# CR123's...So where do we stand folks?



## seery (Mar 31, 2006)

Here is the million dollar question....


Where do we stand as as to the opinion on the "BEST" CR123 battery right now?


All my Titaniums have been returned and the SF's are no longer a bargain. I
need to order 200 batteries and would appreciate any/all input and thoughts
on where you folks would spend your money right now given all the latest 
posts.

Again these will be used in E2D's, M3/M3T's, M962C's and M6's. They will be
used for long durations during lowlight training, 3-gun and combat training and
matches, as well as in emergency lights.

So...where would YOU spend your $$???


----------



## atm (Mar 31, 2006)

If it were my dollars I'd need to chose from the less expensive brands; from my own fairly limited experience and reading here, I'd go with Batterystation brand. They seem to be the best compromise between performance, cost and consistancy.

Whatever brand I went with I'd want to quickly test them on a proper tester before using them for long periods in high-drain multi cell lights to try and head off any performance or safety problems.

Andrew


----------



## zespectre (Mar 31, 2006)

Okay, not to hijack the thread, but along with recommending a "concensus" on the best cells right now, do we also have a concensus on the best tester to go with them?


----------



## jsr (Mar 31, 2006)

If I could afford it, I'd stick with Streamlight (which look to be Panasonics), Rayovac, and Sanyos. Any of these can be had for $2ea. at many vendors.
Considering I'm poorer (and only have my Rayovacs and Sanyos because I got them on specials at the time), if I were to get something now, I'd get either the BatteryStation (which seem to be good for high drain applications) or Tenergy (which are unproven, but most my lights aren't very high drain) for $1ea.


----------



## Piripi (Mar 31, 2006)

I recently got my first order from Battery Station and they seem to do what they are supposed to do quite well.


----------



## Filament (Mar 31, 2006)

Batterystation also has Duracell's for $2 each on their cpf member's page.


----------



## KevinL (Mar 31, 2006)

I still trust Batterystation's cells. They have been consistently good and consistently priced since I started using them in 2004. 

I've used all the types mentioned in the original post, and I hoped to continue using Surefire cells. There is no doubt about the quality of SF's batteries, it's just that the price has become really, really steep.

As it is, most of my lights use rechargeables, so it's even tougher to cough up $1.75 per battery when there is a credible, equally-high-performance alternative that has withstood Surefire's high drain lamps just as well as original SF batteries, for $1 each. Kudos to Batterystation for bringing us REAL quality (as distinguished from so many different varieties of crap cells which I have tried) at a price that anybody can afford.

I notice the price has gone up on their main page ($1.25 to $1.45), but they still have the CPF Special of $1...... OK folks, let's hear it:

*HUGE CHEERS FOR BATTERYSTATION FOR TAKING CARE OF US!!*


----------



## fieldops (Mar 31, 2006)

KevinL said:


> *HUGE CHEERS FOR BATTERYSTATION FOR TAKING CARE OF US!!*


 Darn right! He's done great by us


----------



## greenLED (Mar 31, 2006)

Keep in mind that "best" depends on the current draw you'll be using the cells with.


----------



## JimH (Mar 31, 2006)

[Hijack mode on]


zespectre said:


> Okay, not to hijack the thread, but along with recommending a "concensus" on the best cells right now, do we also have a concensus on the best tester to go with them?


The only company, that I know of that makes non-toy battery testers available in the US is ZTS.

I'm sure there must be some $500+ testers out there someplace, but I'm not talking about those.

[Hijack mode off]


----------



## onthebeam (Mar 31, 2006)

The Streamlights are only $1.25 and are excellent.


----------



## dano (Mar 31, 2006)

In my testing, STreamlight's cells were tops, along with the Blackhawk/Night-Ops cells.

I think we fail to remember that these types of cells were not designed for a Constant On application, especially in high drain lights like a SF M6/M4. 

-dan


----------



## seery (Mar 31, 2006)

Ended up buying the ZTS MBT-1 tester. As my stock of batteries is replenished,
I'll continue to "group" batteries together in boxes according to how they test
on the ZTS.

Thanks so far for all the comments and suggestions folks. Much appreciated.

Where are you folks getting your Streamlight CR123's?


----------



## Topper (Mar 31, 2006)

onthebeam said:


> The Streamlights are only $1.25 and are excellent.



Where if you don't mind me asking? I would like to try some.
Thanks 
Topper


----------



## zespectre (Apr 2, 2006)

dano said:


> In my testing, STreamlight's cells were tops, along with the Blackhawk/Night-Ops cells.
> 
> I think we fail to remember that these types of cells were not designed for a Constant On application, especially in high drain lights like a SF M6/M4.
> 
> -dan


 
While that is true, I should still think that they should handle 1 timed minute on a 60 lumen HDS EDC basic without stepping down. The majority of my 123's can do this easily but the "failure" percentage is really climbing fast. This makes me fairly nervous as my 123 based lights are supposed to be my "throw it in a drawer and forget it" emergency lights.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Apr 6, 2006)

.
I'm wondering if batteryjunction.com has good batteries for a reasonable price ?


Does anyone on here have any experience with them ?


I think the owner (Matthew) is CPF'er (MattK) who introduced himself in this battery forum a few weeks ago in some of the threads.

Does anyone know his background and how long he's been here in the shadows ?


.


----------



## ChopperCFI (Apr 6, 2006)

onthebeam,
Where do you get Streamlights for $1.25?

From the battery test charts, those seemed to be a good balance across all types of current drains. I've been looking for good source.


----------



## JimH (Apr 7, 2006)

ChopperCFI said:


> onthebeam,
> Where do you get Streamlights for $1.25?



 Sanyo CR123 

$1.00 each before shipping and tax.


----------



## jsr (Apr 7, 2006)

I got the Sanyos from Botach for $1/ea. I haven't tried them yet (still have other batteries), but just an FYI, these are made in China and not in Japan (like the previous Sanyos). Not saying this affects quality, but Botach's site still says Made in Japan.

I'm also interested to know where to get Streamlights for $1.25. Of the various batteries I've used, the Streamlights were one of the ones to last the longest (and seem to be made by Panasonic).


----------



## HarryN (Apr 7, 2006)

jsr - I think the streamlights and ray o vacs are made by Murita (sp). They had a plant in Georgia, but are increasingly shifting production to Japan. I was not aware of the China plant. Varta cells are an ROV brand as well now.

I was in Walmart the other day, and could not find many cells of any brand made in USA. 

I had a line on some reasonably priced OEM ROV CR2s and 123s for a while, but ROV stopped selling directly to small OEMs. Future is their distributor, which is ok, but the quote I received was the same as I can buy at Wal Mart.


----------



## seery (Apr 7, 2006)

Where are you folks finding your Streamlight 123's at 1.25 each? Lots of us
would like to know.

Anybody have any first hand experience with the Sanyos in high drain SF lights
like the M3/M4/M6? They are $1.00/each at Botech right now. Worth it???

Thanks CPF folks.


----------



## Flash_Gordon (Apr 7, 2006)

seery said:


> Where are you folks finding your Streamlight 123's at 1.25 each? Lots of us would like to know.
> Anybody have any first hand experience with the Sanyos in high drain SF lights
> like the M3/M4/M6? They are $1.00/each at Botech right now. Worth it???



Streamlights $1.25 Here: DLS 

The latest Sanyo's are now made in China instead of Japan. They have been my battery of choice and worked well in the M3, M3T and M4. Jury is still out on the latest Chinese made Sanyos.

Mark


----------



## jsr (Apr 7, 2006)

Flash - the link isn't working for me. EDIT - n/m - the link works now. Thanks!

HarryN - I too like Ray-o-Vac cells. They perform as good as Duracells in all testing (both on CPF and others) I've seen and better than Energizer in almost every test. Visually, the ROVs and SLs look different while the SLs look identical to the Panasonic 123As I have (everything looks the same...everything). Are Panasonics made by Murita also? Regardless, thems some goooood batteries.


----------



## seery (Apr 7, 2006)

DLS enterprises (linked above) told me that Duracell makes the Streamlight CR123 batteries. 

Decided to wait on any Sanyo's from Botach to see if the made in China are as good
as the made in Japan version.

From all the searches I've done on CPF, it seems the Streamlight 123's are good bang
for the buck.

I'm going to order some Panasonics to try as well, where is the best place to order these?


----------



## onthebeam (Apr 7, 2006)

I have also purchased my Streamlights from DLS for $1.25. They're great to deal with with excellent prices all around. Nice folks, too.


----------



## seery (Apr 8, 2006)

Where are you folks finding the Streamlights for $1.25/each?

The link above for DLS Enterprises is $16.00/12 or $1.33 each PLUS shipping.


----------



## whorton5 (Apr 8, 2006)

seery said:


> Here is the million dollar question....
> 
> All my Titaniums have been returned


 
Oh poop. Is something wrong with Titaniums? What did I miss? I was just about to order some for my G2 and XO3.


----------



## dano (Apr 9, 2006)

Duracell doesn't OEM, so they don't make the Streamlight Cells. 

Anyways, the latest Duracell lithiums I saw at target were Made In China, and differed in appearence to old-style Duracell DL-123's.

Most of these cells are just relabels, as there are only a few domestic factories that tmake lithium cells.

I'm whittling down my stash, and will use SL-123's exclusively. The Night-Ops cells are great, but pricey (esp. after S&H costs are factored in).

--dan


----------



## Donovan (Apr 9, 2006)

whorton5 said:


> Oh poop. Is something wrong with Titaniums? What did I miss? I was just about to order some for my G2 and XO3.


Yeah, they last about half as long as normal CR123's... At least all of the ones I had. I will never buy titaniums again...


----------



## whorton5 (Apr 9, 2006)

Donovan said:


> Yeah, they last about half as long as normal CR123's... At least all of the ones I had. I will never buy titaniums again...


 
Well, you should send a note to the Flashlight Reviews guy. I was going to buy them based on the review he did on the site. Those are the ones sold by Amondo Tech, right?


----------



## kennyj (Apr 9, 2006)

They've been a moving target (there's another thread somewhere about Titaniums in the M6 that has lots of details.) The cells were reformulated at least once and actually do very well in high-drain applications compared to other inexpensive cells, and sometimes pulling ahead of the pack entirely. Unfortunately, there are some questions regarding their consistency. Fortunately, Wayne of Amondo Tech is meeting with his supplier to discuss consistency issues as well as their behavior in certain extreme applications (like the M6 HOLA.)

Interestingly, other manufacturers haven't fared much better, including Surefire themselves, in the issue of extended runtime on high drain.

Personally, I'm not too confident in them right now if only for the consistency issues they seem to have, but the response by their reseller has been incredibly favorable to the community. These could very well end up being the ultimate CR123As for flashlight consumption for all we know, once the ironing-out is done.


----------



## seery (Apr 9, 2006)

I like the sounds of that. Have you had a chance to run them in any high drain lights such as the M3/M4/M6 types. In this specific application, how do they compare to others you have used? Thanks and any comments appreciated.



Piripi said:


> I recently got my first order from Battery Station and they seem to do what they are supposed to do quite well.


----------



## soffiler (Apr 10, 2006)

dano said:


> Duracell doesn't OEM, so they don't make the Streamlight Cells.
> 
> Anyways, the latest Duracell lithiums I saw at target were Made In China, and differed in appearence to old-style Duracell DL-123's.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Dan:

Just out of curiousity, do you know which US factories will do OEM? I've got some Surefires here that say Made in USA, and actually their mechanical construction details are IDENTICAL to both my Energizers and Duracells (also labelled Made in USA). All three have a plastic insulator on the (+) end black color with a hex-shaped cutout for the terminal; they all have a green-colored piece (spacer?) just barely visible under the label on the (-) end; and with labels unwrapped, they continue to look extremely similar, with an inkjet marking on the can consisting of a date code in MMDDYY format, then a Lot #, then a six-digit number. I would be amazed if they are coming from separate factories - the ONLY difference I can observe is the printing on the label. They even perform extremely similar on the CBA-II. I was just wondering whether you, or anyone, knows something about where these lithium primary cells are being manufactured in the USA.

Best regards,
Steve Offiler
VP of Engineering
Central Tools, Inc.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 10, 2006)

Hello Steve,

I am beginning to realize that who makes who's batteries is a closely guarded secret. I have been digging into this and still do not have answers.

If I might take a weak stab at your argument, Ford and GMC use exactly the same fasteners and perform similarly. However, they do have different wrappers...  Are they coming from the same factory?

Tom


----------



## jsr (Apr 10, 2006)

Just wanted to add that the Streamlights and Panasonic 123As I have look exactly as that described by Steve above. Streamlights say Made in USA, Panasonics in Japan. Visually, my SLs and Panasonics look identically...with the labels covered, I would think they're the same batteries.


----------



## parnass (Apr 12, 2006)

Flash_Gordon said:


> Streamlights $1.25 Here: DLS
> ....
> Mark



Thanks for the info. Based on your reference to DLS Enterprises, I ordered 12 *Streamlight* CR123A batteries for $16 ($1.33/each) plus shipping. They were mailed from Indiana to Illinois and arrived here in 2 days. 

All of the batteries measure between 3.234 and 3.244 volts open circuit using a Fluke 87-III DMM. These Streamlight batteries are made in USA and are stamped with a date code of _4705_. I think this means they were manufactured during the 47th week of 2005. The DLS owner said the Streamlight cells were the same as Duracells, but they look like Energizers to me.

Thanks again.


----------



## Floating Spots (Apr 14, 2006)

soffiler said:


> Just out of curiousity, do you know which US factories will do OEM?




Back in 2003 I performed some very basic internet research for USA lithium battery manufacturers.
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=386571&postcount=24

Panasonic has a lithium battery manufacturing plant in the US listed under their OEM division.

There are comparison pictures about 5 posts up of Panasonics to Surefire cells (of the 2003 era).
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=385514&postcount=19

This is old info, but the Panasonic OEM info is still valid...


Jon


----------



## soffiler (Apr 14, 2006)

Thanks for the info, Jon. That's very helpful. I don't have any Panasonics in front of me at the moment (note to self...) but I can comment on the '03 pictures you linked to. My SF, Duracell, and Energizer (not e2) are all basically indentical in construction to each other, and this construction is very similar to the '03 pictures. I can't see the hex cutout in the pix but surely it's there. Mine match that. The blue spacer from '03 is green on all 3 of mine. Thanks again!

Best regards,
Steve Offiler
VP of Engineering
Central Tools, Inc.


----------



## Floating Spots (Apr 14, 2006)

jsr said:


> Just wanted to add that the Streamlights and Panasonic 123As I have look exactly as that described by Steve above. Streamlights say Made in USA, Panasonics in Japan. Visually, my SLs and Panasonics look identically...with the labels covered, I would think they're the same batteries.



The link at http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/about/index.html
shows three lithium battery plants for Panasonic (or MBI).
One in the US, one in Indonesia, and a third one in the general area of Japan.
(I can't confirm from the picture where this third one is.)
Panasonics Japan (but English site) shows 5 manufacturing plants, but not what they make.
http://www.panasonic.co.jp/mbi/company/en/business/index.html
A web search turn up the following news note (for an article for sale):
MBI news 
From that, I can conclude that this third plant was (still is?) in Japan.

Interesting how the puzzle pieces fit, isn't it?

Jon


----------



## soffiler (Apr 14, 2006)

Now to add a touch of complexity, the Sanyo's I ordered from Botach Tactical (20-pack, $1.34 each INCLUDING shipping) just arrived this morning. Sanyo seems to have a great reputation here on CPF, and they did extremely well on Silver Fox's testing documented in the Sticky. OK. Now. I don't know where those tested cells were made, but I am thinking Japan... well, the Sanyo's that arrived this morning carry both GE and Sanyo logos, they state "SANYO Electric Co. Ltd", and they state "Made in China". I am now pretty curious whether they'll match up to the reputation that Sanyo has built on this site. My CBA-II will be getting a workout shortly...


Best regards,
Steve Offiler
VP of Engineering
Central Tools, Inc.


----------



## seery (Apr 19, 2006)

Just finished ZTS MBT-1 testing 100 brand new fresh BATTERY STATION
123's with a date code of 1205. Method was that preferred by JimH and
SilverFox, continous tests with 5-second intervals until (3) same results were
achieved. Here are the results.

10% = 1
20% = 5
40% = 23
60% = 24
80% = 10
100% = 37

After the test was complete, took one from each group and re-tested, results
on all six were the same as the first run.

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

Next was a brand new box of (12) Surefires witha date code of 05-2015. Here
are the results.

100% = 12

After the test was complete, all (12) were re-tested, results on all (12) were
the same as the first run.

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


----------



## JimH (Apr 19, 2006)

seery,

Based on your results and mine and topper's, it's beginning to look like Titanium's and Battery Station batteries come from the same, or similar, sources.


----------



## mtbkndad (Apr 19, 2006)

Seery,

What were the voltage under load readings for each of the Battery Station Batteries?

I read Quickbeams review back when he reviewed the Titaniums and found it interesting that they worked well in some lights and not others. I tried Surefires once and was not pleased with them at all. I have also tried Powerizer, Panasonic, and Duracell.

Duracell's gave me 6 minutes more run time then Titaniums in my Gladiuses in the two run time tests that I did, but 
6 minutes is not worth me buying them just for my Gladiuses. That small difference could potentially go either way with different cells from the same two brands. For the other lights I use the Titaniums work well, so I will keep using them. However, because of Quickbeams review, I always try do a "test run" to see how a new light will perform
with Titaniums. So far so good for me. This is probably because my "bigger" flashlights are Elektrolumens ELX's or other lights that use NiMH's. 

I am looking forward to hearing from Wayne when he returns.
I spoke to him before his trip about the Illuminator and as a side note he mentioned his M6's had arrived. He really did take an M6 to the factory!

I am wondering at this point if the real problem with any brand of CR123A and lights like the M6, when there is a problem, is a result of the differing voltage under load capacity rather then mAh capacity. When SilverFox tested several of JimH's batteries, if I remember correctly, the two longest running batteries were the one that had a projected 100% capacity and the one that had a projected 0% capacity.
I think I remember the 0% capacity battery running nearly as long only at a lower voltage.

Now if we take a light like an M6 that has 4 or 5 cells that have a particularly high voltage under load capacity and 1 or 2 that have a lower voltage under load capacity then it would seem the batteries with the lower voltage under load capacity could be over driven and then over heat, trip the PTC, etc. all fairly quickly. I guess what I am getting at is that for lights like the E2D's, M3/M3T's, M962C's and M6's the best batteries, regardless of brand, are the ones that provide the most consistent voltage under load and runtime.

I am not an engineer and would love to be corrected if I am wrong, but I really think the big issue to look for with meters like the ZTS is the voltage under load reading and not the projections since the projections alone can be very inaccurate.

The reason I am focused on the voltage variations as a problem rather then runtime is the speed with which numerous people have found problems (duration of light being on before batteries overload) in lights like the M6 regardless of brand of battery.

I think testing of batteries with equal voltage under load and then differing voltage under load in an M6 would be a fun experiment. I can't do that as my flashlight money is allocated in directions other then an M6 at the present time.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## Ray_of_Light (Apr 19, 2006)

Over the years, I have conducted my own tests on 123. If you are going to feed the M4 and the M6, there is no other choice that SF. 
Duracells Ultra, in the last batch I bought, shows a consistent voltage depression at open circuit, after few minutes under heavy (> 1 A) load. That behavior worsens if the battery is left idle after the first usage. The Duracell battery will provide all the advertised capacity, but at lower voltage. That's bad for incandescent lights.
SF doesn't show this behavior, I get much better overall relayability.
In my tests simulating the real usage of a high power incandescent flashlight, I did the following scoring:

1 SureFire
2 Duracell
3 Varta (RayOVac)
4 Sanyo - SL
5 Energizer.

Cheaper brands are OK in LED lights. If you want take running costs into account, is better to seek a rechargeable solution.

Anthony


----------



## JimH (Apr 19, 2006)

mtbkndad said:


> ... the real problem ... is a result of the differing voltage under load capacity rather then mAh capacity.


BINGO! mAh is used very loosely as a measure of capacity, which it's not. The real measure of capacity takes into account the varying voltage during the mAh measurement. 

If I take 2 1.2v D cells rated at 6000 mAh each and run them in parallel, I have 12000 mAh. If I take 1 12v SLA rated at 12000 mAh, it has the same mAh rating as the 2 D cells. Which one do you think has more capacity.

On another note, the problem with taking a quick measurement of voltage under load is that it doesn't tell you a lot because the voltage changes as you continue to load the battery. A weak cell will frequently give a higher voltage under load for a short period of time, but the voltage will then drop off rapidly. However, the voltage drop off of the good cell will quickly flatten out and remain consistently high for a much longer period of time.


----------



## KDOG3 (Apr 19, 2006)

For me the decision process is much simpler:

When I have money-Surefire
When I don't have money-BatteryStation 

Seem to be alot of BatteryStation brand in my house lately


----------



## soffiler (Apr 20, 2006)

JimH said:


> BINGO! mAh is used very loosely as a measure of capacity, which it's not. The real measure of capacity takes into account the varying voltage during the mAh measurement...


 
JimH is absolutely correct. The "capacity" we're interested in is stored ENERGY. This is measured in watt-hours. If your voltage is *very* steady over the discharge of the cell (like a NiMH) you can simply multiply amp-hours times that steady voltage to get an approximation of watt-hours.

Example: 700mA-hr NiMH AA: 0.7 amp-hours x 1.2 volts = 0.84 watt-hours

When cell voltage varies significantly during discharge (example, alkaline) then you don't have a single # available to plug in for voltage in the equation. Not only that, but alkaline confuses you two ways because it's amp-hour rating is highly dependent on drain rate, so you don't have a single handy number for either the voltage OR the amp-hours.

Ready for some real fun? The best way to determine total capacity of a cell is to completely discharge it while measuring both voltage and current at short time intervals, like, every second for example. Then you take the voltage and current readings for each time slice, mulitply to get the watts during that time slice, the finally add up all the time slices. Watch the units; if your time slice is one second you end up with watt-seconds rather than watt-hours. Remember to divide by 3600. Oh by the way, anyone with a West Mountain Radio CBA-II can do this with an Excel spreadsheet, since the software included will output a data file readable by Excel.

The huge drawback, of course, is that you're killing the cell you're measuring. Fine for a rechargeable cell but this is a thread about primary CR123's...


----------



## NickelPlate (Apr 20, 2006)

seery said:


> Here is the million dollar question....
> 
> All my Titaniums have been returned and the SF's are no longer a bargain.




I must have missed something. What's wrong with the Titaniums? I bought a dozen a couple months ago with my Peli M6 and am on my third set without any complaints so far. Should I be worried?

Dave


----------



## JimH (Apr 20, 2006)

NickelPlate said:


> Should I be worried?


Probably not. Where people are running into problems is when they are using multiple (more than 2) batteries in a high draw application. That's when mismatches in batteries can cause trouble.


----------



## mtbkndad (Apr 21, 2006)

NickelPlate,

I have been using Titaniums in 1-3 cells lights for some time and have had no problems. Most of my Titaniums are used in two cell lights. My 1 and 3 cell lights are only used for short durations. My two cell lights are the work horses among my CR123A lights.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:

Added section-
If I remember correctly seery was using the Titaniums in a Surefire M6.
I believe it uses 6 batteries in two parallel stacks of three.


----------



## NickelPlate (Apr 21, 2006)

Thanks for the input mtbkndad. That's reassuring. One thing I did do when I bought mine was measure the voltage on all of them and then group them in pairs by the closest voltages. Ya I know probably not a huge deal but hopefully that gets me closer to using closer matched sets.

Regards,

NP


----------



## seery (Apr 23, 2006)

This morning my shooting partner brought along (20) of his brand new in wrap
New Titanium 123's for me to test on the ZTS MBT-1. Here are the results.

1 @ 10%
2 @ 20%
9 @ 40%
3 @ 60%
3 @ 80%
2 @ 100%


----------



## David_Campen (Apr 23, 2006)

> This morning my shooting partner brought along (20) of his brand new in wrap
> New Titanium 123's for me to test on the ZTS MBT-1. Here are the results.
> 
> 1 @ 10%
> ...


It would seem the most likely explanation is that the MBT-1 results are meaningless.


----------



## seery (Apr 23, 2006)

Absoltely not. But to assume cells come from the manufacturer at 100% as
they should is a poor assumption for sure.

So far ALL the runtime tests I've done show the ZTS to be 100% right on the money.
I group them according to the results and this has greatly improved
runtime across the board. Running an M3 on (3) matched (per ZTS) 80% or
100% cells will outperform three random cells nearly every time.



David_Campen said:


> It would seem the most likely explanation is that the MBT-1 results are meaningless.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 23, 2006)

Hello Seery,

That is great news. What happens if you take 6 of the 40% Titanium cells and run them in your M6? I would expect that you should get very close to full run time, and the cells should end up more or less equal in warmth.

If I remember correctly, your M6 just shut down early and a few of your cells got very hot. Is that correct?

The Titanium cells are PTC protected (not all cells offer PTC protection) and should shut down before venting and blowing up. Is this what you observed?

Tom


----------



## David_Campen (Apr 23, 2006)

> So far ALL the runtime tests I've done show the ZTS to be 100% right on the money.


Please post the tabulated quantitative results of these tests.

So you think that more than half of the Titanium 123 cells that you just tested are actually at less than hal of rated capacity? Again, I really think the much more likely explanation is that the MBT test results are garbage.


----------



## europium (Apr 24, 2006)

*SL-123s on backorder...*



Flash_Gordon said:


> Streamlights $1.25 Here: DLS
> ...
> Mark


They appear to be out. :sigh:


> * Price:* *$16.00*
> * Availability:* * On order*  *
> Prod. Code:* 85177


----------



## europium (Apr 24, 2006)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Seery,
> 
> That is great news. What happens if you take 6 of the 40% Titanium cells and run them in your M6? I would expect that you should get very close to full run time, and the cells should end up more or less equal in warmth.
> 
> ...


Does this mean that the ZTS MBT-1 is actually most useful in grouping new cells according to their expected operating characteristics (and not determining whether a cell is 'good' or 'bad')? If so, then it would seem to be worthwhile to use the MBT-1 to 'bin' cells taken from a single batch of identical new cells, but would not be helpful in 'binning' partially depleted cells.

Is this right?


----------



## kennyj (Apr 24, 2006)

Sounds that way to me. Could also be that the MBT just isn't properly calibrated for CR123As, or maybe that it's a little too accurate for capacity testing on CR123As as currently mass-produced and it doesn't take modern manufacturing tolerances into account (as the old saying goes, they don't make 'em like they used to.)


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 24, 2006)

Hello Europium,

One of the claims of the ZTS testers is to test the state of charge of the cell. I think it does this very well.

The other claims indicate that you can use the tester to check for remaining capacity. Those claims (as David is quick to point out  ) don't seem to hold up in some cases (as with the bulk purchase of L91 cells and some brands of CR123 cells). 

Testing is underway to determine how much we can rely on the ZTS tester.

For now, if you are a casual user and only have 1 cell lights, regulated lights, or frequently throw away partially used cells, the ZTS tester would probably not be a good investment.

On the other hand, if you have multi cell lights (or a camera that utilizes more than one cell), have unregulated lights, want the maximum illumination from your unregulated light, and run cells down to the very last drop, the ZTS tester offers the possibility of matching your cells. This will give you better performance and safer multi cell operation.

If the ZTS tester is capable of predicting the remaining capacity of Alkaline cells, that would be a plus.

Keep in mind that the attraction of Lithium and Nickel based chemistry is the flat discharge curve. When you have a flat discharge curve, it is very difficult to determine remaining capacity. In these cases the ZTS tester may not be precise, but may be able to function as a basic go/no go test. 

So, if you get a ZTS tester with the hopes of precisely determining the remaining capacity of Lithium or Nickel based cells, you may find yourself agreeing with David in that the results are meaningless.

However, if you are a "power" user, the ZTS tester may allow you to fine tune your battery selection to get better performance in spite of manufacturing variations.

Tom


----------



## David_Campen (Apr 24, 2006)

So Tom,

Did you say that your day job is as a diplomat? Certainly it is unlikely that anyone would mistake me for a diplomat.

Dave


----------



## mtbkndad (Apr 24, 2006)

seery,

Thanks for the post. 
I, like SilverFox, would like to know how matched 40% cells perform runtime wise in an M6. For that matter, matched 10% cells. That may be a bit much to ask from you so I may hunt down either an M6 for myself or one to borrow.

SilverFox,
Your explanation above is great. I am seriously considering getting a ZTS tester for the two incans I use a lot that take CR123A's. I also plan on getting the new Falcatas when they come out and at roughly 30 minutes bright run time for the 9V and 40 minutes of bright run time for the 6V anything that will help a little will be
much appreciated over the long haul.
Plus this could be just the excuse I need to get a new gadget .

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:

PS. (Seery my personal answer, use wise, to the M6 probem was to get an ELX-6 27mm. It is much bigger, but will easily equal an M6 in thow and better it slightly in flood and runs for 1 hour on 2600 mAh Titanium AA's. Of course, when I say much bigger, the ELX-6 27mm weighs 3lb 3oz and your M6 will probably fit inside my ELX-6 26mm's battery tube.    .)


----------



## seery (Apr 24, 2006)

We just ran (6) of the New Titaniums that the ZTS put at 40% new out of
the wrapper. Here are the results.

M6 with HOLA.

- Run time was 10 minutes 50 seconds.
- After the light died, 4 batteries were quite warm and 2 were quite hot.
- After 10 minutes of cooling the ZTS showed the following percentages.
2 @ 20%
1 @ 40%
1 @ 60%
1 @ 80%
1 @ 100%

If you've followed other run time tests I've done, near 11 minutes continuous
run time is as good as it gets with the New Titaniums in my M6. Each time I
run "ZTS same" batts in a run time test the results are much better than a
random grab of batts yields.

Post run time testing on the ZTS was the 5-second continual testing until 3
same results are shown.

Back to the darkness for more fun testing.


----------



## JimH (Apr 24, 2006)

seery,

If you have a light meter, how does the brightness of say the 40%ers compare to the 100%ers?


----------



## seery (Apr 24, 2006)

JimH - I don't have immediate access to a light meter but output is noticeably
less even to the naked eye when comparing the 20%-40%'s vs. the 80%-100%'s.

Another test just completed. This time (6) New Titaniums the ZTS put at 20%.

M6 with HOLA.

- Run time was 10 minutes 20 seconds.
- After the light died, 2 batteries were quite warm and 4 were quite hot.
- After 10 minutes of cooling the ZTS showed the following percentages.
1 @ no reading
1 @ 10%
2 @ 20%
1 @ 40%
1 @ 80%

Post run time testing on the ZTS was the 5-second continual testing until 3
same results are shown.


----------



## mtbkndad (Apr 24, 2006)

seery,

JimH beat me to my next question. I do want to say thank you for your time and effort doing these tests. I do not remember what the longest continous run time for any brand you have used is.
Have you used a brand that consistenly gets 20 minutes continuous yet?
I am wondering because I am trying to understand whether the Surefire runtime claim is based on numerous 1,2, or 3 minute ON cycles or if Surefire and other brands of batteries actually will consistently deliver 20 minutes of continous light in an M6.
If there are other brands that do constistenly deliver 20 minutes of continous light in an M6, then I wonder if the PTC protection in the Titaniums is a little too "protective" for use in the M6.

As I have mentioned before I am not an engineer and do not know very much about batteries. I do find this fascinating though and am learning as these threads continue. That to me is part of the beauty of CPF.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## Archangel (Apr 24, 2006)

I don't know who kj is, but the chart here shows the M6 going into thermal shutdown at what seems to be 14 and 22 minutes.
http://www.obaq.tv/cpf/?page=SureFire_Beast


----------



## lebox97 (Apr 25, 2006)

what %'s did the "quite warm" and the "quite hot" show?

oh, never mind, you let them cool before testing... have you tried testing them fresh out of the M6 after running them for the 10+ mins? 

a guess would be the hottest ones test out at the lowest %?


----------



## seery (Apr 25, 2006)

I wasn't sure if testing the batteries hot would be safe for the ZTS tester.
Tonight I'll test them for % right out of the M6 after it goes dead and see how
the felt temperature compares against the % shown.



lebox97 said:


> what %'s did the "quite warm" and the "quite hot" show?
> 
> oh, never mind, you let them cool before testing... have you tried testing them fresh out of the M6 after running them for the 10+ mins?
> 
> a guess would be the hottest ones test out at the lowest %?


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 25, 2006)

Hello Seery,

Thanks for doing these tests. PM me your PayPal address and I will donate $20 to cover some of your costs.

The ZTS tester is designed to test cells that are stabilized at room temperature. It would be interesting to see what the hot results are, but I am not sure what to make of the hot results.

I am also not sure what to make of the cold results either... 

I would be interested in having you put some other brand cells in the M6, run it for 10 minutes, then pull the cells, let them cool off, and check them on the ZTS tester.

Cells in a multi cell light do not drain evenly, but I am surprised at the variation you are seeing. The M6 pushes things to the limits.

Tom


----------



## seery (Apr 25, 2006)

SilverFox - After both tests I let the batteries cool for "only" 10 minutes before ZTS'ing them.
I just tested them all again now after +12 hours and here is how they test.

8 @ 10%
2 @ 20%
1 @ 40%
1 @ 60%

Note: Last night when I waited 10 minutes to test, all were still warm to the touch.

I hope as a group, we can soon determine what all this means


----------



## David_Campen (Apr 25, 2006)

> 8 @ 10%
> 2 @ 20%
> 1 @ 40%
> 1 @ 60%


So, have we all agreed that these percent numbers have nothing to do with the energy capacity of the cell? 

The LEDs on the MBT, instead of having a numerical percentage attached to them should have some other designation that does not imply an ordinal value. To avoid being misleading the LEDs should be arranged in a circle and labeled something like - crocus, narcisus, jonquil, daisy and carnation so as to not imply any ordinal quality.


----------



## Archangel (Apr 25, 2006)

Well that's not true, because it's been established that reading higher on the MBT scale gives more output.


----------



## soffiler (Apr 25, 2006)

seery said:


> SilverFox - After both tests I let the batteries cool for "only" 10 minutes before ZTS'ing them.
> I just tested them all again now after +12 hours and here is how they test.
> 
> 8 @ 10%
> ...


 
I, for one, am pretty curious about how the ZTS actually works. If I had to guess, I'd say it probably applies a known current load, and measures voltage-under-load at the beginning and the end of some pulse duration. Fresher cells will have (a) higher overall voltage and (b) smaller change in voltage from beginning to end.

If that's anywhere near close to correct, then I'd caution against testing warm cells. The heat will stimulate the chemical reaction that's creating the voltage, and fool at least the (a) part above.


----------



## David_Campen (Apr 25, 2006)

> Well that's not true, because it's been established that reading higher on the MBT scale gives more output.


More anecdotal results huh? As far as I can tell the MBT produces random results.


----------



## soffiler (Apr 25, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> More anecdotal results huh? As far as I can tell the MBT produces random results.


 
Data that appears random to you might very well be attributable to poor control of variables by the person conducting the test. One variable that is potentially important is cell temperature, for example.

Do you really think the ZTS people have been building random-number generators since 1976? That's an awfully long time to be successfully fooling the public.


----------



## rscanady (Apr 25, 2006)

soffiler said:


> JimH is absolutely correct. The "capacity" we're interested in is stored ENERGY. This is measured in watt-hours. If your voltage is *very* steady over the discharge of the cell (like a NiMH) you can simply multiply amp-hours times that steady voltage to get an approximation of watt-hours.
> 
> Example: 700mA-hr NiMH AA: 0.7 amp-hours x 1.2 volts = 0.84 watt-hours
> 
> ...



I believe this is called integration.

Ryan


----------



## soffiler (Apr 25, 2006)

rscanady said:


> I believe this is called integration.
> 
> Ryan


 
Well, techically, integration uses an infinitesimal time slice "dt". My technique is a finite summation.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 25, 2006)

Hello David,



David_Campen said:


> So, have we all agreed that these percent numbers have nothing to do with the energy capacity of the cell?
> 
> The LEDs on the MBT, instead of having a numerical percentage attached to them should have some other designation that does not imply an ordinal value. To avoid being misleading the LEDs should be arranged in a circle and labeled something like - crocus, narcisus, jonquil, daisy and carnation so as to not imply any ordinal quality.



   (after wiping the coffee off of my monitor that got there by a sudden burst of laughter from reading this.)

Tom


----------



## David_Campen (Apr 25, 2006)

> Data that appears random to you might very well be attributable to poor control of variables by the person conducting the test. One variable that is potentially important is cell temperature, for example.


But the fact remains that, for whatever reason, all I have seen are random results.



> Do you really think the ZTS people have been building random-number generators since 1976? That's an awfully long time to be successfully fooling the public.


A lot of people swear by dowsing rods too. The MBT may actually give slightly less than random results with alkaline or zinc-carbon cells but there seems to be no evidence that the results with Lithium Primary cells are anything but random.


----------



## mtbkndad (Apr 25, 2006)

Seery,

Since the ZTS tests voltage under load and then makes a projection of capacity, it make sense to me that the batteries that do test out with a lower voltage under load would also produce less brightness in an unregulated light like the M6. It also makes sense that the light would last for same amount of time based on Silverfoxes runtime tests. 
What a light meter would be needed for is to find out just how fact the brightness drops in the 80-100% group verses the 20-40% group.

My other question was not answered yet so I will ask it again before it gets lost.

Have you found any brand of CR123A's capable of giving 20 minutes of continous runtime in a M6?
Archangel gave a link to a Beast owner who had a graph of an M6 shutting down a 14 minutes. (Thanks Archangel :thumbsup: )

Have you had a chance to try matched Titaniums and other brands in 1 to 3 minute ON and say 20 minutes OFF cycles to see how long these brands would last in total run time? I know this last test may be asking a bit much, but it would be interesting.

Take Care,
mtkbndad :wave:


----------



## bwaites (Apr 25, 2006)

I've had Surefires and BatteryStations go the full 18-20 minutes in an M6 before dying, but I've had both die or shut down due to heat also.

I don't know if anyone has found a brand that goes the full route every time.

Bill


----------



## seery (Apr 25, 2006)

I took 100 cells (SF, Titaniums, Battery Station, Duracells) and numbered 1-100
and ZTS'd and recorded the results (ZTS test is the SilverFox/JimH method I'll
refer to here on out as the SJ method). 

10 hours later retested all 100 and only (6) cells were different in the results. All 
six of those cells read within the next percentage range up/down. Given that
80% is actually 70-90% and so on, this seeems quite normal that 6% of the
cells tested fell on the fringe of the reading.

So far every run time test with "ZTS matched" cells has outperformed all those
run with the "grab 6" method. Note on this that each time I'd "grab 6" they
were always from brand new fresh stock.

If to some the results seem random, they are at least consistently random






I'm unsure yet as to what the ZTS is telling me, but I do know that "ZTS matched"
cells do add runtime to both the M6 and the M3 with the HOLA.

mtbkndad - The only time we've gotten full run time without the shut-down is
the +/- 24 minutes with the OEM Surefire cells. 

Here is another test we are currently doing with the M6 and matched New Titaniums.
- 4 minutes run with the HOLA once daily. 
- So far we are at 16 minutes with good light output.
- Will keep you posted on the final results.


----------



## Ray_of_Light (Apr 25, 2006)

In the past, I have been designing electronic equipment. I can say that measuring the energy stored in a battery is challenge.

The only 100% method is to discharge the battery and measure the power obtained. Of course, this defeats the purpose, since you need that energy somewhere else...

The open voltage is only an indicator of some significance, but is not telling much. The short circuit current is an indicator of the quality (internal resistance) of the battery but, again, is not going to tell "how much" energy is left inside.

Many advanced rechargeable battery packs uses a circuit that memorizes the power stored during the charge process, and measure the power delivered during the discharge. This only applies to rechargeables.

So, ZTS with their tester and many OEM does some "special" tests on the battery. First the battery is loaded, and the speed of decay of the voltage is measured. Then, the load is removed and the speed of voltage rise is measured. 
Whoever has a storage scope can conduct these tests without the battery tester itself, to measure the decay and rise time.

To be more specific about lithium primary (Lithium - Manganese dioxide) since every chemistry has its own behavior, the decay and rise time test is an indicator of the oxidation capability of the manganese dioxide in the battery. 

As the battery depletes, due to the phenomena of oxygen diffusion and the variable ratio of of type of valence bonds (Manganese 4, becoming 3), MnO2 will be slower in "recovering" - and the voltage rise after load will be slower.
Usually the MnO2, due to his poor electrical conducibility, is mixed with graphite or carbon.
Some research institutions have conducted very detailed analysys of the behavior I described, using a neutron scattering techniques; into an attempt to create a good rechargeable battery using MnO2.

This type of test (decay-rise time) works as long as the MnO2 is pure, there is no water presence, and the battery is at ambient temperature. 
There is a problem when we test a 123 battery that uses non-pure MnO2, that may be mixed to non pure carbon (or graphite), or contains some water, or is hot. 
If the batteries are built in accordange with ISO9000 processes that warrant quality, this shouldn't be a problem. In case of lesser batteries, the tester can be fooled into meaningless readings.

Hope this helps

Anthony


----------



## paulr (Apr 25, 2006)

If you're really thinking of ordering 200 cr123's for your own use, maybe you want to think about whether your application could use rechargeables instead. For example, the TL3 with two 17500's seems to work extremely well, at least as well as three cr123's. There's also the M6R etc. CR123's are just not all that great, especially at high currents.


----------



## lebox97 (Apr 25, 2006)

rather than all us discussing proper/improper test methodologies, all the variables, and then trying to decipher all this randomness - 

perhaps we should invite Dave Zimmerman from *Z*TS, Inc ([email protected]) to join in the fray and discuss their experiences with 123's, and, high AMP usage, and help us understand why these test results seem to vary? (as suggested he/they have only been doing battery testing and analysis since the 1970's) 

meanwhile I await my M6 REGULATED 40 min HOLA runtime R-pack... :naughty:


----------



## David_Campen (Apr 25, 2006)

> perhaps we should invite Dave Zimmerman from ZTS, Inc ([email protected]) to join in the fray and discuss their experiences with 123's, and, high AMP usage? (as suggested he/they have only been doing battery testing and analysis since the 1970's)


It would be very good for them to post their validation testing methods and results and also explain why tests on 123 and Lithium AA cells produce results that seem to have no correlation to the battery energy content.

Has anyone here actually done any structured validation testing of the MBT with NiMH batteries?


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 25, 2006)

Hello David,

Working on it...

Tom


----------



## seery (Apr 28, 2006)

I tried (6) brand new fresh and ZTS matched (all 100%) Battery Station cells for
run time in the M6 with HOLA.

Results:
At 2 minutes 10 seconds light dimmed considerably.
At 4 minutes I could look directly at the bulb.
At 6 minutes 30 seconds it dimmed to nothing and went dead.


Has anybody tried the PentagonLight cells? Any feedback on these is greatly
appreciated.


----------



## seery (Apr 28, 2006)

lebox97 said:


> meanwhile I await my M6 REGULATED 40 min HOLA runtime R-pack...


 
This sounds like "the best" option


----------



## shotgun (Apr 28, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> More anecdotal results huh? As far as I can tell the MBT produces random results.


 
No. The ZTS has quite consistent results. Regardless of initial voltage, if it doesn't like a battery, it will continue to not like this battery -- blind. This is not random. It likes some batteries with low initial voltage, so this is not a sole indicator either. I don't own stock in the company, nor really care about ZTS. I'm not sure if the ZTS is entirely on the money *but *it does seem sound in my initial experiments. The ZTS is only a $70 item. But my Fluke 45 and old-world tests have stood the test of time.

 

When testing used batteries that were previously tested, it reflects what would be expected of batteries under this amount of usage.

 

We all know mixing batteries is not a good idea -- period. That said, the solo performance of the singles is highly relevant.

 

I tested 12 Titaniums tonight. Over half were under 50% and measured sub-3V open circuit. 4 were 20% or less. I then took the worst two and best two and measured a real world load on my Fluke 45 high/low and average high/low and let it run. Suffice it to say, I am not impressed with these batteries. The lower percentage batteries have proportionally less runtime and output.

 

I only had 4 Surefire batteries to test and they all did well, tested 100% and ran longer and brighter. I will not take my ZTS apart. I will not buy any more batteries to beat this horse. I feel there is plenty of data on varying scientific levels to call this one done.

 

Sorry about the cornflakes.


----------



## shotgun (Apr 29, 2006)

OK. I did buy some more batteries, Surefire and Streamlight. The difference in the tests is very different for the poor performing Titaniums. 

I bought twelve Surefire and twelve Streamlight batteries at $1.75 each at my local law enforcement supply store. I again tested with the ZTS and then my Fluke 45 under load using high/low and averaging high/low and noting recovery times. The ZTS delivers a load that depletes the battery .07V temporarily. *All the Surefire and Streamlight batteries tested at 100% on the ZTS repeatedly so I put it aside.* 

*On the Fluke 45 meter, all the Surefire tested 3.23V and all Streamlight tested 3.24V open voltage without variation (which I found fascinating). Under the load test, both brands performed identically. After the first load test, the voltage dropped to 3.16-3.17V. After the second load test the batteries dropped to 3.13-3.14V. They recovered to original voltage of 3.23-3.24V in seconds. This is very good performance.*

Remember, more than half of the Titaniums did not have _initial_ voltage over 3V! I repeated the tests from my earlier post and although some Titaniums recovered slightly (getting a better initial percentage reading on the ZTS), the ZTS returned the same verdict after repeat testing. Unlike the Surefire and Streamlight batteries, the initial voltage of the Titaniums is all over the map (2.27V to 3.07V) and consistent loads did not create consistent drops in voltage and recover as quickly.

There is a world of difference between this inexpensive maker and the name brands. The money you save could make the less expensive brand worth it to you -- if you feel the name brands are at least 75% better. I'll stick with these name brands until someone finds a better or equal performer.

*In my opinion, I don't think using the ZTS as the sole determining test for grouping batteries for multi-light use is best. The ZTS seems best in somewhat drained or lame batteries and the percentages do not have enough resolution. I would run a second test checking initial open circuit voltage (at least) on a simple multimeter doing exactly the same routine in order.* 

The ZTS effects the remaining voltage temporarily each time it's test-cycled causing a .07V (or so) drop in the battery. One can either wait until recovery or repeat the steps exactly for an accurate grouping procedure. All the Streamlight and Surefire batteries started, drained and recovered equally to one-hundredth of a volt if done in the exact same sequence -- making the results more accurate and comparable. 

All the SF and SL batteries above would group well. I would not group any of the Titaniums as they were all over the map, even with repeated sequences.


----------



## seery (Apr 29, 2006)

shotgun - Thanks for sharing your findings with us. Good stuff.

Is there a chance you are going to do any extended run time tests comparing
the SF and SL batteries in a 3-cell light like the M3 or a 6-cell like the M6?

So far the batteries I've tested have all performed poorly (for my needs) with
the exception of the Surefire OEM cells. 

The next two cells I'm ordering are the Streamlights and the PentagonLights.
Will of course share the results when completed.


----------



## shotgun (Apr 30, 2006)

Seery:

I'm glad you replied and thank you. I do not have any 9V or 12V LOLA or HOLA lamps. 

This is not the way I test batteries (and it's expensive). I buy batteries in same-brand lots from local people in minimums of twelve who are in the battery business. There are too many loose and changing variables in the runtime testing on these forums using the lights as the load. It is not "real-world" as there is no consistent real-world. 

There should be stable, consistent elements to evaluate each "link in the chain." The load must be repeatable and known to test and compare batteries. The voltage needs to be known and repeatable to test and compare lamps. To test both at one time you need controls, consistency and a large sample size or equipment to replicate this consistently. This is not done on the forums. For instance, a poor performing battery effects the lamp performance and a poor performing lamp effects battery performance. As we know different manufacturing has a huge impact.

V=IR. If you're testing the V, make the R as stable and consistent as possible, otherwise there are no "knowns." If you are testing the R, make the V as stable as possible. The I is dependent upon the other two so things can be controlled.

I own some good equipment but this is not necessary. Without expensive or complex actual-use testing equipment, keep it simple. It isn't hard nor overkill. An incandescent light is a simple circuit. If you have better equipment, you can use it instead.

A word about the ZTS: I have put the ZTS on my Fluke 45 and measured its cycle on high/low and averaging. I like it. The ZTS is a good unit for what it is designed to do: check used or stored batteries remaining viability using percents (it could use flowers as someone mentioned, but cynical people would have to come up with something even more needlessly glib and pedantic to say). It _does not_ have the display resolution to match _new_ batteries _for your purpose_. It is quite forgiving with 20 percent increments that are too wide for your needs, especially the 90 to 100 percent plus. _*But it does apply a consistent, repeatable load to make it good for the first part of the following test.*_ 

If the ZTS does not report 100% initially on the new battery, treat this as a red flag. If the ZTS says a _new_ battery is below 100%, my separate tests show that the battery is worse than that.

On a _new_ battery, for purposes of grouping, I would run the ZTS solely to put a predictable load to the battery at room temperature and confirm 100%. Each ZTS cycle taps the battery a bit as mentioned in my earlier post. I would then repeat it one or more time then check the voltage with a *digital multimeter* ($15 to $20) and note the reading. Do everything exactly the same to each battery. If you hit the battery with the ZTS twice, then meter, then hit all the batteries with the ZTS the same number of times, then meter, and so on. Then note the recovery time with the multimeter attached, you will have done enough to evaluate the battery lot for grouping purposes.

With good quality, new battery lots, you will see the pattern, battery to battery. It will have high initial voltages that are identical. Applying a load will have an equal effect on batteries predictably. You will be amazed how consistent they are each time a load is applied -- to the .01V on each step.

With cheap or bad battery lots, you will be disappointed. They won't match up well from the outset. It will likely have low initial voltage, drain inconsistently, and have poor recovery compared to known good batteries. It will behave much like a used battery in comparison -- no surprise. Do not group these with other batteries. Use them in non-essential regulated 1x123 LED lights, return or discard them.

It takes about ten minutes to do the first two steps on 24 batteries if you have to take them out of packaging. Timing recovery is the third step in the chain (and it is time consuming) but will also become predictable with good batteries. I will frequently eliminate the third step if confident with the lot. 

To answer your last question, I have only used two PentagonLight batteries that came in an L2. I did not test them until after they were used and the sample is obviously too small. I could not make a call on this.

I have good feelings about Streetlight and Surefire as brands at the current time. They had identical initial voltage, drained equally with a consistent load and recovered equally (see previous post). _But I test all batteries for duds with the above procedure. It happens even to the better labels._

Regarding your usage, I don't think you'll ever get good results on your high output lamps using inexpensive batteries. Batteries used in multiples will try to equalize their electrical potential creating the symptoms you described earlier. You have one of the best lights available so I recommend you feed it the best batteries available. Always use the same brand together. Try to use the same lot if possible. If you are unsure, ask the seller. You are putting these into a $400 light!

One last thing, as I think only you and I are still on this thread, greed is a bad thing. Battery makers will cut corners to lower costs. In the worst cases, bad manufacturers will resell returns as new, toss duds into the good lots or simply ignore quality control. CNN did a report on this about light bulbs (and also mentioned batteries). Caveat emptor.

Thanks for all your hard work. You are truly helping bring this issue to light. Good luck.


----------



## JimH (May 1, 2006)

Just adding some information to the unofficial database. I just received an order of 40, $1.00 each, made in China, Sanyo CR123's from botac.com. I tested them all, using the 3 consecutive readings method, with the ZTS tester. All 40 tested 100% on each of the 1st 3 readings.


----------



## soffiler (May 1, 2006)

JimH said:


> Just adding some information to the unofficial database. I just received an order of 40, $1.00 each, made in China, Sanyo CR123's from botac.com. I tested them all, using the 3 consecutive readings method, with the ZTS tester. All 40 tested 100% on each of the 1st 3 readings.


 
I received a 20-pack of Chinese Sanyo's a couple of weeks ago from Botach, and drained 6 of them to death on a West Mountain Radio CBA-II. For a Chinese battery, they performed quite well. In comparison with previous tests I've done on SureFire, Duracell, and Energizer (all 3 of which are made in USA and practically indistinguishable) the Sanyo's contained about 15% less energy; this would generally translate into about 15% less runtime. Not bad at all. Other Chinese cells I've tested have suffered from (a) widely variable results and (b) overall average of 30-40% less stored energy vs. the USA cells mentioned above. Until these Sanyo's I've not been at all impressed with Chinese cells.

To shotgun and Seery - no, you two are not the only ones left on this thread!


----------



## kennyj (May 1, 2006)

I'm sure many more are watching it with interest. I'm one of them.


----------



## SilverFox (May 1, 2006)

Hello Jim and Steve,

Another data point... I received 10 Tenergy cells (thanks Vew), 8 were at 100%, 1 was at 80%, and 1 was at 60% on the ZTS tester.

Tom


----------



## soffiler (May 1, 2006)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Jim and Steve,
> 
> Another data point... I received 10 Tenergy cells (thanks Vew), 8 were at 100%, 1 was at 80%, and 1 was at 60% on the ZTS tester.
> 
> Tom


 
I'm thinking that if I want to continue participation in this thread that I probably need to invest in a ZTS tester. Any comments on the "Mini" vs the MBT-1? One obvious difference is the Mini only does 15 battery types while the MBT-1 does 25. I would wonder whether the basic test parameters are otherwise identical between the two.

Steve Offiler
VP of Engineering
Central Tools, Inc.


----------



## SilverFox (May 1, 2006)

Hello Steve,

There are some that would question if the ZTS tester is a worthwhile investment at all... 

I believe the same components and firmware is used in both models. I ended up with the MBT-1 because I had it modified to test L91 Lithium AA batteries. The Mini does not have room for the modification.

The L91 test port may turn out very useful for defining the flat portion of NiMh cells, but more evaluation and testing is needed to understand this. Its usefulness for testing L91 batteries is still under evaluation, but it did not seem to give "crystal clear" results when testing the batteries obtained in the bulk purchases...

Tom


----------



## Archangel (May 1, 2006)

Does it seem to allow at least the grouping of AA lithiums - both Energizer and BS - so that you can determine "similar" batteries?


----------



## SilverFox (May 1, 2006)

Hello Archangel,

I have not tried it with BatteryStation AA Lithium cells yet. I am going to let Kevin borrow my tester for awhile to get his input on this.

Tom


----------



## David_Campen (May 1, 2006)

> Does it seem to allow at least the grouping of AA lithiums - both Energizer and BS - so that you can determine "similar" batteries?


Far better to spend a little more money and buy a West Mountain Radio CBA-II.


----------



## Action (May 1, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> Far better to spend a little more money and buy a West Mountain Radio CBA-II.



I believe that these are two different beasts. I use my ZTS on a fairly regular basis. The CBA is not nearly so portable or useful on a regular basis, although it does provide far more complete information if you have the time.

This is a very useful thread. I for one have pretty much decided to move to Pilas where possible, still its very interesting to see real investigation into the relatively massive production variences between batteries. I guess that 123 battery production is still fairly young in terms of QA...


----------



## soffiler (May 1, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> Far better to spend a little more money and buy a West Mountain Radio CBA-II.


 
Apples and oranges. The basic difference is that the ZTS tester extracts a very small percentage of the stored energy in the cell, whereas the CBA-II doesn't really provide much in the way of useful information until you've killed the cell. The CBA-II is great for secondary cells, and for statistical analysis of primary cell batches. The ZTS is an attempt to measure the condition of a cell without killing it.

Steve Offiler
VP of Engineering
Central Tools, Inc.


----------



## shotgun (May 1, 2006)

I believe the ZTS is worth the purchase, unless someone designs a load circuit that is better -- at a reasonable cost (a difficult job). The ZTS is nails-on load predictable and cumulative on subsequent cycles according to my bench meter. This makes it useful for testing purposes as a load. You can keep cycling the battery with the ZTS and see how it responds with a multimeter each time and compare. 

The ZTS is made as a quick reference device (useful for checking those stored drawer batteries); however, the 4-5 LED array is just not enough for matching batteries that meet the 90-100% plus criteria on the ZTA. Easy to use is what most people want, hence the LED array. The load circuit cycle is quite good though.

The ZTS needs to add a digital MM to the actual unit but it would cost more and all it would likely do is show ending voltage and shut off. There's a model made in Europe that does this. The problem is the battery voltage will eventually recover to varying degrees and this is also part of the test. I would rather have a multimeter. 

If a new battery doesn't remain at 100% ZTS after 3 or so repeated cycles, it's not a battery to make a grouping lot, period. Second step, following up with the MM to look for similar behavior is pretty easy.

*I **do** believe a digital multimeter is an absolute need.* It doesn't need to be 5-digit-bench-quality-dual-display expensive and have an IEEE interface -- just digital so the numbers can be compared easily.

The ZTS models designed for the military (*ZTS MBT-MIL.SF Multi-Battery Tester™)* are the most comprehensive but are more costly. I doubt the load circuits are different from the Mini and MB-1 because the cost is not that much higher. They still do not have a meter and the probe is loose -- I do not like that. The little Mini's probe slides into a clippable groove, which is nice.


----------



## David_Campen (May 1, 2006)

> Apples and oranges. The basic difference is that the ZTS tester extracts a very small percentage of the stored energy in the cell, whereas the CBA-II doesn't really provide much in the way of useful information until you've killed the cell.


No, the CBA will give you far more information that the ZTS tester and it will extract only a small percentage of the stored energy in the cell while doing so. OTOH, the ZTS tester appears to be worthless.


----------



## HarryN (May 1, 2006)

Thanks for all of the work guys. I am definitely following the info, although I am not currently in a position to contribute intelligently.

I am very impressed with the precison of the voltage measurements - I must need some new equipment and techniques - no way can I be certain of my measurements to less than 10ma and 10mv.


----------



## shotgun (May 1, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> No, the CBA will give you far more information that the ZTS tester and it will extract only a small percentage of the stored energy in the cell while doing so. OTOH, the ZTS tester appears to be worthless.


 
I respectfully disagree. Have you also tested the ZTA in some controlled manner to formulate this opinion? If so, your testing would be quite different than mine. What were your methods? I agree the ZTA display is not refined enough, but the load cycle is quite nice in my opinion.

I'm quite sure you own a CBA. What tests have you run on it and with what methodology and equipment?


----------



## soffiler (May 1, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> No, the CBA will give you far more information that the ZTS tester and it will extract only a small percentage of the stored energy in the cell while doing so. OTOH, the ZTS tester appears to be worthless.


 
David:

I own a WMR CBA-II and I am very familiar with its operation. The data it provides is quite simple: it gives you voltage under load vs. time (a modified sort of timescale labelled "amp-hours" but it is still time nonetheless). Unlike the ZTS, the CBA has no facility to automatically run a test that extracts a very small percentage of the cell's stored energy. Yes, I can see how one might use the CBA for a similar purpose, but you first need to have a very good idea of the most appropriate load (current) for the given type of cell being tested, and you'd have to manually stop the test at an appropriate point which gives you useful information on cell condition and yet still limits the amount of energy you extracted. Of course, you also need interpret the results of the test - with the CBA-II, you are totally on your own for interpretation.

ZTS has done all this: choose a load suitable for the type of cell; automatically stop the test; and automatically interpret the results.

I know you're a ZTS basher; you have stated your belief that it is nothing but a random-number generator. Since I don't own one, yet, all I know about ZTS I've learned on their website and on this forum. From that alone, I am certain it's not a random number generator, but I will stop short of trying to support the usefulness and absolute accuracy of the results.


Steve Offiler
VP of Engineering
Central Tools, Inc.


----------



## lebox97 (May 1, 2006)

ztsinc.com
*[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]"Description: Manufacturer of electronic test equipment, namely battery testers."[/font]**"ZTS, Inc. has been designing and manufacturing electronic test equipment since 1976. Our business is battery testers, camera testers, and exposure (light) meters."*

[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]"ZTS Multi-Battery Testers compute the battery's actual remaining power capacity using a patented pulse load test. This pulse load simulates the real power demand that batteries experience during normal operating conditions. So battery _performance_ is measured, not just voltage or internal resistance. The load is automatically disconnected, so testing will not harm or drain the battery."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*a "worthless" "random number generator" used by both consumers and military since 1976? 
yah sure uh huh... I think NOT!
this is all ZTS does folks... the company would have been out of business many many years ago if their testers were "worthless".
* [/font]


----------



## JimH (May 1, 2006)

soffiler said:


> The basic difference is that the ZTS tester extracts a very small percentage of the stored energy in the cell, whereas the CBA-II doesn't really provide much in the way of useful information until you've killed the cell.


This is a little off topic since it has to do only with L91's. Based on my testing of over 150 Bulk L91's, some of which are most likely used, with the ZTS tester, and my testing (to exhaustion) of over 20 bulk L91's, it is my conclusion that, for *L91's only*, the ZTS modified tester is not up to the task of providing any meaningful results. However, by running a 45 second 1 amp load test on an L91 with the CBA II, it appears highly likely that it is possible to separate out good cells from bad (used) cells. As soon as I find the time, I will run the CBA load test on my remaining stash of bulk L91's and report the results.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of testing CR123's.


----------



## HayJab (May 1, 2006)

Well, after reading this entire thread I'm no better informed than when I started. I guess CR123's are like the Luxeon lottery -- you pays your money and takes your chances.

HayJab so states...


----------



## David_Campen (May 1, 2006)

> I guess CR123's are like the Luxeon lottery -- you pays your money and takes your chances.


Well, most of the poor performance reported in this thread has been related to the Surefire M6 with MN21 bulb; this is an extreme application - 2 sets of 3 cells in series with the 2 sets then run in parallel to deliver 5 amps. For less extreme applications it seems that many of the various 123 brands perform better and more consistently.

My guess is that the problems with batteries in the M6 configuration stem from trying to run them in parallel to deliver 5 amps.


----------



## shotgun (May 1, 2006)

I have read the word "meaningful results" used several times on this thread regarding testers without defining what this means to the person writing it. What do you mean?

 

To me "meaningful results" is a number at the end of the test that represents expected battery life. It might be a number you compare to another number or numbers, but it's a number. The number is compared to an agreed upon baseline assumption -- what the device is designed to do. Numbers are good because they are seldom subjective if compared to the baseline assumption.

 

Both the ZTA and WMR CBA-II provide the user with a number, which is meaningful. 

 

The ZTA comes up with an expected hypothetical battery life if all things are equal. In effect, "the battery I'm testing now will last 60% as long as another battery I test at 100% so long as they are used equally according to my design parameters." This is meaningful so long as you understand this baseline assumption. It might not be specific *enough*, but it's a number. It can not test an individual's specific use but is a mode for comparison.

 

I believe the CBA with an amperage setting assumed, calculates the hypothetical expected time in amp-hours a tested battery will last and displays the results (on a graph as a number). One can compare this number to a subsequent battery's number under the same conditions. It is a number. It does not test an individual's specific use but is a mode for comparison as well. This too is meaningful.

 

The ZTA uses a percentage LED which makes it easy and quick to use for its intended purpose. The CBA uses amp-hours on a graph that makes it visually illustrative for its intended purpose. They are both attempting the same thing in different ways and they are both meaningful.


----------



## David_Campen (May 1, 2006)

> The ZTA comes up with an expected hypothetical battery life if all things are equal. In effect, "the battery I'm testing now will last 60% as long as another battery I test at 100% so long as they are used equally according to my design parameters."


No it doesn't. It doesn't do it for L91 Lithiums; see the post just a couple above here. There are other posts in this thread where the ZTS MBT results are shown to not be an indicator of battery life for 123s either. Most people here are now not even claiming that MBT results give any prediction about battery life; rather, at most, they say that perhaps it provides some metric that can allow for the grouping of batteries into groups of similar characteristics.


----------



## David_Campen (May 1, 2006)

> I believe the CBA with an amperage setting assumed, calculates the hypothetical expected time in amp-hours a tested battery will last and displays the results (on a graph as a number).


No, the CBA draws a specified load (specified in amperes) from a battery and records and plots battery voltage vs time.


----------



## AmondoTech (May 1, 2006)

I got back from a trip to various battery manufactures in Asia. Had tours to many battery manufactures, some are very impressive that they produce millions of batteries in one day. It is much like the movie: “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory) instead they make batteries but similar ideas.

I had a few meetings with manufactures in discussing CR123A quality control. Currently, CR123A are QC in three criteria: 
1. Open circuit voltage
2. Under load voltage 
3. Capacity

The “under load voltage” method has no standardized setting yet. You can find 10 factories and each one has its own standard. One can change the resistor in the load testing to fine tune QC to find out the voltage under a certain discharge current. 

Most of the factories are very surprised to see the way Surefire M6 uses CR123A batteries. They are tackling on this issue and hope to find a solution soon! I will report it here when we got it. For now, Titanium CR123A will be fine for application not in flashlights use more than 4 CR123A batteries and discharge more than 2 AMP.

Regards,
Wayne



Ps, We did discover that we received a shipment of somewhat debatable quality Titanium CR123A batteries in the last shipment. We started to ship the quality Titanium CR123A about 3 weeks ago. Anyone purchased Titanium CR123A in the last 3 weeks, the batteries should be of good quality. We will continue to ship only quality Titanium CR123A batteries to any orders to our website.

We have about 8,000+ Titanium CR123A batteries and we will be selling them on eBay so make sure you only order Titanium CR123A batteries from www.amondotech.com website.


----------



## shotgun (May 1, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> No it doesn't. It doesn't do it for L91 Lithiums; see the post just a couple above here. There are other posts in this thread where the ZTS MBT results are shown to not be an indicator of battery life for 123s either. Most people here are now not even claiming that MBT results give any prediction about battery life; rather, at most, they say that perhaps it provides some metric that can allow for the grouping of batteries into groups of similar characteristics.


 
Then they would be wrong based upon the ZTA design assumptions. They would be using the device outside its designed intention. And I haven't read anyone here who has put the tester to the tester but me.

 

That "...perhaps it provides some metric that can allow for the grouping of batteries..." would be misstating or misusing it outside its designed purpose. Some are using it for this, but it's outside the designed purpose. I have used the device to cycle some batteries to be metered with other equipment, but I don't claim this is what it is designed for.

 

Listen, I don't own stock in this company but I think they've designed a nice little unit. I do not think X-Box-verses-Playstation-type unsubstantiated bashing of a company with little argument is productive. There are other forums for that. Do you own one? Have you ever tested the unit -- not tested *with* the unit -- ran tests *on* the unit?

 

Despite what you think, there have been no real conclusions drawn from this thread. Like most forum discussions, it's only speculation, experimentation and conjecture -- period.


----------



## mahoney (May 1, 2006)

So far as the ZTS Mini vs. the MBT-1, we have both in the shop, and I have found that the Mini will sometimes give a reading 20% higher than the MBT-1 will for a given battery. This effect is repeatable for that particular battery, and I have observed it with both alkaline AA batteries and lithium 123s. Other batteries will test to the same percentage on both meters. 20% steps are a fairly coarse read-out, but clearly there is a different testing algorithim in the two models. Both our MBT-1s will give the same result for a given battery so there is perhaps consistency in the results from a particular model of ZTS tester


----------



## JimH (May 1, 2006)

shotgun said:


> I have read the word "meaningful results" used several times on this thread regarding testers without defining what this means to the person writing it. What do you mean?



To me, "meaningful results" means consistent results. I don't even care if the results are accurate. A particular numerical result just has to mean the same thing every time I get it. If I get a result of 40%, I don't even care what it means as long as it means the same thing every time I get that particular number.
 


shotgun said:


> The ZTA comes up with an expected hypothetical battery life if all things are equal. In effect, "the battery I'm testing now will last 60% as long as another battery I test at 100% so long as they are used equally according to my design parameters."



The ZTS tester gives a predictive number. It predicts the percent capacity remaining - *NOT* the percent life (run time) remaining. If the ZTS gives a reading of 60%, that does not mean that the battery will run 60% as long (Ah) as one that reads 100%. It means that It has 60% of the capacity (wh) of one with 100%.

The CBA tester gives an *indication* of, and *not* a *measure* of, capacity. Capacity involves current *and* voltage over time. The 100% battery and the 60% battery may have very similar run times but the 60% battery will do so at a lower voltage. Because of the relatively flat discharge curve of some batteries, The CBA can give an approximation of capacity.

As long as I can consistantly correlate the predictive number I get from the ZTS with the measured number I get from the CBA, then I feel that I have meaningful results.


----------



## JimH (May 1, 2006)

mahoney said:


> ... but clearly there is a different testing algorithim in the two models. Both our MBT-1s will give the same result for a given battery so there is perhaps consistency in the results from a particular model of ZTS tester


Are your Mini and MBT-1 of the same vintage? I hear that the newer ZTS testers have an upgraded algorithm.


----------



## shotgun (May 1, 2006)

mahoney said:


> So far as the ZTS Mini vs. the MBT-1, we have both in the shop, and I have found that the Mini will sometimes give a reading 20% higher than the MBT-1 will for a given battery. This effect is repeatable for that particular battery, and I have observed it with both alkaline AA batteries and lithium 123s. Other batteries will test to the same percentage on both meters. 20% steps are a fairly coarse read-out, but clearly there is a different testing algorithim in the two models. Both our MBT-1s will give the same result for a given battery so there is perhaps consistency in the results from a particular model of ZTS tester


 
Just curious, did you give recovery time in your testing? The ZTS will tap a battery, especially if repeated. The LED increments are quite wide.


----------



## shotgun (May 2, 2006)

David:
Quotes from the West Mountain Radio CBA website ...

 

"It not only tests the total amount of energy stored in a battery (capacity in amp-hrs), but it graphically displays and charts voltage versus amp-hours."

 

And how do you think they plot the capacity? It would be a very boring graph otherwise. I think you need to re-read what I wrote and understand there is more than one way to say things. 

 

"It provides automatic sensing of the battery cell count and _recommends a safe maximum discharge current_ and minimum safe cutoff voltage for your batteries."

 

Again, the CBA amperage is user specified at the top of the software. The unit applies the appropriate resistance using software tuned variable MOS/FET transistor rather than a resistor to create the load (are they bragging about this?). A MOS/FET is used in amplifier stages. I understand it. That power has to be bled-off somehow. If you get bored testing batteries, it will run your subs (it's a joke). 

 

Unfortunately, it weighs a pound, looks like a flying heatsink and I doubt it will fit in my pocket, _but this is probably not the market they are going for. Wonder where I could find something like this?_ 

 

Again, the CBA seems like a nifty little unit. That is a big heatsink and fan for a low-power MOS/FET, I wonder why? It tests a _very_ wide range of voltages. Could it be too wide? Where there's heat there's concern. It needs to be connected to a computer for the software. Is the variable MOSFET stable enough? Is it trying to be all things to all batteries? I have lots of questions.

 

It costs $99 dollars _including software_ which makes me skeptical as a true bench testing device. The resolution claims are pure babble, OMG. 

 

I would love to take it apart!

 

Nevertheless, I don't own one, haven't tested it and I am not one of those who opinion without first-hand knowledge.


----------



## shotgun (May 2, 2006)

JimH:

I would agree with everything you said in your last post. I did use the word "life" rather than capacity. I was simply trying to articulate a layman's marketing perspective. The ZTS does seem to be slanted at this market.

I too am less concerned about the actual number than repeatable results in this context, but I want a number.


----------



## JimH (May 2, 2006)

shotgun said:


> Just curious, did you give recovery time in your testing? The ZTS will tap a battery, especially if repeated. The LED increments are quite wide.


No recovery time. Just bang, bang, bang till we get 3 consaecutive readings the same. The pulse loading of the ZTS taxes the batteries very little.


----------



## shotgun (May 2, 2006)

JimH:



It zaps it more than expected. Repeated cycles with the ZTS will zap the battery (V) .07, then .04, and so on reverse-exponentially. The interesting thing is it is so predictable with equivalent batteries. They will behave alike. If you can control how many times you hit the battery, you could get your information from the ZTA alone. But I don't think this is practical. I don't think anyone here wants pair batteries by hitting it with the ZTS say twenty times and pairing batteries by the number of times it takes to hit 80%. That would be too hard on a new battery.



For example, if you're willing to hit a new battery repeatedly (considerably more than 3 consecutive times), you could make a known good battery (that did reflect 100%) show 80%. It will recover as a normal battery would to varying degrees depending upon how hard you were on it. All things equal, an identical test will have identical results on a similar battery.



This is especially telling on batteries that start will less capacity to begin with (such as known _used or weak_ batteries that still reflect 100%). This is why I feel the ZTS is useful when used with metering as an important step. The LED array is simply not refined enough. If you note recovery time as well, you'll get the information you're looking for regarding battery grouping. 



This also shows the ZTS alone might not be enough for grouping if not impractical. It wasn't designed to be this specific, after all.



Indeed the ZTS is designed to test a battery a couple of times; it says so in its literature. As far as the load cycle goes, it's much more revealing a test when you make it work hard on the battery. But you don't want to drain the battery in this manner, so this is where the metering and recovery comes in.


----------



## SilverFox (May 2, 2006)

Hello Shotgun,

The triple test is designed to eliminate the surface charge that seems to influence the lithium battery results on the ZTS tester. The voltage curve (at the test load) is quite flat, and the recovery resting voltage has a tendency to influence the test results.

After several discussions with ZTS and a lot of cell testing, I proposed that to get a repeatable reading from lithium chemistry, you needed to continue testing until you were able to get 3 consistent readings in a row.

I was assured by ZTS that the effects of repeated testing would be minimal, however I decided to see for myself. I selected 3 CR123 cells. One was new and had tested to 100% using the triple test procedure, one was new but tested lower on the triple test procedure, and the final one was used.

Cell 1 was new and showed 100% three times in a row. I then continued to test the cell 250 times. Each time it showed 100%. I let the cell rest for an hour and checked it again. Each of the three tests showed 100%. I went on to do another 200 test cycles and once again each cycle reported 100%

Cell 2 was a new cell that gave 40% for the first reading, 40% for the second reading, then dropped to 20% for the next three tests. I continued on and the cell showed 20% for the next 250 test cycles. I let the cell rest for an hour. After resting the first test showed 40%, the second test showed 40%, and the next three tests showed 20%. I continued on for another 200 test cycles and each cycle showed 20%.

Cell 3 was a used cell. It tested 40% during the first three tests. It continued to show 40% for the next 250 test cycles. After resting for 1 hour, it showed 40% for the first three test cycles, and continued to show 40% for the next 200 test cycles.

I am not sure what you mean by “It zaps it more than expected,” however I have demonstrated that the triple test procedure does not have much of an effect on the cell. The drop in voltage you are seeing is the surface charge being dissipated. It is my humble opinion that the significance of this surface charge on the cell is minimal and the triple test is valid.

It would be nice if the ZTS tester had a higher resolution display, however gross matching is better than nothing at all. It would also be nice if it had a two position switch. One position for low power draw, and the other for high power draw testing.

Tom


----------



## David_Campen (May 2, 2006)

> Cell 1 was new and showed 100% three times in a row. I then continued to test the cell 250 times. Each time it showed 100%. I let the cell rest for an hour and checked it again. Each of the three tests showed 100%. I went on to do another 200 test cycles and once again each cycle reported 100%
> 
> Cell 2 was a new cell that gave 40% for the first reading, 40% for the second reading, then dropped to 20% for the next three tests. I continued on and the cell showed 20% for the next 250 test cycles. I let the cell rest for an hour. After resting the first test showed 40%, the second test showed 40%, and the next three tests showed 20%. I continued on for another 200 test cycles and each cycle showed 20%.
> 
> Cell 3 was a used cell. It tested 40% during the first three tests. It continued to show 40% for the next 250 test cycles. After resting for 1 hour, it showed 40% for the first three test cycles, and continued to show 40% for the next 200 test cycles.


So, did you discharge the cells to determine their energy content?




> It would be nice if the ZTS tester had a higher resolution display, however gross matching is better than nothing at all.


By "gross matching", what do you mean, does this have anything to do with the energy content of the cell?


----------



## Size15's (May 2, 2006)

I assume by 'gross matching' he means that if the groups were too small there would be too many groups or bins and you could have to get large number of batteries in order to get enough of any individual group or bin to be able to use them as a matching set.
You'd be forced to take batteries from surrounding bins in order to use them.
Whilst this may not make any difference in use it would make you feel differently about them.

I would personally consider coarser groups to be less of a worry for me!

Not, I should add that I think it's worth testing and grouping batteries.
The efforts are not without reward though so I'm not knocking people who do want to be able to group batteries. I figure that by understanding how to group batteries a flashlight manufacturer will be able to create a more accurate means of determining the remaining runtime of a flashlight and so incorporate a gauge into the flashlight.


----------



## David_Campen (May 2, 2006)

> I assume by 'gross matching' he means that if the groups were too small there would be too many groups or bins


I wasn't asking for a clarification the meaning of "gross". I was asking what he means by "matching". What do the percentages mean? Do they have anything to do with energy content of the cell? 

My previous comment that the LEDs should not have percentage numbers attached to them but should instead be arranged in a circle and be named after flowers is completely serious.


----------



## SilverFox (May 2, 2006)

Hello David,

The purpose of the test was to determine the effects of multiple tests on the readings. I did not do a discharge test to compare the cells.

By matching I was referring to matching voltage under load.

Tom


----------



## shotgun (May 2, 2006)

SilverFox:

I have not tried more than three on _new_ batteries either, just used or suspect batteries. I was hypothesizing.

But what you've done is excellent! You efforts are very logical and I hoped someone would have done this. As mentioned, I had done repeated tests on _used_ cells only and got similar results to yours. 

The new cell test I mentioned was a hypothesis in hopes someone could use the ZTS alone and gain enough information to match cells, much what you're trying to do. It would seem logical that the current draw would reach potential or exceed resolution sooner or later if repeated on a _new_ battery. It also makes sense that this can not be done to a new cell within the ZTS's resolution limits. I'm kind of curious about the surface charge issue, as the battery should not recover to the initial voltage if still left under a reduced load. It does. 

If the unit does not draw enough to effect a new battery, that speaks well for the ZTS. This means it's forgiving with the initial voltage, as I suppose it should be.

Based upon what you wrote, *I would still recommend more than three repeated cycles for purposes of comparison based upon my experiments with used batteries.* I believe there's more of a draw than ZTS is willing to admit to you. I measured 1.5 to 4 ohms resistance creating a .75 to 2A cycle mathmatically (high/low) -- that's "punchy" (you didn't like "zap," <grin>). The cycle was faster than my meter's sample rate setting at the time -- it was set to high/low and average. In real-world-speak, it is like P60 lamp bursts under varying circumstances like hot, cold and some other resistance anomalies - very quick. What the unit does with this data is the question.

Anyway, I believe more than three times is needed for matching purposes. I would still recommend a multimeter to reflect the results. But you have a methodology that works for you, which is great.

I believe the ZTS is a good platform for a truly good meter. I also agree that the ZTS would be better with good digital metering. I'm mixed about the switch because this would add cost and/or weight to the unit. There comes a point of diminishing return. I like the compact nature and inexpensive cost as a design limitation.

Nevertheless, you've answered a lot of questions (and saved others a lot of time and money).

Good stuff.


----------



## shotgun (May 2, 2006)

SilverFox:

I re-read your previous post.

I used "three" as in three cycles in my last post. You used "three" as in three consistent results, meaning it could take five or more to get it. If this is the case, I could agree. I should have read more carefully. 

I can not imagine running those cycles that many times! OMG. You are the man!!!


----------



## mahoney (May 2, 2006)

We did have recovery time in the particular testing in which we first noticed the difference in read-out between the MBT-1 and the Mini. It wasn't intentional, purely by chance. And recovery time's really not necessary for the effect to be observable. Test on the MBT-1, 60%, test on the Mini, 80%, back and forth in any order you choose. After 10 or more tests a 40% or lower battery may drop a level on one or both meters. 

As to the meaning of the ZTS ratings in relation to the remaining capacity of the battery, well... The useable capacity of a given battery is related to the load placed on it and tends to decrease as load increases. So if a given battery testing at 100% lasts ten minutes under a given load, will a battery testing 40% last 4 minutes. Probably not, but if we decrease the load so the service time of a battery testing 100% is 100 or 1000 minutes, then perhaps a battery testing at 40% might last 40 or 400 minutes. 

From my perspective, if I know I'll be using my flashlight a lot, I'll test the batteries. From experience, I know batteries testing at 40% won't last much longer in my flashlights, so I'll set them aside for non-critical use and put fresh batteries in the light. But how many minutes "not much longer" represents varies with the light, and to some degree with the battery brand. 

To truely understand what the ZTS tester readouts mean, we really need to know what the designers of the ZTS testers had in mind as the intended battery loads when they designed the testing algorithms. I suspect the loads they were considering were a bit more modest than the load imposed by a Surefire M6


----------



## soffiler (May 3, 2006)

mahoney said:


> We did have recovery time in the particular testing in which we first noticed the difference in read-out between the MBT-1 and the Mini. It wasn't intentional, purely by chance. And recovery time's really not necessary for the effect to be observable. Test on the MBT-1, 60%, test on the Mini, 80%, back and forth in any order you choose. After 10 or more tests a 40% or lower battery may drop a level on one or both meters.


 
I wonder if this could be attributed simply to a calibration issue between those particular units you own, rather than a fundamental algorithm difference.



mahoney said:


> To truely understand what the ZTS tester readouts mean, we really need to know what the designers of the ZTS testers had in mind as the intended battery loads when they designed the testing algorithms. I suspect the loads they were considering were a bit more modest than the load imposed by a Surefire M6


 
I doubt ZTS wants to disclose too much about their testing algorithms, as it is their intellectual property. But anybody with a dual-channel oscilloscope can watch what's going on with voltage and current (by inserting an appropriate shunt resistor) during the test cycle. AGREED, they should not have considered M6-type loads when designing the CR123A algorithm. I'd expect a load that correlates with a digital camera type application, frankly. But in any event, I would still expect a cell testing 40% to have better capacity than one testing 20% and worse than one testing 60% regardless of the application. That's probably one of the reasons for the extremely coarse resolution: it's really nothing more than a poor-fair-good-better-excellent grading system.

Steve Offiler
VP of Engineering
Central Tools, Inc.


----------



## David_Campen (May 3, 2006)

> But in any event, I would still expect a cell testing 40% to have better capacity than one testing 20% and worse than one testing 60% regardless of the application.


But that is not the case. The tests with L91 cells, shown here:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1360033&postcount=17
and here:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1365272&postcount=62
show no correlation between MBT test result and battery capacity.


----------



## soffiler (May 3, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> But that is not the case. The tests with L91 cells, shown here:
> http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1360033&postcount=17
> and here:
> http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1365272&postcount=62
> show no correlation between MBT test result and battery capacity.


 
BUT:

1) ZTS does not make any claim that its MBT-1 is capable of testing L91's
2) This is a CR123A thread


----------



## David_Campen (May 3, 2006)

soffiler said:


> BUT:
> 
> 1) ZTS does not make any claim that its MBT-1 is capable of testing L91's
> 2) This is a CR123A thread


Yes, ZTS does make this claim for modified MBTs and the MBT that was used had been so modified.

From the link I posted re L91s:


> Equipment used:
> 1. ZTS battery tester modified to test L91 batteries



123s are lithium primary cells too. The ZTS doesn't seem to work on these any better than it does with L91s. If this Forum response ever speeds up I will point out the particular posts in this thread that show that the ZTS does not perform as claimed for 123 cells just as it does not perform as claimed for L91 cells and quite likely also does not perform as claimed for NiMH cells.


----------



## shotgun (May 3, 2006)

Steve:



This is what metering says...



I just tested the current of a working ZTS Mini with a low DC current clamp (i410 on a Fluke 45, the margin of error on this clamp is 3.5% so long as it's +0.5A so its at its bottom limits but within specs). The load is about .75A average on the battery when it first touches the ZTS terminal/probe *even if the unit is off* so it starts under load impedance. The current changes slightly under this load of course.



Again, it is also about .75A at the start of the test so the cycle starts with a load condition (at about 4 ohms). The unit, attempting to test without batteries installed, completes a circuit at 5.5A average. So the unit doesn't work to create a load, it works under a load. It appears to analyze under this condition.



When on, the negative probe is added, the test starts and the LED array starts; the amperage _appears_ to change erratically in steps from as low as .60A to as high as .85A during the diagnostic cycle (but it is not dramatically different). It never exceeded 1V; it never dropped to zero until the end of the test cycle. 



It then breaks the circuit at the end (this is the noise you hear) the last light goes on, and current drops to _no load at all -- zero_. When you lift the batteries from the terminal, it is back in its original state and ready for the next time. 



I can not promise the current changes during the test, it just seems to change. It could just analyze this load condition. The battery voltage drops each test but stabilizes after a few tests as checked in previous posts.



This happen very fast and I don't know if an oscilloscope would help in real-time, unless it had graphing capabilities so you could see it sloooowed dooown.



Simply stated with easy math, the tester mimics a 3v battery operating under a .75A average load (at about 4 ohms). This 750 mA draw is a popular emitter current for LED flashlights. I don't know what a digital camera draws but I would think less unless it has a good size flash capability.



An ohm meter tests a cold P60 incandescent lamp at almost 1 ohm -- heat changes this dramatically. For the sake of comparison, in a 6V flashlight it would then draw an initial peak of 6A then much lower with a hot filament. I am too tired to test it running, but I'm sure someone has.

I don't think I'll offer opinions at this point. This is just what the meter said. Correct my math or assumptions if I'm off. I'm quite tired.


----------



## soffiler (May 4, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> Yes, ZTS does make this claim for modified MBTs and the MBT that was used had been so modified.
> 
> From the link I posted re L91s:


 
David, I don't really care about some comment found in the forum. Show me solid information that is directly attributable to ZTS, please.



David_Campen said:


> ...123s are lithium primary cells too...


 
Then clearly you don't understand the different chemistries in question. The CR123A and the L91 are very different. Lithium Manganese Dioxide versus Lithium Iron Disulphide. There's no reason to believe they will act the same.

Here's some homework for you to brush up on:
http://www.powerstream.com/BatteryFAQ.html



David_Campen said:


> ...The ZTS doesn't seem to work on these any better than it does with L91s...


 
"seem" is the operative word there




David_Campen said:


> ...If this Forum response ever speeds up I will point out the particular posts in this thread that show that the ZTS does not perform as claimed for 123 cells just as it does not perform as claimed for L91 cells and quite likely also does not perform as claimed for NiMH cells.


 
Please do. I am having a lot of trouble with slow response on the forum as well, to the point where I was literally unable to follow your links at all (The Page Cannot Be Displayed screen of death). 

Steve Offiler
VP of Engineering
Central Tools, Inc.


----------



## soffiler (May 4, 2006)

shotgun said:


> I just tested the current of a working ZTS Mini with a low DC current clamp (i410 on a Fluke 45, the margin of error on this clamp is 3.5% so long as it's +0.5A so its at its bottom limits but within specs)...
> 
> Again, it is also about .75A at the start of the test so the cycle starts with a load condition (at about 4 ohms). The unit, attempting to test without batteries installed, completes a circuit at 5.5A average...
> 
> ...This happen very fast and I don't know if an oscilloscope would help in real-time, unless it had graphing capabilities so you could see it sloooowed dooown...


 
shotgun: Thanks for the effort! Couple questions/comments:

- where did you connect the current clamp?
- 5.5A sounds like an awfully large number
- yes, an oscilloscope will help enormously. I realize that most CPF'ers don't have that kind of gear laying around so maybe you're not all that familiar with it. O'scopes, by definition, have graphical display and they are VERY VERY fast. Faster by (I would expect) at least several orders of magnitude than the rate that MBT-1 events unfold.


----------



## shotgun (May 4, 2006)

> shotgun: Thanks for the effort! Couple questions/comments:
> 
> - where did you connect the current clamp?
> - 5.5A sounds like an awfully large number
> - yes, an oscilloscope will help enormously. I realize that most CPF'ers don't have that kind of gear laying around so maybe you're not all that familiar with it. O'scopes, by definition, have graphical display and they are VERY VERY fast. Faster by (I would expect) at least several orders of magnitude than the rate that MBT-1 events unfold.


 I connected the clamp to the common lead (negative) side on the ZTS, the only way to connect the current clamp in the unit’s circuit which was convenient and standard.

I believe this 5.5 (with the test battery in place, but none in the unit) tells us the first thing the battery "sees" is simple resistance to start, maybe just a resistor stage, rather than something "creating" resistance (MOS/FET transistor or charged capacitor, ouch! etc.) charged by the unit’s batteries. Either that or I was not careful enough and got 5.5. That is all an assumption as there are things that can throw this off when the device’s circuits not operating as they were designed (obviously without batteries in the unit). It might not be as relevant as the actual cycle, but I was curious if it had initial impedance or if the unit’s batteries were a part of it. It does start with a load – dead or alive.

It's real-time that's the problem (eyeballs and brain) with the oscilloscope, not the sample rate. The ZTS cycle test is fast. You would still be forced to watch it in real time on an oscilloscope’s CRT, like a one-second edit in a movie. When I said graphic, I meant printable graphic with time on the horizontal axis set to this short length of time so it's spread out (slooooow) or on software that will do this. 

My tester can print results per its rate which is fast too, but I don't own the software. I did the cycle test over 100 times on the meter and chose with confidence. The current didn't deviate that much (+- 0.2A) and I was just trying get an idea. I would feel confident with a .750V (750mA) average for the whole test. I would also feel confident with a range of .6-.9V during the actual test. I know it drops to zero after the test, which it actually “works” to do. That was interesting. This is as refined as I expected for the load test. Assumption coming: *I believe the “pulses” are within this range or I would have invariably hit something much wider, even zero. I didn’t. Assumption coming: *it is possible the unit tests the battery under consistent impedance and make’s its judgment using its algorithm. The algorithm is the mystery.

By the way I used two different used batteries so it would force the unit to work within its LED array test range (one that gave consistent 40% readings and one that gave 60% consistent readings). 100% is too forgiving. Of course, a battery’s voltage is relevant to an amperage test; there would be some deviation anyway if someone used a better or worse battery for the test.


----------



## soffiler (May 4, 2006)

Hey shotgun:

Quick responses. The answer is "trigger" and the question is how do you manage to catch a very fast transient event on a 'scope. Talking digital storage 'scope here. My ZTS MBT Mini just arrived this morning and I've been too busy to do much more than confirm that it seems to be functional. If I get a chance before this thread dies, I'll hook it up to our 'scope and catch the voltage and current waveforms during the test.

The other thing I wanted to say is that I'm not sure what you can/should interpret from connecting a test battery to the unit with no batteries (internal power), if I understood that correctly.

Thanks for your efforts and thoughtful responses.

Best regards,
Steve O.


----------



## David_Campen (May 4, 2006)

*MBT-1, bogus results with NiMH batteries.*

Here is a post with results showing that the MBT-1 gives significantly inaccurate results with NiMH batteries:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1345827&postcount=24

These 2 posts show that the MBT-1 gives significantly inaccurate results with 123 batteries:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1381464&postcount=63
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1381543&postcount=65

Here are posts where data is given showing that an MBT-1 that had been modified by ZTS to test L91 batteries gave significantly inaccurate results with L91 batteries:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1360033&postcount=17
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1365272&postcount=62


----------



## soffiler (May 5, 2006)

*Re: MBT-1, bogus results with NiMH batteries.*



David_Campen said:


> Here is a post with results showing that the MBT-1 gives significantly inaccurate results with NiMH batteries:
> http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1345827&postcount=24


 
Yes, but, need I remind you (again) that we're talking about CR123A Lithium cells, not NiMH? Frankly, knowing what I know about NiMH chemistry and discharge characteristics, I'm mystified why ZTS believes they can design a capacity algorithm.



David_Campen said:


> These 2 posts show that the MBT-1 gives significantly inaccurate results with 123 batteries:
> http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1381464&postcount=63
> http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1381543&postcount=65


 
No offense is intended to seery, but, the re-test that produces the odd numbers could not possibly have been at room temperature. The voltage and current characteristics measured by the ZTS are heavily influenced by temperature, so, testing at anything but room temperature is bound to produce spurious readings. Which is exactly what seery reported. No surprise to me, and no indictment against the ZTS.



David_Campen said:


> Here are posts where data is given showing that an MBT-1 that had been modified by ZTS to test L91 batteries gave significantly inaccurate results with L91 batteries:
> http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1360033&postcount=17
> http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1365272&postcount=62


 
JimH says it best himself:

"...Any attempt to draw conclusions about the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the ZTS tester based on these results is a fool's errand - don't do it..."

Yet, by citing these results, that seems to be exactly what you are trying to do, David.


----------



## shotgun (May 5, 2006)

I am *not *putting anyone down here but there haven’t been any conclusions yet. There have been a lot of observations. There haven’t been any completely scientific evaluations, only pieces. We all speculate. If anyone is drawing any conclusions on this little ZTS tester, they should not. Here are just a few reasons why:

ZTS device not completely tested, just the batteries _it_ tests. Solely testing a unit by testing the third party object _it_ tests is not at all conclusive.
NO reliable confirmation tools or large samples to truly test those tested batteries.
Proper test procedures not established or consistent. No one has established that a $99 CBA should be the test equipment for evaluating a $40-70 devise, especially as a confirmation of what _that other device_ tested. This is not confirmation of anything. Testing devices used to test other testing devices need some kind of industry acceptance over time to be viable.
Little or no controls
Many unreasonable comparisons (apples to apples issues)
Small samples
No one is willing to open, break or disect their unit to look inside
All the variables are constantly changing under load; too many people are assuming they don't.
No agreement on the amount of initial load and how many times it should be applied (or testing cycles on the ZTS) to stabilize the/any battery
The ZTS test cycle itself (electronically created pulse and/or firmware based algorithm) has not been completely analyzed.
The previous testing was within the intial discussion context of high current draw (HOLA) lamp battery use, which the unit is likely not designed to test (I have tested the ZTA load operating at notably less than 1A).
Batteries do unusual things. Alleged suspect batteries stabilize; good batteries expire.
Treating others' declarations or experiments as conclusions or fact, especially when _they themselves_ are not treating them as conclusions or fact
Treating ill-gotten, although well-intended conclusions as fact then using them over and over -- as if louder and faster will make it correct
Forgive me if I repeated things or left things out, but the earth was flat for centuries because bright people treated suspect information as fact. By suspect, I don't mean bad, I mean incomplete. Many are adding good observations to the discussion.

When we purchase an object, we have to decide as individuals how suitable that object is to our needs. It doesn't matter if it's a car, house, dishwasher, toaster, or ZTS tester. Jeff Gordon can drive his car in a NASCAR race, but I can drive my vehicle off-road. That doesn't make one bad or the other, it depends upon the functionality.

I have established a function for the ZTS in my life based upon what I think _now_. I have established functions it is not suited for based upon what I know now. It could change. For others, mileage may vary.


----------



## shotgun (May 5, 2006)

Steve:

 

Thanks. I know what I was trying to get at but I'm not sure I gleaned anything from it because the unit was not in its functioning state of course. I had to report it because I tested it or it would have been incomplete, right or wrong. A notable part of this unit is just a manually operated DC circuit.

 

I was attempting to try to get an idea of what the unit's batteries contributed to the unit's function during the test and how much the test battery might contribute to the unit's function outside the load -- the difference. I think doing the test was reasonable because the input impedance, or most of it, is applied on input regardless of unit on, off or operating. I was simply curious about the difference.

 

Certain firmware tasks don't take much power consumption. Is the firmware making a decision under a consistent load? Is it truly simulating spikes as "pulse" suggests requiring power from either source? Does the device just hypothesize without a real "pulse" applied -- is the "pulse" theoretical? Is it a random number generator <grin>? It might still be relevant but I'm not sure. There is a difference, but I'm not sure it's valid.

 

I know their AC-sine-wave-looking logo is a bit odd <grins again>. It might fit well with their other products.

 

Are you going to test the unit's cycle for us? As it's a DC circuit, I'm curious about the scope data. Thanks for your input.

 

Sidebar, the most widely used precision industrial battery tester (for industrial UPS systems, 6V and 12V) is BK Precision's 600 and 601 Battery Capacity Analyzers at $300 and $400 respectively. These are used to test large industrial-application UPS system batteries consisting of room(s) full of automotive-like 12-volt batteries in series and parallel. 

 

On the tester, the user selects the amp-hours and it applies the appropriate load. It uses only power from the tested battery. It expresses its capacity in percentages. 

 

I found this interesting -- there are many ways to skin a cat.


----------



## soffiler (May 5, 2006)

shotgun:

Yes, I am curious about the voltage and current waveforms during the ZTS test cycle. However my EE is in the middle of some work that keeps our 'scope in use or set up for his convenience most of the time. So I'll wait until it's convenient, and once I get a chance, I'll try to play around with it. I've got an amp-clamp too so that'll just clamp around the (-) probe as you did. The other channel will monitor voltage across the battery. Please don't shoot me if I don't get around to this for a while.


----------



## shotgun (May 5, 2006)

That would be terrific. I'm interested in your findings. 

My AC/DC current clamp was working at its lower limits (i410 Fluke). Low current is dicey without the right clamp. Low current AC/DC clamps are pricey too at $300 to $450. I feel pretty good about the i410 because of the resolution of the meter I was using it on (Fluke 45). But a lower current clamp would be better. 

 

If you have access to a low current clamp like LEM PR20 or Fluke 80i-110 lying around, that sure would refine the current measurements. As they both output mV DC, they should connect right up to your scope (or MM) using voltage instead of current, like all clamps. In this case, both channels would be looking at voltage, even though one is actually testing amperage.

 

I know how you feel, not enough time in the day to simply satisfy curiosity. My comment about their AC looking logo got me thinking so I'm at it again.


----------



## soffiler (May 5, 2006)

shotgun:

Our amp clamp is a Tektronix A-622:

http://www.tek.com/site/ps/0,,60-15081-INTRO_EN,00.html

Tek says it's good down to 50mA. But here's a simple trick to increase resolution: loop the current-carrying wire multiple times thru the clamp. This will multiply your output by the integer number of loops. Example: if I'm trying to see 20 mA, I can loop the current-carrying wire ten times thru the clamp and I'll get a reading of 200mA which is easily within the resolution of the A-622. (Assuming, of course, the wire is long enough; we frequently use an extra-long test lead to make sure we've got the length).

This would be an issue if I plan to clamp it directly to the negative probe of the ZTS Mini; however, nothing is forcing me to do that since I can always attach a longer test lead. Then again, I am not expecting very low currents so it's a moot point. Just thought I'd mention it for the sake of general interest.


----------



## seery (May 5, 2006)

We are attempting to crack the code on how the ZTS can best help us group
our 123's for use in high drain applications. Or as some suggest to dismiss it's
results completely.

If certain information can only be accessed by opening up a ZTS MBT-1, I will
sacrifice mine and send it to a well qualified person if it would help figure this
out. 

I have already determined from my testing (all actual run times) that grouping
123's according to the ZTS does indeed add run-time to the M6. Just purchased
another M6 so that "one particular" M6 can't be help accountable to my findings.
Now I'll run my actual run-time tests through both M6's and compare them
against each other.

The "off the wall" results I got from the ZTS was after they had cooled for
just 10 minutes after shutting down. They were still warm when I retested
them. After they cooled they tested just as expected. 

We are making progress folks. This has turned into an amazing team effort
in an attempt to squeeze everything we can from a 123 cell


----------



## shotgun (May 6, 2006)

Steve:

 

I haven't seen this done in bench applications, though I've seen it done. Nevertheless, your clamp should do the trick. It is equivalent to the Fluke I mentioned.

 

I've just packed most of my equipment and taken it to the UPS Store to be shipped for calibration, so I'm limited on what data I can add to the discussion for a couple of weeks. That might be a good thing <grin>. I got some readings that I initially dismissed as anomalies that might actually show some A/C added to the D/C signal in the cycle. If so, you will see this on your scope long before I get my equipment back. I would be interested.

 

Seery:

 

When I test batteries that have come from a regulated LED flashlight, and they are drained until black (after falling out of regulation) and ZTS tested, I've never had them register any life at all on the ZTS -- regardless of rest. They are dead, dead, dead to the ZTS. It is obviously a lower current draw.

 

 

You've noted additional life after death in your incandescent high current M6 123's, following a rest. Is this your finding? Is it simply thermal or could the M6 be draining the battery quickly but in layers and not completely?

 

 

In other words, I'm wondering if there is any significance to this or does the lower current simply drain more completely. I'm just wondering if this is significant.


----------



## shotgun (May 15, 2006)

Where are we on this?


----------



## soffiler (May 15, 2006)

shotgun said:


> Where are we on this?


 
shotgun - sorry for the delay but I'll probably be another 1-2 weeks before I've got both the time and the access to the equipment.

Best regards,
Steve O.


----------



## seery (Jun 24, 2006)

Decided after trying/testing many many brands that the OEM Surefire
123's performed the best and were the most consistent.

Last week I took delivery of a fresh full case (400 batteries) of Surefire batteries.

Figure these 400 should last me a year or so.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Sep 15, 2006)

So .......It's almost 3 months later ...... Where *DO* we stand *NOW *????

It seems people are still getting many CR123's that are testing very low on the ZTS tester.

Even seen some reports of BatteryStation cells still testing low . (Ea. being tested b-4 sent ?)

What does this say for quality control ?????

Bewildering

................................ TMG/
.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Sep 19, 2006)

:huh2:


----------

