# Closeout Energizer AA Lithiums $0.50/pc



## bfg9000 (Feb 20, 2006)

Well, here we go again: this just appeared in some Hot Deals forums and I thought folks here might appreciate Energizer E2s for 50 or 63 cents each before shipping. Expire in 2019 0r 2020. Minimum order is $25 except in the retail store.

I have never ordered from them and don't know how reputable they are. Perhaps some CPF member in San Jose can drop in or let us know.

50 cells for $25: http://www.excesssolutions.com/cgi-bin/item/ES3698

8 cells for $5: http://www.excesssolutions.com/cgi-bin/item/ES3830


----------



## bfg9000 (Feb 20, 2006)

OK the price was too good to resist, so I bit--half the price those AAAs at Office Depot were, but not retail packaged. Will let everybody know how it turns out when they arrive.

Apparently they have been widely recommended as a source of Panaflo and other PC fans in the past, but only have two reviews at resellerratings.


----------



## Trashman (Feb 20, 2006)

That makes three different threads for this same deal, today. Looks like merge time!


----------



## paulr (Feb 20, 2006)

Looks like they also have 8-packs for $5 if you don't want 50 cells. Somehow this seems too good to be true.

http://www.excesssolutions.com/cgi-bin/item/ES3830


----------



## atm (Feb 20, 2006)

Just tried ordering 2 packs of 50; delivery cost to Australia would have been $113!






Oh well, was worth a try!





Andrew


----------



## Christoph (Feb 20, 2006)

I just ordered 50  .C


----------



## paulr (Feb 20, 2006)

I ordered 50 which is probably about 48 more than I'll ever use. I bet there will be lots of these on BST.


----------



## Led_Blind (Feb 20, 2006)

atm said:


> Just tried ordering 2 packs of 50; delivery cost to Australia would have been $113!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hey atm
I just checked the shipping on 10 bags, it comes to 267.10US, that brings shipping to the shipping to around 36AU ea +whatever au shipping. This is still a very cheap option for liths. What do you think?

Any other ausies interested? Cant set up a GB but woul be more that interested in padding out this order


----------



## benh (Feb 20, 2006)

Grah. Someone's got all 47 remaining 50 packs in their cart, shutting everyone else out.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Feb 20, 2006)

I imagine it is several someones holding them. When I first checked today there were something like 172 packs left. With 3 separate threads on these they were well advertised. Let's hope they hold up under scrutiny since TNSTAAFL.

Oh, and there are plenty of the 8 packs left.

-LT


----------



## jtice (Feb 20, 2006)

Anyone know if these are anygood yet?
I need some Litiums for all my backup lights.

Works out to $34.11 shipped for me. about 68 cents each.

~John


----------



## StoneDog (Feb 20, 2006)

They show 46 packs left, but someone has 45 in their cart?! I wanted to order two 50 packs. Guess I should go for the 8 packs instead.

EDIT: Well, I ended up getting 2 packs through no problem. Shipping was 10.20 to Atlanta. Not bad, that works out to less than $.70/pc. As long as they don't expire next year as some have mentioned  I'm a happy camper.

Jon


----------



## Radio (Feb 20, 2006)

Shipping on 4 packs of 50 was only $11 for me, In for 4, Thanks OP!!!


----------



## 4sevens (Feb 20, 2006)

I just ordered a boatload!  thanks!
These will be made available on my store at easier quantities: fenix-store.com.
Once I get them I'll issue a CPF coupon so you guys can get them
below market price


----------



## CM (Feb 20, 2006)

"Typical" expiration date 2019 or 2020. Does it mean there are some about to expire in a few years?


----------



## Bernhard (Feb 20, 2006)

Anyone willing to help by forwarding this stuff to Australia? Are ksbman (Keith) still able to help us Aussie members? We miss you Keith


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Feb 20, 2006)

4sevens said:


> I just ordered 5000  thanks!



Unless you light your home with L1Ps it looks as though these might be showing up on B/S/T. :ironic:  

-LT


----------



## 4sevens (Feb 20, 2006)

Lunal_Tic said:


> Unless you light your home with L1Ps it looks as though these might be showing up on B/S/T. :ironic:
> 
> -LT



Heheh... actually they won't. They'll go up on my store: fenix-store.com.
I'll provide a coupon for CPF'ers though


----------



## benh (Feb 20, 2006)

Managed to get a 50 pack a little bit ago.

I've still got something like 15 primary alk AAs left, and about 16 NIMH AAs that I'm now using regularly. And I have 4 AA and 4 AAA Eneloops coming. And now I have 50 Lithium AAs. Hee. These will go into BOBs and stuff.


----------



## jtice (Feb 20, 2006)

damn, I cant get any,
says the remaining 34 are in someones cart 

Was gonna grab 50 

~John


----------



## tron3 (Feb 20, 2006)

Excuse me for saying so, but what kind of idiot sells Lithium batteries LOOSE in a bag? They can shift and short each other out.

I wonder if they are near or past the expiration date? That would only make them like 80 - 85 percent charged.

Seems too good to be true.
Then again, let me know if they come and are fully charged. :wow:


----------



## jtice (Feb 20, 2006)

Ah there, finally, I got it to give me my 50 

If they expire in 2019, then they should be fine.

~John


----------



## gnef (Feb 20, 2006)

from the picture, it seems that they are cellophane packed in pairs. it may not be cellophane, but a stiffer plastic that is often used for packing batteries.


----------



## SilverFox (Feb 20, 2006)

Hello Tron3,

Keep in mind that these cells are at 1.5+ volts VS the 3.0+ volts for CR123's and 3.7+ volts for Li-Ion.

Tom


----------



## Walt175 (Feb 20, 2006)

Someone has the last 25 in their cart!


----------



## BentHeadTX (Feb 20, 2006)

4Sevens purchased 5000 of them?! 
As long as us poor battery suckin' CPF'ers can get them at $1 each, count me in! Counted my "pile O lithiums" at six BS AA's, two Energizer AA's, 12 Energizer lithium AAA's and 12 Sanyo CR123's. 
Shame I could not get on the 50 packs, my MillerMods L1P has a taste for them. Back to NiMH!


----------



## jtice (Feb 20, 2006)

Guys, if it says they are in a cart,
just keep trying, 
it told me that also, but I just waited a few, and tried again,
and it went through 

~John


----------



## LitFuse (Feb 20, 2006)

There are still hundreds (600+) of the 8 packs available for $5. That's only .13 more per cell. 48 L91s for $30 is still a great price assuming that these cells are accurately described.

8 for $5 

Is it possible for these cells to short against each other in shipping? The spec sheets states that the cell wrapper is plastic and nonmagnetic. I'm trying to imagine how these could short against each other?

Peter


----------



## BentHeadTX (Feb 20, 2006)

Down to 17 fifty packs but there are 17 in somebody's cart!


----------



## jtice (Feb 20, 2006)

IF the cells are properly wrapped (as any cell usually is)
the cant short against each other like that.

The terminal of one batt, would have to be large enough to touch TWO other cells contacts at once, and this would have to happen on BOTH ends of those two cells.

~John


----------



## LitFuse (Feb 20, 2006)

Keep trying, I just got in!

Peter 



BentHeadTX said:


> Down to 17 fifty packs but there are 17 in somebody's cart!


----------



## Hondo (Feb 20, 2006)

Yup, got my 50. Down to the last 12 now, but 8 packs a good deal too. And right after I posted about being to cheap to buy lithium primaries, hah! Now I need a deal on AAA's!


----------



## BentHeadTX (Feb 20, 2006)

Well,
I got a 50-pack and a 65VDC 41 amp breaker (don't ask) but it does not like APO's! The box said it would email me instructions so, yet again---I wait.


----------



## fluorescent (Feb 20, 2006)

got my order for 400 in


----------



## Yooper (Feb 20, 2006)

Just ordered 8 8 packs. About 600 of these left, but are currently tied up in a shopping cart. Only 10 50 packs left, all tied up....

Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## phosphor (Feb 20, 2006)

My order just went through.

-Regards


----------



## CLHC (Feb 20, 2006)

Energizer E Squares on Closeout? On Brokaw Road? Whoa! ! !


----------



## tron3 (Feb 20, 2006)

Interesting thing happened when I tried to order.

First there was 24 packs of 50 left, so I click to order one. This error message comes up saying someone has all 24 of them in their shopping cart!  

Then it drops to 18, and 17...and I'm still not getting one because it is being held in a shopping cart.

I just kept clicking until I got one. It sure seemed like someone was holding them and releasing them 1 at a time for friends. So, in reality, you just made a new "friend." :nana: 

Bunch of Bozo's.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Feb 20, 2006)

Hmmmm,
Still waiting for my email to explain "alternate" shipping methods to APO... my shopping cart still has a bag of 50. Hope this goes through eventually...


----------



## onthebeam (Feb 20, 2006)

tron3 said:


> Interesting thing happened when I tried to order.
> 
> First there was 24 packs of 50 left, so I click to order one. This error message comes up saying someone has all 24 of them in their shopping cart!
> 
> ...


I got stuck with that, too. Someone hoarded all in a cart. Finally gave up and ordered $25 worth of the eight packs. So, I lost 10 batteries. Still, a great deal. . .


----------



## modamag (Feb 20, 2006)

These cells are +1.7V (unloaded) and were manufactured in 2003/2004 last I checked 2-3 weeks ago.


----------



## Rothrandir (Feb 21, 2006)

well, it appears someone ordered all the 50packs, so i'll just have to get a few 8 packs :ironic:

70ish cents apiece after shipping still ain't to bad though...

bad thing is, i just bought 20 regular duracells saturday night!


----------



## JimH (Feb 21, 2006)

The batteries are complete bare loose pack - no sub-wrapping. Of the ones I picked up today, all were dated 2019.

A random 10% sampling of voltages yielded the following results:

1.78, 1.80, 1.80, 1.72, 1.78, 1.79, 1.80, 1.79, 1.78, 1.75

1.77, 1.79, 1.78, 1.75, 1.78, 1.78, 1.77, 1.79, 1.78, 1.78


----------



## Bernhard (Feb 21, 2006)

Sorry for the stupid questions, but what's the voltage of the new Lithium AA should be? Is the variation of the voltage in the sampling that you test are normal, or?


----------



## randyo (Feb 21, 2006)

That range looks normal to me for new AA Lithium cells.


----------



## IsaacHayes (Feb 21, 2006)

Wow, I sure wouldn't mind a few for my L1P !!! ROCK!! :rock:
Perhaps if some show up on BST I'll get some.

EDIT: nevermind the handling fee it's not worth it. just buy 25 bucks worth.


----------



## tron3 (Feb 21, 2006)

Bernhard said:


> Sorry for the stupid questions, but what's the voltage of the new Lithium AA should be? Is the variation of the voltage in the sampling that you test are normal, or?


 
It is supposed to be 1.5v, but I read it could be 1.7v or higher. It's great for camera flashes because they charge up so fast, but it reportedly will not harm a Fenix. Now, if you were using 4 of them, the extra voltage may harm some electronics.

First thing I'm going to do is measure the Voltage against a regular Duracell.
With this sudden influx of Lithium cells, I foresee a LOT battery test drains. :naughty:


----------



## David_Campen (Feb 21, 2006)

*Thank you!*

bfg9000,

Thanks for posting this!

When I looked last night all the 50-packs had already been snarfed up but even in 8-packs the price is really great so I ordered 10 of the 8-packs.

It is interesting the synchronicity, Sunday afternoon I had been at the local drug/variety store chain and saw that they had 4-packs for $8.99. I was tempted to pick up a few but then I started thinking about the deal at Target last year and decided to wait. Then Monday night, still thinking about the Target event, I decided that I had better check CandlePower Forums because I had a feeling that I might be missing out on something and there was your post ...


----------



## Mundele (Feb 21, 2006)

phosphor said:


> My order just went through.....if someone wants to buy half of a 50 pack PM me....I don't need all 50 !
> 
> -Regards




Check your PM's


--Matt


----------



## bfg9000 (Feb 21, 2006)

Wow I knew people here would be interested in this, but over 11,000 cells in one day is crazy. Was that you, 4sevens?






BTW there is now a price drop (!) on the 8-packs to $0.50 each if you buy seven or more packs. So 56 cells are now $28, and the minimum order is $25 anyway. They are asking us not to ask for a pricematch if we have already ordered.


----------



## andrewwynn (Feb 21, 2006)

Wow am i glad i just checked 'batteries included'.. i'm just about to make some high-power hotwire lights that will run GREAT from these.. on the order of 780/500L for 85 minutes is the estimates! Not bad for a light you can leave on the shelf for years! 

So much for a positive paypal balance :-D

-awr


----------



## Leef (Feb 21, 2006)

I ordered 7, 5-packs, came to $36 total to TX. We'll see if they're any good.:thinking:


----------



## andrewwynn (Feb 22, 2006)

fantastic! i just ordered 160.. at about 56 cents each! that's 'akaline' prices!

-awr


----------



## igabo (Feb 22, 2006)

I have 3 packs of 8 that I'd like to trade; for pretty much anything, just make me an offer. All batteries have expiration date 2020.


----------



## David_Campen (Feb 22, 2006)

igabo said:


> I have 3 packs of 8 that I'd like to trade; for pretty much anything, just make me an offer. All batteries have expiration date 2020.


Did these come from this lot. That was quick, when did you order?


----------



## Doug S (Feb 22, 2006)

Good News / Bad News. 

Good News is that they have lowered the price of the 8 packs to $4 if buying 7 or more packs.

Bad News is that there are only 43 packs left and 42 of these are "in somebody's cart".

I managed to get some a few days ago at the $5 a bag price. I just looked again today to see if they were all sold out and noticed the price decrease.


----------



## igabo (Feb 22, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> Did these come from this lot. That was quick, when did you order?



Actually, I love closeby to the warehouse. 

Again, I have 3 packs of 8 that I'd like to trade; for pretty much anything, just make me an offer. I'm actually looking for an EDC light. All batteries have expiration date 2020.


----------



## andrewwynn (Feb 22, 2006)

yeah in the couple of hours between when i checked in the basement and went to order upstairs the unit count went from like 320 to 210.. i bought 20 of those packs. I can't wait to make a hotwire light with 9xAA primary lithiums! 

the 1278 lamp is good for 280L out the front for 125 estimated minutes.. the 1331 lamp.. 500L for 85 minutes! The 1166 lamp works out to 450L for 90 minutes.. but the bulb life works out to THIRTY hours because it's actually under-driven. 

-awr


----------



## David_Campen (Feb 22, 2006)

I ordered 600 cells (75 8-packs). It makes me a little nervous seeing the random way the batteries are packed. I guess since the sleeves are plastic they won't short out even packed that way.

Still, I am going to want to test some of my batteries: a few to exhaustion at 1A and 0.5A loads and some more just briefly at 100mA load. To that end I will need resistors with values around 15, 3 and 1.5 ohm and something like 1, 1 and 3 watt ratings. What might I be able to find at Radio Shack that would fit this bill. I have a cheap DMM. I will also need a battery holder and some jumpers with alligator clips; will Radio Shack have these too?


----------



## Silver Flash (Feb 22, 2006)

If anyone is still interested in the 50 pack they have one more on their website. It's showing "Quantity 1" as of 19:51 EST.


----------



## PGP (Feb 22, 2006)

Silver Flash said:


> If anyone is still interested in the 50 pack they have one more on their website. It's showing "Quantity 1" as of 19:51 EST.



Are you sure you dont mean the 8 pack. Last night the 50 pack was removed from the site and there was only 159 8 packs left before I bought my 5 8-pack. Now they show only 1 8-pack left.

Patrick


----------



## David_Campen (Feb 22, 2006)

There were some 50-packs showing earlier today, even though there were none yesterday, at one time today maybe 3 were listed as available.


----------



## igabo (Feb 22, 2006)

All have been spoken for it seems.


----------



## andrewwynn (Feb 22, 2006)

nothing to worry about with 'random' packing unless there was something metalic in the bag.. it would take about 50 or 60 in a circle of about 6' in diameter to cause a short. 

-awr


----------



## Nell (Feb 23, 2006)

My 2 cents.

I just got my bag of 50. I does come loose in the bag. I checked the voltage of the cells and I have 7 failures out of 50. Two measures below or at 1.2V, four measures 1.4 to 1.55 volts and the last one measures fine, but looks deformed, a little crushed from poor QC or handling. 
The four cells measuring 1.4 to 1.55 will be used now and I may even put one of the 1.2 into my Ultra Infinity to drain it away. 

I just wished they packed the cells a little better, but they were likely some OEM packing to begin with at Engerigzer.


----------



## David_Campen (Feb 23, 2006)

Hmm, looks like I have my work cut out for me - checking all 600 cells that I ordered.

It seems that all of them will need at least an open circuit voltage test and for all that pass that then perhaps a brief test of voltage under load plus a few I will want to test to exhaustion.

Since these Lithium cells have such a flat discharge characteristic there doesn't seem to be a good way to test for total capacity except total discharge. Any suggestions as to what load to use for the brief load test - 0.1A, 0.5A, 1.0A, 2.0A?

I wonder what the history of these cells could be to result in this high failure rate?


----------



## tron3 (Feb 24, 2006)

Nell said:


> My 2 cents.
> 
> I just got my bag of 50. I does come loose in the bag. I checked the voltage of the cells and I have 7 failures out of 50. Two measures below or at 1.2V, four measures 1.4 to 1.55 volts and the last one measures fine, but looks deformed, a little crushed from poor QC or handling.
> The four cells measuring 1.4 to 1.55 will be used now and I may even put one of the 1.2 into my Ultra Infinity to drain it away.
> ...


 
I knew it seemed too good to be true. I bet that 50 pack has 10 bad batteries, not making it any better than the smaller packs they are selling. I can see the call to my credit card company now.


----------



## LitFuse (Feb 24, 2006)

JimH said:


> The batteries are complete bare loose pack - no sub-wrapping. Of the ones I picked up today, all were dated 2019.
> 
> A random 10% sampling of voltages yielded the following results:
> 
> ...



Hopefully more folks will measure a sample ( or all :sick2: ) of their cells and post their results so we can get the "big picture" on these closeout lithium AAs. I have a bunch of these coming too, and I'm hoping that my results are more like JimH's and less like Nell's. 

For reference, this is what I got measuring 8 new retail packaged cells, dated 2020: 1.788, 1.793, 1.789, 1.796, 1.780, 1.786, 1.786, 1.783.

Peter


----------



## David_Campen (Feb 24, 2006)

> I knew it seemed too good to be true. I bet that 50 pack has 10 bad batteries, not making it any better than the smaller packs they are selling. I can see the call to my credit card company now.


Or you could sell them to someone else. Even at a 20% reject rate the price per good cell is still great, only $0.625/cell. My biggest concern is that I don't understand what sort of history could be responsible for the high reject rate and what effect this may have on the watt-hour capacity of the cells and their remaining shelf life.

I have 600 cells coming. I am still hopefull that it will have been a good deal but I can see that I have a lot of testing to do. 

For testing I plan to measure open circuit voltage and also voltage at 1/2 A load. After I cull any bad cells by voltage testing then I will capacity test a few of the good cells. Hopefully the capacity of the cells that pass the voltage tests will be near manufacturer ratings.


----------



## SilverFox (Feb 24, 2006)

Hello David,

Just to put some numbers to your testing, I looked in the Alkaline Battery Shoot Out thread and noticed that at 0.5 Amps, the Energizer Lithium cells were holding above 1.4 volts.

Tom


----------



## lebox97 (Feb 24, 2006)

maybe these are factory rejects or something? :shrug:


----------



## David_Campen (Feb 24, 2006)

> maybe these are factory rejects or something?


I would be very surprised though to find that Energizer would let factory rejects go out under the Energizer label.


----------



## Hondo (Feb 24, 2006)

The info on this thread: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/107892

seems to suggest that this level of deterioration on select cells may be systemic in both Energizer and Battery Station AA Lithiums over this sort of time. These seem to have aged about a year more than what is in stores now. Perhaps these are not quite as reliable a choice for long-term emergency storage as first thought.


----------



## PGP (Feb 24, 2006)

Got mine today! Will have to check them when I get home tonight.


----------



## andrewwynn (Feb 24, 2006)

well i got mine to burn them up in primary hotwire solutions.. i will make up a testing solution pulling maybe 1A for a few seconds and bin them accodringly. 

-awr


----------



## N162E (Feb 24, 2006)

JimH said:


> The batteries are complete bare loose pack - no sub-wrapping. Of the ones I picked up today, all were dated 2019.
> 
> A random 10% sampling of voltages yielded the following results:
> 
> ...


I tested two of my five 8 paks. My results were almost identical to JimH's and all the cells were in perfect physical condition. Expiration date on all the cells is 2019. The cells were oriented + end down in the bag which held them 9 across with one lengthwise across the top. I wish I could get deals this good more often. "Thank You Excess Solutions" This is an incredible deal. :goodjob:


----------



## BackBlast (Feb 24, 2006)

I just finished with an inventory of the cells I purchased. All the cells were dated to expire 2019, except one - 2013. The unique cell also had slightly different positioning with some of the printed information.

Voltage measurement breakdown, 100 cells.

1.80 < X >= 1.77 | 53
1.77 < X >= 1.70 | 36
1.70 < X >= 1.60 | 7
1.60 < X >= 1.50 | 2
1.30 < X >= 1.20 | 2


I might say that yields about 10% < 1.7 v. With 2 cells basically DOA. The exp 2013 cell was a healthy 1.78.


----------



## paulr (Feb 24, 2006)

I wonder if these could have been pulled from equipment or something. We definitely need some capacity tests.


----------



## LitFuse (Feb 24, 2006)

paulr said:


> I wonder if these could have been pulled from equipment or something. We definitely need some capacity tests.



It would seem unlikely that these were pulls. Barring a defective cell, isn't the voltage of a lithium cell usually a pretty good indicator of remaining capacity?

Peter


----------



## David_Campen (Feb 24, 2006)

> Barring a defective cell, isn't the voltage of a lithium cell usually a pretty good indicator of remaining capacity?


With Lithium AA cells voltage and especially open circuit voltage is only a good/bad indicator; these cells hold voltage very flat until they are almost exhausted.

I just pulled a pack of 8 cells from the box of 320 cells that came today and measured the open circuit voltage:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 
These volatges all seem good. Still I want to do some capacity tests on a few.

I glanced at all the packs of cells that I got today and they all seem to have a 2019 expiration date.


----------



## LitFuse (Feb 24, 2006)

Looking forward to hearing the results of your capacity testing David.

I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that post, I guess maybe I was thinking of an alkaline cell's voltage being indicative of remaining capacity. 

Peter


----------



## SilverFox (Feb 25, 2006)

I picked up 80 of these cells. They are all marked 2019.

Voltages were similar to what has been reported by others.

I decided to do a load test to check out the cells. My testing was done at 68F, and consisted of applying a 0.5 amp load for 45 seconds and noting the voltage at the end of that test. During this test, I used 0.005 Amp Hours of capacity.

My cells fell into 5 categories:

1 cell started at 1.9 volts and stayed above 1.75 volts during the test.
2 cells were dead.
5 cells ended up at 1.4 volts at the end of the test.
33 cells ended up at 1.5 volts at the end of the test.
39 cells ended up at 1.6 volts at the end of the test.

I am just finishing some testing at 1.0 amps and will post a graph shortly. 

Initial observations:

1. These cells show a wide deviation in their initial state of charge.
2. Cell performance under load can not be determined by an open circuit voltage measurement.
3. The cells that during the load test showed a voltage of 1.5 volts are performing better than those that ended up at 1.6 volts.
4. None of the cells are performing as good as "store bought" cells.
5. Measured capacities exceed the manufacturers specifications, except for the dead or very low voltage (under load) cells.

I think I got a good deal. I got 73 good performing cells (out of 80) at a cost of about $0.80 per cell.

OK, the test is done. I will generate a graph and post it.

Tom

Here is the data.







I wonder where these cells came from...


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Feb 25, 2006)

Are these rejects or seconds? Do they appear to be new physically? I guess my TNSTAAFL comment still holds. 

I wonder if we'd have ended up better with a bunch of Battery Station cells for a bit more, taking into consideration the actual cost after the bad cells are factored in. :shrug:

-LT


----------



## SilverFox (Feb 25, 2006)

Hello Lunal Tic,

For those of us that are abbreviation impared...  what does TNSTAAFL stand for?

Tom


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Feb 25, 2006)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Lunal Tic,
> 
> For those of us that are abbreviation impared...  what does TNSTAAFL stand for?
> 
> Tom



Sorry, I hate typing  

TNSTAAFL = There's no such thing as a free lunch.

-LT


----------



## David_Campen (Feb 25, 2006)

There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

I had to look it up. It is originally from a Robert Heinlen SF story.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Feb 25, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
> 
> I had to look it up. It is originally from a Robert Heinlen SF story.



I also like Heinlen. 

-LT


----------



## jayflash (Feb 25, 2006)

For a fast & furious cell quality test I continue to use the short circuit current measurment as more reliable than OCV and quicker than placing cells into a test station. My guess is that a severe test like this MAY weed out more bad cells than measuring voltage at a one amp drain.

So far the "flash amp" test has been reliable enough for me. What are your thoughts & experience?


----------



## SilverFox (Feb 25, 2006)

Hello Lunal Tic,

OK, I get it... 

I wasn't looking for a free lunch, just a rather large snack at a very reasonable price... :nana:

Tom


----------



## Doug S (Feb 25, 2006)

jayflash said:


> For a fast & furious cell quality test I continue to use the short circuit current measurment as more reliable than OCV and quicker than placing cells into a test station. My guess is that a severe test like this MAY weed out more bad cells than measuring voltage at a one amp drain.
> 
> So far the "flash amp" test has been reliable enough for me. What are your thoughts & experience?


Could you post the results you are getting? Also could you describe your test? Relevant details would be the time from shorting to taking reading, e.g. 2 seconds etc, and also the total resistance of your meter leads plus meter shunt resistance.


----------



## andrewwynn (Feb 25, 2006)

Well at 12-25% of 'normal price' i think i can handle 78-88% of performance. 

The source of these is an interesting question. 

I'm also curious about this 'flash amp' test.. this could be either good or bad for the cells.. i would def. recommend having SOME resistance even if it's 1/2 ohm or something.. grouping by amp draw with 1/2ohm load might be a very good wayto bin them. 

-awr


----------



## drizzle (Feb 25, 2006)

Using more or less the same ranges as Backblast, here is the inventory of my 101 cells. (Yes, I got one extra)

```
61      1.77 <= V
28      1.70 <= V < 1.77
 8      1.60 <= V < 1.69
 3      1.50 <= V < 1.59

 1      V = 0.87
```

Out of my 1.70 to 1.77 many were around 1.76.

Now, after reading SilverFox's post, I wonder if the open circuit voltages are really telling me anything. I have a rudimentary battery tester. I'll try a few on that and post the results.

*Added:*
Using my DigiTemp battery tester I tested a sample of the first two categories and all of the rest. This type of battery tester is like the ones that came built in to some of the battery blister packs. It's essentially a liquid crystal temperature sensor on a variable width resistive surface. It gives a relative current under load test.

```
sample  good    Open Voltage
  5      5      1.77 <= V
  5      5      1.70 <= V < 1.77
  8      7      1.60 <= V < 1.69
  3      0      1.50 <= V < 1.59

  1      0      V = 0.87
```
The one bad one in the 1.60 to 1.69 range was 1.61.

*Added again:* So to summarize, assuming all the 1.70 and up are good and adding the 7 from the 1.60 to 1.69 I get 96 good out of 101, or $0.52 each. Even if the run times are a bit less than store bought I think it's worth it.


----------



## bfg9000 (Feb 25, 2006)

I got one obvious DOA and two that turned out to be DOA when load tested. One of those had rust under the vented top so they may have been in a flooded warehouse in New Orleans or something. That could explain the lack of packaging and why some are better than others--they were stored higher up, and spent less time in conductive solution. Purely speculation, of course.

I did have one MIA also... looks like they gave it to drizzle





So the hidden price with these is you have to load test each one. And you'd find out what kind of protection these have real quick with a short circuit. 

I'm just glad they weren't counterfeit wrappers on carbon-zinc cells.


----------



## drizzle (Feb 25, 2006)

bfg, are you saying I can't rely even on the ones that are 1.7 and up? I only tested a sample of them and they seemed to be all very strong on my battery tester.

And what about my "load tester" my little battery testing strip. It does test it under current draw but nothing like a short. Is it a good enough test if I test all of the rest of the batteries with it?


----------



## bfg9000 (Feb 25, 2006)

I'm a big believer in testing at least under the load they will see in service. After all, a car battery that reads 12.5v open-circuit does you no good when it drops to 8v while cranking, does it? Yes it may still crank at 8v, but that's not enough voltage to fire the ignition or injectors.


----------



## Nell (Feb 25, 2006)

The Katrina remark may be why some of the cells feels a little dirty. Most felt fine, but some were definately coated with something.


----------



## David_Campen (Feb 27, 2006)

I got a second shipment today of 25 8-packs. The batteries in 17 of the packages had a 2020 expiration date and the latest label design while the rest had a 2019 expiration date and the previous label design. All looked to be in good condition. I have a CBA due to arrive this Friday and I will run some voltage under load and capacity tests.


----------



## Mr_Light (Feb 27, 2006)

There BACK again. Just bought 10 8-packs for $40. Links at the top of the tread work.


----------



## Mr_Light (Feb 28, 2006)

THEY ARE BACK IN STOCK.... First time around there was a veritable feeding frenzy. Where did all the disappointed people go that missed out the first time?


----------



## Hondo (Feb 28, 2006)

Got my 50 yesterday. All clean, dated 2019. One had a piece of transparent tape on it :shrug: . One was sub-1.6v open circuit, and lit my tester bulb dimmer than the rest, but is running so-so in an Xnova8. One has a white discoloration to the covering on one side at the + end, with the cover shrinking to expose a split at that end. This looks to me like exposure to high external heat, e.g. possible fire salvage.

BUT, the rest test with good open circuit voltages typical of what is being reported. I am only about 2/3 through with the bulb test. It is a light load test, just 10 seconds at 170 ma observing the brightness of the bulb, and then re-check the open circuit voltage for recovery. Most of the lower voltages bounce back to within 0.01v of starting within 20 seconds. The ones up above 1.8v (there are many) are mostly coming back within 0.03-4v, and I plan to re-check those after a day to see if they stay closer to the new voltage after the light load. So 49 out of 50 good cells so far, and one ugly one that checks out, I'm happy enough with the deal. Don't mind fiddling with them to get a deal, it's a hobby after all, and in the end I will likely learn more from the process.


----------



## wasBlinded (Feb 28, 2006)

I like the 'flash amp' test. With the multimeter on the 10 amp range, a good L91 cell gives 7.5 to 8.0 amps. In my batch of these cells, the lowest showed only 1.9 amps though the open circuit voltage was 1.60 volts. 80% of the ones I tested showed more than 7 amps, and some more than 8 amps.


----------



## David_Campen (Feb 28, 2006)

It is nothing but a feeling but I fear that "flash amp" testing these batteries is so abusive that it could damage even good cells. Is there any reason to believe that "flash amp" testing is any better at selecting "good" cells than measuring voltage at 1 or 2 amps load?


----------



## lebox97 (Feb 28, 2006)

I hope it's not a CPF'r that is doing this shopping cart hold up game 

pretty tacky to do that - either buy them or get out of the way!


----------



## lebox97 (Feb 28, 2006)

I called 'em - and they said they couldnt do anything about the shopping cart , but about 15 min later the shopping cart freed up :buddies:


I bought 1 bag of 50 ("#38")- as of 4:45pm AZ time there are 35 bags left...


----------



## wasBlinded (Feb 28, 2006)

David_Campen said:


> It is nothing but a feeling but I fear that "flash amp" testing these batteries is so abusive that it could damage even good cells. Is there any reason to believe that "flash amp" testing is any better at selecting "good" cells than measuring voltage at 1 or 2 amps load?


 
Since it only takes about .25 seconds to do the test, I doubt it will cause much harm, if any, to the cells. I also don't have any idea whether it is superior or inferior to measuring the voltage at 1 or 2 amps, but its advantage is that it is simple and it is quick.


----------



## Walt175 (Feb 28, 2006)

Anyone care to explain a simple way to load test these to a relative newbie?:help:


----------



## paulr (Feb 28, 2006)

One reasonable setup for crude load tests: take a 1aa battery holder and solder a 1.5 ohm (or so) power resistor across it. Put the battery in the holder, wait 2 seconds, and measure the voltage. Remove the battery immediately after measurement since the test puts it under considerable drain.

Some people are also doing short circuit tests which is a little bit scary. I don't think it distinguishes good cells much (i.e. 7 amps isn't necessarily worse than 8 amps) but it does weed out duds.


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 1, 2006)

got my 20 bags today.. i'm very satisfied with the results.. I couldn't find a 1ohm resistor so i used 10.. 

results.. out of 13 i tested.. avg was about 172mA draw from 1.72V.. i had one 'clinker' of 1.23V and two about 1.65 and one that was 1.5V. 

the really good news? 9up ran 2A just fine.. for use with 1331 lamp in a 3D host! whoo hoo.. the bad new.. no go on 1185 .. dropped to 10.3V within 20 seconds. 

I ran an 1166 lamp from 9AAs and it holds 1.15V/cell.. a bit lower than the 1.25 i was estimating but 11.1V is enough to have overhead for lots of regulation.

the cells recovered to 1.5V within seconds of turning off the light. 

-awr


----------



## billw (Mar 1, 2006)

The vendor here IS a surplus dealer. I'd assume (without any actual data,
mind you) that these cells were probably used once in some sort of application
that demands fresh batteries be installed for each instance of service (Emergency
Services radios, perhaps? Or even (*gasp*) flashlights?), even if the actual
demand eeked out of the batteries is minimal. That could mean that some
of the cells aren't so good :-( It could mean shelf-life issues if that rumor
about decreased shelf-life after "first use" is true. It probably means that
the vendor has an ongoing supply that gets replenished periodically (yeah!)


----------



## tron3 (Mar 1, 2006)

SO, we ARE getting used batteries? Eh, for the price I'm sure they are better than alkalines. However, based on usage, I may not buy more. I'm tempted to do a battery drain test in my L1P, but I don't have any measuring equipment.

Can someone do a test and compare it to a store bought Lithium?


----------



## LitFuse (Mar 1, 2006)

tron3 said:


> Can someone do a test and compare it to a store bought Lithium?



Someone already has...  

Peter


----------



## Walt175 (Mar 1, 2006)

Thank you! :thanks: 





paulr said:


> One reasonable setup for crude load tests: take a 1aa battery holder and solder a 1.5 ohm (or so) power resistor across it. Put the battery in the holder, wait 2 seconds, and measure the voltage. Remove the battery immediately after measurement since the test puts it under considerable drain.
> 
> Some people are also doing short circuit tests which is a little bit scary. I don't think it distinguishes good cells much (i.e. 7 amps isn't necessarily worse than 8 amps) but it does weed out duds.


----------



## bucken (Mar 1, 2006)

Just got my 50-bagger, today. 48 checked at either 1.78V or 1.79V, and 2 checked in at 1.65V. All are dated 2019.
Most of mine, however, have this little "crease" around the top. Anyone else seen this on theirs? Any thoughts if this might be harmful, or not?


----------



## paulr (Mar 1, 2006)

Oh my, that little crease looks symptomatic of the outer wrapper shrinking under high temperature. I really wonder where these cells have been.


----------



## ddaadd (Mar 1, 2006)

bucken said:


> Anyone else seen this on theirs?



Yes, some of mine do, others dont...

Im going to say all the lithiums I've used have this depression whether you see the wrapper pushed in or not, These have spent enough time bouncing around in thier bag against each other, it could be self inflicted....

If the covering is not torn, it's not going to bother me....


----------



## BackBlast (Mar 2, 2006)

paulr said:


> Oh my, that little crease looks symptomatic of the outer wrapper shrinking under high temperature. I really wonder where these cells have been.



It could be that these cells have been cooked out in some storage shed. Which would explain the less than ideal readings we get out of some of them and the failure of the occasional cell. Soon as I got mine they went into a cool storage area.


----------



## NeedMoreLight (Mar 2, 2006)

This is a good deal, but for the price with shipping, I can get 3=48 packs of Alkaline batteries here. Exp is 2012 but is a better deal for me.


----------



## gnef (Mar 2, 2006)

not everyone needs/wants lithium primary batteries, but for those that do, this is an extraordinary price and value. to each his own...


----------



## InfidelCastro (Mar 2, 2006)

Guys, venders always manipulate their inventory quantity, so you think they are close to being sold out so that you're more likely to buy. It's nothing new. Anyways..

I was thinking of picking some of these up, but I don't think so anymore. I wouldn't want to run them in a light with one cell possibly going dead or sagging in voltage and the other at 1.7V. You know how picky lithiums are. Could lead to a kaboom or other nastyness. These things don't seem safe. I wouldn't want to use them in a multiple cell device anyways.


----------



## paulr (Mar 2, 2006)

That's a good point about multi-cell devices. Hmm. I'd been thinking of using a bunch in a portable audio recorder (uses 4 cells in a 2x2 series-parallel config). I guess if I do that I'll at least first voltage-match the cells with a DMM. I'll probably stick with NiMH.

I'm glad I only bought 50. I'd hate to have bought a huge quantity for resale and then found out about these issues afterwards. I guess if 4sevens is going to send them out in Fenix lights, that's no problem, but it sounds like he'll have a long-lasting supply.


----------



## Tremendo (Mar 2, 2006)

I saw this post early and had the cart ready but decided not to buy. After following all this, I'm glad I didn't. I'd rather pay the extra $ for new ones, and know what I'm getting. I guess if you're willing to test them all and deal with less than new performance, it's good deal. Just not for me.


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 2, 2006)

I would say.. if you only use a few AAs.. new is not a bad way to go.. if, however you want to burn up 9 at a time in a hotwire.. absolutely get a few bags of these!

-awr


----------



## jtice (Mar 2, 2006)

got mine, heres the numsers







Overal, not bad still for the price I suppose,
though, I would not be surprised if these are kinda second hand, 
storged incorrectly, or slightly used.

~John


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Mar 2, 2006)

Anybody dropped a line to the vendor to ask what's up with these?

-LT


----------



## bucken (Mar 2, 2006)

Judging from the ones I got, I'm GUESSING that there may only be a slight manufacturing defect. Just about all of mine has that "crease" near the top (see pic in earlier post). The "crease" and surrounding dents are EXACTLY the same on each battery, as if something wasn't adjusted right. I'm HOPING that it is just a visual defect... Not good enough to package as new, but otherwise perfectly good batteries.


----------



## Mundele (Mar 2, 2006)

I took a newly purchased energizer lithium AA and rubbed my fingernail around the rim and exposed the same "crease" you guys mentioned. It's just part of the battery. 

I ordered 50. Haven't received them yet. I was wanting to put some in a "car light". I figure at $10 for 4 at wallyworld, $25 for 50 is a good deal, even if they aren't perfect.

Plus they're lighter than alkalines, much lighter than NIMH, for you backpackers out there...

--Matt


----------



## Doug S (Mar 2, 2006)

I screened 152 of these. I measured open circuit voltage and also loaded voltage 15 seconds after application of a 1.3 ohm load [about 1.1A at 15 seconds typical]. Sorted into groups of final loaded voltage <1.30, between 1.30 and 1.39, 1.40 and up. Only 2 of 152 exceeded 1.50V loaded. Performed capacity testing of all measuring <1.30V loaded. 12 of 12 are duds with less than 10% of rated capacity. All of these had initial pre load voltages of 1.699V or less on an accurate meter. I don't have data to tell you what initial unloaded voltage=good or what loaded voltage=good but based on 12 of 12 sample, initial voltage < 1.699V has high probability of bad. Note that this voltage is pre load testing. Post load testing voltage does not recover to pre test value even though is is only 15 seconds into 1.3 ohms.


----------



## igabo (Mar 2, 2006)

I personally asked a worker at the warehouse there, and his only response was basically, "I don't know," but he did say something about there being multiple sources.


----------



## paulr (Mar 2, 2006)

Doug S, that's very interesting, first of all you got 12/152 failure rate, which is pretty sad. Did you record how many of the 152 were below 1.7v open circuit initially?


----------



## Doug S (Mar 2, 2006)

That would be 14 of 152. I rechecked my notes and it is 14 of 14 dud, not 12 of 12. 



paulr said:


> Doug S, that's very interesting, first of all you got 12/152 failure rate, which is pretty sad. Did you record how many of the 152 were below 1.7v open circuit initially?


----------



## LitFuse (Mar 2, 2006)

I sent them an email, but didn't get much information...


----Original Message Follows----
From: "Info" <[email protected]>
To: "" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: e2 Energizer L91 AA lithium cells
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:37:07 -0800

Well I really can't reveal much information about them, that is something our competitors would love to know. They are all from one source.
Thank you

Excess Solutions
----- Original Message ----- From: "" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 9:31 AM
Subject: e2 Energizer L91 AA lithium cells


>Hi,
>
>I've bought a bunch of these, and am considering getting some more. 
>Do you have any information on the backround of these cells. Are 
>they salvage from retail channels, etc? Are they all part of one 
>large lot? Any info you could provide would be appreciated.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Peter


----------



## LitFuse (Mar 2, 2006)

5800+ available from one seller on eBay.

Peter


----------



## twentysixtwo (Mar 3, 2006)

slapped some in my UK miniQ40 - now it's as bright as my e2e!! No kidding!!!!!!


----------



## twentysixtwo (Mar 3, 2006)

Will some nut out there throw 8 of these in a Surge and let us know what happens???????


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 3, 2006)

> Will some nut out there throw 8 of these in a Surge and let us know what happens???????


We know what will happen. I have done that, not recently though, and the bulb immediately destructs.


----------



## tron3 (Mar 3, 2006)

After testing all my discount Lithium AA, I had 2 that are dead.
Not weak dead, but DEAD. Neither was suitible for use in my L1P, no light at all.

Both batteries barely moved the needle when I measured for 0.5mA 
I wouldn't have minded if they had 125-250mA because I could drain the rest. But Zilch...geeze

So, instead of .68 cents each, they are 71 cents each.

$34.11 / 48 good batts.


----------



## fluorescent (Mar 3, 2006)

LitFuse said:


> 5800+ available from one seller on eBay.
> 
> Peter


that particular seller has a picture up of a factory battery... not the ones with the crease like I'm sure you will get.. 

I tested 399 of these batteries both on a multimeter and a pulse load tester. All of them had the crease. 24 were duds and a phone call was all it took to get replacements on the way. I am bent at the company because they were so swamped with orders that they couldn't take the time to put two of my orders together and save me shipping costs. Oh well.. still a great deal.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Mar 3, 2006)

Do you suppose that if you put these on the alkaline part of a ZTS battery tester and came up with 100% that it would mean that they still had at least as much juice as a new alky?

-LT


----------



## wasBlinded (Mar 3, 2006)

Lunal_Tic said:


> Do you suppose that if you put these on the alkaline part of a ZTS battery tester and came up with 100% that it would mean that they still had at least as much juice as a new alky?
> 
> -LT


 
I've already checked that. In my batch of 56, the worst cell I tested using the "flash amp" method gave 1.9 amps. That compares to about 7.5 for a fresh store-bought L91 and most of the ones from Excess Solutions. The 1.9 amp cell tested as 100% on the ZTS tester using both the alkaline and NiMh AA cell positions. When placed in a light and actually used, the runtime was very, very short.

The ZTS tester did do a bit better when I stacked the bad cell with a good cell, and tested at the 3V CR123 position - it indicated 20%. But stacking two mediocre L91 cells (5.0 amps on the flash test) the ZTS indicated 100%, though these cells still showed reduced capacity when actually used.

Bottom line, the ZTS tester, as much as I love it, won't help us much here.


----------



## InfidelCastro (Mar 3, 2006)

paulr said:


> That's a good point about multi-cell devices. Hmm. I'd been thinking of using a bunch in a portable audio recorder (uses 4 cells in a 2x2 series-parallel config). I guess if I do that I'll at least first voltage-match the cells with a DMM. I'll probably stick with NiMH.
> 
> I'm glad I only bought 50. I'd hate to have bought a huge quantity for resale and then found out about these issues afterwards. I guess if 4sevens is going to send them out in Fenix lights, that's no problem, but it sounds like he'll have a long-lasting supply.




Yup, but even if you voltage match them, that's no guarantee of capacity. Especially with lithiums that tend to keep their voltage until the bitter end. One could sag while the other has half its capacity left.


----------



## bucken (Mar 4, 2006)

If we sent a few of these along with a couple new ones to someone who had a metering setup for checking runtime, would that give us a better idea of how much capacity is left? In fact, there's already several posts with runtimes of various lights with "new" lithiums, just need to run the same light with the "bargain" ones, and compare the two, I would think.


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 6, 2006)

SilverFox has run a test with his CBA - see page 3 of this thread, a little more than halfway down.

I just got my CBA this weekend and have been running some test. I have decided that 0.5 A discharge is "best" to use for measuring capacity. In the one 0.5 A discharge I ran on an ExcessSolution Lithium I got 2.8 AH; for comparison I ran 2 retail purchased Lithiums, one with an expiration date of 2019 gave 3.2 AH another with a 2012 expiration gave 2.6 AH.

My biggest difference from what SilverFox noted was that all three of the cells mentioned above, when I tested them at 0.5A, dropped below 1.5 V within 45 seconds.


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 7, 2006)

Got the 9AA working in a hotwire.. running the 1166 for now 'til my 1331s come in.. it doesn't do too bad.. quite ok actually.. i'll be very interested to see a 12 cell solution running the 1111 (series-parallel config).. or the 1318 lamp in a 2D with 6 or 7 cells. 

-awr


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 7, 2006)

I tested a batch of 56 of these batteries last night using my CBA and rejected 7 for a 12.5% reject rate.

My test was to connect the battery to the CBA and reject any that showed low open circuit voltage. The rejects under this test were very obvious; they had OCVs of 0.0 to 1.3 while the rest of the batteries had OCVs of 1.6 to 1.8. 5 of the 7 rejects were selected by this test.

Cells that passed the OCV test were then run at 0.5A load for 1 minute and cells with a 1 minute load voltage less than 1.4 were rejected. 2 cells were rejected by this test and again the rejects were obviously different from the remaining cells; one quickly dropped to almost 0V under load and the other dropped to about 1.1V in a minute. The remaining cells all had load voltages of 1.4-1.6V at the end of a minute and many were near 1.5V.


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 7, 2006)

So.. you can buy brand-new cells for $1.50.. but rejecting 12.5% means that your actual cost is 14.3% more.. or.. 72 cents each.... still less than 1/2 price.. sweet deal in my book! 

I've been testing the cells at about 2/10ths amp just 'cause the resistor i had handy was 10ohm.. i have two so i think i'll pair them up and re-do the test at 5ohm.. i have had maybe a simliar percentage.. i've only had 2 clinkers.. and about 6 of 20-30 that under light load were in the 1.6-1.7V range.

-awr


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 11, 2006)

Well, I started doing some capacity tests on a sampling of these batteries and I am not very happy at the moment. I went through a batch of 64 of these batteries and winnowed out some duds by testing for 1 minute at 0.5A discharge; I ended up with about 55 batteries that seemed good. Then I started capacity testing some of the remaining "good" batteries by discharging at 1A to 0.5V. The first few seemed great - 2.4 to 3.2 Ah but then I found one with less than 0.8Ah. I started testing more and found more less than 1Ah batteries. All of the batteries that had come in the same package of 8 as the first low capacity that I found were also low capacity and I have found a few more from other packages too. I hope that this is an anomaly and that more testing won't find more low capacity batteries but at the momemnt I am feeling discouraged.

This is the problem with Lithium AA cells - there is no way to tell a good battery from one that is almost exhausted short of destrutive, complete discharge testing.

I have learned an (expensive) lesson; I won't ever again buy surplus lithium batteries.


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 11, 2006)

Hello David,

Very interesting... I may have to do a couple more rounds of testing.

The cells I reported on earlier were selected at random. I will try some more and see if I can come up with a broader statistical average.

Tom


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 12, 2006)

I have not been very happy with the capacity of a few of the ones I tried as well - they seem to run out of steam pretty quickly.
 is surplus a fancy term for "used"  - no where in the info did they state these were used batteries, yet they also never said they were new... so what recourse do we have?


----------



## paulr (Mar 12, 2006)

I finally got mine (delivered some time ago but I hadn't gotten around to picking up the mail). They're still in a sealed bag. I'm inclined to call the vendor about sending them back unopened. It's kind of a bummer because there seem to be other sources of these same "surplus" batteries. There are also legitimate dealers who sell L91's in bulk packs and now there's no way to tell new bulk-packed L91's apart from these "surplus" ones. So any additional L91's I buy have to be in retail packages, sigh.

I guess for applications like my Fenix light, some variability in the cell capacity is no big deal. I could see measuring 50 cells open circuit voltage and separating out the total duds, then using the rest in the Fenix and if some of them don't last as long as others, it's no big deal. But it would take me many years to use up that many cells that way.


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 12, 2006)

i pre-sorted.. i only did my test at 10ohm or about 1/10A, but i put a pack of 9 into a light that runs an 1166 lamp at about 400L and it's been chugging along just as planned. I suppose those cells are about 1/3 depleated now with about 20-30 minutes of use.. i will pull them out and do a test.. 

there were three distinct groups sorting by 10ohm.. one group that was 1.74+, one group that was about 1.70 and the other group that was clearly below 1.7, even if 1.65.. (oh and two out of about 20 were just duds.. 1.20 etc.. i just threw them out right away). 

the <1.70 models i'll be using in low-drain devices like remote controls.. the >1.70 models going into the hotwire lights, but only at 2A or less.. tried at 3A they are not happy about that.

-awr


----------



## igabo (Mar 12, 2006)

Wow, I feel sorry for the guy who bought 5000 pcs.


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 12, 2006)

Either I am extremely lucky, or David is extremely unlucky...

I did another series of tests last night on randomly selected cells and came up with similar results to that which I previously posted.

I think I got a good deal, but your mileage may vary... 

I am still trying to figure out where these came from. If we could figure out the history involved, we may have a better understanding as to their variable performance.

Tom


----------



## bucken (Mar 13, 2006)

Bad news! I have 2 Arc AA's, so I loaded one with a "closeout" Lithium, and loaded the other with a common "garden variety" alkaline AA (auto store 48 for $5, or something like that). After 12 hours, both were still outputting nearly the same amount of light as the start but, after 24 hours, the "closeout" AA was completely dead while the "garden variety" was still putting out useful light (albeit dim, but still enough to navigate a dark house at night). I would at least expected the "closeouts" to outlast a common, dirt-cheap alkaline. YMMV


----------



## paulr (Mar 13, 2006)

I don't know that lithiums are supposed to outlast alkalines in that kind of application. Alkalines have a sloping discharge curve so they operate at diminished output for a long time. Lithiums have a flatter curve, so the light stays bright til the cell is out of energy. There might be runtime graphs around for the Arc AA on both types of cell. I'd say your test is inconclusive--you might try with a new (i.e. retail) lithium cell, if you want to burn one on something like that.


----------



## bucken (Mar 13, 2006)

paulr,
Good point, I wasn't thinking about that. It's possible that the "closeout" may have stayed brighter longer than the "garden variety". I just let them both run, and only checked on them periodically.


----------



## tron3 (Mar 13, 2006)

Yeah, these batteries are turning up to be less than stella. First, I find two that were DOA. I put two in a mini-fan, and it worked great. Then the fan speed dropped dramatically. "They died already?" No...the one battery suddenly gave up the ghost so I had to pop in another, and now have a battery imbalance powerwise.

So, that is 3 dead batteries and the cost is up 72.5 cents each. Still a good deal if the others hold out, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think I can trust these to operate as multiples. For now, they will go in my portable fan, and occasionally my Fenix L1P.


----------



## StoneDog (Mar 13, 2006)

I had two failures at once. The batteries were placed in series with 6 others in a modamag 8aa to 2D battery holder. Also had similar experience with non-Energizer lithium AA's. Read about it here.Jon


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 23, 2006)

Well, I tested a batch of 64 of these cells. Here are the results.

All 64 cells were tested for dead cells. First with a Open Circuit Voltage measurement and any that passed that with a load test at 0.5A for 1 min. 9 cells were found that were obviously dead.

Of the 55 remaining cells, 33 were capacity tested by discharge at 1 Amp to 0.5 Volt using a West Mountain Radio Battery Analyzer. The capacity values (in AH) are as follows:

(grouped by capacity not test order)

0.13 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.40
0.50 0.80 0.80 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93
1.10 1,25 1.35 1.40
1.74 1.90
2.10 2.10 2.40
2.52 2.60 2.83 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90
3.00 3.00 3.10 3.10

Extrapolating from the 33 tested cells of the 55 presumed good cells, then including the 9 DOA cells and calculating percentages I get:

Dead)..................14%
0.10-0.49 AH).......16%
0.50-0.99 AH).......18%
1.00-1.49 AH).......10%
1.50-1.99 AH).........5%
2.00-2.49 AH).........8%
2.50-2.99 AH)........18%
3.00-3.49 AH)........10%

I calculate that the average capacity of this lot of cells was 1.4 AH.

Assuming that a new Energizer Lithium AA costs $2.25 and produces 3.0 AH under these test conditions then the energy value of the average surplus cells is:
(1.4/3.0)*$2.25 = $1.05

For me though, I perceive the value of these cells to me to be much less than $1.05. The wide distribution of capacity makes these cells far less valuable.

One consideration making these cells less valuable is the effect of using these cells in series. When cells are used in series the capacity of the cells is not the average of the cells but the minimum of any cell. It would be an interesting statistical analysis to calculate the energy content value of a set of 4 of these cells operated in series; it will be less than the 1.4 AH capacity of these cells operated singly.

For me personally, another consideration lessening the value of these cells is the indeterminate amount of energy available from a set. This makes these cells unsutable for use in caving or wilderness backpacking where one is limited in the number of spare that can be carried.

I am not certain what, if any, suitable use I will find for the remainder of these cells that I have.


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 23, 2006)

ewwwwwwwwwwwww!

has anyone contacted excesssolutions about these obviously being pulls from unknown devices and are "*USED*" !? 
:thumbsdow
kinda "tough luck" after a feeding frenzy for just one or two of us to complain about it... but if most of us/collectively complain - maybe we'll get some kind of resolution?


----------



## andrewwynn (Mar 24, 2006)

i had no problem with finding a decent set of 9 to run the 1331 lamp, and it's a sweeeet solution. i've used them for quite a bit and they are running strong. I agree it was a crap-shoot and i've had to filter out some duds but at least 80% have been very usuable so far.. battery space has a decent price for lithium AAs but don't know if they've been tested for real mAH. 

-awr


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 24, 2006)

Hello David,

Let me make sure I understand your findings...

After load testing your cells and finding the ones that held a decent voltage during load (0.5 amps), you went on to test capacity (using 1.0 amp load) and found 19 cells that had less than 2.0 Ah of capacity?

Wow.

Did you observe anything strange on the discharge graphs?

Tom


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 24, 2006)

Yes. After performing a quick screening for obviously dead cells I had 55 cells remaining. I capacity tested a random selection of 33 of the 55 cells. Of the 33 cells that were capacity tested, 19 cells had less than 2.0 AH of capacity.

I haven't had a chance to closely examine the discharge graphs but just from the cursory looks I gave them while the batteries were discharging they all seemed much the same.

I did have 3 or 4 batteries that each experienced a single momentary drop to 0 volts during the discharge but this doesn't seem to have any correlation with measured battery capacity. When I saw the first of these dropouts I wondered if it wasn't some sort of experimental artifact - perhaps one of my cats had gotten up on the table and jostled the battery clamp. But, now I have seen this voltage dropout a couple more times; once shortly after I started the discharge test and while I am fairly certain that the cats were having a mid-morning nap. If it is an artifact it is not due to the test rig being physically disturbed. Also, I wasn't running any virus scanning or screen savers during these tests where I observed the dropouts; still I suppose it could be some artifact of the data acquisition software.


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 24, 2006)

Hello David,

I believe that usually occurs when Windows attempts to shut down things while trying to go into power saving mode.

Tom


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 24, 2006)

> I believe that usually occurs when Windows attempts to shut down things while trying to go into power saving mode.


Except I am not aware of any power save modes that are enabled. Well, I think I do allow power to the monitor to be shut off after about 8 hours of inactivity.

Edit:
But yeah, the more I think about it the more it seems that these momentary dropouts are most likely an artifact caused probably by something the PC is doing.


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 24, 2006)

Update:

I just got off the phone with Phil at www.ztsinc.com .

Their MBT-1 tester can be modified (for around $30 extra) to test these L91 batteries. The down side is that you have to give up one of the original terminals to do this. 

It was suggested that the least used was the 6 V '28' series, and this is a good place to replace it with the AA Lithium Primary battery test.

We talked at length about what we were finding with these cells, and I was informed that professional photographers were using this tester to check new cells and some problems were observed with the new cells as well.

Phil told me that the best test procedure for these cells is to do 2 tests, 5 seconds apart. It seems that this chemistry can fool the first test do to recovery and surface charge issues, but the second test does very well.

I just ordered mine and will use it to check my remaining cells.

Tom


----------



## wasBlinded (Mar 24, 2006)

Too bad they can't make the Mini-MBT series 1.5v Lithium capable. The MBT-1 is $70, and another $30 to modify.


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 24, 2006)

> Their MBT-1 tester can be modified (for around $30 extra) to test these L91 batteries.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



I am a bit skeptical that a tester can discern the remaining capacity in an L91 with any accuracy. From my experience an L91 with 30% charge looks just like one with 90% charge. What type of a metric does the tester produce - is that a set of 5 LEDs labeled 10%, 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% that I see in the picture?

I have a bunch of cells to burn. Maybe when you get your tester we could do a validation - compare MBT results against capacity measured on a West Mountain Radio CBA.


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 24, 2006)

Hello David,

Yes. The output from the tester is an LED indicating the % of capacity remaining.

You can be sure that I am planning on testing the tester. They use a pulse discharge to check for the power available. They then compare the results with extensive test results that are stored in the tester and signal the remaining capacity.

I think of it kind of like doing flash amps over the life of a cell. I am sure there is more to it than that, but that should get you thinking in the same direction.

I was thinking of trying a CBA test based on their two test suggestion. I could test at 0.5A for 30s, shut things down, then do another test at 0.5A for 30s. I will have to see if I can get the second test up within 5 seconds of the first.

Tom


----------



## vortechs (Mar 24, 2006)

twentysixtwo said:


> Will some nut out there throw 8 of these in a Surge and let us know what happens???????


 


David_Campen said:


> We know what will happen. I have done that, not recently though, and the bulb immediately destructs.


 
Hello, 

I haven't used Energizer Lithium AA batteries (L91) much yet. I assume the reason they would blow the bulb on a PT Surge is that the Energizer Lithium's start at 1.7V instead of the 1.5V for alkaline batteries, so 4 in series would be 6.8V instead of 6.0V. How many other lights are known to be vulnerable to damage from using the Energizer Lithium AA batteries??? Are there any guidelines available for what types of devices are compatible with Energizer Lithium AA batteries?


----------



## onthebeam (Mar 24, 2006)

Honestly, folks, I think we're being far too polite here. Just think of all of the labor spent testing these cells, wasting some in the process, and writing about the problems.

Excess Solutions didn't advertise these as used, or in any way as with less capacity/reliability than what we would expect buying these batteries from any other source. A low price is no excuse for a lack of full disclosure of their obvious unreliable condition.

The points made about unreliability in series (more wasted cells) and the inability to trust these cells in important situations of safety (why we often invest in top notch lights), make this a bad deal all around.

The question is, What are we going to do about it? Everyone is rationalizing that we still got a good deal, when we clearly did not. If you cannot trust your cells, what's the point in buying top of the line cells???

I don't think Excess Solutions has dealt ethically with this huge stock because they made no disclosures of any kind to make a buyer cautious.

I'd suggest that we start a petition that we all sign and present as a large and powerful group to the vendor. At that point, we should be in the best bargaining position to ask for full refunds (with return shipping paid for by Excess Solutions) or very large credits for all of this hassle. Let's get together and stand up for our rights!!!


----------



## LitFuse (Mar 24, 2006)

*I tried that, this is what they said...*


Peter, 
You know from our very name Excess Solutions that we are surplus dealers and do not have the same return privileges as a retail store. Please read our policies: 
http://www.excesssolutions.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?category=policies 

I use these batteries myself in my wireless keyboard and mouse, remotes, and the flashes I use to take the photos for the website and even though they may not test as good as a factory fresh battery have lasted longer than an equivalent alkaline battery. 

We had these batteries on the site for over a month before the big rush hit and it was nothing we did. A satisfied customer posted the listing on a user forum that we had no control over and we sold out in two days. 
One customer even bought 5000 batteries. 

You should keep in mind in the future that we are Surplus Dealers, you know 
that batteries usually come in bubble packs of two, four or eight not in 
plastic bags of 50. We are also selling them at 1/4 the cost of what a 
factory fresh packages cost. So you should buy a small quantity, do your 
testing and then order more accordingly. 

*** ****** 
Excess Solutions 

----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter ********" <[email protected]> 
To: <[email protected]> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 5:41 AM 
Subject: Re: e2 Energizer L91 AA lithium cells 


Hello again Ron, 

After testing a wide sample of these cells for votage and capacity, I am finding that they are not performing as I had hoped. Because they are dated 2019, I (incorrectly) assumed that they were as good as new cells. The fact is that they are performing substantially below the level a new "retail" cell, and some of them are DOA. 

You are certainly entitled not to reveal where these cells are sourced, and I respect your prerogative. However, I feel that these cells are misrepresented by being offered with only the date code as a measure of their quality. Between the DOA cells and their underperforming in general, I think you should post some sort of disclaimer on these batteries to the effect that ther are NOT as good as new. 

The bottom line is that I have 370 of these cells (out of 550+) that remain in their packaging, and I would like to return them to you for a refund. 

Sincerely, 

Peter ********


----------



## Sigman (Mar 24, 2006)

I wonder if the Energizer folks would have anything to say about their products being misrepresented? Would these make you want to buy them again from whoever?

I feel taken advantage of...I had no idea someone would bag up "used batteries" or "seconds" or "whatever they are" and sell them like this. I may as well bag up my garbage and try to sell it!


----------



## onthebeam (Mar 25, 2006)

Peter,

I think that with a voice of many, Excess Solutions would be unsuccessful with the strong arm tactics they tried with you.

I don't know i fyou have heard of the Fair Credit Billing Act. But it protects the consumer from fraudulent dealings, as long as the vendor is more than 50 miles away. Basically, the credit card company puts the purchase in dispute, you get a full credit while the item is in dispute. Both parties write their side of the story. In this clear case, I would think that NO credit card company would then side with the vendor--the "Charge Back" would likely stand.

A petition that says we will ALL exercise our rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act, unless a proper adjustment, or full refund is made for those who want it, will certainly get some results.


LitFuse said:


> *I tried that, this is what they said...*


----------



## fieldops (Mar 25, 2006)

I think we were taken advantage of as well. I notice there were no battery disclaimers when they took money from people. Fortunately I only bought one bag because I was a bit uneasy. Since I found 14 of the 50 batteries DOA, I guess the hair on my neck was smarter than I thought. I also contacted them and they said they did not want to hear any more about this issue. They said as far as they are concerned, it is case closed. Nice eh! 

This could be a long thread in C&Js


----------



## drizzle (Mar 25, 2006)

I haven't really wanted to take any action preferring to just keep the batteries and take it as a lesson learned, but I'm starting to get riled up now.

They seem to be saying that we should have expected them to be used. Well, this isn't like buying most other used things. With batteries used means partly _used up._ What if every battery were dead, would they still claim that we should have expected it since they were used batteries?


----------



## greg_in_canada (Mar 25, 2006)

It seems like this is a case of implied warranty of merchantibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty)

A non-rechargable battery should have some charge when delivered to the customer. Unless it was sold as-is.

Greg


----------



## bucken (Mar 25, 2006)

I, too, was willing to take it as a lesson learned, but Excess Solution's responses are totally out of line. Not sure if anything can be done about it, though.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Mar 25, 2006)

FWIW, I've bought NEW batteries from a number of vendors that weren't packaged 2,4,8 but were in fact either in a bag or shrink wrapped. So IMO their claim about the packing being their de facto "warning" is rubbish.

-LT


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Mar 25, 2006)

in the UK we have the "distant selling regulation", for items you buy out of an catalog or over the internet you have 14 days to try it and send it back if you dont like it for a full refund.

if you think this seller has sold you used good, not just surplus stock.

in the UK, you would send him a letter saying that you want you money back or you will be taking him to the small claims court and give him 7-14 days to sort things out. make sure you put "time is of the essence" a legal term.

if after 7-14 days, all i would have to do is go to a small claims court and pay £50 to file a small claim against him.

then a judge would decide whether you had a claim or not.

this is what would happen in the UK.

regards.


----------



## onthebeam (Mar 25, 2006)

bucken said:


> I, too, was willing to take it as a lesson learned, but Excess Solution's responses are totally out of line. Not sure if anything can be done about it, though.



Hi Bucken,

Absolutely, something can be done about it. I'm certain of that. See my post a few above yours. Exercising your rights under the Fair Credit Billing Act by "Charging Back" your purchase is easy to do.

My thought still is that we should start a petition of dissatisfied customers first, asking Excess Solutions for a solution for those who wish to keep the batteries and an alternative solution for those that prefer a refund. It is crucial in my opinion, that WE initiate the proposed resolution. 

At that point, it is easy to charge back the purchase because the credit card company wants to know that you've contacted the vendor and tried to resolve the issue first before going to them.

If anyone else here has ever charged back a purchase, it's easy to do. An important way to protect your consumer rights.


----------



## billw (Mar 26, 2006)

greg_in_canada said:


> A non-rechargable battery should have some charge when delivered to the customer. Unless it was sold as-is.


I believe that the excess solution claim is that their policy is essentially
that everything they sell is "as is." (Though it doesn't actually say quite
that either.) That's not TOO unreasonable, although
it would have been nicer if the status of "disposable" items was more
carefully explained. 

I would expect that sufficient pressure from our community would be
successful in ensuring that they stop selling these entirely. I'm not sure
that that's a particularly useful outcome.

I'm not entirely sympathetic with whoever bought 5000 of them, either.
Presumably they had in mind reselling them at a nice profit; maybe they
still will, with or without additional screening. If I find a good deal and
post news of it here, I sorta expect that it will persued by individuals in
"reasonable" individual-style quantities. Having a vendor buy up the
majority of the stock of that deal for resale is ... greedy (that may or
may not be what happened in this case, of course.)


----------



## greg_in_canada (Mar 26, 2006)

If they said "Up to 10% (20%?) of the cells may be dead or have reduced capacity" then people would be forewarned. Or said "Some cells may be dead or have reduced capacity. Sold as-is." That would be a much better solution IMO.

Greg


----------



## drizzle (Mar 26, 2006)

billw said:


> I'm not entirely sympathetic with whoever bought 5000 of them, either.
> Presumably they had in mind reselling them at a nice profit; maybe they
> still will, with or without additional screening. If I find a good deal and
> post news of it here, I sorta expect that it will persued by individuals in
> ...


If someone bought 5000 for personal consumption, well, I want to party with that dude! :rock:


----------



## gnef (Mar 26, 2006)

i believe it was 4sevens that bought 5000... look at the previous posts in this thread, i'm not sure which post, but it is there.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Mar 26, 2006)

gnef said:


> i believe it was 4sevens that bought 5000... look at the previous posts in this thread, i'm not sure which post, but it is there.



It was 4sevens, he wanted to test them and dump the bad ones. Resell them for a buck with the L1P. Now that all this information is coming out, he is probably going nuts right about now.


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 26, 2006)

Has anyone checked eBay lately...?

Tom


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 26, 2006)

Heh, an ebay seller with a seller name very similar to a certain CPFer is selling lots of 100 Energizer Lithiums for $99. The seller claims though that these cells are new.


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 26, 2006)

Hello David,

Keep in mind that the $0.99 per cell includes shipping...

Tom


----------



## gnef (Mar 26, 2006)

not exactly. he requires shipping insurance, for which he charges 19 dollars...


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 26, 2006)

Hello Gnef,

Oops, I missed that...

Tom


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Mar 26, 2006)

yes i`ve seen the ebay site.

18 lots of 100 to buy.

I wonder if he has another 32 lots avaliable soon. :lolsign:

regards.


----------



## 4sevens (Mar 26, 2006)

Yep... thats me. Every batch that I've sold on ebay I've had to
do a partial refund due to bad cells.  Statistically they have
been between 6-10% duds. The ones in my store are all load tested so
they should be good. The ebay ones are sold sealed in the original packing 
of 50 each. Funny thing is most of the packs only have 49pcs and some of
them even have e2 titaniums (alkalines?)
I've talked to excesssolns and had them refund me 10% for the bad ones
already. I do agree I should not have put the "new" designation on
ebay. Anyway, almost all of the 5000 are gone.


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Mar 26, 2006)

yes i wanted a couple of bags of fifty when the feeding frenzy was on.

but they wanted about $30 to ship them to the UK.

I still don`t think you were robbed at that price.

but it would have been nice if they told you they were not new.

regards.


----------



## 4sevens (Mar 26, 2006)

TinderBox (UK) said:


> yes i wanted a couple of bags of fifty when the feeding frenzy was on.
> 
> but they wanted about $30 to ship them to the UK.
> 
> ...




Yeah I wished that too. My poor wife tests all of them. I got her a nice tester though 

If you're looking for a bag of 50 I saw someone selling a sealed bag of them


----------



## TinderBox (UK) (Mar 26, 2006)

4seven

I`m all out of money at the moment.

your recent sale might have had something to do with it.:lolsign:

thanks for your fantastic service, and help with my finger trouble.

regards.


----------



## billw (Mar 26, 2006)

BentHeadTX said:


> It was 4sevens, he wanted to test them and dump the bad ones. Resell them for a buck with the L1P.


Frankly, with only a little pre-sceening, I think that they'd be ideal for "demo
use" in flashlights. You'd have to manage perceptions and expectations a bit
to keep people from being annoyed, but I never expect the batteries that
come with a "press here to test" demo-able light (or other device) to last
as long as fresh batteries. I don't know whether people would pay enough
more for the included battery to make much of a profit, but it might be
possible to recover the initial investment, and it might work ok as part of
the "advertising budget."

Excess solutions seems to have priced these pretty well. Even knowing what
I know now, it's still temping to purchase some of them. But not for the
critical task sort of thing some CPFers wanted to use them for...


----------



## stjohnh (Mar 26, 2006)

Ok,

Lots of people seem a bit pissed at the failures of these cells, but if any have been watching other threads over the past few months there has been a fair amount of discussion about Li AA cells failing right out of the package. Do a search and you will find a surprising number of comments of Li cells failing immediately or soon after put into service. These cheapies may have a slightly higher failure rate than "New" cells,,, but then maybe not. For example the first post in:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/112319

comments about this.

I bought a bag, and it had 3 out of 50 cells somewhat below "new" voltage, those are certainly bad, and there may be a few others not detected by an open circuit voltage check. But if you look around it appears to me that Li primary cells are just not very reliable.

Holland


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 27, 2006)

> These cheapies may have a slightly higher failure rate than "New" cells,,, but then maybe not.


Not a "slightly higher" failure rate - it is a much higher failure rate.




> For example the first post in:
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...ad.php?t=112319


I believe that this is the first I have heard about Energizer Lithium problems and there were no details in this 3rd or 4th hand report.



> But if you look around it appears to me that Li primary cells are just not very reliable.


There have been reports about various types and makes of cells; BatteryStation L91s, various makes of 123 etc. but Energizer L91 Lithium cells seem very reliable.


----------



## HarryN (Mar 27, 2006)

I am just curious - is there any chance that these are not "real" Energizer cells, but some kind of re-labeled cell ?


----------



## David_Campen (Mar 27, 2006)

> is there any chance that these are not "real" Energizer cells, but some kind of re-labeled cell


Anything is possible e.g. that these are used, counterfeit Energizer cells. It would seem the much more probable explanation is that these are used, real Energizer cells.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 2, 2006)

Hello David,

My tester arrived. I did a check of all the cells I thought were good, and the tester agreed with me. I checked the ones that I thought were "less than good," and the tester agreed with me again.

I have given a few sets of the cells that I thought were good to friends to use in their cameras, and they have not reported any problems at all.

I am at a loss to explain why you are having so much problems with your cells.

Tom


----------



## snakebite (Apr 3, 2006)

anyone with a bunch of these in known condition want to do an experiment?
send me groups of cells that you graded with your methods and 2 new ones as a controll.
i will do an esr test.
or if one of you with a mess of these cells has an esr meter see if the suspects have higher esr compared to a new one.
with an accurate way of screening these they could still be a sweet deal.
pm me if interested.


----------



## David_Campen (Apr 3, 2006)

> My tester arrived. I did a check of all the cells I thought were good, and the tester agreed with me. I checked the ones that I thought were "less than good," and the tester agreed with me again.


This proves that the tester is as good as your other method. How good is your other method; can it tell a cell with 1 AH of capacity from one with 2 AH of capacity?



> I have given a few sets of the cells that I thought were good to friends to use in their cameras, and they have not reported any problems at all.


But you have a West Mountain Radio CBA, you need to burn the cells in that to get quantitative capacity values. You friends results are hardly quantitative.




> I am at a loss to explain why you are having so much problems with your cells.


Could you tell me again, how many cells did you discharge in a CBA and what were the quantitative results?


----------



## David_Campen (Apr 3, 2006)

> an esr test


What is an "esr test" ?


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 3, 2006)

Hello David,

I originally sorted my cells into two basic categories. Those that held around 1.6 volts during my test and those that held around 1.5 volts during my test.

I then discharged 2 cells from each batch and got consistent results from each test. I am getting around 2.6 Ah from those that tested at 1.5 volts and 2.3 Ah from those that tested at 1.6 volts.

When I read about your results, I randomly selected 3 of the 1.6 volt and 5 of the 1.5 volt cells for additional testing. They all tested similar to what my initial tests showed.

Tom


----------



## snakebite (Apr 3, 2006)

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bobpar/esrmeter.htm
i built mine from the kit.
esr is a good indicater of battery condition.
think of it as ac resistance.main use is testing electrolytics.


----------



## LitFuse (Apr 3, 2006)

I'm sitting on a bunch of these, and I'm very interested in a testing solution to "grade" my cells. I considered a CBAII, but it really doesn't seem to offer the type of test that I'm looking for. I want to know the remaining capacity, without using it up. 

The modified ZTS tester has really piqued my curiosity though. If this unit can accurately gauge remaining capacity, then it would be the solution. I already own the tester, and for $30 could have it "modded" to test the L91s. 

Silverfox, can you confirm that capacity results given by the modified ZTS tester are similar to what is seen through discharge testing with the CBAII? I would be willing to supply a quantity of test cells if you are game for the experiment.

Peter


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 4, 2006)

Hello Peter,

I am reasonably confident in my test results, but let's wait to hear from David before we proceed. I am having a hard time believing that he got bags of bad cells, and I got bags of good cells. That may be the case, but I think we need to go a bit further to make sure of what we have.

I have 4 cells in one of my lights and have two friends that are using 4 cells each in their cameras. One friend ran through a set and got the same amount of pictures that he normally gets with L91's from the store. The other friend is about half way through his first set, so it is a bit early to tell for sure.

I am gaining confidence in the ZTS tester and its ability to separate bad cells out. I am not sure how accurate it is on actual remaining capacity. The test algorithm was designed for the Energizer cells, so we don't have to worry about translating the information to a different cell. It should be pretty close. The wild card is still that we don't know anything about these cells.

Tom


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Apr 4, 2006)

SilverFox said:


> The wild card is still that we don't know anything about these cells.




Just curious, has anyone dropped Energizer a line about these? They are certainly interested in protecting their market, ala the Battery Station troubles, maybe they'd be interested in these cells.

-LT


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 4, 2006)

Hello LT,

That may be a good thing to do... I have to get in touch with them about some other things, I will see if I can get any information.

I just checked and it appears they are no longer available at Excess Solutions.

Tom


----------



## tron3 (Apr 4, 2006)

In short, I can't trust these batteries. When I see my buddy at the Rite Aid, I know he will give me his employee discount without me asking. A couple of times I grabbed Lithium AAA's only because he was there. 

I was in a SAM's club and got 12 Lithium AA's for under $20. To me, that was the best deal ever. I get lithium because of the longer life. What good is that if they already have the tops sucked off them like an icecream cone?

Can't wait to get rid of them.


----------

