (Aug 6, 2007)

xiaowenzu said:


> Well can't they just squash the AA to make it short and fatter? I'm sure it can be done, it's just that I can't do it. AA is not that much different than a CR123 size wise. :thumbsup:



Unfortunately, even if _they_ could just 'squash' an AA - it would still only be 1.2v :shakehead

I am also a bit confused about when CR123/RCR123 cells started self- discharging?


----------



## DM51 (Aug 6, 2007)

h2xblive said:


> I understand if the 3.7v chemistry was designed to replace 3.6v nicad or nimhs (3 batteries in series), but what about the shape? Why design a cell that is the shape of a cr123s if it wasn't designed to replace cr123 cells?


3 x CR123A primaries occupy the same space as 2 x 17500 Li-Ion cells. These combinations are interchangeable - both will run the same 9v LAs.


----------



## h2xblive (Aug 6, 2007)

DM51 said:


> 3 x CR123A primaries occupy the same space as 2 x 17500 Li-Ion cells. These combinations are interchangeable - both will run the same 9v LAs.



Last time I checked, there were a lot of flashlights (especially SureFire) that run off of 6 volts, not 9.


----------



## Fallingwater (Aug 6, 2007)

Rechargeable 123 cells are lithium-ion or lithium-iron. Neither chemistry has significant self-discharge.
An Eneloop 123 makes therefore no sense.


----------



## VidPro (Aug 6, 2007)

3.6v battery, 3.6v LED seems to me the question should be who needs 3V , not who needs 3.6


----------



## h2xblive (Aug 6, 2007)

VidPro said:


> 3.6v battery, 3.6v LED seems to me the question should be who needs 3V , not who needs 3.6



Flashlights aren't only run by LEDs...


----------



## VidPro (Aug 6, 2007)

h2xblive said:


> Flashlights aren't only run by LEDs...


 
but that led gate is kinda stuck at a certian voltage, a filiment (incan) can be about any length and size , much easier than they can change the characteristics of a electronic gate.

all them cell phones, pdas, ipods, digital cameras, all use the 3.6v type cell also.


----------



## h2xblive (Aug 6, 2007)

VidPro said:


> but that led gate is kinda stuck at a certian voltage, a filiment (incan) can be about any length and size , much easier than they can change the characteristics of a electronic gate.
> 
> all them cell phones, pdas, ipods, digital cameras, all use the 3.6v type cell also.



Sure, but what are the shape of those 3.7v rechargeable lithiums? I don't think cell phones, iPods, etc. use the type of batteries most of our flashlights do.


----------



## VidPro (Aug 6, 2007)

h2xblive said:


> Sure, but what are the shape of those 3.7v rechargeable lithiums? I don't think cell phones, iPods, etc. use the type of batteries most of our flashlights do.


 
usually the shape is flat in the cell phones and ipods and stuff., they make great headlamp batteries too.
but li-ions come in ALL sizes and shapes, the 18650, one of the best because of all the things it was used in, has been IN things for 15 years now, and it would make a great flashlight size.
there is ones of AA size called 14500, there is even ones of AAA size now 10350 , i have been using a D sized li-ion for years too, than recentally they got a C sized.

i think the 123 type of cell became so popular not because of its voltage and size, but because it was a consumer Lithium battery with great power output specs. it became designed around because it had some excelent power.
if consumers knew more about rechragables, they wouldnt have wasted millions on little photo batteries.

if people had to plunk down 1$ a day to run thier cell phones, and ipods, well one MORE , i think they would have had issues with that.


----------



## VidPro (Aug 6, 2007)

on the other hand, having a split cell 2x nimhy in a 123 package would be great. it would work in most stuff that the present lithium does, it would hold its voltage similar, it could be recharged, it wouldnt have as much juice, but quite enough.
doing multi cell to make a battery rechargable and at the right voltage has been done before, and will be done again.
the 9Vs use multicell, then there is 6x ni-mhy in rechrgable 9v, or now you can get a 2x li-poly type 9volt.

but i hope it doesnt slow them down from making the D enloop 

i like the li-ion for rechargable better, what is wrong with the faux 3v li-ion rechargable cells? they should beat a LSD ni-mhy in capacity even wasting the 1/2 volt?


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 7, 2007)

Fallingwater said:


> Rechargeable 123 cells are lithium-ion or lithium-iron. Neither chemistry has significant self-discharge.
> An Eneloop 123 makes therefore no sense.


 Are you serious? I thought _rechargeable _123 li-ion would discharge all their energy in about 2 months just sitting there.. well that's what I've been told. For instance my cell phone, which is Li-ion powered, would lose all power _even _if I leave it *OFF* for a month... I consistently have to recharge it every two weeks in order to maintain the charge. Primary 123 cells however don't suffer the same problem, eg the Surefire 123s I left some in my glove box for a year as spare, and then put them in my U2 the other day... it ran as new! :nana:


----------



## VidPro (Aug 7, 2007)

you have to keep up with the charge on PDAs too, its because they use power to maintain the memory, and clock and stuff, they really dont ever turn completly off. they are computers on "standby" not even "hibernation"
winders mobile5 type OSes solve the loss of data problem by using flash memory instead of ram, so they can die and come back without frustrations.

its not the li-ion itself, as it can hold a descent charge for 6 months , with the caveat that protection curcuits seem to make that about 3 months, but a li-ion is MUCH better than a ni-mhy for slef discharge, even with protection.


----------



## Fallingwater (Aug 7, 2007)

VidPro said:


> on the other hand, having a split cell 2x nimhy in a 123 package would be great. it would work in most stuff that the present lithium does, it would hold its voltage similar, it could be recharged, it wouldnt have as much juice, but quite enough.


Not quite.
2xNiMH means 2.4 volts, which is unlikely to run 3v gadgets satisfactorily.
3 NiMH cells would have the same voltage as an unregulated RCR123, but the capacity would be *much* lower.
It's not just a question of electrolite: three small cells don't contain as much energy as one large cell of the same volume. I guesstimate a 3xNiMH RCR123 would hold, oh, maybe 250 mah.
Compared to the 650mah you can get from even very cheap LiIon 123s, there's really not much point to the whole idea.


----------



## Weskix (Aug 7, 2007)

It is my understanding that Li-Ion cells also lose charge due to heat, the heat can also make the battery lose capacity over time. Which is why laptop batteries and such need replacement over time.


----------



## MattK (Aug 7, 2007)

This thread makes me want to cry.

3V RCR123A's exist and are very low self discharge as are ALL Lithium Ion batteries. A NiMh version would have less than 1/2 the capacity and would be 2.4 or 3.6V but not 3V without a diode like those used by the li-ion RCR123A's.

A 'squashed AA' would still be a 1.2V cell and 1/2AA, 1/3AA and many other permutations of the AA cell are already made - albeit not in low self discharge format as that cuts capacity and the markets are too small to justify the manufacture of LSD Sub-AA cells.

Tons of devices run at 3.7V. CR123A's were originally designed by Sanyo for Canons ELPH APS cameras and their voltage, low self discharge, ability to sustain high drain rates, compact size and great energy density made them ideal candidates for high output flashlight applications.

Many electronic devices have parasitic drain, as mentioned above, to maintain memory, clocks, etc even when the device is 'off'.

All batteries suffer from heat soak to some extent but lithium based cells suffer less than alkaline and nickel based batteries do. 

Laptop batteries need replacement because they're uh rechargeable batteries with a given lifespan which is typically ~3-400 cycles or perhaps 1-3 years depending on usage. When laptops used NiMh cells batteries they didn't last nearly as long nor operate nearly as efficiently.


----------



## DM51 (Aug 7, 2007)

Good post, MattK, that needed saying. This thread was going all over the place. BTW, could you please change the title of this thread of yours - the "today" in it is now badly out of date.


----------



## h2xblive (Aug 7, 2007)

MattK said:


> This thread makes me want to cry.
> 
> 3V RCR123A's exist and are very low self discharge as are ALL Lithium Ion batteries. A NiMh version would have less than 1/2 the capacity and would be 2.4 or 3.6V but not 3V without a diode like those used by the li-ion RCR123A's.
> 
> ...



Like what?


----------



## MattK (Aug 7, 2007)

DM51 - done - take a look. 

h2xblive - most cell phones, PDA's, ipods/mp3 players, etc...if it's small, of modern design and has a rechargeable battery it's gonna have a 3.7v li-ion or li-poly battery inside - or a pack of 2 or more for greater voltage or capacitance.


----------



## h2xblive (Aug 7, 2007)

MattK said:


> DM51 - done - take a look.
> 
> h2xblive - most cell phones, PDA's, ipods/mp3 players, etc...if it's small, of modern design and has a rechargeable battery it's gonna have a 3.7v li-ion or li-poly battery inside - or a pack of 2 or more for greater voltage or capacitance.



I meant to ask what devices use cells shaped like the cr123a, but run off 3.7, 7.4, etc. volts.


----------



## MattK (Aug 7, 2007)

Not a ton. I'm aware of a few specialized medical devices and such but most single cell cylindrical li-ion using devices are standardized on 18650's cause they have huge capacity and don't cost a lot more.

Most mass mfr's use Li-poly's these days because of their increased safety and ease of packaging - they can be formed into almost any shape within reason.

Remember the voltages are 'native' to the their respective chemistries and devices are built to work around available voltages.


----------



## VidPro (Aug 8, 2007)

Fallingwater said:


> Not quite.
> 2xNiMH means 2.4 volts, which is unlikely to run 3v gadgets satisfactorily.
> 3 NiMH cells would have the same voltage as an unregulated RCR123, but the capacity would be *much* lower.
> It's not just a question of electrolite: three small cells don't contain as much energy as one large cell of the same volume. I guesstimate a 3xNiMH RCR123 would hold, oh, maybe 250 mah.
> Compared to the 650mah you can get from even very cheap LiIon 123s, there's really not much point to the whole idea.



and that 9V 2X li-poly battery is way lower voltage too, there are less things that it will work with for sure.

i think that for rechargable the li-ion trimmed back would be the only descent choice, if it doesnt work, then try a different brand of it.


----------



## mdocod (Aug 8, 2007)

> I understand if the 3.7v chemistry was designed to replace 3.6v nicad or nimhs (3 batteries in series), but what about the shape? Why design a cell that is the shape of a cr123s if it wasn't designed to replace cr123 cells?



You're attacking this from the wrong history, you have the situation in reverse....

lithium-ion cells in the shape of a CR123 were not brought to the market with the intension of directly replacing CR123 primary cells, you "assume" that they were and that assumption is what is causing your confusion. 

Li-ion cells in the shape of CR123s were brought to the market, for use in devices that would be designed or modified to accommodate the new breed of cells.

As I understand it... the guy who runs JSBURLY's has a big hand in that whole deal, (bringing li-ion RCR123 cylindrical cells to the consumer) (correct me if i am wrong on this, but i seem to recall reading about it here a long time ago)... The whole thing was that he saw all this opportunity for these cells.

Don't use a 3.7V in place of CR123, use 2 in place of 3 CR123s, or in some cases, use 3 in place of 4 CR123s, slap 2 3.7V cells in a 2 cell light, but slap a 9V lamp assembly in there, wala!


now... as a result of these cells being available on the market for some time now, we are seeing many flashlights (LED) who's regulator boards are designed with 4.2V maximum input in mind, we also see plenty of 9V tolerant varieties for use with 3 CR123s or 2 RCR123s or 2 of some other size li-ion cells.


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Aug 8, 2007)

MattK said:


> Not a ton. I'm aware of a few specialized medical devices and such but most single cell cylindrical li-ion using devices are standardized on 18650's cause they have huge capacity and don't cost a lot more.
> 
> Most mass mfr's use Li-poly's these days because of their increased safety and ease of packaging - they can be formed into almost any shape within reason.
> 
> Remember the voltages are 'native' to the their respective chemistries and devices are built to work around available voltages.


My camera (Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50) uses a proprietary battery pack that looks like it could fit a pair of 16340 Li-Ions in it. I'm not sure, though, because I'm not all that anxious to rip it apart. 

Yep, most frequent-use devices use 18650 (laptops) or LiPo (cell phones, iPods, etc.).


----------



## LA OZ (Aug 8, 2007)

I fancy a 9V version of eneloop for the smoke alarm.


----------



## MattK (Aug 8, 2007)

"9V version of eneloop " do you mean an ultralife primary lithium?


----------



## LA OZ (Aug 8, 2007)

You know the rectangular shape block that has the +/- on the top that come in alkaline, nicad, and nimh. Like this one http://www.batteryjunction.com/te9v25nihica.html


----------



## barkingmad (Aug 8, 2007)

LA OZ said:


> I fancy a 9V version of eneloop for the smoke alarm.


 
For a smoke alarm I would probably either use a quality Alkaline or Ultralife lithium PP3 battery.

Normal rechargeables would not really be suitable due to their self-discharge and AFAIK there are (currently) no PP3 low self-discharge NiMH in PP3 size.


----------



## MattK (Aug 8, 2007)

barkingmad said:


> For a smoke alarm I would probably either use a quality Alkaline or Ultralife lithium PP3 battery.
> 
> Normal rechargeables would not really be suitable due to their self-discharge and AFAIK there are (currently) no PP3 low self-discharge NiMH in PP3 size.





+ INFINITY


----------



## rpage53 (Aug 23, 2007)

LA OZ said:


> I fancy a 9V version of eneloop for the smoke alarm.


NiMH are a bad choice for smoke alarms because the discharge curve is too flat. This means they are almost dead without triggering the low voltage warning on the alarm. You have a fire, it beeps twice, and the battery dies (and so do you).

As has been pointed out, lithium rechargeable cells already have a lower self-discharge than NiMH eneloops, so a CR123 eneloop is pointless. Even worse, NiMH has a lower energy density so an eneloop cell won't have as much capacity either.


----------



## nativecajun (Jul 17, 2010)

N162E said:


> I'd rather they retained 85% of the full charge.


 

I believe that is what he meant to say. If he did not that is what they do. Place a fully charged Eenloop on the shelf for a year and you will still have 85% charge left. They are the cats meow In my opinion.

Daniel


----------



## mdocod (Jul 18, 2010)

Are we checking for what stage of decomposition we are in here?


----------

