# Test/Review of Charger LiitoKala Engineer Lii-500



## HKJ (Aug 24, 2015)

[size=+3]Charger LiitoKala Engineer Lii-500[/size]















LiitoKala continues to improve each time they make new charger models, this time it is a 4 channel charger with charge and discharge functions (All their Engineer models have discharge).






It arrived in a nondescript cardboard box, that could directly be used for shipping.






The box contained the charger, power adapter, car power adapter and a manual.
The supplied power adapter is a universal voltage (100-240VAC 50/60Hz) with 12V 2A output.






The charger has a DC power input, for the mains adapter and the car adapter.
There is also a 1A usb output.






The user interface is 6 buttons and a display. The four top buttons is used to select a specific slot, when none of them has been pressed MODE and CURRENT works on all slots simultaneously.
The two bottom buttons is used to select mode (Charge, fast discharger, normal discharge) and current (300, 500, 700, 1000mA). The current is charge current, discharge current will be either 250mA (300/500 selected) or 500mA (700/1000 selected).






During power on the charger will turn all segments in the display on.
As can be seen the display will only show data for one channel at a time, but you get all the data at once.









Here are two examples of the display during charge.









The slots uses the classical slider construction and it works fine.

The slots can work from 32 mm to 71.3mm. This means that it will handle just about all protected 18650 and 26650 cells.












































The charger can handle 71.3 mm long batteries including flat top cells.



[size=+2]Measurements[/size]



Power consumption when idle is 0.94 watt, it drops to 0.69 watt when the display is off. 
When not powered the charger will drain LiIon batteries with 2mA
When not powered the charger will drain NiMH batteries with 0.4mA
Below 0.3 volt charger will not recognize any batteries, but still charge with 3mA.
Below 1.6 volt batteries are assumed to be NiMH.
Above 2.2 volt batteries are assumed to be LiIon.
Charger will not restart if battery voltage drops.
Charge will restart charging after power loss, or battery insertion. 
Voltmeter do not update when charging is finished.
Voltmeter has a minimum reading around 0.6 volt
Voltmeter is within 0.02 volt.
Display light will turn off after 30 seconds.


[size=+1]Charge LiIon[/size]






This is a good CC/CV charge curve with a termination just below 100mA.
Display shows 2945mAh in 3:33 hours






Display shows 2914mAh in 3:31 hours






Display shows 2925mAh in 3:27 hours






The other 3 channels looks the same.
Display shows 2942mAh in 3:42 hours






This battery takes about the same time to charge at 1A, because the CV phase is a bit longer.
Display shows 2554mAh in 3:29 hours






Display shows 3194mAh in 3:44 hours






This cell is a bit older and has a very long CV phase, making it slower to charge.
Display shows 2202mAh in 4:12 hours






The charging curve is also good at 300mA, but I would have liked a lower termination current.
Display shows 2848mAh in 9:58 hours






Display shows 2950mAh in 4:48 hours






Display shows 779mAh in 1:55 hours






Display shows 658mAh in 1:34 hours






With 4 cells in the charger and full charge current it get a bit warm.
Display shows 2975mAh, 2975mAh, 3015mAh, 2910mAh in 3:35, 3:23, 3:23, 3:15 hours






The charger needs about 1.8A from the power supply, the supplied 2A supply fits very nicely.






M1: 43,1°C, M2: 46,0°C, M3: 46,5°C, M4: 44,4°C, M5: 51,5°C, M6: 50,4°C, M7: 39,2°C, HS1: 57,1°C






The charger is slow to start, because it waits for user input. There is no pwm in the charger current at any setting.



[size=+1]Charge NiMH[/size]






The termination look like a voltage termination and without filling the cell completely.
Generally it looks like the capacity display is a bit high for NiMH cells.
Display shows 1941mAh in 1:56 hours






Display shows 1981mAh in 1:59 hours






Display shows 1975mAh in 1:58 hours






Display shows 2007mAh in 2:00 hours






Display shows 2574mAh in 2:34 hours






Display shows 2783mAh in 2:47 hours






The advantage with voltage termination is that it also works at low charge currents.
Display shows 1951mAh in 6:36 hours






Display shows 2008mAh in 2:53 hours






Display shows 714mAh in 1:25 hours






Voltage termination is fairly fast at detecting a full cell.
Display shows 58mAh in 0:03 hours






At low charge current the termination is a slow.
Display shows 103mAh in 0:20 hours






Four cells in a compact charger warms the cells up.
Display shows 2056mAh, 2081mAh, 2090mAh, 2103mAh






For charging NiMH the charger only need 1A.






M1: 44,5°C, M2: 45,7°C, M3: 45,3°C, M4: 43,1°C, M5: 50,0°C, M6: 47,9°C, HS1: 61,1°C








[size=+1]Fast test LiIon (Discharge & charge)[/size]

This test measures the *charged* capacity. It might be a fast test, but it takes about 10 hours!
The possible discharge currents are 500mA and 250mA, they are selected depending on charge current:
1000mA and 700mA charge current will select 500mA discharge current.
500mA and 300mA charge current will select 250mA discharge current.






The charger discharges the cell to a bit below 2.9 volt and then charges it while measuring capacity. For LiIon this works fairly well.
Display shows 3058mAh in 3:40 hours, remember that the time shown is only the charge time, not the total time.






Display shows 3040mAh in 3:36 hours






Display shows 3038mAh in 3:39 hours






Display shows 3046mAh in 3:41 hours






With 300mA selected as charge current the discharge current is 250mA.
Display shows 2974mAh in 10:22 hours






Display shows 3006mAh in 6:33 hours






Discharging 4 batteries at the same time will heat the charger.
Display shows 3052mAh, 3082mAh, 3130mAh, 3078mAh






M1: 46,9°C, M2: 49,2°C, M3: 49,1°C, M4: 47,4°C, M5: 51,9°C, M6: 50,7°C, M7: 47,2°C, HS1: 60,4°C
Lot of heat while discharging, but within discharge ratings for LiIon batteries, a cool down period before charging would have been nice.
To avoid the high temperature use the lower discharge current.






Discharge is with constant current, but it is done with a switching regulator without smoothing it. The frequency is about 60kHz. This is better than the pulsing current on many analyzing chargers.






Same with the low current discharge.



[size=+1]Fast test NiMH (Discharge & charge)[/size]

This test measures the *charged* capacity. It might be a fast test, but it takes about 6 hours!
The possible discharge currents are 500mA and 250mA, they are selected depending on charge current:
1000mA and 700mA charge current will select 500mA discharge current.
500mA and 300mA charge current will select 250mA discharge current.






The battery is discharged to about 1.0 volt
Display shows 2041mAh in 2:02 hours, remember that the time shown is only the charge time, not the total time.






Display shows 2035mAh in 2:02 hours






Display shows 2037mAh in 2:02 hours






Display shows 2052mAh in 2:03 hours






With 300mA selected as charge current the discharge current is 250mA.
Display shows 1962mAh in 6:38 hours






The temperature do increase while discharging NiMH, but the power is only about 1/3 of LiIon and the heat is much less.
Display shows 2045mAh, 2108mAh, 2094mAh, 2141mAh






M1: 37,2°C, M2: 38,1°C, M3: 38,6°C, M4: 37,6°C, M5: 36,4°C, M6: 38,2°C, HS1: 47,0°C






Discharge is with constant current, but it is done with a switching regulator without smoothing it. The frequency is about 60kHz.



[size=+1]Nor test (Charge, discharge & charge)[/size]

I am not going to include many curves here, because it is a combination of the above.
When doing a normal test the *discharge* capacity is measured. Remember the discharge current is not the selected current, but either 250mA or 500mA.






Display shows 2955mAh in 6:10 hours, time shown is the discharge time not the total time.






This time the capacity of the NiMH cell is lower, my guess is the charger will add some percent in the charge and fast tests, because the manufacturer knows it will terminate early.
Display shows 1796mAh in 3:11 hours



[size=+1]Internal resistance[/size]

The charger will always show the internal resistance of batteries.






The above chart is for a LiIon cell. First line in same cell 5 times in the same slot. 
The +XmOhm are supposed to show X in the result column, this does not really work.






NiMH does not look better.
The display shows higher values with higher resistance, but there is no relation to ohms.



[size=+1]USB output[/size]


When not powered the charger will drain LiIon batteries with 2mA (No USB symbol on display)
When display is on the charger will drain LiIon batteries with 26mA (Total for all loaded batteries)
When display is off, but usb output is on the charger will drain LiIon batteries with 13mA (Total for all loaded batteries)
MODE button will turn display on
Usb output is coded as Apple 1A
When power is connected, usb output is forced off.
When the load drops below 70mA the output will turn off in 20 seconds.






The usb output can deliver about 1.2A before it starts to drop, at 1,6A it turns off. This looks reasonable.






With for batteries in the charger the output voltage is stable up to 1.4A and still maintains the 1.6A turn off.






With one 18350 3100mAh cell there is 0.5A power for a bit above 2 hours. The Turn off voltage is a bit high with about 3.3 volt.






With a 1A load the runtime is down to 40 minutes, this is not very good.






With 4 cells in the charger the output is much better, here it can maintain output for 5 hours.
Current and voltage shown are only for one cell, this makes the efficiency invalid.






There is 11mV rms and 160mVpp noise. This is very good values.






There is 15mV rms and 160mVpp noise. Even with a 1A load the noise is low (At least with a fresh battery).


Testing the EU mains transformer with 2500 volt and 5000 volt between mains and low volt side, did not show any safety problems.



[size=+2]Conclusion[/size]

I like the user interface, put a couple of batteries in and select mode/current with the respective buttons. As long as the number keys are not touched the selection is for all slots (Showing all slot numbers would have been nice).
The charger is very good at charging LiIon, but stops a bit early on NiMH.
The fast test works fine on LiIon, but with NiMH it shows too much capacity (the full test looks more correct).
As usual I am not impressed with the resistance function.
The usb output has very low noise, but need multiple cells to work well with 1A load.

The final result must be that it is a good charger with a useful analyze function.



[size=+2]Notes[/size]

Here is an explanation on how I did the above charge curves: How do I test a charger
Read more about how I test USB power supplies/charger


----------



## kreisl (Aug 24, 2015)

i think i am gonna contribute some graphs too


but only if i see that people..


----------



## chuckhov (Aug 24, 2015)

Great Review, HKJ!

Thank you!
-Chuck


----------



## psychbeat (Aug 25, 2015)

Can this one go to 4.35 ?
I mean eleven


----------



## HKJ (Aug 26, 2015)

psychbeat said:


> Can this one go to 4.35 ?



No, it is only 4.20 volt LiIon (and NiMH).


----------



## candle lamp (Aug 26, 2015)

Another excellent test review. Thanks a lot. HKJ! 

The charger looks resonably good for charging both ICR (or IMR) and Ni-MH cells. But most of the chargers including this seem to charge the Ni-MH cells by voltage termination without filling the cell completely. Is it hard to charge the cells filling them completely?


----------



## Dubois (Aug 26, 2015)

Thanks for the review HKJ - I think quite a few people have been waiting for this. Since I've just acquired Xtar VC2 and VP2 in the last month or so, I think I'll hold off until the SkyRC MC3000 surfaces.

I notice from your own website that a coupon from Gearbest - *LiitokalaGB - *gets you this for $25.59.That's a pretty good price for all this functionality.


----------



## kreisl (Aug 26, 2015)

Dubois said:


> I notice from your own website that a coupon from Gearbest - *LiitokalaGB - *gets you this for $25.59.


I saw that coupon code and the promotional link on HKJ website too and was kinda choked - is that an affiliate partner link?? Nicee.
Does reviewer selfbuilt post aff links or coupon codes two?


----------



## chuckhov (Aug 26, 2015)

Please scroll down to the Fenix LD02, and read what Selfbuilt posted on that line. - Same thing that HKJ did;-)

http://www.flashlightreviews.ca/reviews.htm

You're Ok, HKJ!
-Chuck


----------



## HKJ (Aug 27, 2015)

kreisl said:


> I saw that coupon code and the promotional link on HKJ website too and was kinda choked - is that an affiliate partner link?? Nicee.
> Does reviewer selfbuilt post aff links or coupon codes two?



I do not do affiliate deals, but sometimes I will put coupons on my website for *recently* reviewed items, I do not get (or want) any money for that.
If they contains strange links/codes it is for the guy/gal at the supplier that sent me the review copy, i.e. using that link will go on their record and shows that it was a good idea to send a review copy to me.

I have been doing it for some time and it is also described in my document about getting stuff reviewed (See publishing chapter): http://lygte-info.dk/info/Review UK.html


----------



## akhyar (Aug 27, 2015)

Thumbs up to HKJ for all his excellent reviews.
Keep on doing what you do for the community bro!


----------



## tobrien (Sep 14, 2015)

thanks for the in-depth, thorough review! is this on par with the OPUS 3100?


----------



## billcushman (Sep 15, 2015)

THANKS so very much for your excellent in-depth reviews. 

You have a superb assortment of accurate and costly test equipment. The high accuracy of your equipment sets your reviews apart and makes the data very valuable. Your summary conclusions are very helpful for those with limited technical knowledge, and also helpful for anyone who want to quickly eliminate marginal products.

This latest charger/analyzer review is a most interesting product that combines many unique and useful features.


----------



## MAD777 (Sep 21, 2015)

Excellent review as usual. This looks like a versatile charger with lots of readout information. 

I am left with one question (probably because I overlooked it) but does this charger charge at 1 amp when all 4 slots are filled with batteries?


----------



## mattheww50 (Sep 21, 2015)

MAD777 said:


> Excellent review as usual. This looks like a versatile charger with lots of readout information.
> 
> I am left with one question (probably because I overlooked it) but does this charger charge at 1 small when all 4 slots are filled with batteries?



Not entirely sure what question you are asking, but you can set the charging current separately for each slot, and the maximum charge rate is 1 amp. The charger can deliver 1 amp to all 4 slots at the same time if that's what you want.


----------



## MAD777 (Sep 21, 2015)

mattheww50 said:


> Not entirely sure what question you are asking, but you can set the charging current separately for each slot, and the maximum charge rate is 1 amp. The charger can deliver 1 amp to all 4 slots at the same time if that's what you want.


That's exactly what I was trying to ask! 
Thanks. 
Looks like my PayPal is going to suffer another hit, lol.


----------



## MAD777 (Sep 24, 2015)

Now I'm stuck between this Lii500 charger and the Opus BT-C3100 v2.2 charger (also sold as BT-C3400 v2.2). Can anyone offer opinions about these two?


----------



## bob_ninja (Sep 24, 2015)

Well it seems to boil down to:
1) Opus went through several revisions already, so maybe bit more mature/stable???
2) fan

I went with Opus because of many complaints in the past around BC-900 and other similar small compact chargers heating up too much. Several users actually improvised fans so I was happy to see charger with fan being builtin. Of course, now there are complaints about noise so ....????

Well I will place mine in a room that is not used much for longer term tests like capacity and such.

So hard to say, they do seem to be very close. Find it confusing myself.


----------



## billcushman (Sep 24, 2015)

You may find the following summary conclusions from HKJ reviews helpful.

*Charger LiitoKala Engineer Lii-500
Conclusion*

I like the user interface, put a couple of batteries in and select mode/current with the respective buttons. As long as the number keys are not touched the selection is for all slots (Showing all slot numbers would have been nice).
The charger is very good at charging LiIon, but stops a bit early on NiMH.
The fast test works fine on LiIon, but with NiMH it shows too much capacity (the full test looks more correct).
As usual I am not impressed with the resistance function.
The usb output has very low noise, but need multiple cells to work well with 1A load.

The final result must be that it is a good charger with a useful analyze function.


*Charger Opus BT-C3100 V2.1
Conclusion*

With this update to the battery analyzer many of the problems has been fixed. 
Generally the peak charge and discharge current for LiIon are a bit high, I would have preferred constant current, instead of the pulsing.
The user interface is fairly easy to use, but it may take a some time to learn what the different modes do.

The conclusion must be that it is a good battery analyzer, but for normal charging I will still prefer a charger with non-pulsing CC/CV charging.


----------



## MAD777 (Sep 28, 2015)

Thank you all for opinions on this Lii500 charger and the Opus BT-C3100 v2.2 charger (also sold as BT-C3400 v2.2).


----------



## billcushman (Sep 29, 2015)

Preliminary findings about my LiitoKala Lii-500 received yesterday.

When you plug it in, the display lights up and all legends display and then it switches to a screen with that says "null". None of the buttons work and the unit appears to be dead. This is normal. Only after you install a battery does the unit come alive. The manual has the tiniest font you have ever seen. I will be 80 in December and I couldn't read it even with a magnifier so I scanned it and enlarged the print so I could read it. This behavior was explained in the Manual.

So far I have only charged 18650s and this will be its primary use. It is by far the finest 18650 charger I have experienced! It allows selection of four currents 300, 500, 700, and 1000mAh on any or all slots. If you don't push any slot button, your settings will apply to all slots as you install up to four batteries. The selected current is constant (no PWM) until the voltage reaches 4.22, then it switches to a constant voltage mode with cutoff at a precise 100mA. The voltmeter is accurate to better than 0.02 volt (better than many cheap DVMs). So far I have only charged Samsung 25R INRs, Olight 3400s, and EagleTac 3400s. All the batteries came off the charger at 4.20 volts ±0.01 volt, measured with a Fluke 289. I have only tried the 1000mA and 700mA rates. The display turns off after a short time but pushing any button brings it to life immediately. The springs on the movable contact are strong and the batteries will be somewhat difficult to install until you practice a few times. 

I would have never known about this charger without HKJ's excellent and detailed review. 
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-Review-of-Charger-LiitoKala-Engineer-Lii-500

I was curious where the name LiitoKala came from and was surprised it is a Finnish word meaning Flying Fish. Since my AceBeam K60 is made by a company with MicroBlueBear in the name. I guess it is appropriate.


----------



## MAD777 (Sep 30, 2015)

Nice review Bill. I just placed my order through GearBest. So while it's on the slow boat from China, I'll polish my magnifying glass so I can read the instructions.


----------



## billcushman (Sep 30, 2015)

I have some more information on the LiitoKala Lii-500. After loading some Olight 3400mAh 18650s in all four slots, I plugged in the Power Adapter and selected the 1000mA current. When the charge was to start after an 8 second wait, the unit displayed the startup screen and started over. It took me quite a long time to get it running. By selecting the 750mA current the unit started up normally and everything was OK.

I continued to investigate the source of the problem. I measured the DC output and AC ripple of the Power Adapter. The output was 12.267VDC with 5.586mVAC ripple. I did not test the current delivery. I checked the Power Adapters on my Maha C9000s and noticed the had exactly the same label ratings and plug size with the same center pin positive. I then measured the output of the Maha C-9000 power adapter. The output was 12.290VDC with 1.851mVAC ripple. The misbehavior at 1000mA current was intermittent. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't.

I loaded all four slots with Olight 3400 18650s charged to about 3.9 volts and it restarted if the 1000mA current was selected. I substituted the Maha C-9000 Power Adapter and everything worked properly. I had previously noted that the LiitoKala Power Adapter got quite warm when 1000mA was selected.

Every thing else works superbly. All batteries have come off the charger to within 0.01V of 4.20VDC and it seems faster than some other chargers because it terminates at 100mADC reliably. 

If anyone else experiences this problem, just select 700mA current and everything will work properly. I plan to ask LiitoKala to send me a new Power Adapter.


----------



## billcushman (Oct 3, 2015)

I have ordered some parts so I can read the Lii-500 DC input current, but I now understand a lot more about the cause of the intermittent startup problem at 1000mA on all four slots. It only occurs when you try to start charging when the batteries are around 4 volts or higher. The wattage required is highest just before the charge modes switch from Constant Current to Constant Voltage. . 

I measured the Power Adapter Input Current and Wattage. At 118 VAC, the LiitoKala Power Adapter consumed .33A and 25.4 Watts. AT 118 VAC, the Maha Power Adapter consumed .37A and 21.4 Watts. The backlight made an insignificant difference. Both Power Adapters worked properly at 1000mA current charging four Samsung 25R 18650s at about 3.7VDC. The Maha Power Adapter seems to run much cooler than the LiitoKala Power Adapter. The 4 Watt difference in the two Power Adapters AC Power consumption is very important when startup at higher battery voltage is attempted. The additional 4 Watts consumed by the LiitoKala Power Adapter is dissipated in the Power Adapter as heat.

The Lii-500 itself continues to impress. It is a super unit for 18650 battery charging and analysis. I have run NOR(mal) Tests on four Samsung 25Rs and four Olight 3400s. The four 25Rs had an average capacity of 2427mAh discharged at 500mA. The four Olight 3400s had an average capacity of 3232mAh discharged at 500mA.

Charging is extremely consistent on all batteries at both the 700mA and 1000mA rates. After a short rest, most batteries are charged to between 4.19 and 4.20Volts, with an occasional battery .01Volt outside of that range. The LiitoKala Lii-500 is an outstanding unit for charging and analyzing 18650 batteries. I suggest not charging above 700mA using the LiitoKala Power Adapter. it will start properly and keep running on 4 slots when the batteries are started at 3.7 volts or less, but at the 1000mA setting, the Power Adapter gets extremely hot. My Maha Power Adapter only gets warm under the same conditions.


----------



## MAD777 (Oct 3, 2015)

Thanks for the follow-up, Bill. 
Am I correct in assuming that batteries started below 4V will charge normally to full charge at 1000mA, with the only side effect being a very hot adapter?


----------



## billcushman (Oct 3, 2015)

MAD777 said:


> Thanks for the follow-up, Bill.
> Am I correct in assuming that batteries started below 4V will charge normally to full charge at 1000mA, with the only side effect being a very hot adapter?


My Power Adapter may be defective - not a design issue. With my Power Adapter, 4Volts gives problems at 1000mA, but 3.7Volts is OK.


----------



## cypher2001 (Oct 4, 2015)

I just picked one up via a best offer on eBay. I need another charger like a hole in the head.... But can't wait to get it.


----------



## billcushman (Oct 5, 2015)

I have tested three sets of four batteries using the NOR (Normal) Test on the LiitoKala Lii-500. The unit worked extremely well in all three tests. On one test I used the supplied (defective) AC Adapter. When in the charge mode (750mA) it got almost too hot to touch. I used the Maha C9000 AC Adapter for the other two tests. In the charge mode the Maha Power Adapter was only very slightly warm. The charged voltage after rest was measured using a Fluke 289. I have not received any response from LiitoKala regarding my request for a replacement of the defective adapter.

Here are the Nor Test results (charge at 750mA, discharge at 500mA):

EagleTac 3400mAh 18650 batteries.
Average capacity = 3177mAh
Charged voltage after rest - 4.1891Volts

Olight 3400mAh 18650 batteries.
Average capacity = 3232mAh
Charged voltage after rest = 4.1955Volts

Samsung 25R 20A INR (cyan) 18650 batteries
Average capacity = 2427mAh
Charged voltage after rest = 4.1876Volts


----------



## Julian Holtz (Oct 5, 2015)

Hi!

I have a question converning the NiMh voltage termination. It seems to me, that the charge terminates at different voltages.

1.53V:






1.57V:





1.49V:





Why is the termination voltage different so often?

Regards,

Julian


----------



## HKJ (Oct 5, 2015)

Julian Holtz said:


> Why is the termination voltage different so often?



Chargers are usual measuring the voltage with current off, i.e. you have to look at the bottom of the red curve, not the top.


----------



## Julian Holtz (Oct 6, 2015)

That makes sense, yes. I was already beginning to wonder what was up with what I percieved as large fluctuations...:thinking:


----------



## billcushman (Oct 7, 2015)

I conducted another NOR Test on four more Samsung 25R 20A (cyan) 18650 batteries. I made an input adapter that allows me to read the input voltage and current required by the Lii-500. The current was measured using a clamp on DC Ammeter Extech MA435T to avoid additional shunt resistance. When the Lii-500 was in the 700mA charge mode on all four slots at 3.83V (10.72VA) the input power was 11.749V at 1.60A = 18.80VA (watts) using the Maha C9000 (12V 2A) Power Adapter.

The NOR Test results on the Samsung 25R 18650s were:
Capacity = 2423mAh average
Charged Voltage after rest = 4.1865V average


----------



## billcushman (Oct 7, 2015)

I didn't trust the Extech DC Clamp-on Ammeter MA435T so I measured the Input Power requirements of the Lii-500 using the 10A input of a Fluke 289. The 10A input was selected to minimize shunt resistance. All four slots were operating and the charging battery voltage was about 3.90V. I was using a Maha C9000 12V 2A AC Power Adapter because I have not received a replacement for my defective LiitoKala E2000 Power Adapter. The AC line voltage was about 118VAC.

1000mA Current Selected (4 slots)
1.89ADC x 11.690VDC = 22.09Watts
255mVAC ripple

700mA Current Selected (4 slots)
1.25ADC x 11.866VDC = 14.83Watts
200mVAC ripple

500mA Current Selected (4 slots)
0.90ADC x 11.957VDC = 10.76Watts
138mVAC ripple

300mA Current Selected (4 slots)
0.56ADC x 12.051VDC = 6.75Watts
105mVAC ripple


----------



## billcushman (Oct 14, 2015)

Since I have used the LiitoKala Lii-500 to charge and analyze many Li-Ion cells i have concluded that it is a SUPERB charger/analyzer for Li-Ion cells. I still have not received any response from LiitoKala or GearBest regarding sending a replacement for my defective E-2000 Power Adapter. I purchased a 12V 3A AC Power Adapter so I did not have to use one of my Maha C9000 Power Adapters. The 12V 3A AC Power Adapter is only a little larger than the E-2000 and has better regulation and is more conservative since the Lii-500 draws over 23Watts when it is at the tail end of the constant current charge cycle (4.2V at 1A on all four slots). Several high quality UL listed 12V 3A (36Watt) Power Adapters are available in the wall mount configuration (no separate power cord) for about $10.

I have owned a pair of Maha C9000s since they were first introduced a few years ago. Maha replaced the original design about one month after it was introduced and both of my units were replaced at that time. I have been searching for a charger/analyzer that performed at well as the Maha, but suitable for Li-Ion Cells. I do not like the design of the Opus units with pulse charging. The Lii-500 works superbly to charge and analyze Li-Ion cells. For most charging of 18650s I use the 700mA setting. The 1000mA setting works great but doesn't save much time and heats the batteries more. Batteries come off the Lii-500 very consistent at an average of about 4.19Volts after a couple of hours rest. I will probably buy a SkyRC MC-3000 when it is finally released, but the Lii-500 fully meets my needs with four charge rates and a very capable analyze function. I highly recommend the Lii-500 to anyone who doesn't want to wait for the MC-3000 or those who will not like its higher cost. The Lii-500 is an incredible value, even if you add a 36Watt high quality Power Adapter.


----------



## billcushman (Oct 21, 2015)

Because the LiitoKala Engineer Lii-500 Battery Charger/Analyzer draws about 24Watts at the maximum demands of the charge cycle (4.2 volts at 1A on all four slots at the end of the constant current part of the cycle) I feel that it is much better to use a 12V 3A (36Watt) Power Adapter. It is very important to use a UL Listed Power Adapter to ensure safety and quality construction. Many Power Adapters have fake UL listings so it is important to check the file number on the UL certification web site. I have purchased two 12V 3A Wall Mount Power Adapters that have genuine UL listings and are quality products. Their performance when powering the Lii-500 is listed below.

CS Model CS-1203000 (ordered from Amazon, shipped from China)
1000mA setting on all four slots, 1.98ADC, 11.812VDC, 217mVAC ripple = 23.39Watts.
700mA setting on all four slots, 1.30ADC, 11.954VDC, 168mVAC ripple = 15.54Watts.
500mA setting on all four slots, 0.92ADC, 12.059VDC, 135mVAC ripple = 11.09Watts.
300mA setting on all four slots, 0.56ADC, 12.168VDC, 97mVAC ripple = 6.81Watts.

Flypower PS361BCAK3000U (ordered from and fulfilled by Amazon). 
1000mA setting on all four slots, 1.97ADC, 11.749VDC, 220mVAC ripple = 23.15Watts.
700mA setting on all four slots, 1.32ADC, 11.902VDC, 170mVAC ripple = 15.65Watts.
500mA setting on all four slots, 0.92ADC, 11.970VDC, 137mVAC ripple = 11.01Watts.
300mA setting on all four slots, 0.57ADC, 12.048VDC, 98mVAC ripple = 6.81Watts. 

The battery voltage was about 3.95VDC so the wattage required was not at the maximum of the constant current part of the cycle. The maximum current will be slightly higher. Both of these power adapters remained cool when powering the Lii-500.

I hope anyone else who has purchased a LiitoKala Lii-500 will post their experiences on this thread. I continue to find it a SUPERB Charger/Analyzer for Li-ion cells. Since I have two Maha C9000s (almost 10 years) I will continue using them for MiMH cells (I haven't tested the NiMH function on the Lii-500.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Oct 21, 2015)

Thanks, Bill. 

I have been following your posts with interest. At present I am using the *Nitecore Digicharger D4* to recharge Li-ion. The only reason I bought that was because I was a walk-in customer at Illumn, and it did not have any *Xtar* models for sale. 

Now that modestly priced analyzers such as the *LiitoKala Engineer Lii-500* and *Opus BT-C3100 v2.2* are available, I wish I had bought one of those. Sooner or later, I probably will.


----------



## MAD777 (Oct 21, 2015)

I've been following with interest also, as I've been waiting for delivery of my LiitoKala from Gearbest for a month now. Hopefully my adapter will not be faulty, but it's good to know where to get alternatives if necessary.


----------



## billcushman (Oct 29, 2015)

I've tested one more high quality 12V 3A Power Adapter. I like this one the best of the three UL Listed Adapters I have purchased. It is available on Amazon and will be delivered in two days if you are a Prime Member.

The iCreatin 12V 3A Power Adapter SMS-00120300-S01 is a genuine UL Listed product with excellent performance. When powering a LiitoKala Engineer Lii-500 Battery Charger/Analyzer at various current settings, the following performance was observed.

1000mA setting, 1.98ADC, 11.860VDC, 200mVAC ripple, 23.48Watts
700mA setting, 1.31ADC, 12.038VDC, 156mVAC ripple, 15.77Watts
500mA setting, 0.92ADC, 12.133VDC, 128mVAC ripple, 11.16Watts
300mA setting, 0.57ADC, 12.227VDC, 93mVAC ripple, 6.97Watts

UL Listing assures a safe high quality product. Many products have fake UL marks so it is important to verify the information. The UL Certification number E330443 was verified on the UL Certification Directory. 
http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073992439&sequence=1

The Power Adapter has a flexible round output cord with a ferrite for noise suppression. The 5.5mm, 2.1mm plug fits well. The unit has excellent regulation and low ripple. It weighs about 126 grams plus about 30 grams for the output cable. This power adapter is highly recommended.


----------



## MAD777 (Oct 31, 2015)

I just received my LiitoKala Engineer 500. It took over a month from Gearbest. I am not qualified to give the thorough review that HKJ or Bill did, but here are my observations. 
I charged 4 cells (18650) simultaneously at 1 amp. Neither the adapter nor the batteries became any more than slightly warm. The ending voltage on the readout was 4.22 for each of the cells. 
The instructions were straightforward. The cells are a little bit difficult to get in & out. 
All in all, I am pleased with the sample I received.


----------



## hammerjoe (Dec 2, 2015)

Bill have you done any tests using the charger in the car with the car adaptor?
I am looking for a charger that works good in the house but also using the car adaptor when I am out on trips.


----------



## billcushman (Dec 2, 2015)

hammerjoe said:


> Bill have you done any tests using the charger in the car with the car adaptor?
> I am looking for a charger that works good in the house but also using the car adaptor when I am out on trips.



I have not done any testing using the car adapter. My main concern would be to not block the ventilation slots and to use it at the default settings, not push it to maximum current. I would suggest that you set it on a flat board to give is a good surface on which to sit. Car voltages are usually about 14.4 volts, I don't know if that is reduced to 12 volts by the car adapter. I suspect the full 14.4 volts is fed to the Lii-500. 

I have pre-ordered the SkyRC MC3000, but the LiitoKala Lii-500 is a very nice unit that I personally like much better than the Opus. The Li-Ion charge curve from HKJ's test looks almost as good as the SkyRC MC3000 from the HKJ preliminary test curves shown on the MC3000 thread.


----------



## hammerjoe (Dec 2, 2015)

Thanks Bill for the reply.

One advantage of this charger ( that can be used in a car) is that it offeres the option to charge at 700ma which means the batteries should not get too hot and the charge is still fairly quick.

Btw is there any visual indication when the cell is fully charged?

If theres 4 cells in the charger with the display set for slot#1 is there any visual indicator to show that slot#4 is full?


----------



## MAD777 (Dec 2, 2015)

hammerjoe said:


> .... Btw is there any visual indication when the cell is fully charged?
> 
> If theres 4 cells in the charger with the display set for slot#1 is there any visual indicator to show that slot#4 is full?



I have this charger, and the word "END" pops up on the display when done. When I load the batteries, I leave the display on the cell that looks to have the most charge. In other words, looks like it will be first to finish. I'm not sure if the unit would automatically swap the display to another cell if that other one did finish first.


----------



## hammerjoe (Dec 2, 2015)

So it doesnt warn when the charge is completed on any slot but the active on the display? 

I was thinking that the slot number on the display would flash or something to notify that slot was finished.

Can you test it and put 4 near full batteries to see if you can tell which batteries are full without pressing any button?


----------



## billcushman (Dec 2, 2015)

hammerjoe said:


> I was thinking that the slot number on the display would flash or something to notify that slot was finished.



That isn't how it works. You must push the slot number to see the status. If you are already at the unit, it certainly isn't much effort to push a couple of buttons.


----------



## hammerjoe (Dec 2, 2015)

It might work great with lion but it seems that it doesnt work as good with nimh batteries.

Hjk review touches on it that the charger terminates early and it guesstimates the capacities.
I have been reading other sites and it seems to confirm Hjk findings.
I need a charger for mostly nimh cells so that eliminates this one.

I really liked it because of the 700ma current and car adaptor option.


----------



## hammerjoe (Dec 18, 2015)

It looks like theres two versions of this charger. One has written on the back the Patent # and the other doesnt.


Does anyone know which one is newer (with the patent or without)?
And what are the differences between the two?


I am wondering if they fixed the nimh charging and it terminates properly?


----------



## usrnam (Dec 23, 2015)

After reading the review I started looking at this charger as an option for a new Lithium / NiMh charger. I've used balance chargers in the past to charge NiMh and Lipo batteries. 

But haven't ever used this type of charger, only a few non-LCD NiCD and NiMh chargers. How do this type of charger compare to a 6S balance charger, for charging lithium batteries?

Most of the balance charger pretty much use the same type of firmware and user interface, does display some information for each Lithium cell when in balance charging mode.


----------



## JB (Dec 25, 2015)

I'm now starting to learn more about chargers and paying more attention to the graphs are being posted. Got some questions:







1) From the red line, I see that this charger at peak is pumping something like 4.22V into the battery before tapering down to 4.20V at termination. Does this have any negative effect on the battery?

2) Green line, the charger was set to charge at 1.0A but the green line shows that it's actually only charging at around 0.97-0.98A correct? The ripples in the green line show small fluctuations in the charge current I guess?

3) The charge current will start to drop once it hits the peak charge voltage. However, in the test of the Opus charger (graph below), I notice the green line starts to dip even before voltage hits 4.20V - how come? 






4) Lastly, in above graph I see the lines are very jagged - is this because the Opus uses pulse charging?

Thanks for any insight that can be shared into how to read these graphs better.


----------



## HKJ (Dec 25, 2015)

JB said:


> 1) From the red line, I see that this charger at peak is pumping something like 4.22V into the battery before tapering down to 4.20V at termination. Does this have any negative effect on the battery?



Maybe a very very very small one, the official specifications usual says something like 4.20+/-0.05 volt, i.e. from 4.15 to 4.25 volt is acceptable.




JB said:


> 2) Green line, the charger was set to charge at 1.0A but the green line shows that it's actually only charging at around 0.97-0.98A correct? The ripples in the green line show small fluctuations in the charge current I guess?



This is about my measurement precision for charge current, my 0.01ohm resistor it not exactly 0.01ohm and I usual do not calibrate it.




JB said:


> 3) The charge current will start to drop once it hits the peak charge voltage. However, in the test of the Opus charger (graph below), I notice the green line starts to dip even before voltage hits 4.20V - how come?



There are two reasons, depending on the charger:
1) For some it is due to resistance in the circuit
2) It measures the voltage with current off.
3) But it can also be because the charger uses "simulated CC/CV", this means it do not really supply a constant voltage, but it controls current depending on voltage.



JB said:


> 4) Lastly, in above graph I see the lines are very jagged - is this because the Opus uses pulse charging?



Yes, you will usual find some detailed charts of that a bit later in the review:




You can see here that the time scale is in ms, i.e. milli seconds or 0.001 second, this means 50 is 0.05 second and you can see the pulses.


----------



## JB (Dec 25, 2015)

HKJ said:


> Maybe a very very very small one, the official specifications usual says something like 4.20+/-0.05 volt, i.e. from 4.15 to 4.25 volt is acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks HKJ! :thumbsup:


----------



## billcushman (Dec 25, 2015)

The LitoKala Engineer Lii-500 is a very nice charger, especially for Li-Ion. It has an excellent CC/CV charge curve (see the HKJ review) that is almost as good as the SkyRC MC3000. If you mainly want charge and analyze Li-Ion batteries, the unit performs very well and is a great value for the money. The Opus chargers use pulse charging for Li-Ion. This method is not the preferred method specified by most battery manufacturers. Again I suggest read the HKJ review on the Opus.


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 25, 2015)

billcushman said:


> The Opus chargers use pulse charging for Li-Ion. This method is not the preferred method specified by most battery manufacturers.



That's misleading advice. There are no definitive scientific studies that imply the pulse charging algorithms are generally worse than a pure CC-CV algorithm (in fact they may be better for some types of cells, e.g. those with moderate IR).


----------



## HKJ (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163 said:


> There are no definitive scientific studies that imply the Opus pulse charging algorithm is any worse than the Li-500.



You believe that it is acceptable to charge a cell with pulses 10 times its rated charge current?


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 25, 2015)

HKJ said:


> You believe that it is acceptable to charge a cell with pulses 10 times its rated charge current?



Do you have some _specific _claim in mind that applies to the Opus, and do you have links to _scientific _literature that support your claim? I highly doubt it based on your "guesses" the last time we had this argument.


----------



## HKJ (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163 said:


> Do you have some specific claim in mind that applies to the Opus, and do you have links to scientific literature that support your claim? I highly doubt it based on the last time we had this argument.




I do not claimed anything, I just follow the datasheets. You have just claimed that it is acceptable to charge a battery with pulses 10 times above the rated charge current (Opus can do that) and you regularly claim than any LiIon battery can be charged with current above the manufacturers maximum rating.

I doubt any manufacturer would agree with any of that. I do not doubt that some batteries can be charged fast, but I would also expect that the battery manufacturer has approved the fast charge for exactly that battery, before the battery and charge system is sold to the public.


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 25, 2015)

HKJ said:


> You have just claimed that it is acceptable to charge a battery with pulses 10 times above the rated charge current


I made no such claim. Rather, I asked for you to make precise your claim and to provide scientific evidence to support it. You have failed to do either - as usual.


----------



## HKJ (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163 said:


> I made no such claim. I asked for you to make precise your claim and to provide scientific evidence to support it. You have failed to do either - as usual.



This statement "There are no definitive scientific studies that imply the pulse charging algorithms are generally worse than a pure CC-CV algorithm"
is exactly that claim, when published as answer to Opus pulse charging. Or are your just trying to mislead people with random answers?

There is a significant different between what we accept as evidence, as far as i can see you just need one scientist publishing something where he has tested a single cell, then you say it is valid for all batteries.
I prefer the manufacturers datasheet, that you obvious do not believe in, as you just stated above.


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 25, 2015)

@HKJ You often give (unfounded) arguments against pulse charging. Bill Cushman seems to also have jumped on that bandwagon above. I merely pointed out (again) that those arguments - as presented here - are merely _opinions _- not grounded in science. The way science works is that if you want your claims to be considered to to be scientifically credible then it is _your _responsibility to make them precise, and to support them with credible scientific evidence. 

So, again, _precisely _what is your claim, and where is the scientific evidence supporting it, and _precisely _how does it apply to the matter at hand? Ditto to Bill Cushman.


----------



## HKJ (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163 said:


> @HKJ You often give (unfounded) arguments against pulse charging. Bill Cushman seems to also have jumped on that bandwagon above. I merely pointed out (again) that those arguments - as presented here - are merely _opinions _- not grounded in science. The way science works is that if you want your claims to scientifically credible then it is _your _responsibility to make them precise, and to support them with credible scientific evidence.
> 
> So, again, _precisely _what is your claim, and where is the scientific evidence supporting it, and _precisely _how does it apply to the matter at hand?



As I already have said, I do not have any claims, I just doubt your claims that it is just as good to charge a battery with pulses 10 times its rated charge current as with a constant current, that was your claim above. Please don't be childish and deny that.

As I already said my claim is to follow the manufactures recommendation, your statement that this need links to scientific reports is silly.

Now you can prove your opinions about the high pulse charge current (10 times recommended charge current) with some scientific reports and remember that just because a researcher has tested one battery, it is not valid for all batteries on the market.


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 25, 2015)

HKJ said:


> As I already have said, I do not have any claims, I just doubt your claims that it is just as good to charge a battery with pulses 10 times its rated charge current as with a constant current, that was your claim above.



Please refrain from putting your words into my mouth. I made no such claim. Rather, I merely pointed out that Bill's claim (and yours) are nothing but opinions. One should not state opinions as if they were facts grounded in science.


----------



## HKJ (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163 said:


> Again, I made no claims. Rather, I merely pointed out that Bill's claim (and yours) are nothing but opinions. One should not state opinions as if they were facts grounded in science.



Saying that just after a warning about Opus pulscharging (It can do the 10 times) that it is misleading to warn against it, cannot be anything but a claim that it is acceptable, except if it is a try on misleading people.


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 25, 2015)

HKJ said:


> a warning about Opus pulscharging (It can do the 10 times) .



Again, what is your precise claim, and where is the science behind it? I cannot make any sense of what you wrote.


----------



## HKJ (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163 said:


> Again, what is your precise claim, and where is the science behind it? I cannot make any sense of what you wrote.



Now my claim must be that you cannot read, try reading the last many posts a couple of times, maybe you will figure out that I have written multiple times that I do not have any claim, I follow the datasheet (Looking back I doubt you can understand that).
On the other hand you post claims that it is acceptable to charge with pulses 10 times the recommended charge current and even after multiple explanations you will not see it.


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 25, 2015)

HKJ said:


> On the other hand you post claims that it is acceptable to charge with pulses 10 times the recommended charge current



Since you continue to put your words into my mouth even after I politely asked you to stop doing so, I am done attempting to have a rational discussion with you. Best of luck with your _opinions_. I'll stick to science, thank you.

If anyone has _credible proof_ that the Lii-500 charging algorithm is superior to the latest BT-C3100 then let's hear it. Otherwise, please, let's not mislead potential buyers by spouting haphazard guesses. There is already too much pseudo-scientific nonsense about Li-ion tech on the web. We should strive for higher standards here.


----------



## nbp (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163, let it be. You have been at the center of debate before, and need to take it down a notch. Instead of dodging questions and battling over semantics, perhaps you can follow your own advice and cite some evidence of your own to prove your point.


----------



## HKJ (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163 said:


> have a rational discussion with you.



 it would be easier if you where rational.




Gauss163 said:


> If anyone has _credible proof_ that the Lii-500 charging algorithm is superior to the latest BT-C3100 then let's hear it. Otherwise, please, let's not mislead potential buyers by spouting haphazard guesses. There is already too much pseudo-scientific nonsense about Li-ion tech on the web. We should strive for higher standards here.



Again you say people can use charge pulses with up to 10 times the recommended charge current for the cells, instead of using constant current.

Most people here prefer to stay on the safe side and follow the datasheet, instead of just using arbitrary large current pulses and hope their cells will last longer. Obvious you do not believe in datasheet.
And because you will not follow datasheets, you mean anybody else must prove that the datasheets are correct, instead of you proving that going outside datasheets are acceptable. That is contrary to normal praxis where extraordinary claims must be proven.


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 25, 2015)

HKJ said:


> Again you say people can use charge pulses with up to 10 times the recommended charge current for the cells, instead of using constant current.



Again, for the _fourth _time, that is not something that I ever wrote. Please stop posting strawman arguments. They are already confusing readers (e.g. nbp above).



HKJ said:


> Most people here prefer to stay on the safe side and follow the datasheet...



Your non-sequitur inferences derived from datasheets have already been deconstructed in a long BLF discussion on fast-charging algorithms (Tesla, Philips, etc). There is no need to repeat that here.


----------



## HKJ (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163 said:


> Again, for the _fourth _time, that is not something that I ever wrote here. Please stop posting strawman arguments. They are already confusing readers (e.g. nbp above).



But it is implied each time you question if there is any difference between a charger that does and a charger that don't.
And I have already told you that.




Gauss163 said:


> Your non-sequitur inferences derived from datasheets have already been deconstructed in a long BLF discussion on fast-charging algorithms (Tesla, Philips, etc). There is no need to repeat that here.



Sorry but no, after many many request you posted a link to some research that showed one LiIon cell could be charged with too high current.
Statement like "the charging current should not exceed 3.35A/cell" in datasheets cannot be ignored and I doubt any manufacturer that uses fast charge does, they may get special cells and/or extended datasheets, but they will not step outside the specifications.


----------



## nbp (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163 said:


> Again, for the _fourth _time, that is not something that I ever wrote. Please stop posting strawman arguments. They are already confusing readers (e.g. nbp above).



I am not confused; I am quite capable of reading and comprehending actually. Please do not insult my intelligence. 

In response to this statement: 



billcushman said:


> The LitoKala Engineer Lii-500 is a very nice charger, especially for Li-Ion. It has an excellent CC/CV charge curve (see the HKJ review) that is almost as good as the SkyRC MC3000. If you mainly want charge and analyze Li-Ion batteries, the unit performs very well and is a great value for the money. *The Opus chargers use pulse charging for Li-Ion. This method is not the preferred method specified by most battery manufacturers. Again I suggest read the HKJ review on the Opus.*



you posted this: 



Gauss163 said:


> That's misleading advice. There are no definitive scientific studies that imply the pulse charging algorithms are generally worse than a pure CC-CV algorithm (in fact they may be better for some types of cells, e.g. those with moderate IR).



That is in fact a statement in support of pulse charging algorithms, or at the very least is likely to be understood as such to any reader. 

Now, you can post in support of whatever you'd like of course, I am not saying anyone is right or wrong. However, if you are going to attack HKJ and require that he provide proof for a statement, should not you be held to the same standard?


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 25, 2015)

nbp said:


> Now, you can post in support of whatever you'd like of course, I am not saying anyone is right or wrong. However, if you are going to attack HKJ and require that he provide proof for a statement, should not you be held to the same standard?



If you read the _entire _discussion it should be clear that my gist was merely to stress that the common denigration of pulse charging algorithms is almost always made without scientific support - just as it was above. Nothing more - nothing less. 

It is the responsibility of those making said claims to make the claims precise enough to be subject to scientific evaluation, and to provide evidence supporting those claims. Neither has been achieved above.


----------



## JB (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163 said:


> If you read the _entire _discussion it should be clear that my gist was merely to stress that the common denigration of pulse charging algorithms is almost always made without scientific support - just as it was above. Nothing more - nothing less.
> 
> It is the responsibility of those making said claims to make the claims precise enough to be subject to scientific evaluation, and to provide evidence supporting those claims. Neither has been achieved above.



By the same token your implied support of the notion that pulse charging algorithms are non-harmful or just as good as CC/CV also deserves some scientific support no?

I see you making demands for "evidence supporting those claims". Can you yourself provide evidence supporting pulse charging algorithms?


----------



## nbp (Dec 25, 2015)

> If you read the _entire _discussion it should be clear that my gist was merely to stress that the common denigration of pulse charging algorithms is almost always made without scientific support - just as it was above. Nothing more - nothing less.



Now, isn't that a much nicer way of saying it? I suspect the discussion could have remained calmer and more productive if you took this approach. You can probably see why others might be defensive when you come out of the box claiming that they are misleading others, when in fact they are only giving what they feel is practical advice. 



> It is the responsibility of those making said claims to make the claims precise enough to be subject to scientific evaluation, and to provide evidence supporting those claims. Neither has been achieved above.



Fair enough, I can appreciate that. I suppose it could also be said that one who intends to disprove what is generally accepted as truth could be or ought to be the one called on to provide the supporting evidence. In either case, I think simply finding some credible information to offer up for discussion is more productive than just digging in one's heels and clinging to a statement for the sake of argument. 

I don't have any dog in this fight, I just would like to see this discussion continue in a more amiable way and wanted to step in before it got too sideways. Carry on, but please do so respectfully. :thumbsup:


----------



## HKJ (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163 said:


> If you read the _entire _discussion it should be clear that my gist was merely to stress that the common denigration of pulse charging algorithms is almost always made without scientific support - just as it was above. Nothing more - nothing less.










In answer to a warning against this type of charge curve (0.2A charging with 2.3A pulses) you wrote you pulse charge statement.
And you are saying that your statement is not related to that warning? 

Anyway, Opus is not using a pulse charge algorithm, it is just regulating current with PWM or do you believe it is the same?



Gauss163 said:


> It is the responsibility of those making said claims to make the claims precise enough to be subject to scientific evaluation, and to provide evidence supporting those claims. Neither has been achieved above.



No, you better get working on providing it.


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 25, 2015)

HKJ said:


> Statement like "the charging current should not exceed 3.35A/cell" in datasheets cannot be ignored and I doubt any manufacturer that uses fast charge does, they may get special cells and/or extended datasheets, but they will not step outside the specifications.



That is incorrect. Modern fast charge algorithms are not restricted by the (global) parameters that govern a pure CC/CV algorithm. You're attempting to compare apples vs. oranges. As I explained in the linked BLF thread, modern fast charge algorithms exploit the fact that the max safe charge current is a function of SOC, temp etc. In particular, the max safe charging current is much higher at lower SOC. This is one of the basic ideas behind many of the modern fast-charging algorithms, including recent variations now deployed by Tesla. This has already been explained at length in the linked BLF thread, and it will be obvious to anyone who spends even a few moments perusing the linked papers.

Where is your scientific proof that the Opus charging algorithm is worse? Did you run long-term cycling tests on both? Failing that you are simply guessing. 

What's worse, you haven't even made a claim of sufficient precision that it can be subject to scientific evaluation. 

Again, _precisely _what is your claim, and where is the scientific evidence supporting it? (note: any further strawman arguments will simply be ignored).


----------



## HKJ (Dec 25, 2015)

Gauss163 said:


> That is incorrect. Modern fast charge algorithms are not restricted by the global parameters that govern a pure CC/CV algorithm. You're attempting to compare apples vs. oranges. As I explained in the linked BLF thread, modern fast charge algorithms exploit the fact that the max safe charge current is a function of SOC, temp etc. In particular, the max safe charging current is much higher at lower state of charge. This is one of the basic ideas behind many of the modern fast-charging algorithms, including recent variations now deployed by Tesla. This has already been explained at length in the linked BLF thread, and it will be obvious to anyone who spends even a few moments perusing the linked papers.



I wonder where they get all the specifications for that advanced algorithm, when it is not from the battery datasheets (extended version).

But it is interesting to know that Tesla cars are way outside Panasonic's safe specifications for charging LiIon, at least according to you. 



Gauss163 said:


> Where is your scientific proof that the Opus charging algorithm is worse? Did you run long-term cycling tests on both? Failing that you are simply guessing.



As I have mentioned a few time before I base it on datasheet, if you mean they are wrong I will suggest you provide some hard evidence, instead of requiring everybody else to deliver proof of the datasheets.


----------



## chadvone (Dec 25, 2015)

Thanks for another great review HJK. 

Team HJK


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 25, 2015)

HKJ said:


> Gauss163 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, _precisely _what is your claim, and where is the scientific evidence supporting it? .
> ...



After numerous requests to make your claim precise, and to provide scientific evidence supporting your claim, that is the best that you can do? 

Obviously our ideas of the scientific method are so disparate that there is little point of proceeding further.


----------



## SilverFox (Dec 26, 2015)

Hello Gauss163,

If I understand correctly you are saying that a proposed (not in production and not accepted by battery manufactures) advanced charging algorithm involving using a higher CC charge for 0 - 30% state of charge then switching to CCCV for the remainder of the charge is the same as pulsing a cell with close to 1C current pulses regardless of state of charge?

Tom


----------



## psychbeat (Dec 26, 2015)

Surprised u guys are feeding this troll/contrarian still. Epic thread derail. 

I doubt the Opus uses a super special tesla/Phillips pulse algorithm and since the data sheets and general Li-Ion practice is CCCV then I'd go for the LiitoKala ...


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 26, 2015)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Gauss163, If I understand correctly you are saying that a proposed (not in production and not accepted by battery manufactures) advanced charging algorithm involving using a higher CC charge for 0 - 30% state of charge then switching to CCCV for the remainder of the charge is the same as pulsing a cell with close to 1C current pulses regardless of state of charge?



No, I mentioned the linked BLF fast charging thread as a reference to debunk HKJ's mistaken belief that (datasheet) parameters governing a pure CC/CV charging algorithm also must apply to (very) different charging algorithms, whether they be PWM or pulsed, or multistage fast-charging algorithms, etc. 

This is patently false. And even if it were true it still does not provide any scientific evidence to support the (vague) claim that the Opus charging algorithm is somehow worse than the Lii-500 (a claim that has never even been made precise enough to be subject to scientific critique). Those making such claims (whatever they may be) have not provided even a single shred of scientific support. As such, these claims are merely (wild) guesses. Nothing more.


----------



## billcushman (Dec 26, 2015)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Gauss163,
> 
> If I understand correctly you are saying that a proposed (not in production and not accepted by battery manufactures) advanced charging algorithm involving using a higher CC charge for 0 - 30% state of charge then switching to CCCV for the remainder of the charge is the same as pulsing a cell with close to 1C current pulses regardless of state of charge?
> 
> Tom



Twelve posts by Gauss163 on the same subject, plus a suspicious post 1 by a new member on the same subject has become quite a distraction.


----------



## Gauss163 (Dec 26, 2015)

billcushman said:


> Twelve posts ... on the same subject ... has become quite a distraction.



A strange critique considering that this "distraction" (comparison of charging algorithms of C3100 vs Lii-500) was initiated by your own post  If you had posted a (more) precise claim along with evidence supporting it then there would have been no need to have any further discussion.


----------



## Greta (Dec 26, 2015)

Take it down a notch fellas - and I do mean that. :tsk:


----------



## SilverFox (Dec 26, 2015)

Hello Gauss163,

I think I am beginning to understand the issue.

You don't understand what the datasheet represents.

The battery manufacture produces a product and offers the datasheet as a guideline on how to use the product. This datasheet gives you parameters on performance and safety. If you follow the guidelines you can expect reasonable performance from the product.

The "envelope" of performance and safety can be pushed and it is possible to go outside the datasheet both on current draw and charging, but now you are on the experimental side of things and have to assume full responsibility for performance and safety. If a person buys a charger and it is not labeled experimental, they expect it to follow the datasheet that the battery manufacturer provides.

There are a variety of charging algorithms possible for Li-Ion chemistry but the battery manufacturers recommend CCCV. When the datasheets embrace additional algorithms, we can explore the details of those additional algorithms. Until then the additional algorithms are consider experimental.

This thread has pretty much run its course and I am going to close it to keep things civil.

Thank you for the great review HKJ.

Tom


----------

