# AW C Li-Ion cells, what will you replace them with?



## cernobila (Feb 13, 2009)

Now that its official that the AW C Li-Ion cells will be no more, what will you replace them with.......the unprotected versions that are available or the new IMR versions that will be available from AW in a few weeks.

The unprotected versions may be a little shorter but most likely have the same run time as the protected ones, have to be careful with the charging and discharging, not sure if you would need a soft start switch.

The IMR cells will have shorter run time and will need a soft start switch for most lamps/bulbs as far as I understand, this means changing switches or updating them somehow in the BigLeef and Fivemega C bodies, with a bit of luck should be able to use the same charger as for the Li-Ion's.

In my case, not much of a choice for my WA1111 and WA1185 based C lights. I feel like I will be going backwards and not forwards.

What is your take on this?


----------



## LIGHTSMAD (Feb 13, 2009)

yea, i've just ordered a FM 3 C body! i will be running a WA1185 bulb with the new IMR's from AW, will the runtimes be bad or how do i charge these?


----------



## donn_ (Feb 13, 2009)

I love the AW C cells, although they take a devilishly long time to recharge. Their loss will make it tough for folks who have, or are selling tubes made for their size, unless they have enough of the cells on hand.

There are options, however. These won't work for the 1x AW C formats, but can be used in longer tubes.







Left-to-right:

A123 Systems 26650 LiFePO4 cell.

Molicel 26670 IMR cell.

AW C Li-Ion.

Both the A123 and Emoli cell will fit, diameter-wise, in the same tube as the AW cell, and will provide even greater current capacity. They both have lower capacity, but both are exceedingly safe cells, without any protection needed. The A123 can be recharged in far less time than either of the others, and while it's nominal voltage is lower, is my choice for cells in this diameter.


----------



## donn_ (Feb 13, 2009)

LIGHTSMAD said:


> yea, i've just ordered a FM 3 C body! i will be running a WA1185 bulb with the new IMR's from AW, will the runtimes be bad or how do i charge these?



AW says his IMR will be a 26650. You won't be able to fit 3 of them in a 3x AW C tube.


----------



## LIGHTSMAD (Feb 13, 2009)

*PROTECTED C CELL LI-LION BATTERYS*

were can i buy protected C cell li-lion batterys for my new FM3C body??


----------



## cernobila (Feb 13, 2009)

donn_ said:


> AW says his IMR will be a 26650. You won't be able to fit 3 of them in a 3x AW C tube.



More headaches by the looks of it.......I just have to look after my cells and make sure they last for a long time.....such a pity, just as things were looking good for the protected C Li-Ion, they disappear.

For me, the cost of changing over from the AW C's is not worth it, perhaps I will start to use the unprotected C's that are available and just take more care when I use them.


----------



## mikevelarde (Feb 13, 2009)

Don't worry. AW said 

"The C cells might not be available again because I feared the steel case supplier has gone out of business ( I can't contact them either by phone or email ). They have the C cell case mold that I paid for and I can't afford to make another one. The IMR26500 that I am working on will replace the protected C cells. ETA is 4 - 6 weeks. Please visit the IMR sales thread for future updates on the IMR26500 cells."

Regards,
AW 

So the replacement size is IMR26500, I don't know if the size will fit those 3C tube though!!:thinking:


----------



## donn_ (Feb 13, 2009)

mikevelarde said:


> So the replacement size is IMR26500, I don't know if the size will fit those 3C tube though!!:thinking:



Right you are! I misread it. 26500 should work nicely. The current AW C is almost exactly that size.


----------



## cernobila (Feb 13, 2009)

mikevelarde said:


> So the replacement size is IMR26500, I don't know if the size will fit those 3C tube though!!:thinking:



There are too many "tubes" out there based around a combination of the AW C cell/s that it would be quite silly to make anything new based on different dimensions, not sure if anyone would buy them.

....my AW C's are 25.5mm x 53mm.......the new ones will be 26mm x 50mm, if this is the case then people will have to stretch their tail cap springs a little in the 2xC and 3xC lights to make up for the 6mm or 9mm difference.


----------



## Gary123 (Feb 13, 2009)

The A123 systems cells have different charging requirements than the standard Li ion cell (Lithium cobalt) or the imr cell (Lithium manganese) and requires a dedicated charger for proper use. Cobalt and manganese type cells have very similar charging requirements. I looked into the A123 systems cells and could not find a charger for them. Because they are sturdy cells, they will survive being improperly charged in your common IBC or Ultrafire charger but it is not recommended.


----------



## LIGHTSMAD (Feb 13, 2009)

is this a maybe


----------



## donn_ (Feb 13, 2009)

Cells vary in length, no matter how they're advertised. That's why the flashlight gods invented spacers and spring mods.

Here's a good example:






Six different cells, all billed as 18650 in size, and they're all different lengths. Some are a few millimeters different in length. If you measure, you'll find the diameter differs a little, as well.


----------



## cernobila (Feb 13, 2009)

When you think about it, the AW C Li-Ion cells have been and still are the best C cells out there......highest capacity at 3.3A, had a look at the capacity of some of the unprotected C cells and they are between 2.4A to 2.8A......plenty of bodies designed around it, even have accessories for the C Maglite to be able to use them......don't need a soft start to use them with most of the common bulbs/lamps.......and can be charged by Ultrafire and Pila chargers.

When you are on a good thing, why change?........I know, AW cant get his die/mould back from the failed factory and does not want to spend money on a new one, this is understandable but shouldn't be the end of it, there must be a solution.


----------



## donn_ (Feb 13, 2009)

cernobila said:


> When you are on a good thing, why change?........



I can think of a couple of reasons:

1. The AW C cell takes a long time to charge...a function of it's high capacity to an extent, but even beyond that, it's a slow charging chemistry. If you compare the run times and charge times with LiFePO4 cells, the A123s come out well ahead, even with lower capacity.

2. There are applications where AW C cells simply cannot provide the current required. Here again, A123 or IMR exceed the AW C's capability to properly drive high current builds.

Don't get me wrong. I love the AW C cell. I have over a dozen of them in use in a variety of lights, and would hate to have to change them out for other type cells. But I will happily exchange them for IMRs or A123s where possible.


----------



## cernobila (Feb 13, 2009)

donn_ said:


> I can think of a couple of reasons:
> 
> 1. The AW C cell takes a long time to charge...a function of it's high capacity to an extent, but even beyond that, it's a slow charging chemistry. If you compare the run times and charge times with LiFePO4 cells, the A123s come out well ahead, even with lower capacity.
> 
> ...



I understand what you are saying and for some people these points apply, but in my case, I would have to throw out most of my C based lights and start again to accommodate the longer A123 cells, economically unfeasible. I also do not have a need or want to build high current builds and therefore do not need other solutions. I would rather (once my C cells will no longer work) go to the 18650 Li-Ions based lights, which I already have.

.......with a bit of luck, it would be years before I have to consider buying more C cells so I have plenty of time to wait for other solutions to come by.


----------



## Kestrel (Feb 13, 2009)

This is very unfortunate.

As others have said, my fear is the lower capacity with the IMR chemistry.


cernobila said:


> the new ones will be 26mm x 50mm, if this is the case then people will have to stretch their tail cap springs a little in the 2xC and 3xC lights to make up for the 6mm or 9mm difference.


For temporary use, I created a spacer to use two alkaline C's in the FM 2xC body with an M30:












However, this was supposed to be only temporary until I could get a SF Turbohead and some serious LiIon capacity & output...:mecry:


----------



## DM51 (Feb 13, 2009)

Kestrel said:


> my fear is the lower capacity with the IMR chemistry


Well... the capacity of the IMR26500 _will_ be lower than the "C" LiCo, but it will be around 2400mAh, which is not to be sneezed at; and bear in mind LiMn is a safer chemistry. Also, they should be able to handle a current of perhaps 20A or more, so they will be superb for hotwires...

BTW, that is a nice spacer you've made there.


----------



## cernobila (Feb 13, 2009)

DM51 said:


> Well... the capacity of the IMR26500 _will_ be lower than the "C" LiCo, but it will be around 2400mAh, which is not to be sneezed at; and bear in mind LiMn is a safer chemistry. Also, they should be able to handle a current of perhaps 20A or more, so they will be superb for hotwires...
> 
> BTW, that is a nice spacer you've made there.



I keep hearing accolades for the "new" IMR cells but this is my take on them......The 2400 is not much more than 2200 on the 18650 so why bother......people keep saying safer chemistry, I have never had any problems with any of my Li-Ion's, sounds like this is the main selling point of the IMR cells, there will be more blown bulbs and burned out switches than with the Li-Ion's, I am predicting more near injuries with the IMR's......hotwires of 20A or more are a very small percentage of lights out there, the heaviest bulb that I have is the P5761, so again....for me personally, these IMR cells would be a waste of time and resources.


----------



## DM51 (Feb 13, 2009)

Yes... I do see your point. It's a shame about the "C"s, but I expect in due course AW will find another supplier.


----------



## donn_ (Feb 13, 2009)

cernobila said:


> I keep hearing accolades for the "new" IMR cells but this is my take on them......The 2400 is not much more than 2200 on the 18650 so why bother......people keep saying safer chemistry, I have never had any problems with any of my Li-Ion's, sounds like this is the main selling point of the IMR cells, there will be more blown bulbs and burned out switches than with the Li-Ion's, I am predicting more near injuries with the IMR's......hotwires of 20A or more is a very small percentage of lights out there, the heaviest bulb that I have is the P5761, so again....for me personally, these IMR cells would be a waste of time and resources.



Dude! Nobody is going to force you to use IMRs! If you don't want to, don't use them, but making up nonsense like your prediction of more "near" injuries is silly. IMRs don't burn out switches or blow bulbs, people do. And they aren't "new." They've more than proven their worth in other-than-flashlight applications.

PS...as far as I can tell, the main selling point for this particular IMR is it will be available to folks who have lights built around the form factor of the AW C cell.


----------



## Gary123 (Feb 13, 2009)

donn_ said:


> ... If you compare the run times and charge times with LiFePO4 cells, the A123s come out well ahead, even with lower capacity.




How do you charge your A123's? Are you using chargers designed for lithium cobalt and lithium manganese chemistry? I would like to find a proper charger for A123's.


----------



## donn_ (Feb 13, 2009)

Gary123 said:


> How do you charge your A123's? Are you using chargers designed for lithium cobalt and lithium manganese chemistry? I would like to find a proper charger for A123's.



Right now, I use "Joe Chargers." Milky and a few conspirators on the forum developed them expressly for charging A123 cells. He doesn't have any left, but rumor has it a new version may be in the works.

I expect to upgrade my charging hardware this year, to a charger which will do any chemistry. The newer Bantams, Hyperions and others will charge anything quickly and safely.


----------



## cernobila (Feb 13, 2009)

donn_ said:


> Dude! Nobody is going to force you to use IMRs! If you don't want to, don't use them, but making up nonsense like your prediction of more "near" injuries is silly. IMRs don't burn out switches or blow bulbs, people do. And they aren't "new." They've more than proven their worth in other-than-flashlight applications.
> 
> PS...as far as I can tell, the main selling point for this particular IMR is it will be available to folks who have lights built around the form factor of the AW C cell.



Well my prediction is based on the IMR thread on here, it seems to me that there are plenty of warnings on how and in what combination of cells/bulbs/switches these IMR cells should be used. The Li-Ion cells did not seem to have the same kind of strict guidelines as the IMR's have to avoid damaging something, or at least it appears that way to me. The idea of installing soft start systems to most existing C lights will be a headache. While these cells are toted as "new", I am sure they are not, they are simply different. The trouble with me is I only use these types of cells in flashlights and nothing else, so I guess this is where I am coming from. It is a pity for something that has been proven very useful, worthwhile and in a way quite simple to work with, has been or is about to be replaced with a different product; only time will tell how the IMR C's will be accepted.

......to add, my case in point would be; the 9V set up is very popular, to run any of the SF, LF, or WE 9V lamps all you need is either 3x CR123 cells or 2x Li-Ion cells, no other changes are needed. If you would replace the Li-Ion cells with the IMR cells, as far as I know, you will need to install a soft start switch. LF even now makes lamps just for use with the IMR's.


----------



## Kestrel (Feb 13, 2009)

Kestrel said:


> For temporary use, I created a spacer to use two alkaline C's in the FM 2xC body with an M30





DM51 said:


> BTW, that is a nice spacer you've made there.


Well, to be honest, I spec'd it out and a friend made it for me. A 0.250" diameter stainless steel button press-fitted into a fiberglass composite disk, everything made on a lathe. The button is recessed 0.080" on the other side so it will generally stay put on top of the C cell during battery changes. Definitely overkill for what it's supposed to doing. Which is one of the CPF motto's, right?:devil:







Dang, if I had thought of it, I would have used a magnet instead of stainless steel, that way the entire assembly would actually stick to the top of the C cell. I guess that's for version two, hm?


----------



## BigusLightus (Feb 14, 2009)

Given that a cells dimensions may be slightly different than the given size I'm wondering if the new AW 26500 will fit into an unbored Mag C tube?


----------



## etc (Feb 14, 2009)

This exactly why I don't mess with exotic cells. They look great on paper but may not be so practical.

I have my Surefire with Malkoff M60 and 2x18500 cells but they are a luxury and if they unobtainable, no problem, just stick in 3x123 cells. Or just any other 18500 cell, or I can use the most common 18650 cell and 4x123 cells and a different module.


----------



## Kestrel (Feb 14, 2009)

etc said:


> I have my Surefire with Malkoff M60 and 2x18500 cells but they are a luxury and if they unobtainable, no problem, just stick in 3x123 cells. Or just any other 18500 cell, or I can use the most common 18650 cell and 4x123 cells and a different module.


Do you have a C-cell body, or were you planning on purchasing one? What is the title of this thread?

Here you go, November 21:


etc said:


> I am a bit disappointed with the runtime of M60 / 2x18500 AW's cells.


So *what* *problem* do you think 3300 mAh C-sized cells would be solving then?


----------



## cernobila (Feb 14, 2009)

Kestrel said:


> This is very unfortunate.
> 
> As others have said, my fear is the lower capacity with the IMR chemistry.
> 
> ...



Actually I now would like to try and use my M30 (1V to 5.5V, 1A) with 3xC Alkaline cells (4.5V) in the FM 3xC body. Never used Alkaline's so have no idea of the run time in this combination....any ideas? I am sure I will come up with some kind of spacer if I look around my garage.


----------



## Kestrel (Feb 15, 2009)

cernobila said:


> Actually I now would like to try and use my M30 (1V to 5.5V, 1A) with 3xC Alkaline cells (4.5V) in the FM 3xC body. Never used Alkaline's so have no idea of the run time in this combination....any ideas? I am sure I will come up with some kind of spacer if I look around my garage.


That is _exactly_ what I've been thinking about for the last day or so. Three C's would run the M30 quite well in the FM 3xC.:thumbsup: You should go from ~140 lumen (2xC) to nearly ~240 lumen, as that is the rated output for the M30 with 3.7volts input, and you'll get somewhat less voltage sag from the C cells than from the AA's.

I'm going to check runtime on 2xC / M30 next week, FWIW.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 15, 2009)

Glad I got a bunch of them...but it's not that hard to adapt. I wouldn't be surprised if AW comes back with them some day, either.


----------



## cernobila (Feb 15, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Glad I got a bunch of them...but it's not that hard to adapt. I wouldn't be surprised if AW comes back with them some day, either.



I hope he does, got enough of the traditional gear like EO-9, P91, WA1111, WA1185, FM1794, P5761.......all the bodies and switches etc that worked very well on the Li-Ion C cells.....that I really don't want to start buying a whole bunch of new gear to accommodate the use of the IMR cells. Should have bought more of these when they were still available, at least I have enough of them to keep me going for a number of years......hope that the 18650 Li-Ions will be available for a long time to come.


----------



## lctorana (Feb 15, 2009)

On the subject of IMR C cells (if you will forgive the digression), this is one of the most exciting announcements I've seen on the forum.

*Provided that these will fit in an unbored C Maglite*:

2C Maglite - *RoP*
3C Maglite - *1185*
4C Maglite - *64610*
All without any need for extenders.

And with greater runtime* and smaller size than the current NiMH incumbents with those bulbs.

Now tell me that's not exciting.

_(* compared with most 4/5 Sub C and AA cells)_


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 15, 2009)

Surely, AW wouldn't be foolish enough to make IMR C cells that don't fit in a stock C Mag. Perish the thought.

There are also protection pcb's for IMR cells


----------



## cernobila (Feb 15, 2009)

lctorana said:


> On the subject of IMR C cells (if you will forgive the digression), this is one of the most exciting announcements I've seen on the forum.
> 
> *Provided that these will fit in an unbored C Maglite*:
> 
> ...




I know very little about the IMR cells, all I know is that the cell run times will be shorter in a cell for cell comparison. (IMR C and Li-Ion C) I never used NiMH so can not comment on these. The IMR cells are not new just different, I don't think they will be as versatile as the Li-Ion's have been/are. Already special lamps/bulbs have been made and soft start systems are being developed to accommodate the IMR cells. Not sure if or which of the current lamps/bulbs that most of us already have in our draws can be used with or without soft start switches. In my case and dare I say, perhaps for a few others here, the most important features that I look for is a good balance between size, output, run time and versatility with run time being the most important to me due to the way I use my lights. For some these IMR C cells will look exciting, while others will lament the loss of the AW Li-Ion C cells.....best would be if both types could be available, perhaps one day.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 15, 2009)

It is a loss...no question about that.

However, on a practical basis, you gain safety & more amp output, and lose storage capacity. They charge with same Li-Ion equipment. The only real downside is over discharging...but IMHO, the 2.5V protection Over discharge protection was too low for low amp bulbs. You need to watch your light dimming. The cells are a lot heartier that you think, and the key is not having them spend much time below 3V.

When AlanB finishes his regulated switch, I will set my discharge cutoff at about 3.2V with that driver.



cernobila said:


> I know very little about the IMR cells, all I know is that the cell run times will be shorter in a cell for cell comparison. (IMR C and Li-Ion C) I never used NiMH so can not comment on these. The IMR cells are not new just different, I don't think they will be as versatile as the Li-Ion's have been/are. Already special lamps/bulbs have been made and soft start systems are being developed to accommodate the IMR cells. Not sure if or which of the current lamps/bulbs that most of us already have in our draws can be used with or without soft start switches. In my case and dare I say, perhaps for a few others here, the most important features that I look for is a good balance between size, output, run time and versatility with run time being the most important to me due to the way I use my lights. For some these IMR C cells will look exciting, while others will lament the loss of the AW Li-Ion C cells.....best would be if both types could be available, perhaps one day.


----------



## cernobila (Feb 15, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> It is a loss...no question about that.
> 
> However, on a practical basis, you gain safety & more amp output, and lose storage capacity. They charge with same Li-Ion equipment. The only real downside is over discharging...but IMHO, the 2.5V protection Over discharge protection was too low for low amp bulbs. You need to watch your light dimming. The cells are a lot heartier that you think, and the key is not having them spend much time below 3V.
> 
> When AlanB finishes his regulated switch, I will set my discharge cutoff at about 3.2V with that driver.



Thank you Lux for your input, always respect your work and input.......I think the key words here are "over discharging", "regulated switch", "discharge cutoff" and "driver". Never had to worry about these with the AW C Li-Ion cells with any of the 9V, 6V bi-pin's or the WA1185. Looks like with the IMR cells, I would need to be far more careful how I use them and in what combination.


----------



## QtrHorse (Feb 15, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Glad I got a bunch of them...but it's not that hard to adapt. I wouldn't be surprised if AW comes back with them some day, either.


 

That is a mean thing to say.oo:


----------



## Benson (Feb 15, 2009)

cernobila said:


> Thank you Lux for your input, always respect your work and input.......I think the key words here are "over discharging", "regulated switch", "discharge cutoff" and "driver". Never had to worry about these with the AW C Li-Ion cells with any of the 9V, 6V bi-pin's or the WA1185. Looks like with the IMR cells, I would need to be far more careful how I use them and in what combination.



Well, "regulated switch" and "driver" are the same thing, and are being designed for Li-ion; you won't have to use them with IMR either, but you'll be able to run hotwires brighter for most of the battery life (or maintain the same minimum brightness for longer) with any chemistry; Li-ion, IMR, NiMH, NiCD, KOH, you name it. It'll even give the flexibility to change chemistries or cell count while feeding the bulb the same power, or change bulbs without changing the battery configuration (probably even to the extent of changing between LEDs and hotwires).

And I, for one, would much rather have the discharge cutoff controlled by a completely programmable driver than a built-in protection board; _I'll_ decide how much to baby my cells. (And maybe include a manual override to keep providing light till the cells die, for emergency use.)

In my view, the only serious downside to the IMR cells is the reduced capacity. That, and that they're not available yet, which is why I'm getting unprotected Li-ion 25500s for my fanbeam [email protected] project.


----------



## cernobila (Feb 15, 2009)

Benson said:


> Well, "regulated switch" and "driver" are the same thing, and are being designed for Li-ion; you won't have to use them with IMR either, but you'll be able to run hotwires brighter for most of the battery life (or maintain the same minimum brightness for longer) with any chemistry; Li-ion, IMR, NiMH, NiCD, KOH, you name it. It'll even give the flexibility to change chemistries or cell count while feeding the bulb the same power, or change bulbs without changing the battery configuration (probably even to the extent of changing between LEDs and hotwires).
> 
> In my view, the only serious downside to the IMR cells is the reduced capacity. That, and that they're not available yet, which is why I'm getting unprotected Li-ion 25500s for my fanbeam [email protected] project.



Point taken, looks like I don’t know much about the technical details of the various cell chemistries. (only know Cadmiums, NiMH and Li-Ions) I like things to be simple and effective,......in most cases I don't need an instruction book to operate everyday items but looks like in this case with the IMR's I would have to read the instruction book a number of times to feel comfortable with what I am doing.


----------



## Kestrel (Feb 15, 2009)

Benson said:


> In my view, the only serious downside to the IMR cells is the reduced capacity. That, and that they're not available yet, which is why I'm getting unprotected Li-ion 25500s for my fanbeam [email protected] project.


After searching for unprotected 26500's, all I came across was the 2500 mAh from KD. Do you have in mind another source carring 26500's that have higher capacity?

I think fabricating a protection 'puck' could be one possible solution for me, but I don't think I'd want to bother for a 'C' cell with only 2500 mAh. Can one be used between a pair of unprotected cells, or should two be used, one on top of each cell? In that case, I imagine a single driver 'puck' on top of the cell stack could be quite useful going forward.
Your advice appreciated,
K

(Sorry if these seem like dumb questions, I haven't had to think about unprotected cells until now, preferring to learn about the less-brainer protected solutions)


----------



## evenchaos (Feb 15, 2009)

One thing that puzzles me is why can't AW manufacture both ICR & IMR cells for using the same can die? From what I understand, he ceased manufacturing the li-ion C batteries because the die disappeared with the failed factory, yet now he is manufacturing almost the same size cells but only using IMR chemistry. Am I missing something?


----------



## cernobila (Feb 15, 2009)

evenchaos said:


> One thing that puzzles me is why can't AW manufacture both ICR & IMR cells for using the same can die? From what I understand, he ceased manufacturing the li-ion C batteries because the die disappeared with the failed factory, yet now he is manufacturing almost the same size cells but only using IMR chemistry. Am I missing something?



This same question has been asked by a number of my friends, if he can make the IMR C cells why cant he continue to make the Li-Ion C cells......is there such a major difference?.......there must be a technical reason for it but only AW can answer this question.....I am sure some of us would be interested in the answer.


----------



## Tirodani (Feb 15, 2009)

I'm in a bit of a quandary over what to do with an FM 2C body, now that I can't get these cells. In particular, won't the IMR cells kill all high output 6v bulbs that will fit in a D26 head, yet still underpower all the long life ones?

The IMR-9 would be attractive, but claims to require a twisty, and as far as I can tell none is available for the FM C body.

:thinking:


----------



## cernobila (Feb 15, 2009)

Tirodani said:


> The IMR-9 would be attractive, but claims to require a twisty, and as far as I can tell none is available for the FM C body.
> 
> :thinking:



....or the BigLeef, or the Mag C etc.....as far as I know.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Feb 16, 2009)

IMR = "safer" chemistry. Medium term, I'd suspect all LiIons would be replaced with these, at least standard, loose cells.

If there's no demand, there's no product. If the factory doesn't want to make the "old style", then....

Bret


----------



## Tirodani (Feb 16, 2009)

cernobila said:


> ....or the BigLeef, or the Mag C etc.....as far as I know.



I saw somewhere around here that the IMR-9 is drawing about 2.5 amps. Perhaps Fivemega could say whether that's reasonable for the switch in the C body.


----------



## AW (Feb 16, 2009)

They are different. 25mm vs 26mm ( the 26mm casing size is readily available because they are made for 26650/26770 cell sizes ). The 25mm casing + 25mm safety vent module is custom made for protected C cell because it need a smaller diameter cell to accommodate the connecting strip for the pcb. 1mm makes a big difference in cell diameter. I can make the 26mm protected C cell but it won't fit a Mag C because it 'll measure at least 26.5mm in diameter. Even with a 26mm cell, it will be a tight fit.





evenchaos said:


> One thing that puzzles me is why can't AW manufacture both ICR & IMR cells for using the same can die? From what I understand, he ceased manufacturing the li-ion C batteries because the die disappeared with the failed factory, yet now he is manufacturing almost the same size cells but only using IMR chemistry. Am I missing something?


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI (Feb 16, 2009)

AW,what am I suppose to do with all these extra extender rings I bought from you. LOL


----------



## lctorana (Feb 16, 2009)

AW said:


> I can make the 26mm protected C cell but it won't fit a Mag C because it 'll measure at least 26.5mm in diameter. *Even with a 26mm cell, it will be a tight fit.*


 
That's what I have been wondering myself. I took my calipers to my 4C but they don't quite reach the battery tube. Whether a 26 mm cell will fit is not assured - do you have a C Mag and can you check if a prototype goes in?

If it does, we are in for one of the most exciting hotwire pases ever on CPF. (And if it doesn't, we'll get good at honing!)


----------



## cernobila (Feb 16, 2009)

lctorana said:


> That's what I have been wondering myself. I took my calipers to my 4C but they don't quite reach the battery tube. Whether a 26 mm cell will fit is not assured - do you have a C Mag and can you check if a prototype goes in?
> 
> If it does, we are in for one of the most exciting hotwire pases ever on CPF. (And if it doesn't, we'll get good at honing!)



Just measured my 2xC Mag at 26.5mm, the BigLeef at 26.2mm and the Fivemega C at 26.1mm.


----------



## FredM (Feb 16, 2009)

Are the unprotected models the same cells as the protected ones? Where are they available?


----------



## Kestrel (Feb 16, 2009)

AW said:


> They are different. 25mm vs 26mm ( the 26mm casing size is readily available because they are made for 26650/26770 cell sizes ). The 25mm casing + 25mm safety vent module is custom made for protected C cell because it need a smaller diameter cell to accommodate the connecting strip for the pcb. 1mm makes a big difference in cell diameter. I can make the 26mm protected C cell but it won't fit a Mag C because it 'll measure at least 26.5mm in diameter. Even with a 26mm cell, it will be a tight fit.


AW, thanks for the post, this clears things up some. 


cernobila said:


> Just measured my 2xC Mag at 26.5mm, the BigLeef at 26.2mm and the Fivemega C at 26.1mm.


Thank you for the measurements, this is helpful. 


FredM said:


> Where are [unprotected cells] available?


My question as well. Good thread, this.


----------



## Benson (Feb 16, 2009)

Kestrel said:


> After searching for unprotected 26500's, all I came across was the 2500 mAh from KD. Do you have in mind another source carring 26500's that have higher capacity?


I have some "5000 mAh" 25500s on order from DX, real capacity is apparently about 3000 mAh. I'd like more, but that's still almost twice what you get with NiMH AAs, and I don't need to mess with holders...

In light of AW's remarks, apparently these (being 25500, not 26500) were intended for making protected cells.



> I think fabricating a protection 'puck' could be one possible solution for me, but I don't think I'd want to bother for a 'C' cell with only 2500 mAh. Can one be used between a pair of unprotected cells, or should two be used, one on top of each cell? In that case, I imagine a single driver 'puck' on top of the cell stack could be quite useful going forward.


I don't know; I'm actually planning to do the evil thing and run them naked, with no protection in the light either. Frequent voltage measurements FTW! I think it would be hard to fit a protection circuit in this one, and I'm more concerned with melting down the flashlight than killing the batteries; once I've toasted it (Who'd have thought 35W in a $5 yellow-light would cause grief? ), and moved all the components to a more robust host, I'll probably see about a low-voltage cutoff.

Protection on each cell would be the best thing, in case of imbalance, but I think protection for the whole stack should be good enough if your cells match. (And it depends; if you're charging the stack in series, I'd definitely be worried about not having each cell protected for over-voltage; if you're using loose cells (my approach) or otherwise charging individually or parallel, I'd try to make sure I can trust my charger not to burn things, and use just low-voltage protection in the light.)

Perhaps someone who's done this before can correct any of this; while I like to think I've got a handle on this stuff from reading, this _will_ be my first Li-ion build.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 16, 2009)

Good luck with that. As far as I am concerned DX & Quality becomes an oxymoron. Personally, I would go with Powerstream.


----------



## BigusLightus (Feb 16, 2009)

Hi LuxLuthor,

I can't find any mention of a Lithium C cell on the Powerstream website. Am I missing something?

Thank you


----------



## etc (Feb 16, 2009)

LIGHTSMAD said:


> yea, i've just ordered a FM 3 C body! i will be running a WA1185 bulb with the new IMR's from AW, will the runtimes be bad or how do i charge these?




Can you put 3 Alkaline C cells in it? If so, it would work nicely with Malkoff M30 module.


----------



## Kestrel (Feb 16, 2009)

etc said:


> Can you put 3 Alkaline C cells in it? If so, it would work nicely with Malkoff M30 module.


Post # 28, this thread:


cernobila said:


> Actually I now would like to try and use my M30 (1V to 5.5V, 1A) with 3xC Alkaline cells (4.5V) in the FM 3xC body. Never used Alkaline's so have no idea of the run time in this combination....any ideas? I am sure I will come up with some kind of spacer if I look around my garage.


Post # 29, this thread: 


Kestrel said:


> That is _exactly_ what I've been thinking about for the last day or so. Three C's would run the M30 quite well in the FM 3xC.:thumbsup: You should go from ~140 lumen (2xC) to nearly ~240 lumen, as that is the rated output for the M30 with 3.7volts input, and you'll get somewhat less voltage sag from the C cells than from the AA's.
> 
> I'm going to check runtime on 2xC / M30 next week, FWIW.


----------



## cernobila (Feb 16, 2009)

etc said:


> Can you put 3 Alkaline C cells in it? If so, it would work nicely with Malkoff M30 module.



Yes you can, may need a spacer if you use three of them but it should work very nicely.....I plan to do just this.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 17, 2009)

BigusLightus said:


> Hi LuxLuthor,
> 
> I can't find any mention of a Lithium C cell on the Powerstream website. Am I missing something?
> 
> Thank you



They are not a listed item, per se.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 17, 2009)

Thanks for that info Lux..


----------



## cernobila (Feb 17, 2009)

Kestrel said:


> Well, to be honest, I spec'd it out and a friend made it for me. A 0.250" diameter stainless steel button press-fitted into a fiberglass composite disk, everything made on a lathe. The button is recessed 0.080" on the other side so it will generally stay put on top of the C cell during battery changes. Definitely overkill for what it's supposed to doing. Which is one of the CPF motto's, right?:devil:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ok, how about using what we all have with us most of the time.....plus some electrical tape......just measured our 10c coin and five of them taped together on the outside with electrical tape makes a great 8.5mm spacer. If you need a longer spacer, just add coins. Use just the right amount of tape to make a snug fit inside the C body, what ever it happens to be and slide it in first against the spring of the lamp module, followed by the three alkaline C cells. Total cost, 50c and a bit of tape. When you change the cells, the spacer should stay put.....later on you can always revert this back into the 50c you started with and spend it on something else.


----------



## DHart (Feb 17, 2009)

tagging this thread... thanks to all for the ideas...


----------



## Kestrel (Feb 18, 2009)

cernobila said:


> Actually I now would like to try and use my M30 (1V to 5.5V, 1A) with 3xC Alkaline cells (4.5V) in the FM 3xC body. Never used Alkaline's so have no idea of the run time in this combination....any ideas? I am sure I will come up with some kind of spacer if I look around my garage.





Kestrel said:


> That is _exactly_ what I've been thinking about for the last day or so. Three C's would run the M30 quite well in the FM 3xC.:thumbsup: You should go from ~140 lumen (2xC) to nearly ~240 lumen, as that is the rated output for the M30 with 3.7volts input, and you'll get somewhat less voltage sag from the C cells than from the AA's.
> 
> I'm going to check runtime on 2xC / M30 next week, FWIW.


Well, runtime with M30 / 2xC (alkaline) = approx. 3 1/4 hours in regulation, another 3 hours to ~15 lumens or so. If others get data with 2xC NiMH or 3xC, it would be interesting to see.


----------



## wildstar87 (Feb 24, 2009)

*Where to get Li-Ion "C" cell now that AW can't make them anymore?*

I know about the upcoming IMR version, but the capacity isn't any better than an 18650. Was he the only one making a "C" size cell, or is there another one, around that quality available elsewhere?

I did see the threads on the newer high capacity 2800-3000mah 18650s, but they didn't seem to have protection.

Anyone know if there is any chance AW might be able to restart "C" production? It seems like with all the orders he built up, he could make a new prototype or whatever..


----------



## LIGHTSMAD (Feb 24, 2009)

*Re: Where to get Li-Ion "C" cell now that AW can't make them anymore?*

+1


----------



## vhyper007 (Feb 24, 2009)

*Re: Where to get Li-Ion "C" cell now that AW can't make them anymore?*

Well hell, I took a nap and when I awakened AW was no longer making LiIon C's.
Why the heck not? I know my naps aren't that long.

Anybody????????

please,
vhper007


----------



## DM51 (Feb 24, 2009)

2 threads merged.


----------



## Alan B (Feb 24, 2009)

*Re: Where to get Li-Ion "C" cell now that AW can't make them anymore?*



vhyper007 said:


> Well hell, I took a nap and when I awakened AW was no longer making LiIon C's.
> Why the heck not? I know my naps aren't that long.
> 
> Anybody????????
> ...



There was a report from AW over in CPFMP that the factory with his tooling was no longer reachable, and the expensive tooling may be lost. I think it was in the sales thread for that cell.


----------



## wildstar87 (Feb 24, 2009)

Maybe if AW structured it as a Group-Buy type of situation, he could raise enough money to get a new case made, and fill orders? Sounds like the demand is there..

Whaddya say AW?


----------



## cernobila (Feb 24, 2009)

Whatever the real reason is, it is a great shame that the AW C cells have been let go so easily. They were becoming very popular with the members here pretty much across the board, they presented a very good combination of size, output, very good run times and been very user friendly with little or no complications with their application and use.....This was the reason for the solid growth of the C size bodies. These cells have been used to run just about everything from the existing range of D26 3.7V Incan lamps all the way to the larger bi-pins such as the WA1185 and P5761 bulbs and many others as well.......Call them old or new, safe or unsafe, they were good and popular across the board.

The IMR cells are not new, just different. As I understand it, they are great as a Wow light at the very compact end of flashlights and also great at the other extreme with the 40W, 50W lights and greater. For the bulk of the people here, the centre group, I am still not sure of their advantage for the most common and useful lights that people rely on, i.e. 6, 9, 12 and 13V (7 to 30W, or there about)......Only time will tell if they will catch on.


----------



## EvilPaul2112 (Feb 26, 2009)

All my ROP HOLAs and [email protected] that I use for duty are based on AW "C" s due to the runtime and quality. Simply carrying another set of cells to pop in my light when the batts run down really isnt an option, although it may have to be.

Right now all my AW cells are new, so I really shouldnt have to replace them for a year and a half or two years....Hopefully by then another solution may have appeared. I appreciate all the use I have gotten from the "C" 3300mAh over the last several years.

I am not happy......


----------



## EvilPaul2112 (Feb 27, 2009)

wildstar87 said:


> Maybe if AW structured it as a Group-Buy type of situation, he could raise enough money to get a new case made, and fill orders? Sounds like the demand is there..
> 
> Whaddya say AW?


 
+1

....in addition I would happily donate directly to AW to keep this cell format alive...He has, no doubt, pioneered many different flashlight platforms with his "C" cell.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 27, 2009)

The large IMR's just don't suit my applications. I have several "wow" lights but most of them are geared toward run-time and practical use. I will probably be steered back toward 18650's again since the run-time is there and I'm not going to have any flashing issues. Hopefully I'll get enough life out of my existing C's that I'll be able to skip the IMR's for long enough that something better crops up.

On the smaller side of cells I'll probably be tinkering a lot with 16340's.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 27, 2009)

Kestrel said:


> Dang, if I had thought of it, I would have used a magnet instead of stainless steel, that way the entire assembly would actually stick to the top of the C cell. I guess that's for version two, hm?




One reason may be because they're brittle. With smaller, lighter batteries it's probably not an issue but dropping C cells onto a neodymium magnet that size might might eventually bust it up. So would a single impact if the light dropped to the ground the wrong way.


----------



## Drywolf (Feb 27, 2009)

wildstar87 said:


> Maybe if AW structured it as a Group-Buy type of situation, he could raise enough money to get a new case made, and fill orders? Sounds like the demand is there..
> 
> Whaddya say AW?


 
It looks like the present AW IMR cells mah are about 73% of the AW protected cells mah. This means the new IMR C cell will be around 2400mah, I am not happy with this fact as I bought the FM body for it's log run times with the 3300mah cells. I hope AW can find a way to get these cells manufactured again. I really don't like that I will have to use unprotected cells as I am used to letting the cell take care of itself.
Frank


----------



## Tirodani (Mar 6, 2009)

cernobila said:


> The IMR cells are not new, just different. As I understand it, they are great as a Wow light at the very compact end of flashlights and also great at the other extreme with the 40W, 50W lights and greater. For the bulk of the people here, the centre group, I am still not sure of their advantage for the most common and useful lights that people rely on, i.e. 6, 9, 12 and 13V (7 to 30W, or there about)......Only time will tell if they will catch on.



Several people have made this observation, citing the tradeoff between capacity on the one hand and safety and power delivery on the other.

More importantly, though, the IMR cells simply aren't a replacement, any more than a C-size NIMH is a replacement, because the voltage under load is different. There seem to be hardly any lamps that will run well on two IMR C cells. I sure hope someone will step in and fill the need of the market that AW helped to create.

In the meantime I'll hold onto my FM 2C. I suppose if these new high current Luminus LEDs start showing up in P60 modules, the IMR cells could be well suited to run them -- that could be pretty sweet. A few thousand lumens until the light gets too hot to hold. That's probably far off too, though.


----------



## donn_ (Mar 6, 2009)

Tirodani said:


> There seem to be hardly any lamps that will run well on two IMR C cells.



I must confess, I don't understand this statement. :thinking:

I'm under the impression the restrictions involve using IMR-designed lamps with non-IMR cells, not the other way around.

I've been running non-IMR bulbs and LED setups on IMR cells for some time, and have seen no problems at all.

As far as reduced capacity is concerned, even that has an upside in reduced recharge time.


----------



## DHart (Mar 6, 2009)

Among LED's, P7's and MC-E's seem a very good match for IMR cells. 

And aren't most high-output incandescent bulbs good with IMR's?


----------



## cernobila (Mar 6, 2009)

So, can I safely run lamps/bulbs such as EO-9, P91, FM1794, WA1111 and WA1185 in my lights by simply changing the cells from AW C Li-Ion to AW C IMR cells?.....and no, I don't want to change anything else.


----------



## Tirodani (Mar 7, 2009)

donn_ said:


> I must confess, I don't understand this statement. :thinking:
> 
> I'm under the impression the restrictions involve using IMR-designed lamps with non-IMR cells, not the other way around.
> 
> I've been running non-IMR bulbs and LED setups on IMR cells for some time, and have seen no problems at all.



The IMR cells have less voltage sag under load, and most lamps are set up to run very hot off of regular Li-Ion cells for very white light already, so the little extra voltage from the IMRs can destroy them. This is -not- from my own observation, merely what I've seen from reports elsewhere on CPF. I think that others have reported instaflashing 1794 and 5761 bulbs on IMR cells. A quick search for information on the WA1111 only shows a considered estimate that it could be "borderline" on IMRs.

Voltage sag also varies with cell capacity/size, so the C IMRs may be too hot for some bulbs that will survive smaller IMR cells.

The IMR-9 will be a great option for many people, but I think that replacing the whole lamp assembly when the bulb goes would make me grumpy.

I've merely been researching options for myself before I lay out more dough -- I'm no expert on this topic, and would welcome corrections or suggestions on how to use the new IMR C's.


----------



## DM51 (Mar 7, 2009)

cernobila said:


> So, can I safely run lamps/bulbs such as EO-9, P91, FM1794, WA1111 and WA1185 in my lights by simply changing the cells from AW C Li-Ion to AW C IMR cells?.....and no, I don't want to change anything else.


Tirodani has given a good answer to your question above, although he quoted another post.

Any bulb that is over-driven on AW "C" Li-Ion cells will be over-driven even more on the IMR C-cells. As Tirodani says, the voltage sag is less with the IMRs, so the bulbs will be operating at a higher voltage. The WA1111 and FM1794 will be borderline, and even if they don't flash, their life will be shorter (and bear in mind WA1111 are $9 each).

The WA1185 and Phillips 5761 are 100% certain to flash, unless you use a soft-start.


----------



## cernobila (Mar 7, 2009)

DM51 said:


> Tirodani has given a good answer to your question above, although he quoted another post.
> 
> Any bulb that is over-driven on AW "C" Li-Ion cells will be over-driven even more on the IMR C-cells. As Tirodani says, the voltage sag is less with the IMRs, so the bulbs will be operating at a higher voltage. The WA1111 and FM1794 will be borderline, and even if they don't flash, their life will be shorter (and bear in mind WA1111 are $9 each).
> 
> The WA1185 and Phillips 5761 are 100% certain to flash, unless you use a soft-start.



So for my favourite bulbs this would mean.......good chance of flashing and if that does not happen than a shorter life anyway, with shorter run times as well.......I will treat my AW C Li-Ions with TLC so they will last as long as possible......


----------



## GarageBoy (Mar 7, 2009)

Why is everyone looking at IMRs like they're a downgrade. The lumens factory bulbs for IMR weren't designed so they wouldn't flash, but to be able to draw high currents off of them. This high current flow is also why they recommend that you use a twisty (the clicky won't take the beating)
Low internal resistance is a good thing


----------



## GreyShark (Mar 7, 2009)

I eagerly await the IMR C cells! There are plenty of bi-pin bulbs available that would go great in an IMR powered Maglite hotwire. The main concern for me is making sure everything else in the light can handle the power without melting. As far as being over voltage goes it used to be you had to decrease resistance to get a light to run good, now you have to slightly increase resistance to get it to run good. I don't think that should be too much of a problem.


----------



## cernobila (Mar 7, 2009)

GreyShark said:


> I eagerly await the IMR C cells! There are plenty of bi-pin bulbs available that would go great in an IMR powered Maglite hotwire. The main concern for me is making sure everything else in the light can handle the power without melting. As far as being over voltage goes it used to be you had to decrease resistance to get a light to run good, now you have to slightly increase resistance to get it to run good. I don't think that should be too much of a problem.



.....so now I am expecting to buy a bunch of new bulbs to replace all the ones that I have and most likely modify or replace switches to satisfy the IMR cells......then all I have to worry about is....."The main concern for me is making sure everything else in the light can handle the power without melting"......I can see how this is a great leap forward for those that already have great lights and just want to keep them going.

Simply put, why cant there be a choice.......well accepted protected Li-Ions, or IMRs.


----------



## ^^Nova^^ (Mar 7, 2009)

Increasing resistance within the light isn't necessarily the answer either. This will create more heat within the light that needs to be dealt with as well as reducing runtimes.

Myself, I think the C mag form factor is really nice, so I will be shooting for these lights when the IMR cells are released. My most used hotwire at the moment is my ROP low. This should rock on 2 IMR's, longer runtime than 6xAA in a smaller body (the ROP low bulb is pretty robust, can be run on 7xAA). ROP high will likely flash, it does on 6 sub-C cells hot off the charger and IMR's should deliver the same or more grunt.

3xIMR-C 1185 should be awesome too, although it seems it will need a soft start or driver for the bulb to survive.

Eagerly waiting the release of the cells to find out what is possible.

Cheers,
Nova


----------



## Benson (Mar 7, 2009)

cernobila said:


> .....so now I am expecting to buy a bunch of new bulbs to replace all the ones that I have and most likely modify or replace switches to satisfy the IMR cells......then all I have to worry about is....."The main concern for me is making sure everything else in the light can handle the power without melting"......I can see how this is a great leap forward for those that already have great lights and just want to keep them going.


That's one option, and maybe the best long-term, but as GreyShark suggested, you can run the same current through the same bulbs, switches, and everything, by adding resistance back in. There's still a downside to this (you get the loss in capacity without gaining extra performance), but it's not nearly as bad as having to go through and rebuild all your lights.

You could even make a 26x5mm wafer with resistors in it to make up the difference, and drop one of these in behind an IMR26500 to make it the same length _and_ current characteristics as an AW C, for use in AW C lights.



> Simply put, why cant there be a choice.......well accepted protected Li-Ions, or IMRs.


Simply put, because some manufacturer stole AW's tooling for the C cells, so he can't make any. Maybe at some point he'll be able to invest in producing them again, but that's the situation, same as it has been before the forthcoming IMR26500s.

Having IMR26500s only may not be a "great leap forward" vs. having only C cells, but it _is_ much better than having neither available, which is the current status.


----------



## Benson (Mar 7, 2009)

^^Nova^^ said:


> Increasing resistance within the light isn't necessarily the answer either. This will create more heat within the light that needs to be dealt with as well as reducing runtimes.


Not really; that same heat and runtime reduction happens due to the internal resistance of AW C cells, and the _total_ heat generated (and energy consumed) is less with the resistance than without it; although some power is used in the resistor, the power in the bulb decreases more. Of course, a PWMing voltage regulator is much better in a new or rebuilt light, but to keep _any_ existing light running, adding resistance will work, and can be done in the battery pack with no modification to the light.

Most (but not all) hotwire work to date seems to have been done by carefully matching bulbs to the voltage and internal resistance of battery packs, which always leads to problems when chemistry is changed; I'm really looking forward to the forthcoming batch of drivers which will allow much more flexibility, and remove the need to tune resistance (whether of the light, or internal to the battery) to get good results, and also to grant quite a degree of independence from battery pack voltage. This development, IMHO, is going to really make the IMR's high discharge-rate capability shine. But Li-ions, with their higher energy density, will still be around (gaining the same flexibility!) for low-rate applications.


----------



## donn_ (Mar 7, 2009)

cernobila...it appears nothing will reduce your grief over what appears to be the impending unobtainium status of protected Li-Ion C cells.

That said, if you absolutely refuse to upgrade your lights with soft-start and/or regulated switches, you have two options:

1. Go on a campaign collecting existing AW C cells, and treat them well, so they will last as long as possible.

Or...

2. Produce your own protected Li-Ion C cells. If AW was able to do it, anyone else can do it, too. If you think the market is big enough to enable you to recoup your financial outlay for their manufacture, go for it! 

My hunch is AW doesn't think there is enough potential market to justify the cash outlay required to replace what was lost in the collapse of the factory he previously used. Given his experience with this market, I'd be inclined to agree with him.


----------



## GreyShark (Mar 7, 2009)

cernobila said:


> .....so now I am expecting to buy a bunch of new bulbs to replace all the ones that I have and most likely modify or replace switches to satisfy the IMR cells......then all I have to worry about is....."The main concern for me is making sure everything else in the light can handle the power without melting"......I can see how this is a great leap forward for those that already have great lights and just want to keep them going.
> 
> Simply put, why cant there be a choice.......well accepted protected Li-Ions, or IMRs.



That would depend on which bulbs and hosts you have though. For instance I chose the WA1166 as my "low" bulb and it should do just fine on 3 IMR C cells. I would guess the Pelican 3854's would be okay on 2 cells. That would be one compact ROP and probably even cheaper and easier to build because it wouldn't need battery holders.

Mag hosts are so cheap that even if you had different sized bodies than these it's all of $15 or $20 to make the necessary changes and they should hold any existing Mag upgrades like aluminum reflectors and borofloat lenses or AW soft starts which is where the real money is. Then when you've burned through your existing bulb stash you'll be pre-adapted to explore a whole new world of performance.

Right now I'm putting together a 4C Mag host. I think this one will be really great because its 200mm battery tube is very versatile. 3x 18650 to run your WA1185's, 5 or 6 16340's if you really want to up the voltage, 4x 18500's or the upcoming 26500's to take it back down a notch and of course plain old C primaries. Sure, a WA1185 on 3x 18650 isn't going to be quite the same thing as a WA1185 on 3x AW protected C cells but it'll still be a very good setup. Run this for normal use and save your protected C's for special occasions, thereby extending your time on earth with them.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 8, 2009)

donn_ said:


> cernobila...it appears nothing will reduce your grief over what appears to be the impending unobtainium status of protected Li-Ion C cells.
> 
> That said, if you absolutely refuse to upgrade your lights with soft-start and/or regulated switches, you have two options:
> 
> ...



+1

Just pretend that AW never made the C Li-Ion. Everyone would adapt what was available, making necessary choices.


----------



## cernobila (Mar 8, 2009)

donn_ said:


> If you think the market is big enough to enable you to recoup your financial outlay for their manufacture, go for it!
> 
> My hunch is AW doesn't think there is enough potential market to justify the cash outlay required to replace what was lost in the collapse of the factory he previously used. Given his experience with this market, I'd be inclined to agree with him.



I am not a businessman or do I have any firm facts or data to prove anything I am about to say, but I have worked in a manufacturing business that allows me to have an opinion, only AW could agree or disagree with my comments.

Any product has start-up costs involved that someone has to pay and so it was and is with both, Li-Ions and IMRs. AW has made a decision to start the IMRs rather than re-start the Li-Ions. Looks like he doesn’t want to produce both.

Its not easy to estimate the demand for either style of cell now or in the future, but judging from the past I would have thought that the demand for the C Li-Ions was quite steady and proven from the various threads here, with customers lining up for the next batch to satisfy their Mags, BigLeefs and FMs. It would be interesting to see a survey or a vote to find out the demand for both, the C Li-Ions and C IMRs.

And yes, I will adapt to what ever is available when the time will come to replace my own C cells, as will most others that are in the same situation.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 8, 2009)

Don't get me wrong, I feel your pain and also have a high value index on AW's C Li-Ion's, and would like to see them ongoingly.

I believe there are tremendous financial pressures on China, with many failed "botique businesses" resulting in an emphasis on easy to make, "crank out what's in the pipeline" type scenario. There is also a general movement away from Lithium Cobalt after the worldwide safety recalls that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to replace. Companies are just not going to take chances on something with a riskier track record.

It may not be as easy as it seems for AW to line up all the resources from design to production if his working relationships are no longer in business. I would not expect this to change until years from now when the recession has eased, and more money is being thrown around.


----------



## cernobila (Mar 9, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Don't get me wrong, I feel your pain and also have a high value index on AW's C Li-Ion's, and would like to see them ongoingly.
> 
> I believe there are tremendous financial pressures on China, with many failed "botique businesses" resulting in an emphasis on easy to make, "crank out what's in the pipeline" type scenario. There is also a general movement away from Lithium Cobalt after the worldwide safety recalls that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to replace. Companies are just not going to take chances on something with a riskier track record.
> 
> It may not be as easy as it seems for AW to line up all the resources from design to production if his working relationships are no longer in business. I would not expect this to change until years from now when the recession has eased, and more money is being thrown around.



I take your point Lux, I would like to see some firm data that will show the statistics regarding accidents with the various cell types in relation to the market saturation.....personally I heard of only one case that included Li-Po cells that were used to operate a electric powered model glider, the battery was on a car seat while being charged when it exploded creating a hole in the roof of the car.

......perhaps the IMR cells are much cheaper to manufacture than the Li-Ion cells and this may be one of the reasons for the decision to go in that direction.


----------



## Alan B (Mar 9, 2009)

Anyone using the KD unprotected C cells in lieu of the AW units?


----------



## Kestrel (Mar 9, 2009)

cernobila said:


> ... perhaps the IMR cells are much cheaper to manufacture than the Li-Ion cells and this may be one of the reasons for the decision to go in that direction.


IIRC I did read somewhere in CPF (can't recall which thread exactly) that AW expects that the IMR C cells will be ~30% cheaper, FWIW.


----------



## cernobila (Mar 9, 2009)

Kestrel said:


> IIRC I did read somewhere in CPF (can't recall which thread exactly) that AW expects that the IMR C cells will be ~30% cheaper, FWIW.



If it is true, from the dealers point of view this would actually make some sense. Being cheaper to make and perhaps having cheaper start-up/re-start costs may have been the main reason to go in this direction in comparison to the Li-Ion cells.

From my personal point of view and requirement, I have decided to concentrate any future cell purchases to either one of the newer larger capacity 18650 protected Li-Ion and/or the protected D Li-Ion cells.......luckily I wont need to do this for a while.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 9, 2009)

cernobila said:


> ...personally I heard of only one case that included Li-Po cells that were used to operate a electric powered model glider, the battery was on a car seat while being charged when it exploded creating a hole in the roof of the car.



These are the type of comments that continue to truly shock me from existing members. There have been so many threads and incidents here at CPF and RC Groups forum, it amazes me to see five year CPF members who have not heard about them.



https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/161549


http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209187 (Note Post #4)


http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719116


http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=106242&highlight=explosion&page=2 (Note Newbies list of recalls starting in post #89)


----------



## Kestrel (Mar 10, 2009)

Kestrel said:


> IIRC I did read somewhere in CPF (can't recall which thread exactly) that AW expects that the IMR C cells will be ~30% cheaper, FWIW.





cernobila said:


> If it is true, from the dealers point of view this would actually make some sense. Being cheaper to make and perhaps having cheaper start-up/re-start costs may have been the main reason to go in this direction in comparison to the Li-Ion cells.


Here we go:
http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?p=2273509


KiwiMark said:


> Do you have an idea of the price yet for the 26500 [IMR] cells?





AW said:


> KiwiMark : Don't have a firm price yet but they 'll be about 30% cheaper than the protected C cells.


----------



## cernobila (Mar 10, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> These are the type of comments that continue to truly shock me from existing members. There have been so many threads and incidents here at CPF and RC Groups forum, it amazes me to see five year CPF members who have not heard about them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for that info Lux,

Had a quick read through most of the links above and noticed that a few points kept coming up.

Most cells were Li-Po's and were charged in series/groups

Most problems were with adjustable chargers (wrong settings)

The recalled Li-Ion's were a manufacturing fault

The information is over two years old, perhaps there have been some technical and safety improvements since then


For the typical set-up most of us have, consisting of; single protected Li-Ion cells, charged on preset chargers designed only for these cells such as the WF-139, Pila, WE and others, measuring the cells before and after charging, just to make sure......

For me personally, as long as I use common sense and follow basic steps, I am not at all concerned using the protected Li-Ion cells......There is the potential for any such component to fail if human error is involved, even with the A123 cells which are considered very safe.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 11, 2009)

cernobila said:


> Thank you for that info Lux,
> 
> Had a quick read through most of the links above and noticed that a few points kept coming up.
> 
> ...



I think you are correct on all points. I was just reacting to the sentence I quoted, that you only were aware of the one incident. I'm also ongoingly amazed at how many current CPF members don't know much about Li-Ion's at all. Unlike primary cells, there is a reason that you still cannot buy Lithium Cobalt Ion cells at retail stores, whether protected or not. 

I'm not worried about my own use of protected (or unprotected in some circumstances) Li-Ion cells either. I'm worried about those who don't know how to properly care for them to minimize their risks. My test is whether I would send a flashlight using AW Li-Ion's to a friend or family member and feel comfortable that everything will work out for them, knowing their motivation & interests. I only have a few people who fit into that category, and they would be interested in being trained on proper use, and follow the guidelines.


----------



## Benson (Mar 11, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I think you are correct on all points. I was just reacting to the sentence I quoted, that you only were aware of the one incident. I'm also ongoingly amazed at how many current CPF members don't know much about Li-Ion's at all. Unlike primary cells, there is a reason that you still cannot buy Lithium Cobalt Ion cells at retail stores, whether protected or not.


I'm sure there's more than one reason, and safety issues probably do contribute to the decisions not to carry them, but I'm inclined to blame demand as a bigger factor.

If you consider shelf-space as a reasonable surrogate for (anticipated) demand, compare 1.5V primaries (Li/KOH) vs. rechargeables (NiMH/NiCd) in your typical retail outlet. From what I've seen, it's at least 5:1, and usually 10:1. Then, there are 3V Li primaries -- much less shelf space than even the rechargeables, indicating still lower demand for them (at least at typical retail prices! ).

Now figuring that almost entirely compatible (and non-harmful where incompatible) rechargeables have 1/5 to 1/10th the demand, and RCR123s and RCR2s are _less_ compatible, and so probably have even less than 1/10th the demand, it's hard to think the demand would justify stocking these.

I think if the demand _was_ there, on a level with NiMH, we would see some stores selling at least RCR123 cells (protected, of course). After all, they do sell CR123 primaries, with no more severe or obvious warnings than "normal" batteries, and these have quite serious safety implications when abused, too. These would be name-brand cells, not random Chinese manufacturers, and there would be name-brand Li-ion chargers sold next to them, giving better reliability than some cheap cells, and proper manufacturer liability for actual manufacturing defects.

As for (the original topic of the thread) Li-ion C cells (or any other cell that can be crammed into a space meant for KOH cells), it's rather less likely they'd stock those -- because damaging equipment (and starting fires, etc.) by plain old it-fits-so-it-should-work stupidity would be a _lot_ more prevalent than real Li-ion battery issues.


----------



## cernobila (Mar 11, 2009)

Benson said:


> I'm sure there's more than one reason, and safety issues probably do contribute to the decisions not to carry them, but I'm inclined to blame demand as a bigger factor.
> 
> If you consider shelf-space as a reasonable surrogate for (anticipated) demand, compare 1.5V primaries (Li/KOH) vs. rechargeables (NiMH/NiCd) in your typical retail outlet. From what I've seen, it's at least 5:1, and usually 10:1. Then, there are 3V Li primaries -- much less shelf space than even the rechargeables, indicating still lower demand for them (at least at typical retail prices! ).
> 
> ...



Availability and demand, a couple of good point here.

Perhaps we could split this into three groups.

Retail stores; for supply of all non-rechargeable cells and all of the 1.2V rechargeable cells.

Retail and on-line; there could be many that overlap but I am thinking of the original two companies that have provided us with what is now quite standard here, the 18500/18650 protected Li-Ion cells.......Pila and Wolf-Eyes have been selling these in their packaged kits just like the phone companies have for a long time and I don't think that there have been too many incidents that would give either company any reason to worry.....Pila and WE are still selling their kits without any problems and I am sure they have the supply/demand situation all worked out.

On-line only; this would include the AW range of cells as well as A123's, IMR's and many others. These are the tricky ones to judge as far as supply/demand is concerned. I will comment only on the C Li-Ion cells, as these are the subject here.....From what I could work out, the demand for these cells have always been greater than the supply with a number of gaps where customers had to wait for the next shipment. I should imagine that AW had no problem selling what ever he could get his hands on......Members started to customise their Maglites, later Leef introduced the BigLeef kits and only recently Fivemega introduced his C bodies. All the indications I could see were that the C cells were popular with steady growth and the CPF market supported them.

I truly believe that if AW did not loose his die and was able to continue manufacturing the C cells as before without any significant unexpected expenditure, these cells would have become a bit hit here on CPF.......but we have to move on.


----------



## wildstar87 (Mar 18, 2009)

cernobila said:


> I will comment only on the C Li-Ion cells, as these are the subject here.....From what I could work out, the demand for these cells have always been greater than the supply with a number of gaps where customers had to wait for the next shipment. I should imagine that AW had no problem selling what ever he could get his hands on......Members started to customise their Maglites, later Leef introduced the BigLeef kits and only recently Fivemega introduced his C bodies. All the indications I could see were that the C cells were popular with steady growth and the CPF market supported them.
> 
> I truly believe that if AW did not loose his die and was able to continue manufacturing the C cells as before without any significant unexpected expenditure, these cells would have become a bit hit here on CPF.......but we have to move on.


 
Which makes me wonder why he can't make another prototype die made. There is an obvious market here, and much more than when he originally sunk the money into making the first one, though of course there may be reasons that I'm not seeing (not being him) that are coming into play here. He basically has many guaranteed sales, and almost no competition, unless someone else is making a C-size protected Li-ion cell that is out there, and no one here has found it (seems unlikely given what CPFers seem to dig up). I know he has every right to make whatever decisions he wants to, it's his business, but being selfish here.. I have a light that was made for this, and I want the capacity dammit!!


----------



## Kestrel (Apr 14, 2009)

Bump for a good thread, I learned a lot from the posts here. Still running an interim solution, there doesn't yet seem to be the 'perfect' C cell.

For the folks who haven't noticed, I see that as of today, AW IMR 26500's are now for sale, $15.00 each. Happy ing.


----------



## Wattnot (Apr 25, 2009)

Kestrel said:


> Bump for a good thread, I learned a lot from the posts here. Still running an interim solution, there doesn't yet seem to be the 'perfect' C cell.
> 
> For the folks who haven't noticed, I see that as of today, AW IMR 26500's are now for sale, $15.00 each. Happy ing.


 
Yeah but now there's a thread where people are talking about having to bore out their C Mag to get the AW IMR 26500 cells to fit so I guess they're fatter? That and they're 1000ma lower capacity? Any word on any possible resumption of the original AW C cells? Can we send a spec ops team in there to get the dies? Or maybe take up a collection to help AW make a new one?


----------



## cernobila (Apr 25, 2009)

Wattnot said:


> Yeah but now there's a thread where people are talking about having to bore out their C Mag to get the AW IMR 26500 cells to fit so I guess they're fatter? That and they're 1000ma lower capacity? Any word on any possible resumption of the original AW C cells? Can we send a spec ops team in there to get the dies? Or maybe take up a collection to help AW make a new one?



The fact that these IMR cells are bigger by just enough to give people a headache, that they do not have a clear button top and magnets "may" have to be used in certain cases.......and the fact that they are lower capacity.........well, I think I will stick with my existing 18650's until something like the old AW C's will come along again.


----------



## ElectronGuru (Apr 25, 2009)

They do have button tops, its just recessed/protected:





​


----------



## cernobila (Apr 25, 2009)

ElectronGuru said:


> They do have button tops, its just recessed/protected:



Did you try and run these two or three at a time? Just wondering if you will need magnets for contact……If they are a snug/tight fit, the plastic sleeve may not "give" very much to allow a good contact between the cells.


----------



## Benson (Apr 26, 2009)

cernobila said:


> Did you try and run these two or three at a time? Just wondering if you will need magnets for contact……If they are a snug/tight fit, the plastic sleeve may not "give" very much to allow a good contact between the cells.


AW said they would compress to give good contact under a Mag spring... but I thought he also said they'd fit in stock C Mags, and it seems they mostly don't. :sigh:

Oh well, makes me glad I didn't wait for them to show up -- then I'd be _really_ disappointed.


----------



## ElectronGuru (Apr 26, 2009)

cernobila said:


> Did you try and run these two or three at a time? Just wondering if you will need magnets for contact……If they are a snug/tight fit, the plastic sleeve may not "give" very much to allow a good contact between the cells.



I havn't run three yet, but two at a time is fine. Even getting the Mag C tailcap on pushes the cells in enough to make contact, never mind tightening it down. The only issue so far is getting them out. Were they half a millimeter narrower, these cells would be beyond ideal.


----------



## LIGHTSMAD (Apr 26, 2009)

were can i buy two sleves for my 2C MAG61 and my 2C MAG60 so i can use 2X18650's???


----------



## Wattnot (Apr 26, 2009)

LIGHTSMAD said:


> were can i buy two sleves for my 2C MAG61 and my 2C MAG60 so i can use 2X18650's???


 
I bought some PVC pipe at Home Depot. I believe it was 3/4 but I'm not sure. Some sanding might be required. If you use 18650s you'll need to invert and cut the spring or otherwise modify the tailcap to make contact to the bottom of the battery w/o the spring installed because of the tight fit. 

I used an old Surefire P60 module spring that I cut and bent and inserted IN the tailcap so that the battery goes down into the cap. Picture the bottom of the battery going into the spring. It worked okay.


----------



## Greg G (May 11, 2009)

Re: AW C Li-Ion cells, what will you replace them with?

I'll tell you what with. With FiveMega battery carriers and Eneloops. I only own one C [email protected], and I'll just sell it if I have to. 

I can't afford to replace all of my C cells with new IMR's. Sorry, but I just don't see the logic in investing a lot of money into batteries for all my lights that might not be on the market a year from now when I have one go bad and need a replacement, like I have right now with a protected C cell that died prematurely.


----------



## Kestrel (May 11, 2009)

It does look like most folks are going the IMR 26500 route with their existing bodies, I was lucky to still be in the process of adding to my C-cell body when the LiIon C's were discontinued. I was able to just go with a boost circuit instead of the planned buck circuit, so it was easy to just go with with Alkaline / NiMH C's. Yes, I've got less overall stored energy, but at least I'm covered for future supply in the same way that Greg G mentions.


----------



## wildstar87 (May 11, 2009)

I guess I'm going to stick with 18650s as well. I have a Mag C cutdown that will work with both. IMR 26500 looks like it proabably wouldn't work without modification. I really wonder why AW isn't commenting on this thread. I for one would like to know the specific reasons why he couldn't get this back into production.


----------



## LIGHTSMAD (May 11, 2009)

wildstar87 said:


> I guess I'm going to stick with 18650s as well. I have a Mag C cutdown that will work with both. IMR 26500 looks like it proabably wouldn't work without modification. I really wonder why AW isn't commenting on this thread. I for one would like to know the specific reasons why he couldn't get this back into production.


 
i think if he could have made them any better for our needs he would have done so.......maybe it was not possible for him to do......what a shame:shakehead


----------



## ElectronGuru (May 15, 2009)

If I may summarize a bit:


1) Part of the problem here is one of timing. Black label C's disappeared just as the Orange label C's arrived. The feeling is one of replacement (see thread title), so we are reacting like this was planned. This is a coincidence, IMRs have been in development for years. AW is not a very talkative fellow, but he has provided his official "cause of death" and has gone so far as to share his alternatives:



AW said:


> I can make the 26mm protected C cell but it won't fit a Mag C because it 'll measure at least 26.5mm in diameter. Even with a 26mm cell, it will be a tight fit.



He doesn't specify length, but it seems to me, the solutions we are developing to accommodate IMR26500's will also work for AW27500's - and at the same cost.


2) Solutions for 'whats next' are evolving in two directions, 

*NiMH/Alk...*

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/231533


*...and IMR*

I've blown more bulbs in the last month than the previous 24 months combined. I'm starting to feel like Lux, without all the cool data. But all this testing hasn't gone to waste. Maximizing output while avoiding poof is a game of voltage adjustment, finding a bulb for the orange C that is one to two volts higher in rating than the ideal for the black C. A few examples:

2-cells
6.0v 3854 high poofs, so get the 7.2v 3853 high <- outstanding (and stupid simple) configuration
6.0v WA 1111 poofs, so get the 7.2v WA 1274

3-cells
9.6v WA 1185 poofs, so get the 11.6 WA 1166​
For incans, its just not a big deal once you know the formula and find the right bulb. You give up some capacity and gain safety + higher continuous output without regulation, and cells costs less. For LEDs, most of these are still advantages. We would only be left out to dry had we not had the IMR replacements.

The only big loss here is the form factor adjustments, the shorten/re-threaded Mags, the extenders, the bored out tailcaps, the FM bodies. Seems to me, the best way to cut such losses is to sell these configurations to people with existing black cells stocks or the willingness to continue the modification trail. 

In any case, lets move on.


----------



## Kestrel (May 18, 2009)

ElectronGuru said:


> I've blown more bulbs in the last month than the previous 24 months combined. I'm starting to feel like Lux, without all the cool data.


----------



## cernobila (May 18, 2009)

ElectronGuru said:


> If I may summarize a bit:
> 
> For incans, its just not a big deal once you know the formula and find the right bulb. You give up some capacity and gain safety + higher continuous output without regulation, and cells costs less. For LEDs, most of these are still advantages. We would only be left out to dry had we not had the IMR replacements.
> 
> ...



I agree, lets move on........the question was, "to what?" From my own personal point of view, (I am well set up for the "black" cells with bodies, lamps, cells etc.) it would have been a big deal if I would have to change to the "orange" cells.........get all bodies rebored to fit the new ones.....experiment and purchase a bunch of new lamps/bulbs......and perhaps even figure out if I would still need new switches as well.

Again for me........too much cost and too much hassle, for my kind of use I don't need the orange cells at all so I will stick with the 18650 protected cells in my working lights, look after my existing supply of black C's and worry about what to do only once they have all been worn out.

And on the point of selling all the bodies designed for the black C's......I doubt that anybody would even consider buying them unless they were practically given away.


----------



## Kestrel (May 18, 2009)

cernobila said:


> And on the point of selling all the bodies designed for the black C's......I doubt that anybody would even consider buying them unless they were practically given away.


:mecry:They can still be made to be excellent performers (as long it's not incan) with C-NiMH or even C-Alkaline _<cough cough>_ with the right configuration, I would still buy one. In addition, 2.5" SureFire Turboheads just look better on C-cell bodies than on CR-123 bodies.


----------



## cernobila (May 18, 2009)

Kestrel said:


> :mecry:They can still be made to be excellent performers (as long it's not incan) with C-NiMH or even C-Alkaline _<cough cough>_ with the right configuration, I would still buy one. In addition, 2.5" SureFire Turboheads just look better on C-cell bodies than on CR-123 bodies.



Yes, I am already using two BigLeef 3xC bodies with M30's and 3xC Alkalines (my wife has one on her bed table) works a treat........but not sure what to do with my 1xC and 2xC FM bodies.......not to mention my 2xC Maglite and 2xC FM Prince.........Time will find the answer.


----------



## Kestrel (May 18, 2009)

cernobila said:


> Yes, I am already using two BigLeef 3xC bodies with M30's and 3xC Alkalines (my wife has one on her bed table) works a treat........but not sure what to do with my 1xC and 2xC FM bodies.......not to mention my 2xC Maglite and 2xC FM Prince.........Time will find the answer.


The M30 w/ 3xC is a decent configuration, but I just posted some output / runtime numbers for my 2xC Alkaline configuration in my thread...

I have a machinist friend thinking of building a 4xC body for his M30. A 280 lumen club.:devil:

Regarding your FM 1xC, I will hopefully put together a C-sized spacer so I can get some 1xC Alkaline beamshot comparisons this week.


----------



## Tirodani (May 18, 2009)

I have an FM 2C. I went the KD unprotected C route, myself... so I'm babysitting the charger and being conservative with how long I run the light. It's not ideal. It also sucks that I've got a couple of (to me) unusable IMR's sitting in the fridge. Feel free to make an offer.

On the plus side, I've finally got my light up and running with a 5761 in a Cabela's mini turbo head. It has some pretty remarkable output for its size (I can hardly think of one smaller, brighter light; arguably the Megalennium, shorter and fatter). There are some issues (besides the batteries) that I need to iron out though -- I'll post more detail when I've done that.


----------



## cernobila (May 18, 2009)

Tirodani said:


> I have an FM 2C. I went the KD unprotected C route, myself... so I'm babysitting the charger and being conservative with how long I run the light. It's not ideal. It also sucks that I've got a couple of (to me) unusable IMR's sitting in the fridge. Feel free to make an offer.
> 
> On the plus side, I've finally got my light up and running with a 5761 in a Cabela's mini turbo head. It has some pretty remarkable output for its size (I can hardly think of one smaller, brighter light; arguably the Megalennium, shorter and fatter). There are some issues (besides the batteries) that I need to iron out though -- I'll post more detail when I've done that.



The unprotected C option is one I kept in the background as a last resort.....only if all else is not ideal, I don't like to worry about charge times or more importantly, discharge times.......I like the 5761 but only use it in my 2xD Mag with 2x Kai D cells.


----------



## wildstar87 (May 21, 2009)

I know it's nowhere near a direct replacement, but this cell looks interesting. I wonder what it's voltage would be at full charge? Wouldn't be really able to use it DD on an LED, but looks like it would probably handle a boost circuit fine. The capacity is nice, but the length could be problematic on some builds.

http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2385


----------



## cernobila (May 21, 2009)

wildstar87 said:


> I know it's nowhere near a direct replacement, but this cell looks interesting. I wonder what it's voltage would be at full charge? Wouldn't be really able to use it DD on an LED, but looks like it would probably handle a boost circuit fine. The capacity is nice, but the length could be problematic on some builds.
> 
> http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2385



If the measurements are correct then they are a tad too wide and you would have the same problem as with the IMR26500 cells in not fitting most C bodies without some sanding work. The length could be overcome by using the next length up and inserting a home made dummy cell.

.......actually, I am looking forward to the "new" AW 18650 Li-Ion 2600mAh cells, these will be more competitive with all the other high capacity cells already in use. I have plenty of 18650 based "stuff" so it is much easier if I stick with this format.


----------



## LIGHTSMAD (May 22, 2009)

would the new 2600mah AW18650's be ok running a 2C MAG61 or will they be over stressed like the 2200mah AW18650's......the 5761 bulb pulls 5.0A-5.5A


----------



## cernobila (May 22, 2009)

LIGHTSMAD said:


> would the new 2600mah AW18650's be ok running a 2C MAG61 or will they be over stressed like the 2200mah AW18650's......the 5761 bulb pulls 5.0A-5.5A



Not sure, we will let AW let us know........the 5761 is one bulb I keep only for my 2x Kai D cells......most of the others I have used with the AW 18650's without any problems.


----------



## lctorana (Jul 22, 2009)

A well known online store that I dare not name has just introduced a "_Protected 25500 3.7V "5500mAh" Rechargeable Lithium Battery_" which they claim has 3500mAh true capacity. SKU 26799

The stated dimentions translate to 54.1mm long x 25.9mm diameter, so *if the cells are any good*, will be a DIRECT replacement for the beloved AW "C" cells, at least at moderate discharge rates.

Just a thought.


----------



## cernobila (Jul 22, 2009)

lctorana said:


> A well known online store that I dare not name has just introduced a "_Protected 25500 3.7V "5500mAh" Rechargeable Lithium Battery_" which they claim has 3500mAh true capacity. SKU 26799
> 
> The stated dimentions translate to 54.1mm long x 25.9mm diameter, so *if the cells are any good*, will be a DIRECT replacement for the beloved AW "C" cells, at least at moderate discharge rates.
> 
> Just a thought.



Thanks for the heads up.......and the price is great as well, as I only use bulbs/lamps that run on the AW Li-Ion 18650's anyway, these could be the answer to replacing the black AW C's. Could start using my FM C Prince again......good news........Now, who is going to show us some performance graphs of this cell?


----------



## DHart (Jul 22, 2009)

lctorana said:


> A well known online store that I dare not name has just introduced a "_Protected 25500 3.7V "5500mAh" Rechargeable Lithium Battery_" which they claim has 3500mAh true capacity. SKU 26799
> 
> The stated dimentions translate to 54.1mm long x 25.9mm diameter, so *if the cells are any good*, will be a DIRECT replacement for the beloved AW "C" cells, at least at moderate discharge rates.
> 
> Just a thought.



WOW. Thank you for the head's up. My never used FiveMega Cx2 body might actually get dusted off!


----------



## cernobila (Jul 22, 2009)

Curiosity got the better of me so I ordered two of these cells. I will use my FM 2xC Prince as a guinea pig and put these cells through their paces with the WA1111 bulb, may even run the WA1160 in the Prince to see if the whole thing works.......


----------



## DHart (Jul 23, 2009)

Me too... I just ordered a couple of them. To be able to drive my Malkoff M60 head on the FM 2xC body with these two cells should be really awesome!


----------



## cernobila (Aug 17, 2009)

cernobila said:


> Curiosity got the better of me so I ordered two of these cells. I will use my FM 2xC Prince as a guinea pig and put these cells through their paces with the WA1111 bulb, may even run the WA1160 in the Prince to see if the whole thing works.......



Well I got the cells and did some testing, see below thread;

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/239566


----------



## ElectronGuru (Nov 12, 2009)

This just in...

A 65mm (4500mah) version of the venerable Black C cell is now on the drawing board:

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?p=2388698#post2388698


*Interest is required to make it a reality!*


----------



## Patriot (Nov 13, 2009)

ElectronGuru said:


> This just in...
> 
> A 65mm (4500mah) version of the venerable Black C cell is now on the drawing board:
> 
> ...





This could be very interesting. I sure love the capacity of the cobalt cells.


----------



## cernobila (Nov 13, 2009)

ElectronGuru said:


> This just in...
> 
> A 65mm (4500mah) version of the venerable Black C cell is now on the drawing board:
> 
> ...



I had a look at these.......they are great......but what will I feed my FM Prince, no extension tubes for this one......would have loved to see the old size make a comeback.


----------



## ampdude (Nov 13, 2009)

Haven't any of you guys heard of the IMR26500's?


----------



## cernobila (Nov 13, 2009)

ampdude said:


> Haven't any of you guys heard of the IMR26500's?



Yes we have......speaking for myself, they don't fit any of my lights without boring, the capacity is less than my AW 18650 2.6A cells and they instaflash many of my traditional bulbs that I have in good supply......


----------



## ampdude (Nov 13, 2009)

Oh, sorry to hear that about your bulbs. I really like the IMR's.

The capacity of my IMR16340's are higher than the AW RCR123a's they replaced. I also saw a boost with the IMR18500's, compared to the AW P18500's I was using previously.

The IMR cells don't have a protection circuit, so in my experience they are generally smaller and fit into everything, unlike the protected lithium cobalt cells. The Maglites must be an exception to some folks.


----------



## cernobila (Nov 13, 2009)

ElectronGuru said:


> This just in...
> 
> A 65mm (4500mah) version of the venerable Black C cell is now on the drawing board:
> 
> ...



....and another thing, how will we charge these?......I can charge my old black AW C cells using the Pila IBC charger in the C size holders.......

Don't understand why inventing something new when the old worked perfectly. There are plenty of lights and bodies out there made for the old black cells as well as established ways of charging.

For the 26650's, again new bodies, extenders, charging systems etc.....ah well.


----------



## ampdude (Nov 13, 2009)

What size is the 26650? Even longer than the old black cells?

I thought the 26500 was the exact same length as a C battery and the old black lithium-cobalt cells I remember were a little longer, which required a small extender on 2 and 3 cell maglites..


----------



## cernobila (Nov 13, 2009)

ampdude said:


> What size is the 26650? Even longer than the old black cells?
> 
> I thought the 26500 was the exact same length as a C battery and the old black lithium-cobalt cells I remember were a little longer, which required a small extender on 2 and 3 cell maglites..



I am guessing that the individual cells would be about 12mm longer than the old black cells, that means 36mm longer than three of the old cells, that is about 1.4".


----------



## Benson (Nov 13, 2009)

cernobila said:


> Don't understand why inventing something new when the old worked perfectly.



The old ones didn't work perfectly. "Perfect" for a battery is infinite power density and infinite energy density.

The IMRs have greater power density, so in that respect the IMR26500 is more nearly perfect than the old ones. That obviously doesn't help some lights, but it just as obviously _does_ help some other lights.

The new 26650s aren't inventing something new -- they're using an industry standard (and so probably not needing custom tooling) size. And it's worth noting that they'll almost certainly have a significant increase in energy density.

As for what happened to the old ones, it's an old story by now -- tooling stolen, remember? Nothing to do with whether or not something new (IMRs) were invented. And replacing that tooling is probably pretty expensive compared to having new cells produced in a standard size, so the 26650s are financially viable.



Yeah, it sucks if you've invested in a custom battery size and it's discontinued for _any_ reason. But that doesn't mean there's something irrational about the situation, and it certainly doesn't mean that every future development other than reintroduction of that custom size is bad.


----------



## ampdude (Nov 13, 2009)

I just think the IMR's are the way to go. I don't know why anyone would want to go back to the old dangerous black lithium cobalt cells that don't offer any advantage.


----------



## gswitter (Nov 13, 2009)

I'd be psyched to see the new P26650's. A 35% increase in capacity (over the "C"s) in a size that's still usable with a stock Mag body (3x in a 4C, 4x in a 5C with an existing FM tailcap) would be fine with me.

Provided proper care is taken while charging LiCo's, I still prefer protected LiCo's to unprotected LiMn's, especially in multi-cell set-ups. Most of my application for these cells require stock and custom pieces from various sources (with various tolerances), and the possibility of an inadvertent dead short is all too real - even when I'm careful. I like the protection I get from protection circuits.


----------



## mudman cj (Nov 13, 2009)

gswitter said:


> Provided proper care is taken while charging LiCo's, I still prefer protected LiCo's to unprotected LiMn's, especially in multi-cell set-ups. Most of my application for these cells require stock and custom pieces from various sources (with various tolerances), and the possibility of an inadvertent dead short is all too real - even when I'm careful. I like the protection I get from protection circuits.



+1

Also, the added capacity from LiCo cells is welcome, is it not? This is one obvious reason for preferring LiCo. And there are others. I recently picked up an extra pair of AW black label C cells as a backup for my user set because I can run the WA01111 on two LiCo cells, but two IMR cells would . And while my 2C mag 1111 setup runs fine on the blue label C cells that are now out, my M6 with short tail cup accommodates AW black label C cells but not the blue label ones.


----------



## ElectronGuru (Nov 13, 2009)

ampdude said:


> I don't know why anyone would want to go back to the old dangerous black lithium cobalt cells that don't offer any advantage.



Another way to think of these cells is as wider version of the 18650/2600. So the answer is the same as to why anyone would want an 18650/2600 vs an IMR18650.


----------



## Kestrel (Nov 13, 2009)

Benson said:


> The IMRs have greater power density [...] That obviously doesn't help some lights, but it just as obviously _does_ help some other lights.
> 
> The new 26650s aren't inventing something new -- they're using an industry standard (and so probably not needing custom tooling) size. And it's worth noting that they'll almost certainly have a significant increase in energy density.
> 
> As for what happened to the old ones, it's an old story by now -- tooling stolen, remember? Nothing to do with whether or not something new (IMRs) were invented. And replacing that tooling is probably pretty expensive compared to having new cells produced in a standard size, so the 26650s are financially viable.


Very good points. :thumbsup:


----------



## cernobila (Nov 13, 2009)

After a bit more reading I realised that these proposed new cells may not even fit inside regular C bodies and boring may again be required. I have a feeling that once the niche market has been satisfied, the sales would slow right down to a trickle......the first batch may sell but after that, there may not be enough demand for a second.......as was mentioned elsewhere, AW could consider a D size cell that would fit existing D based lights, these I would be interested in.


----------



## Kestrel (Nov 13, 2009)

cernobila said:


> I have a feeling that once the niche market has been satisfied, the sales would slow right down to a trickle......the first batch may sell but after that, there may not be enough demand for a second.


There would definitely be more continuing demand for a 26500 wouldn't there? I like the fact that the 'standard' size (25.5 mm diameter, 50 mm length) (i.e 'standard' with respect to the flashlight market, that is) interchanges with C Alkaline & C NiMH (the total number of hosts compatible with that size/length out there is huge), whereas once a LiIon 26650 completes filling its niche, that's it. Unfortunately the tooling for the 26650 is probably pretty standardized over there, as Benson says. :shrug:


----------



## Aircraft800 (Nov 13, 2009)

I'm all in for a direct replacement for the *old black cells*.

I'd even like to see a direct "C" battery replacement, a 25500 if the capacity would remain at or greater than 3500mAh.


----------



## QtrHorse (Nov 14, 2009)

ampdude said:


> I just think the IMR's are the way to go. I don't know why anyone would want to go back to the old dangerous black lithium cobalt cells that don't offer any advantage.


 
The new IMR AW C cells have a lower capacity compared to the old black label C cells. They are also wider and do not fit in the majority of the the lights that accepted the old C cells. 

The new 26650 cells will have almost doulbe the capacity of the IMR cells. I would like that feature if I'm trying to power a low amp LED on one cell.

The reason the old black labels cells are no longer offered is because the company that AW was purchasing them from went under when the economy went south. 

He would have to get a new mold/ tooling made and the initial cost is sometimes quite expensive. It is much cheaper to use existing molds/ tooling and fit his design into that.


----------



## cernobila (Nov 14, 2009)

Firstly I must say that I respect AW's work and customer service, I have a draw full of his assorted Li-Ion cells and only use these in all my lights......Having said that, I think AW can go two ways.......

Take the cheap route, save himself the initial cost to a certain degree and make something that suits production but not the general customer. This will sell only to those that are die-hards here and are prepared to spend money on changing/upgrading to suit the new cells.

Or take the initially more costly route, but the one that provides something that suits the majority of customers. I believe that this approach would more likely yield long term stability and higher consistent sales.


----------



## Aircraft800 (Dec 1, 2009)

Is there a Safe Chemistry direct replacement C cell (Without boring tube or longer length)?


----------



## ampdude (Dec 1, 2009)

I think the IMR26500's are about as close as you'll get right now.


----------



## Benson (Dec 1, 2009)

Aircraft800 said:


> Is there a Safe Chemistry direct replacement C cell (Without boring tube or longer length)?



Yes, but it has slightly reduced capacity: IMR18500.


----------



## Aircraft800 (Dec 1, 2009)

ampdude said:


> I think the IMR26500's are about as close as you'll get right now.


 
I wish I didn't have to bore all of my C Mags out though. Luckily my unprotected cobalt cells are holding up, just looking for a Safe Chemistry for the future.


----------



## ampdude (Dec 1, 2009)

Benson said:


> Yes, but it has slightly reduced capacity: IMR17500.



Unless I'm mistaken and something has recently changed AW doesn't make IMR17500's, though many of us are hoping they will come out someday.


----------



## Benson (Dec 2, 2009)

ampdude said:


> Unless I'm mistaken and something has recently changed AW doesn't make IMR17500's, though many of us are hoping they will come out someday.


Yeah, my bad. Guess I was thinking of his IMR18500. (Which, as a C-cell replacement, is actually _better_ than 17500.)


----------



## ampdude (Jan 29, 2010)

Benson said:


> Yeah, my bad. Guess I was thinking of his IMR18500. (Which, as a C-cell replacement, is actually _better_ than 17500.)



Yes, it does have more capacity, but it does not fit in stock Surefire P/C/Z/G bodies or E-series bodies either.


----------



## lctorana (Sep 2, 2010)

mudman cj said:


> ...while my 2C mag 1111 setup runs fine on the blue label C cells that are now out, my M6 with short tail cup accommodates AW black label C cells but not the blue label ones.


There _may_now be a solution for that, the red 25500 protected cells (e.g. sku S009415 from one of the _dealers-we-dare-not-name_) are of a more modest length, noticeably shorter than the blue ones. Don't know how they perform; I only use mine for low-drain (<1A) use. They might not perform very well under hotwire drain levels.


----------



## mudman cj (Sep 2, 2010)

lctorana said:


> There _may_now be a solution for that, the red 25500 protected cells (e.g. sku S009415 from one of the _dealers-we-dare-not-name_) are of a more modest length, noticeably shorter than the blue ones. Don't know how they perform; I only use mine for low-drain (<1A) use. They might not perform very well under hotwire drain levels.



Thanks. :thumbsup: When my AW's are retired I will have to give those a chance.


----------



## etc (Sep 2, 2010)

This highlights the danger of using proprietary, single source cells. The maker goes away or drops the product and you are left with no support. Hardly anybody makes protected cells. 

All my lites can run on either 18650 or 123s. My 2x18650 lites can also run on 4x123, in case protected 18650s disappear. 

Anyway, if I had one of these 2xC with C-Bezel, I would run Alkalines in it or more likely NiMH C cells, all with Malkoff M31 drop in module. It would make for insane brightness, circa 230-260 lumens and pretty decent runtime, even with Alkalines. On AA chemistry, it's the brightest 2xAA lite you can use, so the C cell can only be better.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 2, 2010)

The problem is if you had a setup that requires the higher Lithium voltage previously made by a "dealer that we dare not name." Luckily I have 5 remaining "dealer that we dare not name" protected C cells left. 

Otherwise, the only possible source is using unprotected cells from a "discount dealer whose name shall never be uttered under penalty of dismemberment," which I plan on using and transferring the protection circuit from the "dealer that we dare not name's" product with my handy battery pack welder, and some 1 mil shrink I found. Where there's a will, there's a way.


----------



## lemlux (Sep 2, 2010)

For me the 4000+ mAh capacity of IMR 26650's has rendered 26500's one of the form factors I've skipped over and will continue to skip over. I now drive >3.5 A lights only with 26650's in [email protected] D bodies, with NiMH or NiCad C or D cells in various bodies, or 6S2P or 9S2p (MYSTERY #)mega AA battery holders or 1S3P 18650 battery holders in his 2005 vintage wide body lights (Which I paid for and which are no longer offered).

I am tempted to buy a C thread single 26650 body to use with D26 drop-ins and Sure(combustion synonym) heads (called bezels by manufacturer) from (Mystery #)mega.

In the interest of cpf integrity, I admit that my next-door neighbor in the 1980's was named Schilling which may or may not be a German derivitive or precursor of the English word Shilling.


----------



## lctorana (Sep 2, 2010)

LuxLuthor said:


> The problem is if you had a setup that requires the higher Lithium voltage previously made by a "dealer that we dare not name." Luckily I have 5 remaining "dealer that we dare not name" protected C cells left.
> 
> Otherwise, the only possible source is using unprotected cells from a "discount dealer whose name shall never be uttered under penalty of dismemberment," which I plan on using and transferring the protection circuit from the "dealer that we dare not name's" product with my handy battery pack welder, and some 1 mil shrink I found. Where there's a will, there's a way.


Gosh, is the familiar marketplace dealer, identified by two capital letters, now also a Dealer-We-Dare-Not-Name?

But are you planning to buy and test the new Red cells now sold by the year-round-Santa-hat-wearing-dealer?

Not that I'm recommending that anybody get them there. Or not.

_Oh, by way of full disclosure, I once withdrew some Schillings from an autoteller in Innsbruck._


----------



## Aircraft800 (Sep 2, 2010)

Are you talking about the "UltraFire BRC 25500 3000mAh 3.7V Li-ion"?

What is a BRC cell?


----------



## lctorana (Sep 2, 2010)

Aircraft800 said:


> Are you talking about the "UltraFire BRC 25500 3000mAh 3.7V Li-ion"?


Yes.



Aircraft800 said:


> What is a BRC cell?


Wish I knew. But I do note that the last time I saw "BRC" on an Ultrafire cell, member old4570 tested it and found it wanting at high drain levels.

Also, the eagerly-awaited 22600 is a similarly-wrapped "BRC" cell, so I would really like to know what this means.


----------



## Patriot (Sep 7, 2010)

Just an observation that I've made concerning my AW "C" cells. Granted that they're a couple years old now, I've witnessed them dying one by one over the past year or so. I'm still using them lightly in 85's and 11's but this is only about every 3 months or so then they're lightly charged (.3A) on a pro-series Thunder Charger. About 5 months ago I was performing a light charge after about 15 minutes of use in the a mag85 when I noticed that one of the cells wouldn't take a charge. I attempted to nurse it back to life but didn't have any luck. 

About 3 months ago I went to use a different mag85 and it was dead. I started checking cells and found that one had dropped to .080V and wouldn't accept any charge obviously. 

Last night I pulled the FM11 out of the safe and it was dead as well. This was due to a single dead cell that was reading .0 something volts. This particular batch of cells (I number and date them) has only been partially discharged and recharged about 15-25 cycles. They've been used in 4 different lights and charged on two separate hobby grade chargers. 

Given the light discharge and charge cycles, the museum like storage conditions in my home, the original cost, and AW's reputation for quality products, I'm a bit surprised that these would be dropping out this way. It's only a matter of time before I have to discard the entire batch. What do you think is happening to these cells and are others experiencing this phenomenon? 

Thanks


----------



## Greg G (Sep 8, 2010)

I had several lights that used these cells and started having the exact same problem. I'd go to use a light and it was dead. Remove and check the batteries, one would be dead, and it could not be brought back. I ended up taking them all out of my lights and giving them away to someone knowledgeable about Li-Ions. 

I feel you're pain.


----------



## Patriot (Sep 8, 2010)

Greg G said:


> I ended up taking them all out of my lights and giving them away to someone knowledgeable about Li-Ions.
> 
> I feel you're pain.





yeah I hear ya 

.....and gosh, I'm fairly knowledgeable about this chemistry myself and have a pretty long history with li-ion, it's just that they seem to be going belly up despite my best efforts to care for them. Obviously I mean nothing bad toward AW products in general but the "C" cells just haven't been up to par at all. Something internally is causing them to deteriorate on a time based principal regardless of how ideally they're treated.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 8, 2010)

Just checked mine, all still good. I'll charge and discharge them to see how they are holding up. I think 3-4 years is a decent lifetime for Lithium Cobalt cells, but the deterioration should be gradual.

Maybe these were special "Mission Impossible" models that self-destruct after 200 uses. :green:


----------



## Patriot (Sep 8, 2010)

LuxLuthor said:


> Maybe these were special "Mission Impossible" models that self-destruct after 200 uses. :green:




Haha....maybe. 

Thanks for checking your cells Lux. I'm curious to know how yours are holding up. I suppose it's possible that the 2nd to the final batch that AW had produced might have just been a little "off" but I'm really only speculating. I had purchased 8 from that particular batch before he ran out and then the final lot was offered. 

I've now noticed that a 4 cell dropped to 2.9V and I've carefully brought it back over 10 hours to 4.2V. After letting it rest over night it settled in to 4.128V which really surprised me to see it holding that well. It makes me wonder if this is just a simple matter of cell maintenance. Perhaps these are self discharging more quickly than other li-ion cells I'm used to. Still, the lingering question is why don't they all self discharge at a relatively consistence rate if that's the case?

Like you stated, 4 years would be acceptable for this type of cell and although we're not there yet, cell death is inevitable. I suppose I'm just reluctant to let these cells go since the original performance was fantastic.


----------



## ampdude (Sep 9, 2010)

That cell performance sounds like a very sick cell near death. The only condolences I can offer is that AW is currently offering a recently released upgraded 2900mAh P18650 that probably comes near the performance of the original run of lithium cobalt C cells. That or grab one of the IMR26500 C-ish sized cells.


----------

