# An Interesting Aged/Cycled 18650, 14500, 10440 Cell Shootout



## 45/70 (Jul 11, 2011)

Many tests are performed here on the Forum using "new" Li-Ion cells and the quality and or value of the cells judged by the results of such testing. However I, as well as others, have suggested that the testing of "new" cells doesn't really tell the whole story as to the quality, or actual value of a Li-Ion cell. Most Li-Ion cells will perform fairly well when new, regardless of the actual quality of construction, or materials used in the manufacture of the cell. It is however, my opinion that it is only after a number of cycles over some period of time, that the actual quality, or value of a Li-Ion cell can be determined.

The following is an example of what I've experienced first hand, over the years with regard to "quality" Li-Ion cells vs. the more inexpensive cells. The later, I often refer to as "xxxxxFire et al" type cells, or "inexpensive" (aka cheap!) cells. Also, I'll add that this comparison was not planned, nor did I intend to start a thread about the subject. It came about more as a "Humm, I could do that" sorta thing.

Recently, I tested six 18650 cells that I use in my Legion II, to ascertain whether or not the cells were still matched reasonably well. These cells are protected TrustFire 2500mAh 18650 cells (blue wrapper), and were received new, in September 2009 so, are a bit less than 2 years old. Since new, these cells have probably gone through the equivalent of ~25 full charge/discharge cycles. I say "the equivalent of", as these cells have never been fully discharged, or discharged to a level below ~3.75 volt OC, nor has the protection circuit ever tripped on any cell. So, in reality, the cells have probably undergone 50-75 partial charge/discharge cycles.

When I initially received these six cells, they were used in the light a few times, with relatively shallow discharges, followed by "topping off". The cells were then fully charged, and then discharged individually, on a CBA II and "matched" according to capacity, as well as the general shape of the discharge curve, and separated into two sets of three cells each, as the Legion II utilizes a 3x18650 series configuration. As I remember (I no longer have the original graphs), all cells originally measured between 2300 and 2400mAh in capacity, at a 1A discharge rate terminating at 3.00 Volts. A 1Amp discharge rate was chosen, because this is the average discharge rate which these 18650 cells experience during use in the Legion II, when used at level 5 (highest).

When testing 18650 size LiCo Li-Ion cells in order to observe their discharge characteristics at a 1Amp discharge rate, I set the discharge voltage cutoff at 3.50 Volts. For most 18650 LiCo cells discharged at a 1A rate, this stops the discharge of the cell at a point at the beginning of, or just before the start of the "knee" in the plot line, where the voltage begins to drop off rapidly. Since it is pretty well known where the cell is going at this point, there is no benefit in discharging the cell any farther, for the purpose of cell matching.

Here are the resulting two TrustFire 18650 graphs, one for each "set" of three cells. Keep in mind that the x axis scale varies slightly, between different graphs, throughout this post.

TrustFire cells #1-3 (click for higher resolution)









and cells #4-6 (click for higher resolution)








As can be seen in the graphs, neither set of cells is well matched at this point. In addition, it would appear that at least four of the cells are due for retirement (one, #5, obviously), as they are not likely capable of reaching 80% of their original capacity (~1840mAh), even if discharged to 3.00 Volts, or even 2.75 Volts.

So anyway, it was at this point that I thought about testing two protected AW 2200mAh 18650 cells, which have always been used in single cell applications, at similar discharge rates, and comparing them to the TrustFire cells. These particular AW cells were purchased in either late 2005, or very early 2006, and are the old "blue wrapper" version. These AW cells probably have undergone the equivalent of 50 full discharge/charge cycles. Again, as with the TrustFire cells, these cells have never been discharged below a rested OC voltage of ~3.75 Volts, and neither protection circuit has ever been tripped.

A graph of the two AW cells. (click for higher resolution)








And all 8 cells on one graph combined. (click for higher resolution)








I'll note here that all 8 cells had been in use previous to this testing (within the past week, or so) and were fully charged within 24 hours before the actual testing commenced. In the interest of keeping the circumstances the cells were tested under more uniform however, immediately prior to each actual discharge test, the cells were "topped off" individually, utilizing an iCharger 106B+ charging at 1200mA CC/4.20 Volt CV, and charge termination occurring at C/10.

In order to expedite the procedure, the cells were rested for only 10 minutes after the "top off" charge, before being discharged on a CBA II (with CBA III software). It is interesting to note that the "surface charge" can be seen at the beginning of the TrustFire discharge plots, but is much less apparent to non existent, looking at the AW cell plots. I'm not sure why this is, but may possibly be a sign of advanced cell degradation in the TrustFire cells. Again, prior to testing, all 8 cells were prepared identically and the ambient temperature during testing was consistently 77-80 F due to A/C.

Keep in mind that the 2200mAh AW cells tested here are about 5 1/2 years old and probably have undergone about twice as many charge/discharge cycles as the TrustFire cells. The 2500mAh TrustFire cells on the other hand, are not quite yet 2 years old, and have undergone only about half as many charge/discharge cycles, under similar conditions, ie. charge/discharge rates etc. I realize that my cycling estimate may not be that accurate, however I am certain that the AW cells have undergone more charge/discharge cycles than the TrustFire cells, in any event.


In summary, while this comparison may lack considerably, as far as scientific accuracy is concerned, it still demonstrates reasonably well what I've experienced over the last six or so years, when comparing quality Li-Ion cells to the less expensive alternatives. And, as a reminder, I'm not a "snob", as I buy and use both types of cells, obviously. Sometimes I wonder why, but I guess I keep looking for a "miracle", just like everybody else. The bottom line, as it has played out for me though, is that you pretty much "get what you pay for" when it comes to Li-Ion cells.

Dave

*-----------------*
*EDIT: 8/22/11*
*-----------------

*As requested, I have added some additional comparisons for 14500 protected, unprotected, and 10440 unprotected cells. All charge and discharge parameters were done in the same way as the 18650 cells, except for the charging current, which was 400mA for the 14500 cells, and 100mA for the 10440 cells.



The next chart is a comparison of some protected 14500 cells. I purchased specifically, "3" AW 700mAh protected cells in the Fall of 2006 for a "special project", that never happened. These cells are the older "blue wrapper" version and are about 5 years old. Their primary use ended up being in an AuroraLite Mini [email protected] TL3 hotwire conversion that I made shortly after obtaining the cells. The cells have been used in rotation, 2 in series, in this light. The light draws somewhere around 2C (~1.4A) current, which is about the maximum recommended for these cells. The exact number of cycles on these cells is difficult to determine, but my best guess is they have seen the equivalent of about 15-20 full cycles. Again, I do not fully discharge Li-Ion cells, but prefer shallow discharges, so they probably have undergone about 30-40 partial cycles. The protection circuits have never been tripped.

The second pair of cells are blue wrapper TrustFire "900mAh" protected cells. I received these cells new in August 2009. The cells therefore are about two years old. They have been used exclusively in single cell lights designed for the use of Li-Ion cells (they are too long to fit in the Mini [email protected]). The maximum current draw of these lights is 700-800mA, or a maximum of about 1C, only occurring when these lights are set at maximum output, which is most of the time. These cells likely have the equivalent of about 10-15 full cycles, or actually, probably 20-25 partial cycles. The protection circuits have never been tripped.








Next, a comparison of unprotected 14500 cells. The AW 14500 cells were purchased in the Fall of 2006. These cells are about 5 years old. The cells have been used exclusively, in single cell lights, the same as the protected TrustFire cells in the previous comparison. The cells have undergone an estimated equivalent of 20-25 full cycles.

The TrustFire gray wrapper "900mAh" unprotected cells were received new, in August 2009 and are two years old. These cells again, were used in the same lights and under the same conditions as the AW cells above. They have probably been cycled the equivalent of 10-15 full cycles.








Last, an unprotected 10440 cell comparison. In this case, both the AW and UltraFire cells, were purchased at about the same time, either late 2006, or early 2007. The AW cells are the older blue wrapper "LC" version 320mAh cells, which, as I understand it, have now been replaced with Soshine cells. The UltraFire cells are "600mAh" and also have a blue wrapper.

I mention later, in post #19, that this really is not much of a comparison, but thought I'd do it anyway. I have three lights that are specifically designed for the use of 10440 Li-Ion cells (of course, alkaline or NiMh as well), one LiteFlux LF2, and two MJP Extreme III's. The LF2 will accept either the 43.5mm AW, or the 46mm+ UltraFire cells. The two Extreme III's will not accept the excessively long, UltraFire cells. I believe that the extra length of these cells is due to a nipple having been added over the cell's actual flat top.

The UltraFire cells when new, would not run any of the lights on maximum for more than a minute, or less, and only a few seconds presently. The current draw of these lights on maximum, as I remember, is around 600-700mA. The AW cells did, and still do, run any of the lights on maximum for around 10 minutes. This of course cannot be done all in one run, as these lights are so small that they get very hot, very fast.

As far as the number of cycles on any of these 10440 cells, it is almost impossible to estimate. I do not "keychain' these lights, but rather carry them in my "watch pocket". These lights are carried mainly in the Summer, when smaller size, and less weight, or bulk is desirable. I also carry them on formal occasions. Often in these situations, I really don't want anyone asking me "is that a roll of nickels in your pocket, or...."? Due to infrequent and/or seasonal use, an estimate of the number of cycles on either of these cells would be a total guess. Considering I have only two of the AW cells, four of the UltraFire cells, the AW cells have always worked much better, and the fact that the UltraFire cells only fit in one of the three lights, I think it's fairly safe to say that the AW cells have seen many more cycles.

Also note that due to an error when I set up the AW 10440 runs, they were discharged at 320mA, rather than 300mA. I do not think this affected the results all that much, but the cells would have had a very slightly higher voltage under load, as well as a bit more capacity, if they had been discharged at 300mA.








I will not repeat my summary from earlier. I do want to point out however, that in all 4 comparisons, the AW cells have been cycled more, and also, with the exception of the 10440 cell comparison, the AW cells are considerably older, than the xxxxxFire cells they are being compared with. Unfortunately, I imagine many who look these results over will fail to realize this. Most test threads involve testing new cells, but again, these comparisons are of used, older cells.

At this point I have pretty much exhausted my supply of cells for this type of comparison. I have many more Li-Ion cells, but they are either all of the same type and size, or I have no way of estimating, or even guessing their usage history.

Dave


----------



## samgab (Jul 11, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

Wow, awesome info. Look at you with your CBA II and your iCharger 106B+ ... So jealous! . Anyway, the moral I drew from this story was: Buy quality cells, such as AW or anything with Panasonic innards.


----------



## SilverFox (Jul 11, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

Hello Dave,

Very interesting results. In theory, if a set of cells are matched and used together, they should be good for around 300 charge/discharge cycles before falling out of balance. It appears that it may be prudent to review the performance of a set more often when using cells of unknown quality.

Tom


----------



## VegasF6 (Jul 11, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

I was a little surprised you stopped the tests at 3.5V with a 1A load. Still tells the same story of course, but you could have squeezed a few more mAH out them. In the case of the AW 2200 for instance, what cut off voltage and discharge current would have been used to get those #s? Probably .3C to 2.75V?


----------



## darcyh (Jul 11, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

Thanks for the information. Very useful.

Dave


----------



## 45/70 (Jul 11, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*



SilverFox said:


> Very interesting results. In theory, if a set of cells are matched and used together, they should be good for around 300 charge/discharge cycles before falling out of balance.



Hi Tom. With only six cells to make two 3s "packs" (they were not really made into packs, but remained "loose" cells"), it's difficult to come up with perfectly matched sets. The cells were/are protected though, although I have learned not to depend on such devices, as they are a "last resort only" safety feature. Just the same, I assure you that each set of three cells were matched much better than they are now! I think the problem with the TrustFire cells is related to inconsistency of manufacture, between cells, more than anything else.



VegasF6 said:


> I was a little surprised you stopped the tests at 3.5V with a 1A load. Still tells the same story of course, but you could have squeezed a few more mAH out them.


 
Hi Vegas. As I mentioned in my first post, the original purpose of this endeavor started out as simply checking to see if the cells were still reasonably matched. For this purpose, there is no reason to discharge the cells farther. The beginning of the "knee" is clearly visible in all the plots. This is all that is needed for matching cells. I was not testing for capacity, or I would have set the voltage cutoff at 3.00 Volts, although, as I said earlier, you can pretty much determine where the plots are going after the 3.50 Volt cutoff, ie. down. Of course with a different size/capacity.chemistry cell, or different discharge rate, the voltage at which the "knee" starts, will be different.



> In the case of the AW 2200 for instance, what cut off voltage and discharge current would have been used to get those #s? Probably .3C to 2.75V?


Not sure what you're asking here. One thing about the capacity of the AW cells, is that I had no way of testing them when I got them. At the time, as I remember, others said they were good for about 2000mAh at a 1A discharge rate.

Also, as far as squeaking every last bit out of a cell during a discharge test, I really don't see any point in it. Once the plot hits the "knee" it's pretty much all over anyway. The only usable capacity of the cell for use in most devices, is that which is before the "knee" in the plot. Discharging cells beyond this point seems rather meaningless to me, it just unnecessarily damages the cell, unless of course, you're selling Li-Ion cells.

Dave


----------



## brembo (Jul 11, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

Great info, thanks. I have pretty well banished the XXXFire cells from my multi-cell lights and only feed them AW cells. As it stands I now only buy AW(going to try Redilast soon and possibly some customs) and will not purchase generic el-cheapo cells even for my single cell rigs. With the amount of juice and current draw that some of the XM-L emitters want I feel that high quality cells are in order even on single cell lights. Possibly a bit paranoid, but for the small difference in price I see no reason not to go with the best.


----------



## Darkwall (Jul 11, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

Small difference in price?? Where you buying from? AW's run over twice the price of trustfire. They might be good batteries, but i would say NOT TWICE as good at TWICE the price!

AW's http://www.lighthound.com//AW-18650-Protected-2200-mAh-Rechargeable-Lithium-Battery_p_105.html ONE battery is $12.99

Trustfire http://www.dealextreme.com/p/trustf...h-rechargeable-lithium-batteries-2-pack-20392 TWO batteries $9.99


----------



## Darkwall (Jul 11, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

And which XM-L emitters are you refering to that pull alot of "juice and current"? You should of been more concerned with the SST-50 emitters that are being driven at 5 AMP's, take the Jetbeam MS2 as a perfect example... XM-L's ive only seen being driven at 3 AMP's...


----------



## brembo (Jul 11, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

Darkwall-

I could have been clearer, sorry. An AW cell costs 15 bucks, shipping and everything all said and done. The Trustfire cell is gong to end up around 5 or 7 dollars a cell when all is taken into account. So, yeah twice the price.

Now consider that I'm stuffing these cells into a sealed aluminum tube with no vents and must trust that the manufacturer assembled them properly. The outcome of a fried cell is up in the air, possible bodily harm and very likely ruining the light itself. One bad cell could ruin a 300$ light, saving 9 bucks on that cell would seem foolish. The total outlay of funds when taken in perspective to the cost of the torch is often small. That's my take on it anyway. Call it insurance of a nature. I know that an AW cell could also go ****-up while riding in my pocket, yet the general consensus is that it's less likely for that to happen than with the less expensive cells.


*edit*

As to X-ML vs. SST series. I was speaking of the lights I use personally.


----------



## Darkwall (Jul 11, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

"One bad cell could ruin a 300$ light, saving 9 bucks on that cell would seem foolish." LOL yeah think you have a point.. I guess im always carrying my two cell 18650 light, with my one cell 18650 as backup, in case something happens to the big one.. i dont use it in life or death senario, and will even carry an extra set of batteries in case something happens to the main set in the light. I have had the protective circuit trip in an 18650 cell while running my larger light, over discharged the cell from what i could tell... anyways i see what your saying better now, if that's my only light, then i had better trust the battery inside. (hmm, sounds like that duracell comercial a little)


----------



## 45/70 (Jul 12, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*



Darkwall said:


> Small difference in price?? Where you buying from? AW's run over twice the price of trustfire. They might be good batteries, but i would say NOT TWICE as good at TWICE the price!



Hi Darkwall. I think you may be missing something here and the cost may actually be closer than you think.

Granted, as Vegas pointed out, these graphs weren't really meant to check total capacity of the cells, but were used to check cell performance so an estimate could be made as to how well the cells were matched. If you do a little bit of extrapolating though, and consider the age of the cells, number of cycles, and their present condition, it's possible to come to the conclusion that one 2200mAh AW cell would last as long as four TrustFire 2500mAh cells and provide similar performance, in a single cell light, for example.

What I interpret from the graphs, aside form the fact that the TrustFire cells are no longer useable as matched "sets", is that the TrustFire cells are pretty much at EOL after less than two years and approximately 25 full cycles (equivalent). The AW cells on the other hand, appear to be at a point about halfway through their cycle life at 50 cycles and 5 1/2 years. Theoretically, this would mean that the AW cells would reach EOL at about 100 cycles at the present rate of degradation.

I'll add here that all of my Li-Ion cells, when not installed in a light, are stored in the fridge at ~40% SOC at 35-40F. This probably works out to 75% of the time, or more. I would not expect any Li-ion cell to last as long as these cells that were tested, if stored at room temperature, fully charged, or both.

Dave


----------



## Darkwall (Jul 13, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

Dave , guess i didnt catch exactly what he was getting at the first time i read across this, but i think ive got it now....thanks.
""Keep in mind that the 2200mAh AW cells tested here are about 5 1/2 years old and probably have undergone about twice as many charge/discharge cycles as the TrustFire cells. The 2500mAh TrustFire cells on the other hand, are not quite yet 2 years old, and have undergone only about half as many charge/discharge cycles, under similar conditions, ie. charge/discharge rates etc. ""

Found this interesting, point to discussion here, and seems to prove the theory.. bottom of page check out the graph 'typical life characteristics' http://industrial.panasonic.com/www-data/pdf2/ACA4000/ACA4000CE240.pdf


----------



## KiwiMark (Jul 14, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*



Darkwall said:


> Small difference in price?? Where you buying from? AW's run over twice the price of trustfire. They might be good batteries, but i would say NOT TWICE as good at TWICE the price!
> 
> AW's http://www.lighthound.com//AW-18650-Protected-2200-mAh-Rechargeable-Lithium-Battery_p_105.html ONE battery is $12.99
> 
> Trustfire http://www.dealextreme.com/p/trustf...h-rechargeable-lithium-batteries-2-pack-20392 TWO batteries $9.99


 
I have bought some of those Trustfire cells - but I still don't know how good they are. As mentioned in the OP the capacity when new doesn't tell the whole story - but the tests in the OP weren't done on these particular cells, so I just don't know how good they'll be in 2 or 3 years.

One thing that I DO know is that once you add shipping the AW cells are going to cost ~$15 or more and the Trustfire cells are $9.99 including shipping for a pair, so only $5 each. Since I don't have any evidence that these particular Trustfire cells wont last 1/3rd as long then I just can't say that they aren't better value.
HOWEVER: I don't use these in multicell lights, in fact I am not even putting them in sealed metal tubes. I am using my AW cells in my Aluminium lights and these Trustfire cells are just used for other applications where I don't really have major safety concerns (like in a battery powered cellphone charger).

I pretty much agree with the OP that for multi-cell lights where you want balanced cells you are better off paying more for quality cells that are likely to stay matched for MUCH longer. When you use cells in series it doesn't hurt to use a bit of caution. For cells that aren't so well matched (or may not be at least) then I'd be careful about how low I drained them when using them in series.


----------



## Toohotruk (Jul 15, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

Very interesting...I have often wondered about how cells perform after a lot of use over time. I happen to have just discovered that the two Eagletac 18650s I bought a little over two years ago, and that have maybe 50 charges at most, may be shot. I recently bought a Pila charger, and the first time I used it to recharge those cells, the charger indicated the cells were defective. I checked them with the multimeter and one was at 4.11V and the other at 4.10V. Should I even trust these cells at all, or would they be OK in single cell lights?

I'll be buying AWs from now on.


----------



## 45/70 (Jul 15, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*



Toohotruk said:


> ......I checked them with the multimeter and one was at 4.11V and the other at 4.10V. Should I even trust these cells at all, or would they be OK in single cell lights?



Hi Too. My experience with cells that come off a charger (rested for 20 minutes, or so) that _does not_ "always" charge cells to ~4.20 Volts, like some of the cheap ones do, but the Pila _does not_, is that these cells are showing some "wear and tear", but are still useable.

If you were to run a capacity check on these cells, I'm guessing you would come up with somewhere between 80-90% of their _original capacity_ (not what is printed on the side of the cell). When the cells start reading 4.00-4.10 Volts (again, after a rest period), they likely would test out closer to 80% of their original capacity. This would put them closer to EOL, but again, still useful, for a bit anyway. Now, if your cells are reading 4.10-4.11 Volts _immediately_ (like within 1 second) after pulling them out of the Pila, they are probably actually closer to 80%, than 90% original capacity.

This takes this thread off topic and _I really don't want to go this way_, but I've been maintaining that chargers that do not follow the proper recommended Li-Ion charging algorithm and charge cells to 4.20 Volts "if and , or but", damage cells to some unknown degree. I don't know what charger you were using before you purchased the Pila, but I'm wondering if what you're seeing possibly, in part anyway, is a result of using such a charger.

On another note, I want to mention that charts such as the "Typical life characteristics" one from Panasonic that Darkwall linked to above, are a "laboratory" exercise. The cells in this test were run back to back charging/discharging with only a 20 minute rest period between cycles. In actual use, very few people are going to use cells in this manner, and in addition, there is no allowance in the results for aging of the cell. All this cycling likely took place over a period of a month, or whatever, not years. I'm not saying such graphs aren't useful , they are, for comparative purposes, but are not really applicable to how we use our cells, for example. Like most life expectancy estimations for cells, I don't think they are very accurate, when applied to real world situations. For example I doubt the new "1500 cycle" eneloops will ever achieve even 1000 cycles in most peoples hands, maybe 500.

Dave


----------



## Toohotruk (Jul 15, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

Thanks for the info. I was using a WF139, and I'm sure it contributed to the loss of capacity of those cells, and it was starting to behave erratically, so I bought the Pila to be safer. I figure that, combined with AWs should give me the best setup. 

Sorry for taking this thread off topic.

I have several AW cells that I've used with the WF139, and they all behave like new despite the abuse, so I have experienced your findings first hand.


----------



## Helmut.G (Jul 21, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

45/70, thank you for posting this information and for pointing me to it!

do you have any other cells to test? I'd be especially interested in more data on old AW cells.

I had figured myself that the cheap cells don't last very long by now, but never new how long the good ones last.



read about my personal experience:

I don't have a way to test cell capacity. I only take voltage readings and draw my conclusions.

I bought a high drain incandescend light that came with two blue Ultrafire unprotected 2400 mAh cells in March 2008. These cells were always used as a pair, and weren't used very much. It's truly very hard to say, but I'd say less than 20 cycles.
These cells are holding a charge just fine and are well matched today. As I said I have no way to test capacity but I haven't noticed a change in their behaviour.

I bought 4 grey trustfire protected 2400 mAh cells in 2009. None of these cells would stay above 4.11 V out of the charger from the beginning. I put them back in the charger, they dropped back to 4.11V when taken out. They were used sparingly. None of these cells had a useable capacity when I needed them at the end of 2010.

Luckily, I had bought a pair of red-black trustfire 2400mAh cells, (the ones with the flames) in febuary 2010.
As of now, less than one and a half year later one of these cells doesn't hold a charge well. The other one seems fine, a bit less runtime compared to:

the 4 red-black trustfire 2400 mAh cells I bought in december 2010. these cells are not showing any signs of aging that I can detect with my multimeter yet.


All cells were stored at full charge at room temperature.


so basically, out of 8 cells (not counting the last 4 as they aren't onld enough) only 3 have been useful for me for more than one year.
2 out of 8 longer than two years and one isn't old enough to tell yet.



I also very recently bought 4 Sanyo 2600 mAh unprotected cells from kaidomain.
Testing of new cells in a german forum showed these to be excellent.
I would like to hear some opinions if these cells are factory rejects of inferiour quality (and thus won't live ling) or if they could actually be the same cells used in high-quality laptop batteries etc.


----------



## 45/70 (Jul 22, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*



Helmut.G said:


> do you have any other cells to test? I'd be especially interested in more data on old AW cells.



As I mentioned in my first post, I really had no plans to do this comparison. I just realized that because I knew the history of both the TrustFire and AW cells reasonably well, that a comparison might be interesting.

The problem with other older AW cells that I have, is that I do not have as accurate an estimate as to how much use they have had. The only other ones I might consider are four unprotected AW 14500 cells, and maybe three protected ones. The later three however have been abused, more or less, as they were used pretty much exclusively in an Auroralite Mini [email protected] hotwire. By abuse, I mean that the typical current draw on these cells was/is in excess of 2C. The other possibility is a comparison of 10440 cells. This comparison would be rather pointless though, because the UltraFire 10440 cells that I have for the comparison, were crap when new.

As for sometimes getting decent xxxxxFire cells, it does happen. I have a pair of UltraFire 18500 cells that actually are quite good. The problem is, that in my experience, this usually isn't the case. The xxxxxFire et al cells are "hit and miss", this is my major gripe with these inexpensive cells. More and more, I'd rather just purchase good quality cells to begin with, and move on.



> I also very recently bought 4 Sanyo 2600 mAh unprotected cells from kaidomain.
> Testing of new cells in a german forum showed these to be excellent.
> I would like to hear some opinions if these cells are factory rejects of inferiour quality (and thus won't live ling) or if they could actually be the same cells used in high-quality laptop batteries etc.


It's highly unlikely that these cells are "first tier", but that doesn't necessarily mean they are not good cells. On the other hand you have to understand that some of the cells that the xxxxxFire brands relabel are premium brands also. It all depends on which lot of cells they buy, where they buy them from, how old they are, and the reason the cells were rejected. It's also true that first tier cells do show up once in a while. They seem to slip through the backdoor somehow and become available.

Anyway, don't hold your breath waiting for me to do more tests. I might, then again I might not. Things have been getting hectic around here lately. Maybe someone else will do some long term Li-Ion cell comparison tests. That's part of the reason I decided to go ahead and post this one. There really are very few others.

Dave


----------



## Toohotruk (Jul 22, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out"*

I hope somebody will do more of these shootouts with older cells...in my eyes, they are more important than tests with new cells. I would think that most cells test pretty well when new, but how they perform after a couple hundred cycles is more of an indication of the quality of a cell, IMHO.


----------



## 45/70 (Aug 22, 2011)

*An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out" *Added 14500 and 10440 Cells**

Added 14500 protected, 14500 unprotected, and 10440 unprotected cell comparisons to post #1.

Dave


----------



## Helmut.G (Aug 23, 2011)

*Re: An Interesting 18650 LiCo Cell "Shoot Out" *Added 14500 and 10440 Cells**

Thank you very much. This is telling.


----------

