# Callie's Kustoms 18650 High Discharge Battery Review



## old4570 (Aug 19, 2011)

From Callie's Kustoms :


18650 Unprotected Battery
2250mAh
Unprotected
10A Max Discharge
Max Charge/Max discharge voltage 4.2/3v
Panasonic uses "PSS Technology" in this battery. A solid solution technology that allows the high capacity of a 
standard Lithium-Ion battery and the safety of an IMR battery. This is truly a revolutionary battery!









For testing I have the Callie's Kustoms 18650 High discharge battery , the first thing I did was to test capacity by discharging from 4.2v to 3v @ 0.5A in my Hobby charger , I did this twice , and the results are 2168mAh for the first run and 2162mAh for the second run , and those results are very close and consistent , a good sign . 

The next test was to test for discharge capability [ Amps ] , and I used 3 flashlights for this , my best XR-E R2 , my MTE SSC P7 [ long time test light ] and my XM-L T6 3 mode [ from Manafont ] , as the T6 is a serious battery vampire , and when you take a peak at the result graph you will see why . 

TFF = Trustfire Flame or second battery from left , and TFG = Trustfire Grey third from the left and CK = Callie's Kustoms .
From the left cell 4 = Samsung 26C and cell 5 = Samsung 28A , from the left Cell 1 = Sanyo 2600 and the 3rd from the right = IMR and the black cell next to the IMR is the AW2600 .






Wow , check out the Callie's Kustoms [ CK ] , 3.9A in the XM-L . That is simply fantastic , and it goes without saying , it has simply wiped the floor with the other batteries when it comes to power delivery [ Max Amps ] . Callie's Kustoms has delivered again , a 18650 that performs so well and gives folks an option to other IMR . If you have to have the best , the highest possible power delivery , decent capacity , you need to visit Callie's Kustoms and check out this battery , it has impressed the heck out of me . 

Id like to thank Callie's Kustoms for making this review possible . 

old4570


----------



## jasonck08 (Aug 19, 2011)

I've tested the Panasonic CGR18650CH for a few months now. It's a decent mid-high current battery, but I'm not convinced of the safety aspects of it. As far as I know, its still a Lithium Cobalt cell, but probably has a hybrid cathode material, which makes higher discharge currents possible.

_"Panasonic uses "PSS Technology" in this battery. A solid solution technology that allows the high capacity of a 
standard Lithium-Ion battery and the safety of an IMR battery. This is truly a revolutionary battery!"_

This statement right here is a little bold without any sources mentioned. From my research, I don't see that Panasonic says this particular cell model is any safer than other models. Also, Panasonic recommends protecting the cell:

"Panasonic only supplies the new PSS models with an “external” safety unit, that immediately cuts off the current flow if the current is too high, the temperature is too high or there is a short circuit thus ensuring an additional safeguard against overheating and combustion."


----------



## xxllmm4 (Aug 19, 2011)

According to Panasonic they are "safe" or at least as safe as IMR's http://www.pohl-electronic.de/pdf/Panasonic/CGR18650CH.pdf Their chart pretty much sums up what they think of it.

http://www.electronicscomponentsworld.com/articleView~idArticle~72644_6901057142642011.html


----------



## jasonck08 (Aug 19, 2011)

Fair enough, also quite interesting that that datasheet is on another companies website is no where to be found on Panasonics site (which is where I went to look originally when I first got samples and tested these).

Also I just noticed that these don't have a PTC!!! This is the primary form of mechanical protection in a Li-ion cell! When the cell heats up (usually in an overcurrent situation) the PTC will change phases and will temporarily shut down the cell until it cools down again and the PTC material goes back to its original phase. My guess is they decided to do without the PTC so they could pack in more energy.

Seems a bit risky to run a cell like this with no electronic protection circuit and no PTC. Wonder what happens if its shorted out?!


----------



## old4570 (Aug 19, 2011)

Treat your lights and batteries with respect ... 

Its a little like drag racing ! The faster you plan on going , the safer you need to be ..


----------



## 45/70 (Aug 19, 2011)

My interpretation is that cells with the nickel layer are more resistant to abuse, such as being used at high discharge rates, or over discharging. My impression is however, that this does not quite bring them to the level of safety that IMR cells offer. As for the lack of a PTC on these cells, that's news to me! Yikes!

And just as a reminder, none of the so called "safe" Li-Ion cells are really safe, as many distributors and vendors like to call them. You can abuse LiMn (IMR) cells somewhat more than LiCo (ICR) cells, and LiFePO4 (LiFe, or IFR) cells quite a bit more, but if subjected to a high enough level of abuse, they can all vent. "Safer" would be a better description, IMO.

Dave


----------



## xxllmm4 (Aug 19, 2011)

Let me first state I do not consider ANY battery as being inherently safe. 

Now lets test the "POOF" theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaosGRX9BaQ


----------



## CKOD (Aug 19, 2011)

What shows them without a PTC? the linked document http://www.pohl-electronic.de/pdf/Panasonic/CGR18650CH.pdf definitely shows a PTC :thinking:


----------



## jasonck08 (Aug 19, 2011)

xxllmm4 said:


> Let me first state I do not consider ANY battery as being inherently safe.
> 
> Now lets test the "POOF" theory.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaosGRX9BaQ



Nice video. It looks like what most likely happened is because of the lack of a PTC, the current was not cut off at all and this allowed the cell to be destroyed when short circuited (unlike your 3100 test with a PTC). I'd be curious to see if the results are any different when its dead shorted with something of lesser resistance (e.g. a C clamp, rather than two thin wires twisted together).

--------------



CKOD said:


> What shows them without a PTC? the linked document http://www.pohl-electronic.de/pdf/Panasonic/CGR18650CH.pdf definitely shows a PTC :thinking:



It's a little Panasonic trickory going on. Look at the first paragraph there is an asterix (*) symbol that says "This battery is not equipped with a PTC."


----------



## xxllmm4 (Aug 19, 2011)

I wouldnt really call multi strand 14awg ofc wire thin. The resistance is going to be a lot less than going through a C Clamp but I do like the idea. I happen to have a big clamp that would be perfect


----------



## shadowjk (Aug 20, 2011)

Do you have a clamp meter that would fit around the shorting clamp/cable?


----------



## CKOD (Aug 20, 2011)

It's a little Panasonic trickory going on. Look at the first paragraph there is an asterix (*) symbol that says "This battery is not equipped with a PTC."[/QUOTE]

Shens! Would take them a few mins to get rid of the PTC from the drawing...


----------



## brembo (Aug 20, 2011)

Will cottonpicker's USB charger play nicely with the CK cell? It's a LiCo cell right, and that means it is a ICR? If that's the case then CP's charger will work with it.


----------



## 45/70 (Aug 20, 2011)

jasonck08 said:


> It's a little Panasonic trickory going on. Look at the first paragraph there is an asterix (*) symbol that says "This battery is not equipped with a PTC."



That is a bit odd. I thought that all Li-Ion cells from the major manufacturers had PTC devices, including LiMn and Life cells. As I understand it, some of the cheap Chinese cells do not, but most Chinese cells do. This really seems odd and I wonder if a mistake has been made in that .pdf?



xxllmm4 said:


> Now lets test the "POOF" theory.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaosGRX9BaQ


 
To what "POOF theory" are you referring to? I recall seeing videos of conventional LiCo cells where a similar so called "test" was performed. Nothing happened with them either. Most "incidents" occur when cells have been repeatedly abused. Then, it's not so much a question of "if" the cell will vent, but "when". As I said before, this applies to LiMn and LiFe cells, as well. They are all capable of venting under the right conditions, particularly if the cell has been abused. 

I'm not saying that Panasonic hasn't improved the safety of these cells with their new technology, I'm sure they have. The impression I get from sources other than the manufacturer though, is that these cells do not provide quite the same level of safety as LiMn.

Again, most problems with Li-Ion cells occur with used cells that have been improperly cared for, or abused. The effects of mishandling Li-Ion cells most often is cumulative over time, and not readily apparent. For example, I would not want to carry a light with the cell you "tested" installed, in my pocket. Maybe you should do a dozen or so repeat 'tests" with that same cell? That would be an interesting extension of the "test".

Dave


----------



## xxllmm4 (Aug 20, 2011)

I am under the distinct impression it does not matter what I do, how I "test" them or what the results are.

I'm done with this thread.


----------



## old4570 (Aug 21, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haMDZOfjqsE&feature=player_embedded

Interesting : CK and AW IMR short circuit


----------



## AW (Aug 21, 2011)

The video shows exactly what will happen when you dead short a 15C rated ( AW IMR18650 ) against a 5C rated ( Panasonic CGR18650CH ). The AW IMR will
dump at least 3X amperage and hence runs hotter due to its higher current output capability and lower cell internal resistance.

Here is another interesting video about a well used AW IMR18650 against a new bigger IMR26650 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Niw6or2lRAY


AW IMR running handicapped ( 7.4V ) against A123 / LiPo / NiMH ( 9.9V vs 9.9V vs 8.4V ) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akAAZ80JNDU



AW IMR voltage under load against others :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJeu7NfSZE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjjDGb0zpzk&feature=related


----------



## old4570 (Aug 22, 2011)

AW said:


> The video shows exactly what will happen when you dead short a 15C rated ( AW IMR18650 ) against a 5C rated ( Panasonic CGR18650CH ). The AW IMR will
> dump at least 3X amperage and hence runs hotter due to its higher current output capability and lower cell internal resistance.
> 
> Here is another interesting video about a well used AW IMR18650 against a new bigger IMR26650 :
> ...



Some interesting video : but how relevant some are to flashlights ? 

Interesting never the less - hmmmm


----------



## AW (Aug 22, 2011)

Current output capability and voltage under load characteristics are the core performance guidelines of a battery. These information are valuable to all users no matter you are
a flashaholics or other user groups. Every different user groups have their own means to test the performance of a battery ( using a flashlight / a laser / a vaporizor / a airsoft gun /
a motor or any other devices they are using ) but the results they are trying to look for is the same two elements.





old4570 said:


> Some interesting video : but how relevant some are to flashlights ?
> 
> Interesting never the less - hmmmm


----------



## old4570 (Aug 22, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPA4cdeyYng CK 18650 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro_suW7gMo0 IMR 



Voltage sag @ 1A CK VS my IMR ... 

Now if anyone has a brand new IMR , please take a video , 1Amp discharge ! 
My IMR has had very little use , but its over 1 year old ... 
So , anyone with a fresh IMR ...

This is very interesting ..... 

And voltage sag in a well regulated light - is not that important .. Capacity is far more important ... In Direct Drive - yes it becomes important , and more so in single cell use . A few tenths of tenths here or there ????


----------



## AW (Aug 22, 2011)

Try discharging with 2C and beyond and you 'll see the difference. This thread is about high discharge battery after all.

In a regulated light it is actually more important because the more the voltage sag, the driver will draw more amperage to compensate - up to the point that the battery cannot handle the load ( LiCo - 2C ). High drain cell - up to the C rating.

Capacity is of course important and is still the main goal for all battery manufacturers to pursue improvement.

Getting the right kind of batteries is important. You 'll need high discharge cells for high drain applications and high capacity cells for long runtime applications.


----------



## old4570 (Aug 22, 2011)

Well , you cant have it each way .... :sigh:

+ 1A is max for me ... [ Imax B6 ] 

And Im happy for anyone to do a controlled comparison ... 

Still , the CK has good discharge - good capacity - and looks like decent safety . :thinking:

Looks like a hat trick [ or trifecta ] to me ... 

If you dont like it , that's fine by me .. I enjoy testing stuff , and if it looks to be good , well , what can you do about that ? 

I can only do what I can do ...

But never forget , the proof is in the pudding ...

Please feel free to source a CK and test ... I look forward to the results ..


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 22, 2011)

xxllmm4 said:


> I am under the distinct impression it does not matter what I do, how I "test" them or what the results are.
> 
> I'm done with this thread.



You have a low number of posts, so it is not clear to some of us who have used and tested many of the lithium ion batteries what the motivations and reliability of new cells may be for various applications that have been promoted over the years. 

Many of us have seen a good variety of cells, from a good variety of manufacturers, and it is common to see many that are not presented accurately or in a fair manner, so your "short fuse" in response to our legitimate skepticism does not help to make your points.

Seeing these sold by this website ( http://callieskustoms.com ), selling a diversity from t-shirts to tire balancing beads, does not immediately instill a flashlight or battery enthusiast with confidence...until reliably questioned and proven. 

There is also a practical question (in addition to safety--which does look enhanced with those PSS Panasonics over typical Lithium Cobalt chemistry cells) of how many light applications need a 10A draw to justify buying these.

The most important thing to see however are the actual discharge graphs at various amp loads to see how they actually perform and hold voltage. Doing those dead short tests is not really telling us as much useful of information as you think it does. We are not dismissing what your showed in your Youtube videos, some of us just think it is not the whole story of giving a fair evaluation to Lithium Ion cells. 

We know Panasonic is a high quality and reliable brand, but it is better to take the time to look these up on Panasonic's website, so people can see original source information, which I did here, but it is still not complete information. 

http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/includes/pdf/cgr18650ch_data_sheet.pdf


----------



## 45/70 (Aug 22, 2011)

I don't question the quality of the CGR18650CH cells. I'm certainly not aware of any Panasonic Li-Ion cells that are "bad". I'm also certain that Panasonic has taken the time to develop this new technology to make the cell safer and, as a result, am sure that it most likely is.

As for the safety level of these new cells compared to IMR cells, some of what I've read, again from sources other than Panasonic, is that while the nickel added to the cathode of these cells does provide an additional safety layer, the simple fact that these cells store more energy becomes a factor in and of itself. So, if something does go wrong, there is more energy to fuel the problem.

I also agree with Lux, a dead short test really doesn't provide much useful information. I do appreciate xxllmm4 taking the time (and risk) to show what happens when one of these cells is short circuited. As I said before however, I've seen such tests done to other cells as well, but especially when "new" cells are used, it really doesn't tell you all that much. Also, I fear that such videos promote others to try attempting similar tests, warnings or not, without realizing the potential dangers involved.

Also, as far as I know, from other postings, _xxllmm4 is Callie's Kustoms_, or is at least affiliated with them. Perhaps doubters are not looked upon with much respect from this outfit. Personally, as I said, I don't doubt the quality of these cells, just the claim that they are as safe as IMR cells because of what I have seen mentioned elsewhere. It is fairly new cell technology, so as is usual, not everybody's ideas and opinions are going to be correct. Unfortunately, marketing teams seem to err quite a bit in this area, so it often pays to see what other's observations and opinions are, concerning a new product.

Dave


----------



## Chicago X (Aug 22, 2011)

FWIW, I've been using some CK 3100 protected cells in a high-power light (3A tailcap) and they have increased in capacity about 100mAh after 3 cycles. They are reading out 2940-2980 mAh now.

I still LOVE my AWs, and use them in most of my lights (both IMR and 2900s). It's nice to see another option for high-quality cells. :twothumbs:


----------



## mitro (Aug 22, 2011)

AW said:


> Try discharging with 2C and beyond and you 'll see the difference. This thread is about high discharge battery after all.


Discharging one of these @ 10A I get 1862 mAh discharged *to 3v*. @ 5A its 2095 mAh to 3v. Unfortunately my AW IMRs are about 2 years old now so I can't make a fair comparison.


----------



## Ways (Aug 22, 2011)

I am interested in these cells as a complement to my current IMR cells so would it be fair to say that the CK high discharge cells are proven to be good in so far as the results returned from testing conducted to date have been favourable? and based on those results wouldn't it also be fair to say that in a device requiring a cell to perform at higher than 2C discharge rate these CK cells should perform at least as well as if not better than an equivalent IMR cell and almost certainly better than a Li-ion cell not recommended for high discharge?


----------



## old4570 (Aug 22, 2011)

One review is not proof , but simply information that some one may find useful or not .
It is fair to say that the cell has performed well , has decent capacity , and as for safety - some one with much deeper pockets can delve into that , I believe the cell is fine to use , Im not going to get into this . [ There are several obvious points I could make - but I wont ] 

Im impressed with this cell ... 

If the reader is impressed ? , there is only a very small number of people with this cell , and Im not aware of anyone being un impressed or un happy with the performance ...

Anyone wanting to contribute hard data , is most welcome and wanted !


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 23, 2011)

Ways said:


> I am interested in these cells as a complement to my current IMR cells so would it be fair to say that the CK high discharge cells are proven to be good in so far as the results returned from testing conducted to date have been favourable? and based on those results wouldn't it also be fair to say that in a device requiring a cell to perform at higher than 2C discharge rate these CK cells should perform at least as well as if not better than an equivalent IMR cell and almost certainly better than a Li-ion cell not recommended for high discharge?


 
With what we have seen so far, the best anyone can give to your series of questions would lean favorable ONLY because they are Panasonic brand (they are not "CK" batteries). If you are trying to measure them against the IMR (assuming a quality brand of IMR) to backup the Panasonic claim, you need to see discharge tests at various amp loads. Without that being done by at least a few independent sources (not just by a retailer who is slapping a re-branding sticker and then selling them), we just cannot give you a more specific honest answer.

Again, most of us are NOT saying they are necessarily being over-hyped or over-promoted. We are saying there just is not yet enough reliable information presented. I do not know if the RC Forums have tested these cells yet, but they have many sharp, and highly respected "tools in their forum shed." I would look there next if I was sufficiently motivated. Following that, I would do my own series of CBA-II discharge tests. I would also want to see more information from Panasonic about the recharge rate limits, and cell cycle life if routinely used at 8-10A loads. There are many factors to consider.


----------



## old4570 (Aug 23, 2011)

LuxLuthor said:


> With what we have seen so far, the best anyone can give to your series of questions would lean favorable ONLY because they are Panasonic brand (they are not "CK" batteries). If you are trying to measure them against the IMR (assuming a quality brand of IMR) to backup the Panasonic claim, you need to see discharge tests at various amp loads. Without that being done by at least a few independent sources (not just by a retailer who is slapping a re-branding sticker and then selling them), we just cannot give you a more specific honest answer.
> 
> Again, most of us are NOT saying they are necessarily being over-hyped or over-promoted. We are saying there just is not yet enough reliable information presented. I do not know if the RC Forums have tested these cells yet, but they have many sharp, and highly respected "tools in their forum shed." I would look there next if I was sufficiently motivated. Following that, I would do my own series of CBA-II discharge tests. I would also want to see more information from Panasonic about the recharge rate limits, and cell cycle life if routinely used at 8-10A loads. There are many factors to consider.


 
Wow !!!!! seriously , I cant believe you went there ... ONLY because they are Panasonic brand (they are not "CK" batteries). 

Does this logic apply to everyone who slaps there brand on Panasonic cells ???? or any other cell ???? 

Just how many brand names outsource , and slap there name on a battery ??? And here I thought it was accepted practice ?????

(not just by a retailer who is slapping a re-branding sticker and then selling them) Hmmm , now if people don't buy these cells to test , how will we get independent results ??? Bit of a catch 22 ! And since there new , and only a hand full of people have them ?? 


Wow  , why do I feel this déjà vu !!!! 

Hopefully for the last time : 

Please test these batteries !!! With sugar on top ...
Please - with sugar on top - report your findings ! 
Please - with sugar on top - I think everyone would just love to see some facts ! 

Yes , these batts are new , we need more people to play with them and provide feed back , I apologize with sugar on top , for being the ???? first ???? 

And my only sage advice is not to throw stones if you live in a glass house


----------



## Tuikku (Aug 23, 2011)

Seems like Panasonic delivers _very_ serious batteries.


----------



## weiser701 (Aug 23, 2011)

http://ir.teslamotors.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=526928



> PANASONIC INVESTS $30 MILLION IN TESLA: COMPANIES STRENGTHEN COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP
> 
> PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Panasonic Corporation and Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) today announced that Panasonic has invested $30 million in Tesla. The investment was made through the purchase of Tesla common stock in a private placement at a price of $21.15 per share. The investment builds upon a multi-year collaboration of the two companies to accelerate the market expansion of the electric vehicle.
> 
> Panasonic is the world's leading battery cell manufacturer and a diverse supplier to the global automotive industry. *Tesla currently uses Panasonic battery cells in its advanced battery packs and has collaborated with Panasonic on the development of next generation battery cells* designed specifically for electric vehicles. While Tesla's current battery strategy incorporates proprietary packaging using cells from multiple battery suppliers, *Tesla has selected Panasonic as its preferred lithium-ion battery cell supplier for its battery packs.*


----------



## Chicago X (Aug 23, 2011)

LuxLuthor said:


> ...Without that being done by at least a few independent sources (*not just by a retailer who is slapping a re-branding sticker and then selling them*), we just cannot give you a more specific honest answer....


(Bold mine.)

This struck me as incredibly ironic (and humorous) since AFAIK, AW and Redilast do _exactly _that with their cells. 

As a customer who has spent hundreds of dollars with AW, I can appreciate the quality of their top-tier cells. The same goes for Redilast, Callie's, and any other re-seller of the Panasonic brand.


----------



## Slartibartfast (Aug 23, 2011)

My thoughts exactly. AW and Redilast are doing the same thing and will probably be offering the same cells soon enough with their label attached. 
Any bets on whether they will be viewed so negatively for making panasonics latest and greatest cell available to us? Methinks not.





Chicago X said:


> (Bold mine.)
> 
> This struck me as incredibly ironic (and humorous) since AFAIK, AW and Redilast do _exactly _that with their cells.
> 
> As a customer who has spent hundreds of dollars with AW, I can appreciate the quality of their top-tier cells. The same goes for Redilast, Callie's, and any other re-seller of the Panasonic brand.


----------



## jasonck08 (Aug 23, 2011)

old4570 said:


> Wow !!!!! seriously , I cant believe you went there ... ONLY because they are Panasonic brand (they are not "CK" batteries).
> 
> Does this logic apply to everyone who slaps there brand on Panasonic cells ???? or any other cell ????
> 
> Just how many brand names outsource , and slap there name on a battery ??? And here I thought it was accepted practice ?????





Chicago X said:


> (Bold mine.)
> 
> This struck me as incredibly ironic (and humorous) since AFAIK, AW and Redilast do _exactly _that with their cells.
> 
> As a customer who has spent hundreds of dollars with AW, I can appreciate the quality of their top-tier cells. The same goes for Redilast, Callie's, and any other re-seller of the Panasonic brand.





Slartibartfast said:


> My thoughts exactly. AW and Redilast are doing the same thing and will probably be offering the same cells soon enough with their label attached.
> Any bets on whether they will be viewed so negatively for making panasonics latest and greatest cell available to us? Methinks not.



There is a bit of a difference between applying a sticker to a loose / bare cell and taking a good quality cell, designing a protection circuit, spot welding on the PCB, adding a button top (if applicable) then heatshrinking it. More effort is involved, and this justifies the re-branding of the cell. I can't say the same thing about just slapping a sticker on a bare cell, however.


----------



## xxllmm4 (Aug 23, 2011)

Sorry I said I was done but this last statment was so comical I had to reply 



> There is a bit of a difference between applying a sticker to a loose / bare cell and taking a good quality cell, designing a protection circuit, spot welding on the PCB, adding a button top (if applicable) then heatshrinking it. More effort is involved, and this justifies the re-branding of the cell. I can't say the same thing about just slapping a sticker on a bare cell, however.



First off I have not re-branded any battery. Simply putting sticker on a battery to direct people to your website is not "re-branding" The manufactures information is left on the battery on purpose!

Have you seen our 3100 batteries? Protection circuit added, button top added, and re-warped. So apparently these batteries are ok to "re-brand" even tho they still say "genuine Panasonic" I would also like to note we where the first company to bring the 3100's and the 2250's to the general market. We also sell the 3100's with spot welded tabs for people who want to build computer packs. Again a sticker was added to direct people to our website. I have made every possible effort to ensure people know these are PANASONIC BATTERIES!

Why would we add an aftermarket button top to a battery that comes from the factory with a button top installed? Who adds a protection circuit to an IMR battery? Lets look at the re-branding sticker a little closer.... 
+ Panasonic -
callies
kustoms
2250mah High Current
3.7v li-ion
Rechargeable battery

None of the manufactures information is covered up, its like when you buy a car from the dealer. Some dealers put on license plate covers that say where the car came from to hopefully boost sales. :thumbsup:


----------



## old4570 (Aug 23, 2011)

jasonck08 said:


> There is a bit of a difference between applying a sticker to a loose / bare cell and taking a good quality cell, designing a protection circuit, spot welding on the PCB, adding a button top (if applicable) then heatshrinking it. More effort is involved, and this justifies the re-branding of the cell. I can't say the same thing about just slapping a sticker on a bare cell, however.



Wow , I must be getting old , id swear some one did just that with an IMR , you guys just wont stop digging a deeper hole !!!! :shakehead

Did I say something about throwing stones ? maybe not !


----------



## Slartibartfast (Aug 23, 2011)

Lol, this is too good.

Thanks for the laugh.





jasonck08 said:


> There is a bit of a difference between applying a sticker to a loose / bare cell and taking a good quality cell, designing a protection circuit, spot welding on the PCB, adding a button top (if applicable) then heatshrinking it. More effort is involved, and this justifies the re-branding of the cell. I can't say the same thing about just slapping a sticker on a bare cell, however.


----------



## KingGlamis (Aug 23, 2011)

*[troll post removed - DM51]*


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 24, 2011)

It is interesting to see the dramatic and emotional overreactions and misunderstandings of my last post. I recommend taking a deep breath, and go back and re-read what I wrote carefully.

First, we are talking about the CGR18650CH Panasonic cells referenced in this thread, not the 3100mAh cells which I indeed have called "CK" cells because they added a PCB, similar to what AW, Redilast, and others have done.

Notice that in my previous post, first sentence answering another question, I said those of us who have been around this forum (& RC Forums) for a while would LEAN FAVORABLY towards these cells BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT PANASONIC MAKES QUALITY CELLS. I made it clear that these are not "CK" cells, but are Panasonics with a CK label slapped on the side, and now being called on that website and in this thread as "CK" cells.

I did not say that CK was hiding anything. I said that experienced users would view these favorably BECAUSE WE KNOW THEY ARE PANASONICS. I then went on to point out that to give REAL answers, with specific performance side-by-side evaluations with IMR cells, you need to know the discharge graphs.

Furthermore, it is not adequate to accept discharge graphs ONLY from the manufacturer (even if it is Panasonic), or only from a re-branding retailer, as those may or may not be accurate. That is true if it is AW, Redilast, Wolf Eyes, Pila, Panasonic, Sanyo, LG, Sony, etc. Experienced users assume that the seller will be presenting the most optimistic performance charts possible. If you did some research, you would note that tests I have done, Silverfox, and many others do not show as high of performance graphs as have been posted by AW or Redilast.

A perfect example of what can go on if you take the graphs of a slap-on label reseller are the discharge graphs posted at www.cheapbatterypacks.com for many of the cells--especially the Elite brand of NiMH cells which give dramatically optimistic results. When Mike (owner) was questioned about how he got such high performance graphs, we found out he solders 12 AWG wire from cell terminals to testing leads, and waits until cells are heated up to their maximum recharge temperature ("too hot to hold"), then does the discharge immediately with a Competition Electronics CE Turbo-35. That is an example of what I would call stacking the deck as much as possible, and not a realistic scenario.

The point is that you need to take the information provided by the manufacturer, reseller, OEM rebrander, etc. with a grain of salt until independently verified by several sources with no vested interest in the outcome.

I am certainly saying that the CK videos of shorting the batteries and recording the start/ending voltage and infrared thermometer readings does not provide us all that useful of information. I said it was not irrelevant information, but it does not answer the questions that experienced battery users need to know when recommending one battery over another. If you are not familiar with how batteries are tested and compared, you can look through the various "shootout" threads in the pinned topics of interest thread here.

I personally don't give a crap who advertises or pays money to CPF regarding an evaluation of quality, performance, or reliability. In fact I have used Firefox AdBlock Plus to block all ads since they started being used, as I do on most website I visit. The reason many of us have high opinions of AW, Pila, Redilast, Sony, Sanyo, Panasonic, LG, A123, Emoli, etc. is that they have been evaluated by many, and have a long-standing reputation. It is ignorant and incorrect to assume that the experienced users here and at RC Groups forums determine quality by someone being a reseller or supporter at CPF or any other forum. Are there some that make decisions based upon that basis? Perhaps...but they are not who I am speaking for.

Currently, there are many established quality companies striving for better safety while optimizing storage energy, and/or higher current output for certain applications. What I am saying is that these Panasonic cells (with or without a CK sticker) are likely a safer lithium cobalt formulation, and that we would lean towards their being a quality cell that may have some of the features of IMR cells. But until objective discharge tests are done by multiple sources; some reliable information is given about life cycles if 8-10Amps are used regularly; and proper re-charge rates to optimize longevity and performance are provided, we cannot say that these cells will work as is being promoted in this thread.

For example, what if we find out from Panasonic that regularly using these cells to discharge at 9-10 Amp rates only gives 50 cycles before deteriorating significantly? Are they still worth the money compared to a quality IMR? What if the 10 Amp discharge plot shows their voltage drops significantly below a quality IMR cell? Are they worth buying?

We don't have the answers to those and other typical questions that need to be answered before new cell technologies are recommended. All of your other emotional overreactions are unwarranted, and only serve to fuel doubts that some of us have raised about this reseller. I can tell you that with the responses in this thread to objective questions and missing test information, I would not recommend dealing with them. That's not how a new seller (CK) should behave on this or any other forum.


----------



## xxllmm4 (Aug 24, 2011)

LuxLuthor send me a PM with your name and address. I'll send you a free one. Feel free to post anything you would like about it.


----------



## old4570 (Aug 24, 2011)

*[Baiting post removed - DM51]*


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 24, 2011)

xxllmm4 said:


> LuxLuthor send me a PM with your name and address. I'll send you a free one. Feel free to post anything you would like about it.


 
I appreciate your generous offer, and do not want to sound unappreciative, but given the above conversations, if I would do my own independent comparison testing of these cells vs. some of the IMR/LiFePO4 and other cells I have used, I would want to buy them as a typical "representative" user, and would need at least 4 to test various features. From experience, once you discharge most any cell at their extremes (I would go beyond 10 Amps with these), they are not the same. To be clear, I am not saying I will buy and test these cells for sure...but if I do, I will post a new thread about it.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 24, 2011)

Old4570, I'm sorry you are seeing my posts as trying to be antagonistic or silly. That is honestly not how I am trying to speak about this, and I appreciated you presenting the cells in the first place, as I had not heard about them. I'm used to being able to challenge someone bringing a new product to our attention, and honestly do not think there would have been as much uncertainty, had we seen the typical discharge performance graphs we are used to when evaluating new batteries. I have not said (or implied) that there is necessarily anything wrong with these Panasonics, just that we don't yet have the typical performance information we need.

I also don't have anything against CK personally which I never heard about before, but this is a large community that may want to try these cells he is listing. As such, it makes sense to assume people are trying to be constructive in their questions, rather than assuming we have some blood oath to AW OR CPF and need to be attacked. If these cells work better for certain applications than AW or other IMR cells, then that's great, and would be a pleasure to use. Before I can make that determination I would have the same questions if God Almighty brought forth these new PSS Panasonics to the market. My comments about several talking/behaving in a way that generates animosity towards people like me asking about them was not restricted to xxllmm4.

We need to be able to get a fair evaluation and learn about new products rather than just accepting their value and agreeing they work as well as is being claimed in this thread. I would have thought having a back and forth set of conversations about how to appreciate these cells among the many out there would have been useful, but alas we are not getting anywhere useful, so I'll bow out.


----------



## DM51 (Aug 24, 2011)

Two posts have been removed.​ 
old4570, your post #42 was one of them. Baiting, as you should know, is not tolerated here. Your account is suspended until next Monday.​ 
KingGlamis, your post #39 was the other one removed. Your suspension is for trolling; and it is indefinite. That means you won't be returning unless you can convince the Administration that you intend to behave and comply with the Rules.​ 
The thread is closed. If someone runs proper tests on these cells, they may post a new thread about it.​


----------

