# ANSMANN 2500 MAH LSD?



## 357mag1 (Jan 14, 2010)

Has anybody tried these batteries?

http://www.thomasdistributing.com/s...html?SP_id=&osCsid=a98rm8a91donrsllit8gi3gna7

If so do they seem to have the stated capacity?


----------



## joeparker54 (Jan 14, 2010)

While i don't know about these particular cells, I have heard that Ansmann is very tight on their labeling with most cells never exceeding more than 10% deviation (new cells of course). You've got me curious!:thinking: although not curious enough yet to spend $18.xx with shipping.
like I said though, Ansmann is a pretty reputable company. They're German, everybody knows they make good stuff (to paraphrase the shamwow guy)

I'll be curious to see what people find out
perhaps next wednesday, after i get paid, i'll take another look around TD and see if there's anything else i can convince myself i "need".


----------



## 357mag1 (Jan 15, 2010)

I took the plunge and ordered 8 of them so I should be able to give a review in a week or so after I break them in and run a test on the MAHA.

I'm aware of some German products that aren't top quality, hope these are.


----------



## InHisName (Jan 15, 2010)

357mag1 said:


> I took the plunge and ordered 8 of them so I should be able to give a review in a week or so after I break them in and run a test on the MAHA.


Thank You! I was pondering ordering and found replacement battery pack for one of my SunRocket phones. It was $1 more than 4 of the Ansmanns! And it was a pack of 3 800mah AAA with plug. Uggghhh

I am eagerly awaiting the results.


----------



## monkeyboy (Jan 15, 2010)

I don't know much about these particular cells but +1 on what joeparker54 said about Ansmann.

Ansmann released the MaxE 2100mAh a couple of years ago IIRC. There is some test data on these forums that shows the capacity is slightly higher than the eneloops and also that the Ansmann's maintain their capacity better over subsequent charges, although I haven't seen any information on how the self discharge compares.

These new ones are called "MaxE plus" and advertised as 2500mAh.


----------



## 45/70 (Jan 15, 2010)

Last time I checked, all of Ansmann's NiMH cells were made in China.

Dave


----------



## davidefromitaly (Jan 16, 2010)

joeparker54 said:


> While i don't know about these particular cells, I have heard that Ansmann is very tight on their labeling with most cells never exceeding more than 10% deviation (new cells of course). You've got me curious!:thinking: although not curious enough yet to spend $18.xx with shipping.
> like I said though, Ansmann is a pretty reputable company. They're German, everybody knows they make good stuff (to paraphrase the shamwow guy)
> 
> I'll be curious to see what people find out
> perhaps next wednesday, after i get paid, i'll take another look around TD and see if there's anything else i can convince myself i "need".



2850mAh are 2400 real... not serious for me


----------



## monkeyboy (Jan 16, 2010)

davidefromitaly said:


> 2850mAh are 2400 real... not serious for me



Not sure where you're getting that information from. Mario JP tested them here. He got 2400mAh to begin with due do the cells not terminating properly but this went up to 2660+ and he was expecting more with subsequent charges.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Jan 16, 2010)

monkeyboy said:


> Not sure where you're getting that information from. Mario JP tested them here. He got 2400mAh to begin with due do the cells not terminating properly but this went up to 2660+ and he was expecting more with subsequent charges.



i have used a CBA II at 1A discharge rating. Mario use a lacrosse BC900 that overrate the capacity and currents of at least 10% (but sometime also 15%)

i have compared my CBA with a DMM multimeter and a robbe RC analyzer and give accurate results, so i consider more accurate my readings.

ah... i have a BC900 too for comparison


----------



## Egsise (Jan 16, 2010)

Ansmann 2850 cells true capacity is indeed below 2500mAh, tested by CPF members and there are "real" tests too from consumer agencys etc.
Ansmann Max-E rated capacity may be higher than other LSD cells, but in my tests it performs worse than other LSD cells.

I don't believe that these new Ansmann cells are really 2500mAh _and_ LSD.


----------



## monkeyboy (Jan 16, 2010)

davidefromitaly said:


> i have used a CBA II at 1A discharge rating. Mario use a lacrosse BC900 that overrate the capacity and currents of at least 10% (but sometime also 15%)
> 
> i have compared my CBA with a DMM multimeter and a robbe RC analyzer and give accurate results, so i consider more accurate my readings.
> 
> ah... i have a BC900 too for comparison



I've never heard of the BC-900 overrating cells before. I've heard of it melting but not overrating. Do you have any links to that? Are you sure your cells are not just terminating early like Mario's were?


----------



## davidefromitaly (Jan 16, 2010)

well first of all i consider my tests: cbaII, robbe power peak, various DMM give all the same measurements (maybe 2-3% difference not more), lacrosse is the only overrated

second, you can check all the tests on the net whit common batts, all overrated

third, you can find the posts here on cpf of that guy that work at maha, he say that the lacrosse don't take in count of the pauses in the charge and simply multiply the current for the time, and last it use a inaccurate capacitor instead of a quartz oscillator so there can be differences between variuos lacrosse

just for laugh, when i charge the duracell 2650 it terminate at 2.88Ah while other chargers at 2.5/2.6Ah and it don't overcharge cause the battery stay cool (at 1.8A rate and the battery is in good condition)


----------



## 45/70 (Jan 16, 2010)

There was another thread recently, about a 2500mAh LSD NiMH cell. I don't believe it was an Ansmann, but the consensus, as I remember, was that it was a Yuasa Delta product, as I believe all of Ansmann's NiMH cells are.

Dave


----------



## TakeTheActive (Jan 16, 2010)

*La Crosse BC-900 'Surface Charge'...*



monkeyboy said:


> *I've never heard of the BC-900 overrating cells before*... ...Do you have any links to that?


Do a GOOGLE SEARCH for keywords (MUST use quotes): *"BC-900" "surface charge"*

The MH-C9000 'rests' (1 or 2 hours, depending on the FUNCTION) between the CHARGE stage and the DISCHARGE stage, which allows the 'Surface Charge' to 'bleed off', leaving you with the actual capacity available to your devices. Sure, if you take your cells "HOT off the Charger" and begin using them, you'll be able to take advantage of that extra ~5-10%. But, in an hour or so, it's lost.


----------



## monkeyboy (Jan 16, 2010)

*Re: La Crosse BC-900 'Surface Charge'...*



TakeTheActive said:


> Do a GOOGLE SEARCH for keywords (MUST use quotes): *"BC-900" "surface charge"*
> 
> The MH-C9000 'rests' (1 or 2 hours, depending on the FUNCTION) between the CHARGE stage and the DISCHARGE stage, which allows the 'Surface Charge' to 'bleed off', leaving you with the actual capacity available to your devices. Sure, if you take your cells "HOT off the Charger" and begin using them, you'll be able to take advantage of that extra ~10%. But, in an hour or so, it's lost.



That article says that the difference between the two is 50-100mAh that's more like 2-4%.


----------



## MarioJP (Jan 27, 2010)

*Re: La Crosse BC-900 'Surface Charge'...*

Deleted


----------



## Conan (Jan 27, 2010)

*Re: La Crosse BC-900 'Surface Charge'...*



MarioJP said:


> Actually depending on usage and how much the device discharge rate that these cells are being used in can make a difference. When new you kind of have to break them in to obtain close to advertised capacity. Not talking right off the charger either. I had these cells sitting around for days to almost a week and was able to get discharge reading of 2625. One time all of the cells achieved 2700 after 3 days sitting.
> 
> The only downside to these cells is they can be fragile on HIGH DISCHARGE RATE which took me by surprise.
> 
> ...



This thread is titled Ansmann 2500 LSD. So why are people talking about the 2850 which is non-LSD? :thinking:


----------



## MarioJP (Jan 27, 2010)

*Re: La Crosse BC-900 'Surface Charge'...*

True sorry but it is related because of the 2500 MaxE whether these cells are LSD, and add to the fact that LSD cells are around 2000-2100. This would be interesting to see.


----------



## TakeTheActive (Jan 27, 2010)

*Re: La Crosse BC-900 'Surface Charge'...*



Conan said:


> This thread is titled Ansmann 2500 LSD. So why are people talking about the 2850 which is non-LSD? :thinking:


Why do people continue to QUOTE *ENTIRE*(and sometimes LONG!) posts, even if it's the post immediately preceding their reply, when only a portion of the post is necessary to indicate 'To Whom:' they are replying and about what? :thinking: :shrug:


----------



## Conan (Jan 27, 2010)

*Re: La Crosse BC-900 'Surface Charge'...*



TakeTheActive said:


> Why do people continue to QUOTE *ENTIRE*(and sometimes LONG!) posts, even if it's the post immediately preceding their reply, when only a portion of the post is necessary to indicate 'To Whom:' they are replying and about what? :thinking: :shrug:



Because people are different and don't quite do things in exactly the way "you" would do things. Is there some forum rule that I'm breaking?


----------



## TakeTheActive (Jan 28, 2010)

*Re: La Crosse BC-900 'Surface Charge'...*



Conan said:


> ...*Is there some forum rule that I'm breaking?*


I believe the formal name for it is "Internet Etiquette".

I found some great descriptions a couple of months back when I GOOGLEd the topic but couldn't easily find them today (wrong keywords). The best of today's (Quick Search) lot are:


Stagecoach Festival Forum FAQ said:


> *Don't Quote the WHOLE thing*
> 
> There's nothing more annoying in a forum or message board than people who copy all previous posts into their own on every message. If you have a specific passage on which you want to comment, feel free to copy that part, not the ENTIRE post. Internet etiquette dictates that you make reading as easy on everyone else as possible. If they have to scroll through twenty posts of people quoting long posts it will clutter up the thread. The rule of thumb for this form of etiquette is to never quote more text than you intend to comment on specifically.





Chris Hurd (Mod?) on dvinfo.net said:


> There's right ways and wrong ways to quote.Right: quoting a post which is *not* immediately preceding yours but is farther back in the thread.
> 
> Wrong: quoting the post that immediately preceded yours. That's just useless clutter.
> 
> ...


Please accept the suggestion in the positive (and slightly humorous - mimicking your previous reply to *MarioJP*) manner in which it was intended. :buddies:


----------



## MattK (Jan 30, 2010)

*Re: La Crosse BC-900 'Surface Charge'...*



davidefromitaly said:


> 2850mAh are 2400 real... not serious for me





davidefromitaly said:


> i have used a CBA II at 1A discharge rating. Mario use a lacrosse BC900 that overrate the capacity and currents of at least 10% (but sometime also 15%)
> 
> i have compared my CBA with a DMM multimeter and a robbe RC analyzer and give accurate results, so i consider more accurate my readings.
> 
> ah... i have a BC900 too for comparison




David. I have not tested the Ansmann cell, and I sincerely doubt it's 2850mah, but your post is entirely unfair.

I am SURE that the Ansmann cell is not rated at a 1A discharge rate.

You cannot apply some arbitrary number of your own choosing to use for discharge rates and expect cells to achieve their rated capacities at YOUR arbitrary number when, I assure you, even the honestly rated cells are rated at .2C - the IEC standard. 

Also, to achieve this capacity a very specific standard methodology of cycle, charge / rest, etc is proscribed so unless you are FOLLOWING the IEC methodology that all batteries are rated upon YOU should not make claims to the accuracy of capacity claims.


----------



## 357mag1 (Jan 30, 2010)

My tests have shown the Ansmann 2500 LSD to average around 2250mah when I'm discharging them at 700ma on the MAHA C9000.

I use a 700mah discharge rate because it is likely closer to what a real world flashlight would draw. It meets no standard but if used consistently should provide valid results for comparison purposes. 

For comparison my Eneloops/Duraloops average around 1850mah at 700mah discharge rate and the Rayovac Hybrids average 1920mah at that rate.

I have put four Ansmann 2500 LSDs aside and plan to discharge two each at the 3 and 6 month mark to check capacity.

I have noticed that after a week off the charger the Ansmann 2500s voltage is setting just above 1.33volts.

For comparison the Eneloops and Duraloops charged at the same time set at 1.375volts and the Rayovacs are 1.35volts. I've checked all the batteries voltages as displayed on the C9000 during discharge and there isn't enough difference throughout the event to talk about (nearly identical).


----------



## MattK (Jan 30, 2010)

I'm okay with stating something as, "valid results for comparison purposes."

What I am not okay with is calling things real/fake in a pejorative manner when applying your own made up standard.

Most battery capacities are 'nominal' so a 2500mah cell should mean 2450mah or better when tested at IEC standard charge/discrahe rates and when using the proscribed procedure. Because 'nominal, 'actual' and 'minimal' capacities are not standardized terms they are often abused - there are plenty of 2200mah products out there with labels showing 2500-3000mah.


----------



## Russel (Jan 30, 2010)

Has anyone tested Ansmann 2500mah LSD batteries in a MH-C9000 using the break-in mode, which is IEC capacity analysis compliant?


----------



## SilverFox (Jan 30, 2010)

*Re: La Crosse BC-900 'Surface Charge'...*

Hello Matt,




MattK said:


> ...
> I am SURE that the Ansmann cell is not rated at a 1A discharge rate.
> 
> You cannot apply some arbitrary number of your own choosing to use for discharge rates and expect cells to achieve their rated capacities at YOUR arbitrary number when, I assure you, even the honestly rated cells are rated at .2C - the IEC standard.
> ...



Let's see now, 0.2C of 2850 mAh works out to 570 mA. While 1000 mA is higher than 570 mA, have you really seen a drastic difference in capacity when discharge at 0.2C versus discharging at 0.35C?

There will be some difference, but the difference is not that great. 

For example, I tested some Ansmann 2300 mAh cells at 0.5 amps and got 2211 mAh, for about 96% of labeled capacity. When tested at a 1.0 amp discharge rate, they came in at 2188 mAh, which dropped to about 95% of labeled capacity.

0.5 amps is about 0.22C for 2300 mAh cells, and 1.0 amps is about 0.43C. In this case, nearly doubling the discharge rate only resulted in a 1% difference in capacity.

You are correct that a discharge at 1 amp does not follow the IEC standard, but it should comes reasonably close to the labeled capacity. As far as some cells being labeled above their actual capacity, I can only say that there are no IEC standards for labeling...

Tom


----------



## MattK (Jan 31, 2010)

*Re: La Crosse BC-900 'Surface Charge'...*



Russel said:


> Has anyone tested Ansmann 2500mah LSD batteries in a MH-C9000 using the break-in mode, which is IEC capacity analysis compliant?



I don't know if anyone has the battery but while a single MH-C9000 can provide entertaining 'relative' data for a single user it is not a scientific device and while aspects of it follow some of the IEC methodology (cycle, rest, etc) it is hardly a calibrated etsting device.

If the Ansmann 2500 LSD are made where I think they are and are the top batch/bin then the min guaranteed capacity is 2330mah topping out at 2430.



Hiya Tom,

The difference will vary with the cells. we're talking about a discharge rate differential of ~70% so unless we look at a very broad sample and we can clearly see a pattern of ~5%. Anecdotal data is, as you know, not particularly useful when there are so many variable at work.

As YOU know the standard requires a set number of break in cycles, charge and rest periods, etc. Most people are not aware of the standards and don't know much about them but they come here looking for information.

When some people post with an authoritative tone, without qualification, 'data' that has been obtained in a manner inconsistent with any recognized standard I feel obligated to call them on it.

If you're going to make pejorative, negative or accusatory comments about 'real' capacity vs labelled be sure to use a 'real' methodology or at least qualify your statments more carefully. 

Remember, I don't sell Ansmann, I have no vested interest in this particular issue but the industry has enough, 'labelling issues' without compounding the issue with false testing 'standards.

As I've noted before, I'm basically fine with the _comparative testing _you have done and 357mag1 is doing so long as you clearly qualify it. Tell us how old/new the cell is, how it's been treated/cycled, what device/s you are using for charge discharge etc.


----------



## MarioJP (Jan 31, 2010)

I can shed some light to this discharge rate mystery. All I can say that the 2850 ansmann cannot handle a high constant discharge for a period of time. I don't know about the LSD ansmann though. I bet the 2500 LSD might develop issues.

How can you have a LSD cell at 2500mAh?? isn't that just pushing it??


----------



## MattK (Jan 31, 2010)

What do you mean by a, "high constant discharge for a period of time?"
Can you be specific?

The new higher capacity NiMh LSD cells are a bit of a hybrid bridging the gap between high capacity (2700mah) NiMh cells and LSD (2100mah) cells.

I don't know why you would bet that, "the 2500 LSD might develop issues" or what you thinkis , "just pushing it."


----------



## Russel (Jan 31, 2010)

*Re: La Crosse BC-900 'Surface Charge'...*



MattK said:


> I don't know if anyone has the battery but while a single MH-C9000 can provide entertaining 'relative' data for a single user it is not a scientific device and while aspects of it follow some of the IEC methodology (cycle, rest, etc) it is hardly a calibrated etsting device.


 
Granted, entertaining 'relative' data. Right after I posted I was thinking about ambient temperature. 

At least it would be entertaining...maybe to us!?


----------



## MarioJP (Jan 31, 2010)

MattK said:


> What do you mean by a, "high constant discharge for a period of time?"
> Can you be specific?
> 
> The new higher capacity NiMh LSD cells are a bit of a hybrid bridging the gap between high capacity (2700mah) NiMh cells and LSD (2100mah) cells.
> ...



I mean by if the discharge is too high above 1A. And your second answer to your question is I don't know. I mean after my own experience with high capacity cells. Just come to realize that these cells are not suited for really high drain devices. Bursts maybe but a constant discharge at this rate they are crap after couple of cycles.

Question is how high is too high of the rate of discharge before the cell starts to breakdown permanently?. That is exactly happened to my 2850 ansmann cells. They are now crap. Also when charging it would make popping and hissing noises. I just took the batteries out and recycled them instead.


----------



## Mr Happy (Jan 31, 2010)

MarioJP said:


> Question is how high is too high of the rate of discharge before the cell starts to breakdown permanently?. That is exactly happened to my 2850 ansmann cells. They are now crap. Also when charging it would make popping and hissing noises. I just took the batteries out and recycled them instead.


It is far more likely that the charging damaged the cells than the discharging. Popping and hissing noises are not a recognized characteristic of charging. If that ever happens you should stop charging immediately and review your charging protocol.


----------



## MattK (Jan 31, 2010)

Russel said:


> Granted, entertaining 'relative' data. Right after I posted I was thinking about ambient temperature.
> 
> At least it would be entertaining...maybe to us!?



Remember, component variation in a consumer product like that probably means 10% or perhaps greater variability in results. Add in temperature, cell age variation, etc, etc etc and the validity, and value, of the data derived goes down swiftly.




MarioJP said:


> I mean by if the discharge is too high above 1A. And your second answer to your question is I don't know. I mean after my own experience with high capacity cells. Just come to realize that these cells are not suited for really high drain devices. Bursts maybe but a constant discharge at this rate they are crap after couple of cycles.
> 
> Question is how high is too high of the rate of discharge before the cell starts to breakdown permanently?. That is exactly happened to my 2850 ansmann cells. They are now crap. Also when charging it would make popping and hissing noises. I just took the batteries out and recycled them instead.





Mr Happy said:


> It is far more likely that the charging damaged the cells than the discharging. Popping and hissing noises are not a recognized characteristic of charging. If that ever happens you should stop charging immediately and review your charging protocol.



I agree with MrHappy but it's also quite possible you overdischarged them.

A NiMh cell should easily handle 1A discharge rates without significant dimunition in cycle life - never mind damage. When you use general terms like 'high discharge' without being specific I cannot make any logical suppositions.

I will say that a constant rate of over over 5A is going to shorten the life or perhaps damage anything but a special high drain rate cell. If you need high current rates, peak or constant, there are special NiMh cells made for this - and they're under 2000mah.


----------



## MarioJP (Jan 31, 2010)

the popping happens after 30 minutes of charging??. this is when the cells are in a discharged state. Also forgot to mention that during discharge the cells gets really hot.

Now I started to use the Duraloops to rule out if the usb mobile charger is messed up or something. The duraloops during discharge barely gets warm cool to the touch after an hour. beyond that it is just warm.


----------



## Russel (Feb 7, 2010)

MattK said:


> Remember, component variation in a consumer product like that probably means 10% or perhaps greater variability in results. Add in temperature, cell age variation, etc, etc etc and the validity, and value, of the data derived goes down swiftly.


 
I got to thinking about what you said here and went back to look at my break-in log. I don't seem to be getting that much variability with Eneloop cells and a MH-C9000 charger in break-in mode. (I have always been amazed at the consistent quality of Eneloop cells.)



> Columns are: Cell type, Capacity Rating mah, Break-in tested Capacity mah, Capacity
> difference, cell Code Date
> AA 2000 1944 -2.80% 06-08 T3
> AA 2000 1940 -3.00% 06-08 T3
> ...


 
I am still wondering if anyone has performed a MH-C9000 break-in cycle on Ansmann 2500 LSD cells, and were the results?


----------



## MattK (Feb 7, 2010)

Are you suggesting that your device divergence is the same as the cell caoacitance divergence from the mfr's nominally rated specification as rated by your device??


----------



## Russel (Feb 7, 2010)

I am suggesting that anyone that has performed a break in cycle with a MH-C9000 battery charger on Ansmann 2500 LSD cells post the results.


----------



## MattK (Feb 7, 2010)

I'm asking about the first part of your post re: variability of results with the device and how your numbers contradict that in your opinion...I'm still not getting it.


----------



## Russel (Feb 7, 2010)

Can you elaborate?


----------



## 357mag1 (Feb 7, 2010)

Russel said:


> I am suggesting that anyone that has performed a break in cycle with a MH-C9000 battery charger on Ansmann 2500 LSD cells post the results.


 
I posted this in another thread that broke down into a discussion about weather so I stopped updating it for lack of interest.

This is out of the pack after break in on the Maha C9000.

1. 2303
2. 2295
3. 2277
4. 2318


----------



## Russel (Feb 7, 2010)

Thank you, 357mag1, for posting your results.


----------



## MattK (Feb 8, 2010)

MattK said:


> Remember, component variation in a consumer product like that probably means 10% or perhaps greater variability in results. Add in temperature, cell age variation, etc, etc etc and the validity, and value, of the data derived goes down swiftly.





Russel said:


> I got to thinking about what you said here and went back to look at my break-in log. *I don't seem to be getting that much variability with Eneloop cells and a MH-C9000 charger in break-in mode. (I have always been amazed at the consistent quality of Eneloop cells.)
> *


*



MattK said:



I'm asking about the first part of your post re: variability of results with the device and how your numbers contradict that in your opinion...I'm still not getting it.

Click to expand...




Russel said:



Can you elaborate?

Click to expand...



I think I see the problem here...I'm talking about your charger 'analyzer' and the variation in it's componentry and thus the accuracy and validity of testing results, especially when shared between multiple users.*


----------



## dtronvig (May 5, 2010)

357mag1 said:


> I have put four Ansmann 2500 LSDs aside and plan to discharge two each at the 3 and 6 month mark to check capacity



So hey, 357maj1, any results on self discharge for the Ansmanns, ideally compared to other LSDs, using the same method?


----------



## 357mag1 (May 6, 2010)

I'm not at home at the moment but will test them next weekend. I will take a voltage readings and discharge them at 1 amp on the C9000. I have some Eneloops, Imedion, and Rayovac 4.0s setting with them that will get tested as well.


----------



## 357mag1 (May 15, 2010)

I performed test on the Ansmann 2500 LSD that were charged and stored on 23 Jan 2010 along with some Imedion, Rayovac 4.0, and Eneloop that were charged and stored on 30 Jan 2010. 

These test were conducted on two Maha C9000 chargers. All batteries were discharged at a 1amp rate. I chose two batteries from each group and in all cases chose the batteries with the highest and lowest voltage readings from the group.

Of the four Ansmann 2500s three read 1.284 volts and one read 1.286.
The four Imedion ranged from 1.316 to 1.327 volts.
Eight Rayovac 4.0s ranged from 1.307 to 1.313 volts
Of the four Eneloops three read 1.342 volts and one read 1.341.

From the voltage readings it looked like the Ansmann batteries were not going to fare well.

Before starting the discharge test I used a cheap single AA light that draws current like crazy. From a fresh off the charger Duraloop it drew 3.43 amps and the voltage was 1.235 under this load.

While each battery from a group read slightly different I averaged the readings as I believe them to be representive of the group.

Current Draw and voltage under load using single AA light:

Ansmann 2500 - 2.95 amps and voltage 1.135
Imedion - 3.04 amps and voltage 1.15
Rayovac 4.0 - 2.74 amps and 1.07v
Eneloop - 3.15 amps and 1.18v

During the discharge test on the C9000 I checked voltage at various times and the Chinese batteries were always within .01-.02 volts of each other. The Eneloops stayed slightly higher with the biggest difference at 87 minutes (last time I checked) with the other three between 1.07 and 1.09 the Eneloops were at 1.13 volts. I'm not sure how relevent .04 -.06 volts is to our flashlights.

The final mah numbers were a surprise (Time in minutes and capacity).
Ansmann 2500 #4 - 115m 1762mah 
Ansmann 2500 #3 - 114m 1733mah
Imedion #5 - 108m 1642mah
Imedion #6 - 106m 1603mah
Rayovac #3 - 106m 1592mah
Rayovac #6 - 105m 1599mah
Eneloop #1 - 107m 1618mah
Eneloop #2 108m 1648mah

In all cases the batteries in a group with the higher resting voltage gave slightly higher mah figures as expected. Not the case outside the group. Annsmann 2500s had the lowest resting voltage and ended with the most capacity at least for this test and these conditions.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 4, 2010)

Bought few sets recently and the first set that was ran on Maha Break-In posted 2281/2268/2246/2283, so about 10% below advertised numbers. 

I know this is about the MAX-e batteries but I've also purchased 2 sets of the 2850s and they too posted at about 15% less than labeled.

I am currently discharging another set of MAX-e at 500 mAh so I'll post their pre-charge capacity in a few.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 4, 2010)

OK, Just finished discharging another set of Ansman MAX-e that I got.

Readings are 1724/1700/1702/1722 

I read somewhere that pre-charged Enenloops come out of the factory charged to 75% of their marked capacity. If this is the same case with these guys then they would have been pre-charged to about 1850. The package doesn't say when they were manufactured but they have exhibited a loss of about 10% if the above assumption is correct. I'll do some more testing one I cycle these guys a few times.


Here is the only thing that I find dissapointing and somewhat misleading. While the package that these 4-packs are packed says Ansmann Germany the actual cells are labeled "Made in China", for some people that might be a turnoff so they cleverly marked the regular 2850 cells PRC (Peoples Republic of Chine)

My initial take of these guys...underimpressed. To bad I bought a total of 6 sets. 4 sets of LSD and 2 sets of regular 2850s.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 7, 2010)

Ran second set through Break-In and I got 2286/2268/2271/2296

Better then Eneloops in terms of capacity but still not near its advertised 2500 mAh. Eneloops actually post capacity over its rated 2000 mAh

My rechargeable 2700 mah Sanyons are charging past 3000 mah, that is above its rated capacity. Is Ansmann "overmarking" their cells? Next test that I'll do with the same test is to cycle it 5 times with discharge of C/4 and charge of C/2 to see if their capacity increases.

Will update in few days with findings.


----------



## Conan (Jun 8, 2010)

xoomercom said:


> Ran second set through Break-In and I got 2286/2268/2271/2296
> 
> Better then Eneloops in terms of capacity but still not near its advertised 2500 mAh. Eneloops actually post capacity over its rated 2000 mAh
> 
> ...



What charger are you using? I just got a set of four Ansmann Max-E Plus a while ago in the mall. Damn they're expensive, almost twice the price of Eneloops. Charging them up in my C9000 and then will do a discharge test after.


----------



## Conan (Jun 8, 2010)

I charged them up first using 1500 mA. I wasn't there to see the voltage before it went to trickle mode but when I looked it was only at 1.38-1.39 volts. I haven't seen voltage this low in trickle mode on my C9000. I decided to do a refresh analyze after that.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 8, 2010)

Conan said:


> What charger are you using? I just got a set of four Ansmann Max-E Plus a while ago in the mall. Damn they're expensive, almost twice the price of Eneloops. Charging them up in my C9000 and then will do a discharge test after.


 
Maha/Powerex MH-C9000

Expensive? I just bought 4 sets of 4 for some $11 and change per pack. I haven't seen eneloops anywhere for $6/per 4


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 8, 2010)

Conan said:


> I charged them up first using 1500 mA. I wasn't there to see the voltage before it went to trickle mode but when I looked it was only at 1.38-1.39 volts. I haven't seen voltage this low in trickle mode on my C9000. I decided to do a refresh analyze after that.


 
The Max-e Plus come pre-charged so I guess they should be discharged first.


----------



## Conan (Jun 8, 2010)

xoomercom said:


> Maha/Powerex MH-C9000
> 
> Expensive? I just bought 4 sets of 4 for some $11 and change per pack. I haven't seen eneloops anywhere for $6/per 4



I'm in the Philippines so prices here are different from the US. Two pieces of the Ansmann Max-E Plus cost 600 Pesos = 12.83 US Dollars. Just finished the refresh analyze and none of them were over 2200 mA.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 10, 2010)

Conan said:


> I'm in the Philippines so prices here are different from the US. Two pieces of the Ansmann Max-E Plus cost 600 Pesos = 12.83 US Dollars. Just finished the refresh analyze and none of them were over 2200 mA.


 
Yeah, that is expensive. Sorry I assumed you were in the US.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 10, 2010)

xoomercom said:


> Ran second set through Break-In and I got 2286/2268/2271/2296
> 
> Better then Eneloops in terms of capacity but still not near its advertised 2500 mAh. Eneloops actually post capacity over its rated 2000 mAh
> 
> ...


 
So I ran a set of 4 of these guys through 5 cycles on my smart charger and I found the results to be nothing short of dissapointing. The capacity is above Eneloops but still not near advertised rating. 

What makes it worse and came as a little shock is that their capacity decreased with each cycle (WHAT?) Yeah you heard correctly the capacity DECREASED with each cycle.

Here are the raw numbers in mAh

*Battery # | Cycle 1 | Cycle 2 | Cycle 3 | Cycle 4 | Cycle 5 |*

#1 | 2261 | 2250 | 2240 | 2239 | 2232

#2 | 2243 | 2243 | 2240 | 2233 | 2216

#3 | 2254 | 2267 | 2260 | 2249 | 2243

#4 | 2288 | 2268 | 2258 | 2256 | 2251


Not much of a decrease but I actually expected cycling to increase and break in the batteries. :duh2:


----------



## s0lar (Jun 10, 2010)

How fast did you charge them?
I just own a MAHA 9000 and I am also getting decreasing capacity with most of my cells.
I guess they were stored too long and need to get used to the fast charging.
It's odd that 0.5C-1C is recommended, charging at that rate with the MAHA 9000, charging terminates at 1.47V and most cells never reach full capacity this way.
I would also have like a program where cells would be discharged first and charged right afterwards.

I think that it's best to charge cells the first 5 cycles at 0.5C and afterwards you may go up to 1C. Does anyone else have any experience with this?
Nevertheless, 2250mA for a 2500mA labeled cell is GOOD, it's very rare that a cell reaches it's labeled capacity!


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 10, 2010)

s0lar said:


> How fast did you charge them?
> I just own a MAHA 9000 and I am also getting decreasing capacity with most of my cells.
> I guess they were stored too long and need to get used to the fast charging.
> It's odd that 0.5C-1C is recommended, charging at that rate with the MAHA 9000, charging terminates at 1.47V and most cells never reach full capacity this way.
> ...


 
Sorry I forgot to include that .

Cycles were programmed to charge at .5C (1300 mAh) and discharge at .25C or C/4 (600 mAh).


----------



## s0lar (Jun 10, 2010)

You might be able to squeeze a little bit more mA out of them by doing a break-in. That way the MAHA C9000 charger will not terminate before the cell is fully charged.
Because your cells have had 5 cycles, they will now be able to reach their full potential.

I believe that you will get more cycles if you do not charge to 100%. In low drain purposes the pre-termination of the MAHA charger is not that much of an issue because you will be able to get enough hours of use out of the battery anyway.
So for cell health, the MAHA is doing a better job then others perhaps.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 10, 2010)

s0lar said:


> You might be able to squeeze a little bit more mA out of them by doing a break-in. That way the MAHA C9000 charger will not terminate before the cell is fully charged.
> Because your cells have had 5 cycles, they will now be able to reach their full potential.
> 
> I believe that you will get more cycles if you do not charge to 100%. In low drain purposes the pre-termination of the MAHA charger is not that much of an issue because you will be able to get enough hours of use out of the battery anyway.
> So for cell health, the MAHA is doing a better job then others perhaps.


 
These batteries have gone though break-in before the 5 cycles. Do you mean to run break-in after these 5 cycles.


----------



## s0lar (Jun 10, 2010)

What I mean is that if you would do a break-in now you would probably get an even better result. If you have the time it would be interesting to see what the result is. My guess is that you will get 2300mA. You won't be able to get more capacity out of any AA LSD NiMH cell at this moment.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 10, 2010)

s0lar said:


> What I mean is that if you would do a break-in now you would probably get an even better result. If you have the time it would be interesting to see what the result is. My guess is that you will get 2300mA. You won't be able to get more capacity out of any AA LSD NiMH cell at this moment.


 
OK, I just put a set of 8 of these in my Fenix TK40 so I guess I can try that with another set of 4 (I bought 16 of them)

So we are starting with a new set. I don't mind these tests as they are performed while I work.

1) "Discharge" to discharge them completely, they do come pre-charged

2) Run the "break-in" mode.

3) Run them through 10 "cycles" recording capacity after each to confirm the pattern I've seen. Charge at 1600 mAh (~.66C) and discharge at 1200 mAh (~.50C)

4) "Discharge" them again at 600 mAh (~ .25C)

5) "Break-In"

I will record the values all along and post as soon as it's all done.

If someone would like me to adjust these values, please post.


----------



## s0lar (Jun 10, 2010)

xoomercom said:


> OK, I just put a set of 8 of these in my Fenix TK40 so I guess I can try that with another set of 4 (I bought 16 of them)
> 
> So we are starting with a new set. I don't mind these tests as they are performed while I work.
> 
> ...


 
I think 5 cycles will do.
Break in, 5 cycles at 1.2-2A/1A, make sure they are discharged afterwards (1A is OK) and then another break in.
Those would be interesting results.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 10, 2010)

s0lar said:


> I think 5 cycles will do.
> Break in, 5 cycles at 1.2-2A/1A, make sure they are discharged afterwards (1A is OK) and then another break in.
> Those would be interesting results.


 
I wanted to do 10 cycles to see if it (the capacity) keeps on falling or does it at some point turn around and creep upwards. I estimate this will be completed by Friday next week. I will discharge today, the break-in tomorrow and start cycles on Monday when I get back to work.


----------



## s0lar (Jun 10, 2010)

Keep us up2date!
I have some Memorex 2100 LSD cells also named Memoready and I am doing a similar test among testing all of my older NiMH batteries. It will take months of testing and I am loving it.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 24, 2010)

Well, I have done cycling these batteries last week and my previous observation has been confirmed. 

So this is what has been done.

1) "Discharge" to discharge them completely, they do come pre-charged

2) Run the "break-in" mode.

3) Run them through 12 "cycles" recording capacity after each to confirm the pattern I've seen. Charge at 1600 mAh (~.66C) and discharge at 1200 mAh (~.50C)

4) "Discharge" them again at 600 mAh (~ .25C)

5) "Break-In"


Here are the raw numbers/results recorded

*Residual Capacity* - discharging at 600 mA

A - 1695 mAh
B - 1517 mAh
C - 1728 mAh
D - 1707 mAh

*Initial Break-In*

Sample A - 2298 mAh
Sample B - 2273 mAh
Sample C - 2274 mAhSample D - 2298 mAh


*Cycling (12 Cycles)* - I forgot to discharge after break-in os the first cycle only topped each cell by 40-70 mAh before terminating. The data for following 11 cycles recorded below. Notice the decrease in capacity with each cycle

Sample A - 2317|2256|2246|2236|2234|2229|2223|2220|2220|2217|2213

Sample B - 2297|2260|2261|2240|2231|2221|2212|2211|2208|2208|2204

Sample C - 2306|2262|2245|2232|2221|2214|2205|2205|2198|2195|2195

Sample D - 2317|2245|2235|2227|2221|2213|2211|2209|2208|2217|2204



*Discharge* @ 1000 mA

Sample A - 2162 mAh
Sample B - 2160 mAh
Sample C - 2152 mAh
Sample D - 2162 mAh

*Final Break-In*

Sample A - 2276 mAh
Sample B - 2246 mAh
Sample C - 2251 mAh 
Sample D - 2265 mAh


Comparison between Initial Break-In and Final Break-In

Sample A - 2298 | 2276
Sample B - 2273 | 2246
Sample C - 2274 | 2251 
Sample D - 2298 | 2265


*Conclusion:*

Couple of things I noticed and the numbers clearly back it up.

1) We are not close to the rated capacity on all of the cells I've purchased. I actually expected a bit higher numbers seeing that most of my regular (non LSD) rechargeables charge past their advertised capacity.

2) Cell capacity dropped with each cycle, cycle after cycle. I am not sure how drastic their LSD rates are but that test is coming soon, now that I have a bunch to test. 

Do they have higher capacity than eneloops? yes by little over 10%, should they be rated at 2500 mAh, I personally don't think so.


----------



## MattK (Jun 25, 2010)

Your conclusion that the cells are, "not close to the rated capacity," is flawed.

Rated capacity is based upon specific charge and discharge rates, rest times and environmental STANDARDS. There is a universal STANDARD for capacitance testing of batteries.

You charged and discharged the cells under a different regime then that used to RATE the cells. 

You could fairly say when charged/discharged like XX/XXX which is 'how I intend to use them' they had XXX available capacity but it is unfair and incorrect to state that their capacity is not as rated.

Lastly, you're placing an awful lot of faith into a $100 chargers accuracy. Given the normal component variation of any relatively inexpensive device like that your conclusions can only be viewed as relevant to any other tests performed on your charger/analyzer, not as absolutes.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 25, 2010)

I can see how a battery distributor would be irked by my non-scientific conclusion but that wasn't my goal. 

The results I have posted are solely for the purpose of illustrating my personal findings, findings that I thought were somewhat disappointing as I expected more from Ansmann. I am not an ISO certified Lab nor a battery manufacturer rating these cells for a living. I am an end user seeing that cells rated at 2500 mAh don't quite perform at their rated capacities. 

Comparatively, using same exact equipment, I have non-LSD cells showing capacities above their rated numbers. I have SANYO cells rated at 2700 MAH charge well past 3000 mAh, and I see plenty of people that show the same results. Take Sanyo eneloops (also an LSD cell); they charge right up to the rated 2000 MAh, not the case with these Ansmann batteries.

As to the equipment type used, I am using what I think is the finest controlled charger/analyzer equipment I can afford. Had I been in business of verifyng cell capacities for NASA or other branches of the government I would have certainly invested in more apropriate equipment. 

On the other hand, since you mentioned that batteires are rated under specific charge/discharge rates, would you be kind enough to disclose these "secret" numbers? I can then possibly open another pack and adjust my analyzer to see if different results come up, I'll be sure to post these results for your review.


----------



## shadowjk (Jun 25, 2010)

xoomercom said:


> I am an end user seeing that cells rated at 2500 mAh don't quite perform at their rated capacities.


 I think Matt's point is that you aren't using them for what they're rated for. They're rated at 2500mAh under a specific use. Any and all other uses will give you a different capacity figure.


> Comparatively, using same exact equipment, I have non-LSD cells showing capacities above their rated numbers. I have SANYO cells rated at 2700 MAH charge well past 3000 mAh, and I see plenty of people that show the same results.


 If 2700mAh cell takes 3000mAh charge, then it's just charge inefficiency you're seeing. The efficiency declines at lower charge rates and with worse cells. At .1C charge you need to put in 1.4 - 1.6 times the cell's capacity, for example. Anyway, this is a bit similar as when a car manufacturer claim 50MPG, and that figure applies to driving on the highway at 55MPH without stops. If you then floor the pedal and soar down the highway at the car's maximum speed and don't get 50MPG, it doesn't mean that the manufacturer lied about their results.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 25, 2010)

shadowjk said:


> I think Matt's point is that you aren't using them for what they're rated for. They're rated at 2500mAh under a specific use. Any and all other uses will give you a different capacity figure.


 
Everybody is mentioning specific use, specific numbers and nobody is being specific. What use, what numbers, be specific please.



shadowjk said:


> If 2700mAh cell takes 3000mAh charge, then it's just charge inefficiency you're seeing. The efficiency declines at lower charge rates and with worse cells. At .1C charge you need to put in 1.4 - 1.6 times the cell's capacity, for example. Anyway, this is a bit similar as when a car manufacturer claim 50MPG, and that figure applies to driving on the highway at 55MPH without stops. If you then floor the pedal and soar down the highway at the car's maximum speed and don't get 50MPG, it doesn't mean that the manufacturer lied about their results.


 
I never charge my cells at .1C because that isn't a right thing to do. The charge rates I used for these cells have been clearly disclosed at ~.66C. Same charge rate I use for other cells.

Let's not bring MPG into this, they are whole differt ball game. The MPG will vary based on so many factors (engine temps, outside temp, air pressure, driving habits, altitude, slope etc etc) that it is nearly impossible to repeat the results. With electronics however, a discharge rate of 600 mAh is a discharge rate of 600 mAh, mAh doesn't differ from one user to another. The tests were performed at room termperature, most people will not go into extremes where the capacities will both decrease or increase.


----------



## shadowjk (Jun 25, 2010)

IEC 61951-2

In summary, correct me if I got this wrong:

Charge at 0.1C 16 hours
Rest batteries 1 hour
Discharge at 0.2C to 1.0Volt

I think the break-in mode on C9000 is an approximation of this.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 25, 2010)

shadowjk said:


> IEC 61951-2
> 
> In summary, correct me if I got this wrong:
> 
> ...


 
...and that is what I did. Unfortunatelly, the resulting numbers weren't satisfactory to some in one way or another.


----------



## Conan (Jun 26, 2010)

MattK said:


> Your conclusion that the cells are, "not close to the rated capacity," is flawed.
> 
> Rated capacity is based upon specific charge and discharge rates, rest times and environmental STANDARDS. There is a universal STANDARD for capacitance testing of batteries.
> 
> ...



He made no claims about his tests being a "universal standard". You seem to get defensive whenever battery hobbyists do their "home-based" testing. You don't even carry the Ansmann brand.


----------



## vali (Jun 26, 2010)

I agree that consumer grade equipment will not have the accuracy to show the real capacity of a cell and you get a number that is near the capacity taking in account a reasonable tolerance.

I agree too that for a comparable reading you need to use a standard charge/discharge, not the rates you think it should.

But the thing is he got the capacity with a break-in that, IIRC, is the nearest thing to the standard that can be done with domestic equipment. 

On the other hand, I have some questions too:

- If the results of consumer-grade chargers have an error, why they always show less capacity? shouldnt it be that about half of the time (statistically speaking) they would show higher than real capacities?

- Why the capacity differ about 250 mAh (almost 10%) with these cells but if you do the same with an eneloop you get a capactiy that is very near the advertised one? Is the charger more or less accurate according to brands?

- How the increased capacity will affect in the long-term reliability. Will they wear in a few dozen of charges?

- What's the self-discharge limit for a cell to be considered LSD?

My asumption is that the number is a choice of marketing guys (taking in account the allowed tolerance not to be accused of false claims) rather than the one you are expected to get if that capactiy were true.

We see this kind of things everyday. When I bought the Evefast cells I tested for self-discharge, the label said 900 mAh. yes, what else? Being as sceptic as I am, the first thing I do was a refresh&analize to get a rougly stimate. Guess what? They show the same capacity all the LSD cells had to that day. At least these Ansmann are over the other LSD, but no up to the claimed capacity. 

Even after saying all of that, I would like to see more test, because I dont consider a single test conclusive. We need to see more samples to get any conclusions.


----------



## TakeTheActive (Jun 26, 2010)

Since the 2 posts that I'm replying to are, IMHO, actions and/or questions that occur REPEATEDLY on CPF (and *MANY* other forums), I decided to reply in (what I decided to call :tinfoil: ) "*Coffee Klatch*" mode:



xoomercom said:


> ...*and that is what I did*. Unfortunatelly, the resulting numbers weren't satisfactory to some in one way or another.


First of all (and this isn't SPECIFICALLY addressed to you {since the original post for your QUOTE was rather short but MANY of the other QUOTE'd replies in this thread (and others!) were MUCH longer} - it applies to SO MANY other posters :sigh: ), it *REALLY* isn't necessary to QUOTE the *ENTIRE* (sometimes LONG, and sometimes ALSO with PHOTOS!) post that you're answering, *ESPECIALLY* if it's the PREVIOUS post and EVEN MORE SO if your reply is going to be a "*SIMPLE One-Liner*" type . It's just LAZY and/or DISCOURTEOUS (Please note my usage here of an online thesaurus




). IMHO, give some consideration to the HARD DI*$*K *$*PACE that the forum owner(s) needs to provide . *GOOGLE it* - IIRC, it's called proper "*Netiquette*" (not just some "Old Fart" yakking away again...).
*QUOTE FAQ: Of proper quoting*
*An Email Group Netiquette Guide*
*[RANT] Quoting *ENTIRE* Posts (Including PHOTOS!) When Replying...*
*WikiPedia: Herding Cats*
*WordReference.Com: Pushing a Rope*

Second, although I certainly APPRECIATE the time and effort *ANYONE* takes to produce a "*Set of Numbers*", I have to agree with *MattK* in that folks who post GOBS of numbers (again *NOT* specifically you!), *SPRINKLED* throughout a thread, *sometimes* using the C9000 BREAK-IN function, *sometimes* (AT LEAST) using a 0.2C Discharge Rate, are mostly / *REALLY* just posting RANDOM numbers (MY terminology!). :sigh: IMHO, *NOBODY* in the future is going to READ through 50 / 100 / 150+ scattered posts to follow someone's progress :huh2: - *IT ALL NEEDS TO BE IN *ONE* POST!*



DING, DING, DING!!!

Make fun of me all you like but OVER A YEAR AGO I tried to get a few folks to assemble the data for their (unique manufacturer / type / size / capacity) cells, in the format I used below (in the CODE Tags), UPDATING their OP with new data (as testing progressed) to which I was going to create a CENTRAL POST with LINKs to the various "*NiMH Cells and Their Tested Capacities*". Text-wise, I was met with 'Blank Stares'. 

I've tried SO MANY TIMES to get folks to post their results in an *ASCII TABLE* format DETAILING:
**WHERE**
**WHEN** and
**HOW**
they arrived at those numbers, to no avail... :shakehead

If I arrived here on CPF 'Batteries Included' from a GOOGLE SEARCH, looking for an 'Everyday User' comparison of NiMh cells, I'd be OVERJOYED to find a CENTRAL POST with LINKs to threads on *EACH* UNIQUE type of cell, and within *EACH* post there would be a COMPLETE synopsis / history of the performance of THAT TYPE OF CELL for THAT USER! But, unfortunately, that's *NOT* what you'll find here. You'll find RANDOM NUMBERS, dispersed over RANDOM THREADS, the titles of which MAY or MAY NOT relate to their contents - the SAME way that those "*Gems of Knowledge*" that I've gathered in my Sig Line LINKs are BURIED in multiple, obscure threads.

Yeah, I know that I'm DIFFERENT! Way back when I first started creating my CPF Sig Line LINKs, one of the first replies (to a thread where I BOLDLY stated {original formatting PURPOSELY OMITTED!  }):

"*PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS THREAD!*
[Send me a PM; Start a new thread; etc... Thanks!]

*This is a "Work-in-Progress" Document!*​was (BOLD formatting mine):


> Firstly, welcome to CPF, TakeTheActive!
> 
> *Gosh, golly, gee wiz! None of us here were ever lurkers! We just jumped in, dumber than a door nail! I'm sure you're familiar with that!
> 
> ...


As you all can plainly see, I IGNORED his *RUDE* reply and, once again *IMHO*, my Sig Line LINKs are doing quite well, getting a substantial number of views (14,600 to-date) and (hopefully  ) helping a bunch of folks.  Not bragging, just happy and proud.
.



Conan said:


> *He made no claims about his tests being a "universal standard". You seem to get defensive whenever battery hobbyists do their "home-based" testing*...



I agree with *MattK's* replies here as I did to his replies in: *Rechargeable AA battery shoot out*
(That thread was HARD to find! I could have SWORN it originally had '*Ultimate*' in its title?!? Good thing I remembered "*Dave*" and "*Italy*".  )

Getting back to my initial "*Coffee Klatch*" statement, I fail to understand WHY so many folks continue to post RANDOM NUMBERS:
"*I did 5 Cycles on my Eneloops on my C9000 and I got: 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954.*"
*What does that mean?!?*
Are your Eneloops NEW, almost NEW, OLD?
What CHARGE RATE did you use?
What DISCHARGE RATE did you use?
What is the FIRMWARE of your C9000 (i.e. 1.0VDC cutoff or 0.9VDC cutoff)?
Yada, Yada, Yada...

And WHY *SO* many folks reply with:
"*Thanks! Looking forward to your next test!*"
:shakehead   :shrug:​
And, finally, by "*Coffee Klatch*" I mean:"_Posts that have no real historic value and are similar to a "*One-Time-and-Then-Forgotten*" :thinking: conversation held between folks at the 'Coffee Machine' at work._"​
Some folks have replied to my previous posts on these topics with "*Because we're not like you!*". I'm *NOT* SAYING that I'm better than anyone else - what I am ASKING is that you be CONSIDERATE of others (the forum owner(s) paying for the HDD space, the dial-up / DSL users WAITING for their pages to display, etc...) when QUOTE'ng (and posting RANDOM NUMBERS  ).

Many of my posts take MUCH TIME (sometimes an hour or two, depending on how much RESEARCH I need to do) to compose and, although every now-and-then I tend to go *OVERBOARD* with my formatting  , I'm just trying to share my knowledge and have fun at the same time. Those of you with THOUSANDS of "_under 5 minutes to compose_ / _sometimes INCOMPLETE_" posts don't impress me, although YOU do seem to take pleasure in mocking me. _Someone_ recently said _something_ to the effect: '*This is a BIG sandbox where MANY folks can voice DIFFERENT views.*'. Please try to keep that thought in mind when replying.

Yes, my '*Style*' is *DIFFERENT*!.  So, if YOU find it *disturbing*, *PLEASE* just IGNORE me. MUCH ADO is expressed on forums to "*Be Polite / Be Civil / Don't Flame / Erroneous Posts Will Be Properly Contested* (and somehow the RIGHT answer will _magically_ float to the top)". IMHO, a *MINORITY* of us are attempting to do JUST THAT! :wave: (And others, although of the SAME BASIC BELIEF, just don't wish to expose themselves to the neverending ridicule, and thus remain silent... :sigh: )

A quote that I found, and use in my Sig Line on another forum is:


> *The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. --George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)*


(Who does THAT remind you of?) ​
A phrase that I created myself (*YEARS* AGO!), and use in my Sig Line on a few other forums is:


> *Low* Post Count <> *Low* Knowledge *ergo* *High* Post Count <> *High* Knowledge​



I post on forums to help others (and feel useful  ).

GOOGLE my UserID:
I FIND a (new to me) forum
I LURK (and learn)
I JOIN (and ATTEMPT to help others)
I GET BORED (and move on...)
AFAICT, CPF 'Batteries Included' is one of my LONGEST interests - NEAT STUFF! ("_Old Fart_" speak, eh?) Yeah, I may still visit the other forums *DAILY*, but I RARELY update the FAQs that I created *YEARS* ago.
Thanks! 
*__________________________________________________*​
IMHO, *THESE* are useful numbers:

```
Duracell 2000mAh AA LSD 7H20 [C] |   #3    #4
---------------------------------+---------------
11/07/09 C9000 Break-In: 2000    | 1897  1920 mAh#
11/06/09 C9000 Impedance Check:  | 1.50  1.51 VDC
11/06/09 C9000 Discharge:  100   | 1426  1425 mAh  [71%  71%]
11/05/09 C9000 Impedance Check:  | 1.58  1.60 VDC
[Bought: 10/24/09 w/CEF23
>01/04/10:#3,4-Weather Channel Therm Base]
```


```
Duracell 2000mAh AA LSD 8B27 [J] |   #1    #2    #3    #4
---------------------------------+---------------------------  
01/03/10 C9000 Charge:    2000   | ~500  ~500  ~500  ~500 mAh 25% Storage Charge
01/03/10 C9000 Discharge:  400   |   84    86    92    93 mAh

05/23/09 C9000 Impedance Check:  | 1.65  1.65  1.64  1.64 VDC
05/23/09 C9000 Cycle3:  2000/ 400| 1870  1880  1884  1879 mAh
05/xx/09 C9000 Cycle2:  2000/ 400| 1878  1886  1888  1889 mAh
05/xx/09 C9000 Cycle1:  2000/ 400| 1879  1893  1890  1888 mAh
05/22/09 C9000 Discharge:  100   | 2018  2017  2032  2018 mAh
05/21/09 C9000 Break-In: 2000    | 1927  1931  1938  1941 mAh#
05/18/09 C9000 Discharge:  100   | 1472  1480  1486  1479 mAh  [74%  74%  74%  74%]
05/17/09 C9000 Impedance Check:  | 1.50  1.50  1.50  1.50 VDC
[Bought: 11/xx/08;
 06/27-09/09/09:HP215 Camera (~1.17VDC @ 150mA on RS Tester; HP Batt. Meter @ 50%)]
```
P.S. Does *ANYONE* reading these "*Highly Formatted*" posts of mine follow the '_vocal intonations_' IMPLIED by the various text formats? 

(*P.S.S.* It just occurred to me that the reason that I MAY be getting SO MUCH pleasure from my EXCESSIVE FORMATING is that it reminds me of my former occupation - PROGRAMMER/ANALYST!) :thinking:

(*P.S.S.S.* Yep, I think that I HAVE to admit that it's an ADDICTION - it's like changing a bit of code / re-compiling (if necessary) / re-running a program and viewing (aka ADMIRING) the results - I just keep LOOPING and LOOPING, TWEAKING and TWEAKING - woe is me!)

(*P.S.S.S.S.* How many other "Over-a-Half-Century-Old" folks reading this find the words their fingers type ARE NOT ALWAYS the words their mind was thinking?)


----------



## cckw (Jun 26, 2010)

In first to complain about TTA's use of fonts and color! 

Otherwise here is my take on the criticism: using consumer equipment in a random environment won't stand up in court. However, I don't use my flashlights in a controlled laboratory environment, or in court. I use them in all kinds of variable conditions, therefor this testing is legit for me. This will establish a general trend line, and that can be compared to the the general trend lines of the current standards such as Eneloop and Hybrid. Or in other words, This test will give us realistic expectations of these batteries.


----------



## MattK (Jun 28, 2010)

xoomercom said:


> I can see how a battery distributor would be irked by my non-scientific conclusion but that wasn't my goal.



That's a cheap shot and a pretty weak deflection. I posted a reply because I follow this forum as I have some expertise in the matter. 



Conan said:


> He made no claims about his tests being a "universal standard". You seem to get defensive whenever battery hobbyists do their "home-based" testing. You don't even carry the Ansmann brand.



No, he claimed that they're, 'not near their advertised rating.' Which is not a conclusion one can draw from his testing method or equipment. 

I'm not 'defensive,' I simply want people to choose their words correctly and make *FACTUALLY CORRECT STATEMENTS.*

The fact that we don't carry the Ansmann brand rather makes my point and should enhance my credibility on the issue. 


xoomercom is not the first person I've taken to task for posting derogatory comments about a product that state that a product doesn't make it's advertised capacity. [See more here: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/245951]

It's very simple:* when you're making up your own STANDARD to test capacity and using a basic consumer-grade devices to make your tests any claims you make about mfr rated capacities on a cell are useless.*


----------



## Conan (Jun 29, 2010)

So how come Eneloops always seem to perform to their "rated capacity" using these "consumer-grade devices"? I don't seem to recall anyone being disappointed with their Eneloops.


----------



## MattK (Jun 29, 2010)

The eneloops hold up very well under high discharge rates (those often used as 'tests' here); I've heard it speculated that their thicker seperators make them particularly robust for high drain applications. Sanyo eneloops are also conservatively rated so it's 'easier' for them to deliver at/near spec.

You are, however, still missing my point:

I DON'T care that xoomercom made up his own test methodology. So long as he defines it, that's all that really matters.

I DO care that he used his own methodology to claim a cells capacity as, 'not near their advertised rating.' 
This statement is libelous and WRONG since their advertised rating is based upon specific charge & discharge rates with defined rest periods at a controlled temperature, etc.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 29, 2010)

TakeTheActive said:


> Since the 2 posts that I'm replying to are, IMHO, actions and/or questions that occur REPEATEDLY on CPF (and *MANY* other forums), I decided to reply in (what I decided to call :tinfoil: ) "*Coffee Klatch*" mode:......


 

I can tell that you were a programmer and not a designer. Your "organized" formatting is nothing but. Using all the colors of the rainbow and all smileys available does not make a document organized. Add to that special characters, different size and type fonts, broken paragraphs, hidden text (yes, text in the same color as background) makes for a guaranteed headache or even loss of eye sight. I'll take your own advise and just ignore it. No pun intended, but I just don't see it applying here.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 29, 2010)

MattK said:


> That's a cheap shot and a pretty weak deflection. I posted a reply because I follow this forum as I have some expertise in the matter.


 
That is weird but another person noticed just the same.



MattK said:


> No, he claimed that they're, 'not near their advertised rating.' Which is not a conclusion one can draw from his testing method or equipment.
> 
> I'm not 'defensive,' I simply want people to choose their words correctly and make *FACTUALLY CORRECT STATEMENTS.*
> 
> The fact that we don't carry the Ansmann brand rather makes my point and should enhance my credibility on the issue.


 
Actually my statement was very correct and only because both the Eneloops and the Ansmann were tested using the same methology and equipment. It's all about logic.

Look...

Battery Brand, Type | Rated Capacity | Tested Capacity 

Sanyo Eneloop | 2000 mAh | 1998 mAh

Ansmann Max-E Plus | 2500 mAh | 2298 mAh

Do you see it? Eneloop batteries actually charge to their rated capacity, Ansmann DO NOT!


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 29, 2010)

MattK said:


> This statement is libelous and WRONG since their advertised rating is based upon specific charge & discharge rates with defined rest periods at a controlled temperature, etc.


 
Again with these specific numbers that you can't provide. 20 posts later and either you don't know these numbers yourself or are just unwilling to disclose them.

I already said, I didn't test these batteries with NASA grade equipement. They were tested with consumer grade equipment using both a standard (Burn-In) and my own methology that was clearly disclosed. 

Comparatively between both the Eneloop and Max-e plus I came to a conclusion that one does charge to it's rated capacity and the other doesn't. I also noticed that the capacity dropped across all cells tested with each cycle or charge/discharge. 

Did I use a consumer grade equipment, YES

Do I believe it is the best consumer grade equipment I can buy and that it is accurate, YES 

Did I perform both a standardised and "home brewed" test on these cells, YES and YES

I've posted raw numbers for your review. You ( and anybody ) are more than welcome to come up with your own conclusion, I just merely stated my findings. I am certainly allowed to do that.


----------



## MattK (Jun 29, 2010)

xoomercom said:


> That is weird but another person noticed just the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



2 people being identically wrong doesn't make them right. Popularity of opinion does not make facts. The FACT that I'm defending a product we do not sell or represent in any way should have given you PAUSE before you made an accusation like that. 

I replied to this thread, as I have to others like it in the past, because it is UNFAIR, MISLEADING AND INNACURATE to state, without qualification, that a cell doesn't make it's rated capacity when that rating is based on a specific standard and you've not applied that standard. 



xoomercom said:


> Again with these specific numbers that you can't provide. 20 posts later and either you don't know these numbers yourself or are just unwilling to disclose them.
> 
> I already said, I didn't test these batteries with NASA grade equipement. They were tested with consumer grade equipment using both a standard (Burn-In) and my own methology that was clearly disclosed.
> 
> ...



The IEC standard is a few pages long - I'm not typing it and it's a copywrite violation to cut/paste it. Further, it is discussed in many threads here on CPF including the thread that i liinked above.

HAHA - NASA grade equipment. That was a great deflection that you reposted yourself on. 

Sadly you're still missing the point. You're using a $100 consumer grade tester that probably is accurate to within 90%; it's data is only relevant in relative terms to other tests YOU might perform but it's data is useless in absolute terms. 

Thanks for playing.


----------



## xoomercom (Jun 29, 2010)

Sorry for my countless replies, I forgot that you are always right. :duh2: 

Case closed. lovecpf


----------



## xoomercom (Sep 17, 2010)

MattK, you've got a PM.


----------

