# ENELOOPS need break-in cycle?



## SangYuP (Sep 20, 2007)

I was just wondering if I need to "break-in" my ENELOOPS by conditioning them several times? I know they were meant to be used right out of the package, but do they get better after several charges like regular NIMH? Thanks!


----------



## Turak (Sep 20, 2007)

In my limited experience so far, I would have to say.....

They don't technically 'need' a break-in cycle, but it sure doesn't hurt.

Here are the numbers from a simple test I just finished today.

The test was done using a Maha MH-C9000 Charger/analyzer. The batteries are from one of the Sanyo Packs with 8 AA's, 4 AAA's, a Charger, 2 C cell adapters, and 2 D cell adapters.

Using the 8 AA Eneloops, I divided them into 2 groups of 4.

This is the first group of 4. First thing was to just discharge them, measuring their Initial existing capacity. Second step was to do a Refresh and Analyze charge. Third step was to do a Break-In charge.

As you can see from below, after the R&A charge, the batteries at least met the stated capacity of the batteries (Okay, one of them is 2 mA low..I'm counting that one as 2000mA anyway). But, the Break-In charge improved them even further.

Compare the first set of numbers to the second set of numbers.

FIRST SET

Batt# - Initial Capacity - R&A Cycle - BreakIn Cycle
---------------------------------------------------

EL1 - 1412 mA - 2014 mA - 2070 mA
EL2 - 1394 mA - 1998 mA - 2044 mA
EL3 - 1414 mA - 2013 mA - 2058 mA
EL4 - 1359 mA - 2014 mA - 2078 mA


SECOND SET

Batt# - Initial Capacity - BreakIn Cycle 1 - BreakIn Cycle 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
EL5 - 1478 mA - 2068 mA - 2150 mA
EL6 - 1477 mA - 2064 mA - 2141 mA
EL7 - 1468 mA - 2057 mA - 2141 mA
EL8 - 1488 mA - 2074 mA - 2169 mA

With the 2nd group of 4. I performed the Initial discharge test. But then I performed a Break-in charge, followed by another Break-In charge.

As you can see the 2nd set has better overall numbers using the 2 Break-In charges versus the first set using the R&A and Break-In charge.

So....at least from this simple test....it appears that a couple Break-In charges puts them at their 'maximum' capacity, a little bit better than a drain and recharge (basically what R&A does) or two does.

Although I would expect that a few more R&A charges would probably also get them up near their 'maximum' capacites as well.


----------



## SilverFox (Sep 20, 2007)

Hello Turak,

Welcome to CPF.

Interesting results. At higher current draws I have not noticed much difference between simply using the cells or running break in cycles on them. I may have to go back and re-visit this...

Tom


----------



## SangYuP (Sep 20, 2007)

Turak,

Wow, thank you for the indepth analysis. I was too excited about getting the ENELOOPS so I just topped them off and started using them right away. I guess I'll just have to use them and charge them several times to get the capacity high like yours...


----------



## oldvultureface (Sep 20, 2007)

Turak:

What version of the C9000 are you using? Mine is a 0G0D01 and the best numbers I got for break-in were in the high 1800's to low 1900's.


----------



## Turak (Sep 20, 2007)

Just double checked. It is 0G0B01


----------



## oldvultureface (Sep 20, 2007)

Thanks.


----------



## VidPro (Sep 21, 2007)

Turak
what was the method for the testing in each situation?

the reason i ask is because a slower discharge rate would be different, and using something like a 900 or 9000 thing would show differerent results, on different rates, cutoffs are reached slower etc.


----------



## NiOOH (Sep 21, 2007)

Yes, please post the charge and discharge currents used in your tests. 
I just finished a R&A cycle on a brand new pair of AAA Eneloops, charging them at 300 mA and discharging at 200 mA on my 0G0E01-batched c9000
I got:
803 mAh
814 mAh

The cells were first discharged at 200 mA


----------



## Turak (Sep 22, 2007)

I used the Maha MH-C9000 charger/analyzer.

I first discharged the batteries using the Discharge mode set at 500mA discharge rate.

Note - In the 'First Set' above....the one where I used the R&A mode one time...the rates were .5A charge and .5A discharge. For both sets the Break-In mode rates were as follows.

I then let them rest 1 hour.

I then charged them using the Break-In mode.

When you select the Break-In mode, the charger asks you for the batteries capacity, which in the case of the Eneloops was 2000mA.

The charger then uses the IEC industry standard method to compute the charge and discharge rates....based on the capacity that you entered.

The charge rate is .1C for 16 hours, so in the case of the Eneloops it used 200mA for 16 hours.

The discharge rate is .2C, so in the case of the Eneloops it was 400mA.

The exact IEC regiment is;

Charge for 16 hours at .1C.
Rest the battery for 1 hour.
Discharge at .2C.
Rest for 1 hour.
Recharge battery at .1C.

A final note.....If you are determining the capacity of a battery, you should ALWAYS use the .2C discharge rate if you are going to be comparing it to other batteries or any of the manufacturers published rates. Otherwise, your results will be skewed and you will not really be comparing apples to apples.


----------



## tino_ale (Sep 28, 2007)

Interesting test, but according to your last post it seems that discharge current was 0.5A for the first set (during R&A) as opposed to 0.4A for the second set (during forming cycle).

Can't this difference of discharge current be the real reason for different capacity readings?

Even if the discharging current was identical, it wouldn't tell us if it is just a slow charge that is more efficient in charging the cells, or if the cells that went under forming have really become better performers.

To know that for sure, I believe it would have been more telling to run :

set 1 :
discharge (read initial charge)
run R&A
discharge
run R&A to read actual max capacity

set 2 :
discharge (read initial charge)
run Forming
discharge
run R&A to read actual max capacity

by doing this 
you would know if forming has any added value compared to a more "standard" R&A, which is much faster. If set 2 has better capacity readings it would mean that forming has really improved their performances and it might be worth taking the time to run it.


----------



## Turak (Sep 28, 2007)

In the tests above;

The first set was a R&A at .5 charge and .5 discharge, followed by a break-in charge. So the last discharge cycle was at .2C (400mA).

The second set was a break-in cycle, followed by another break-in cycle.

I did run a 3rd test (4 batteries - 2 at 1A charge, .5A discharge and 2 at .5A charge, .5A discharge), trying to see whether several R&A cycles would give me the slightly higher capacities (like the break-in test did). After 5 R&A cycles the capacity leveled off around the 2050-2075 mA range. I then proceeded to run a break-in cycle on them, ended up getting another 25-50 mA of capacity (2100-2150 range)....even after the 5 R&A cycles. Surprised me.

So far.....

My experience has been that on ALL 'NEW' NiMh batteries that I have tested.....the 'forming' charges have brought them to thier maximum capacities better than multiple R & A charges.

Also it seems that it almost always takes a least 2, sometimes 3 break-in charges to get the batteries to their absolute maximums. Even the newer 'pre-charged' batteries (i.e. Eneloops, Hybrio's, etc.)

I have tested;

2500mA Energizers
2300mA Energizers
2300mA Ray-o-Vac
1800mA Ray-o-Vac
2000mA Eneloops
2100mA Uniross Hybrio
2100mA Ansman Max-e
LenMar 2500mA NoMem

That's all I had that were new. I had others, but they all had been cycled a few times already and the results would not have been accurate.

I have also tried a variety of charging/discharging currents for the R&A cycles....

charging = 300mA, 500mA, 1000 mA, 1500mA, and 2000 mA.

discharging = 100mA, 200mA, 400mA, 500mA, 700mA, and 1000mA.

With the final discharge cycle ALWAYS being done at .2C (400mA for the Eneloops) or as close as possible.

On ALL of them, the slower charging/discharging resulted in better capacites, although sometimes only marginally.

I am now doing some cycle testing to try and determine how much the charging current affects the overall number of cycles the battery will go through. The cutoff point will be when the battery will no longer deliver 60% of its initially determined capacity.

Specifically, I am currently testing 500mA, 1A, and 2A charge rates on the Eneloops. I am pretty sure I already know what the outcome will be, but want to prove it AGAIN with the newer LSD batteries

I had previously tested (using BC900) the .5A and 1A rates against some of the regular 2500 mA Energizers and the 2300ma Duracells.......the .5A rate was better (more overall cycles) by almost 20% on the Energizers and 14% on the Duracells.


----------



## tino_ale (Sep 29, 2007)

Ok, I didn't get that. So break-in really has some advantage over faster cycle.

I guess it's good to do it from time to time, but honestly, 45 hours is kind of long so there's no way I use that method more than eractically... :ironic:

But it's good to know, thanks for all the info


Turak said:


> In the tests above;
> 
> The first set was a R&A at .5 charge and .5 discharge, followed by a break-in charge. So the last discharge cycle was at .2C (400mA).
> 
> The second set was a break-in cycle, followed by another break-in cycle.


----------



## Burgess (Oct 1, 2007)

_


----------



## SilverFox (Oct 2, 2007)

HelloTurak,

Let me see if I understand what you are observing...

You are using the C-9000. You previously ran tests on Duracell and Energizer cells and found that charging at 500 mA gave higher cycle counts than charging at 1000 mA. I would assume that you were discharging at 500 mA for the Energizer 2500 mAh cells and probably the same rate for the Duracell 2300 mAh cells.

I gather that your test procedure involves charging the cell, waiting 2 hours after the C-9000 indicates "Done" so the charger can complete its top off charge, then removing the cell from the charger to rest for an hour. Then you insert the cell and do the discharge and log the capacity and cycle number. You then let the cell rest for another hour and repeat.

Did you happen to use the "standard" 16 hour 0.1C charge followed by the 0.2C standard discharge to 1.0 volts to form the cells before starting your cycle testing?

Your target for the end of the test is when the capacity of the 2500 mAh cells drops below 1500 mAh, and the capacity of the 2300 mAh cell drops below 1380 mAh. Traditional cycle testing involves re-forming the cells with a "standard" charge/discharge cycle every 50 cycles. Did you happen to do that as well?

I hope I understand your procedure properly...

Using this procedure, you discovered that you could get a 14% increase in cycle life with the Duracell cells and a 20% increase in cycle life with the Energizer cells by charging at 500 mA compared to what you observed when charging at 1000 mA. So, if you got 500 cycles from the Duracell battery when charging at 1000 mA, you were able to get about 570 cycles when charging at 500 mA. Likewise, if you got 500 cycles from the Energizer battery when charging at 1000 mA, you were able to get around 600 cycles when charging at 500 mA.

How many cycles did you actually get?

This is very interesting. Cycle testing is involved and it is difficult to control all of the variables. I have done some, but it is very time consuming, and I often have other things that need to be done.

A couple of side notes...

Sanyo did some testing and observed a slight increase in the capacity of cells that were cycled. This increase happened during the first roughly 150 cycles, then the capacity began to fade. Usually, a "standard" charge/discharge cycle does most of what can be accomplished through extended cycling.

Also, when the Eneloop cells first were introduced, there was very little increase in capacity observed through forming or cycling. I just ran a test on some cells that were from the first batch that were produced, and they did show a slight improvement with cycling. It would appear that the aging process on these cells is now starting to show up. Brand new cells show little capacity increase after forming, but aged cells do. The Eneloop cells appear to cross the line from new to aged in 8 - 12 months. This is a very general observation and more testing will need to be done to confirm this.

Tom


----------



## Turak (Oct 2, 2007)

Hi Silverfox.....

I went back and reread my post....boy did I jump all over. No wonder I am confusing sometimes.

The 8 batteries I listed above were tested on a MH-C9000 using the break-in cycle mode from 2-4 times just to see if the break-in mode, especially repeated break-in mode cycles would increase the capacity. Most of the batteries reached their maximums in 2 break-in cycles, while a couple actually went 3 times....no more increase on 4th attempt.

Started by discharging cell. Then ran break-in cycle. Noted discharge capacity. Ran break-in again. Noted discharge capacity. If necessary repeated. They always finished their top off cycles and in all cases trickle charged for anywhere from 2-6 hours. I know...not exactly lab conditions..but good enough to get the idea.

As for the R&A testing at different rates. Started with new battery, no forming. Ran discharge, just to make sure it was discharged. Ran R&A at various charging rates, keeping the discharge rate the same. After finished, discharged at .2C noting capacity. The slower rates almost every time brought the batteries to a higher overall capacity.

Now here is where i really threw a wrench into the mix....

The previous tests that I had done at .5 and 1 A......were made using a BC900 (model 33 firmware). I didn't have the MH-C9000 yet. So they are not good for comparing their results against the results from a MH-C9000. I referenced them just pointing out that the only difference was the .5A versus 1A rate, which in my opinion was notable.

The totals for Energizers 2500's (chinese made) were; 282 & 302 at 1A and 360 & 340 .5A. The cutoff point was 80% of initial capacity which averaged 2400mA. No forming charges after a certain number of cycles. I also used a very low speed fan blowing across the cells to keep everything a bit cooler. Sorry I can't locate my notes with the totals on the Duracells.

Definitely NOT the most rigidly controlled test environment.


----------



## N162E (Oct 2, 2007)

SangYuP said:


> I was just wondering if I need to "break-in" my ENELOOPS by conditioning them several times? I know they were meant to be used right out of the package, but do they get better after several charges like regular NIMH? Thanks!


Take them out of the package and use them. Run them a few cycles in actual use and they will be as good as they are going to get. Each test cycle is using up some of the cell's life. We can test them to extinction or use them productively.


----------



## SilverFox (Oct 3, 2007)

Hello Turak,

Thanks for the additional information.

I have been going to take a look at this for some time now, perhaps I will make it a winter project...

Tom


----------



## SilverFox (Oct 3, 2007)

Hello Fred,

:devil: My vote is to test them half way to extinction, then use them...  

Tom


----------



## Bones (Oct 3, 2007)

N162E said:


> Take them out of the package and use them. Run them a few cycles in actual use and they will be as good as they are going to get. Each test cycle is using up some of the cell's life. We can test them to extinction or use them productively.



All else aside, these are still NiMH dry cells, which infers that they are still subject to chrystal growth and electrolyte settling over time, albiet at a much slower rate.

Accordingly, a break-in cycle or two would seem to be in order, especially if they're going into a high drain device.

Sorta like a good stretch in the morning...


----------



## Turak (Oct 3, 2007)

Hi Fred....



N162E said:


> Take them out of the package and use them. Run them a few cycles in actual use and they will be as good as they are going to get. Each test cycle is using up some of the cell's life. We can test them to extinction or use them productively.


 
There is definitely some merit (enough that I am a believer) that running a 'proper' forming charge or two on the batteries before they are ever used and then every so often during their life actually will help them perform at a higher overall capacity and give you more cycles out of them during their life.

That would be the main reason why I would go the extra mile.

Look at the test numbers from above. In that particular test, the R&A cycle didn't bring the battery up to the same level of capacity as a BI cycle did. I also did a 3rd test where 5 R&A cycles didn't get the battery up to the same capacity that 2 BI cycles did.

You are correct in that complete cycles are actually using up some the the cell's life. But during the first couple to the first few cycles, the battery is still really just coming up to 'Full' capacity.

Hehe....I do have some batteries that I actually tested their entire life away.....


----------



## N162E (Oct 3, 2007)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Fred,
> 
> :devil: My vote is to test them half way to extinction, then use them...
> 
> Tom


LOL Tom 

I actually have been running them a few cycles before I use them.


----------



## N162E (Oct 3, 2007)

Turak said:


> Hi Fred....
> Hehe....I do have some batteries that I actually tested their entire life away.....


Hi Turak,

You are a TRUE Flashaholic!!


----------



## Bones (Oct 3, 2007)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Fred,
> 
> :devil: My vote is to test them half way to extinction, then use them...
> 
> Tom



Do you suppose that batteries can communicate?

If so, I can imagine a conversation that would go thusly:

"Are you sure?"

"Yes, I've definitely been purchased by SilverFox."

"Very tough luck old sod...!"


----------



## tino_ale (Oct 3, 2007)

Actually, I thought that if you intend to use Ni-MH in high drain application, you shouldn't charge them too slow? I read several times that it's good practice to charge the cells more or less at the same rate as they will be discharged. Like for RC guys, they charge radio's cells quite slowly (more lifespan, mode capacity) but charge the propulsion cells hard otherwise they have no "punch"


Bones said:


> Accordingly, a break-in cycle or two would seem to be in order, especially if they're going into a high drain device.


----------



## Bones (Oct 3, 2007)

tino_ale said:


> Actually, I thought that if you intend to use Ni-MH in high drain application, you shouldn't charge them too slow? I read several times that it's good practice to charge the cells more or less at the same rate as they will be discharged. Like for RC guys, they charge radio's cells quite slowly (more lifespan, mode capacity) but charge the propulsion cells hard otherwise they have no "punch"



That being the case tino_ale, it seems to make the most sense to do both if you want to maximize performance for high drain applications.

When starting with new Eneloops that have been sitting on a shelf for several months, you could start with a few forming charges to make sure the electrolyte is fully distributed and crystal growth is minimized, and then escalate to some (perhaps even progressively) higher ampere charges and discharges.


----------



## TorchBoy (Oct 16, 2007)

Turak said:


> The exact IEC regiment is;
> 
> Charge for 16 hours at .1C.
> Rest the battery for 1 hour.
> ...


This being the case, and given that I've been told the MH-C9000 discharges at a fixed 1000mA using PWM to get lower average discharge currents, does the MH-C9000 really conform to the IEC standard?


----------



## Mitch470 (Oct 16, 2007)

Turak said:


> I used the Maha MH-C9000 charger/analyzer.
> 
> I first discharged the batteries using the Discharge mode set at 500mA discharge rate.
> 
> ...


 
I use a LaCrosse BC-900. If I use their Discharge Mode, their Charge Current is always twice the Discharge Current. That seems to contradict the standard you quoted above.


----------



## SilverFox (Oct 16, 2007)

Hello Mitch,

I don't believe the BC-900 makes any attempt to follow the standard charge or standard discharge used for determining cell capacity.

Tom


----------



## Turak (Oct 17, 2007)

Hello all....

Torchboy;

You are correct in that the MH-C9000 does indeed seem to use a fixed 1A load and PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) to vary the duty cycle which ultimately means that you end up with an 'averaged' current over a period of time.

The merits of using a fixed load versus using a PWM modulates static load could be discussed at some length. In general a fixed resistive type load would be similiar to something like a flashlight, where as the PWM static load would be more like a digital camera.

But, for what they are using it for....it doesn't really matter _that much_. The IEC standard as I have read it does not specify the type of load...just the rate....which is .2C

My simple testing has shown that you get a slightly lower capacity reading because of the PWM loading method versus a fixed reistance load.


Mitch470;

As SilverFox stated...the BC900 does not adhere to the IEC specification for what is commonly referred to as a 'forming' charge. Technically, by strict interpretation of the IEC standard....neither does the MH-C9000, but it's a heck of alot closer.

About the closest thing you could do using the BC900 which is more than adequate is to.......

First Time Use and then maybe every 25 - 50 cycles

Put the batteries in the BC900. Select 'Refresh' mode and leave it at the default of 200mA. Let it go through the charging and discharging cycles....until the display comes back and indicated FULL. Keep in mind that at the lower rate, there is a very slight risk of it missing the termination point. Although, I have two BC900's (v33 firmware) and have not had a single problem yet.


For general everyday Charging using the BC900

I would put the batteries in the BC900. Then set the charging rate to either 500mA (slower and gentler on the batteries) or to 1A (faster but you'll end up getting less cycles out of the battery). Let em charge till the display indicates FULL.


Many will not agree with me here as they insist that you need the .5C to 1C rate. (meant in the politest way) HOGwash.......

*If the charger you are using can RELIABLY terminate the charge at the lower rates* (.2C to .5C), then there is absolutely no harm. In fact it is better for the overall life of the battery. BUT.....if your charger seems to have trouble at the lower rates (i.e. earlier MH-C9000's, BC900 (v32 fw), etc)), then you would want to stick with the higher rates (.5C to 1C).

**NOTE - Watch out for the Energizer 2500's no matter what charger you use, especially at the lower rates.*

The 4 position charger (MQN05) that comes with the Eneloops in the USA charges at 300mA. That is .15C and I have not had a single problem with it terminating the charge so far.

Keep in mind though, it only takes the charger missing termination one time and you will at the very least lose some serious life cycles off of the battery you are charging, and at the worst cook it to death.

A BC900 will typically give slightly higher capacities than an MH-C9000 because it does not rest between the charge discharge cycles.


----------



## Dantor (Jan 5, 2008)

Turak said:


> Hehe....I do have some batteries that I actually tested their entire life away.....



thanks for all the info folks, I've been researching (using links and such) because I just got a new C9000 (OGOE01) and new eneloops and I was wondering Turak, how many cycles you got testing their life away?!


----------



## Tarlach (Apr 11, 2008)

Turak said:


> SECOND SET
> 
> Batt# - Initial Capacity - BreakIn Cycle 1 - BreakIn Cycle 2
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> ...


I recently purchased a pile of Eneloops and a couple of Maha C9000's. I followed this procedure with my first set as it sounded like the best practice. I have not gotten anywhere near this capacity after two break-ins. They still show under 2000mA .
Is this procedure really worth doing, or will the Eneloops build to max capacity over time anyway?

P.S. My Eneloops appear to be 2006 ones also.


----------



## Mr Happy (Apr 11, 2008)

Turak's results are very unusual. I have never obtained test readings as high as 2100 mAh; I typically get results clustered around 1950 mAh with my Eneloops.


----------



## Turak (Apr 11, 2008)

Mr Happy said:


> Turak's results are very unusual. I have never obtained test readings as high as 2100 mAh; I typically get results clustered around 1950 mAh with my Eneloops.


 
So far, all I can attribute the slightly higher reading to is the fact that it is a slightly older Rev. G model specifically 0G0B01.

At one point I had two MH-C9000's, the rev. 0G0B01 unit and a rev. 0G0KA or 0G0K01 I forget the last digit(s). I ended up selling the newer unit.

When I tested the same batteries on both units, the newer unit would come in anywhere from 10mAh to 100mAh lower than the 0G0B01 unit.

I know that at some point MAHA changed the charging parameters which was confirmed by Mr. Chueh. One change was that they lowered the upper V cutoff voltage to 1.47v. Not exactly sure what it was previously set at. My understanding is that it was done because 'some' batteries were getting just a bit too warm when charged at the higher rates.

Now...because of that change alone....the Eneloops do not get as complete of a charge as they did with the earlier units. But, your batteries should last longer due to the reduced heat.

I am not sure of the exact point where they made the changes. I have been told from MAHA and others that there are ONLY 2 real firmware changes the 'F' and the 'G' units. The last 3/4 digits are supposedly just manufacturing batch codes. BUT....I tell ya.....sure seems to be quite a few 0Gxxxx units that give varied results.

I have verified that my 0G0B01 unit does seem to cut the charge off at the 1.47v (which would seem to indicate that it is a 'newer' firmware). BUt, I seem to get the capacities like a Rev. F unit.

Over the last few months, I have now tested a total of 24 'new' eneloops, straight out of the pack. They were 2006 stamped. Using the 0G0B01 rev. MH-C9000 and running 2 break-In cycles on them, I have averaged between about 2010 - 2075mAh. I have had one as low as 1935mAh and one as high as 2170mAh.


----------



## Turak (Apr 11, 2008)

Tarlach said:


> Is this procedure really worth doing, or will the Eneloops build to max capacity over time anyway?


 
I would say it is a matter of opinion as well as a matter of battery longevity.

Technically the battery 'should' build to max capacity over time.....BUT this assumes a few things;

1. That the battery is getting complete charge AND discharge cycles. Contrary to some peoples opinions, NiMh batteries DO develop and suffer from the 'memory' effect or 'voltage depression' as some like to call it now. But it usually can be quickly erradicated by running a few 'complete' charge/discharge cycles on the battery.

2. That the battery never misses a termination during one of its charge cycles. Even a single missed termination can cause internal damage to the battery that could reduce its overall capacity or longevity.

3. That the battery is charged and discharged at appropriate rates.....charging them at extremely high rates (i.e. 15 minute chargers like the Energizer 15 minute charger that pumps a blistering 7A into the battery) AND/OR discharging them at high rates (i.e. Flash Amp testing) can seriously degrade their overall performance.

I am a firm believer in running Break-In cycles on a battery before I use it and then running a maintenance B/I cycle every 25 or so cycles on the battery. I like to get my 1000 or so cycles out of them....hehe.


----------



## pobox1475 (Nov 18, 2009)

Three questions;

A) I just discharged 4 new AA Eneloops @ 400 mAh and Broke-In on C9000. Results 1963-1987. From what I recal this is lower than my previous Eneloope break-ins. Should I rerun or just let them ride?

B) My C9000 is a OGOKA. Is this the latest revision or is my unit missing anything?

C) I intend to charge them @ 800 mAh and dis @ 400 if ever necessary. I want to get long life outta them. Are these rates good for this? 800 is a little over the recommended .3C for reliable termination.


----------



## Mr Happy (Nov 18, 2009)

1950 mAh +/- has been typical for most of my new eneloops on the break-in cycle.

I always charge eneloops at the default 1000 mA setting. It works fine. The C9000 terminates eneloops at max V = 1.47 V, so you can charge at pretty much any rate you like and still get reliable termination. If you have the patience you can charge at 500 mA and get a slightly fuller charge.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Nov 18, 2009)

I recently bought the Duracell Mobile charger (that is highly recommended here) and some duraloops. 
Does the charger I have even discharge batteries? I read the instructions and it doesn't mention anything about it. 

Is it ok if I just charge them up and use the batteries?


----------



## pobox1475 (Nov 18, 2009)

> If you have the patience you can charge at 500 mA and get a slightly fuller charge.


 Even though that falls below 0.3C ?


----------



## Mr Happy (Nov 18, 2009)

pobox1475 said:


> Even though that falls below 0.3C ?


Yes, because the current production models of the C9000 always terminate eneloops on max V = 1.47 V. Therefore you do not have to be concerned about charge rates. (But that does not apply to all cells, only to eneloops.)


----------



## pobox1475 (Nov 18, 2009)

_Cool, thanks M H..._


----------



## Vikas Sontakke (Nov 18, 2009)

How does C9000 know that it has Eneloop in the charger bay? I thought it was not possible for charger to differntiate between an LSD and a non-LSD battery.

- Vikas


----------



## Mr Happy (Nov 19, 2009)

Vikas Sontakke said:


> How does C9000 know that it has Eneloop in the charger bay? I thought it was not possible for charger to differntiate between an LSD and a non-LSD battery.


It is not possible for the C9000 to know it is charging an eneloop, but it _is_ possible for the C9000 to recognize the difference between an eneloop and another type of cell. See this post: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/3156788&postcount=3

Observe how if you draw a horizontal line at 1.47 V the cheap NiMH cell never hits it, but the eneloop goes through it like a moon rocket. Therefore if the charger is set to stop charging at 1.47 V it will stop every time with an eneloop, but it will never stop on max voltage with the cheap cell.


----------



## Turbo DV8 (Nov 19, 2009)

adirondackdestroyer said:


> I recently bought the Duracell Mobile charger (that is highly recommended here) and some duraloops.
> Does the charger I have even discharge batteries? I read the instructions and it doesn't mention anything about it.
> 
> Is it ok if I just charge them up and use the batteries?


 
Charge them and use them, or use them then charge them. Take your pick. If it were me and I had no analyzer to discharge them, I would probably discharge first simply by using them, then recharge. I don't think the Duraloop is going to mind one bit either way, though.


----------



## pobox1475 (Nov 19, 2009)

> the charger is set to stop charging at 1.47 V it will stop every time with an eneloop, but it will never stop on max voltage with the cheap cell.


 _Even more cool. I just took your word without requiring an explanation._


----------



## Vikas Sontakke (Nov 19, 2009)

Mr Happy said:


> It is not possible for the C9000 to know it is charging an eneloop, but it _is_ possible for the C9000 to recognize the difference between an eneloop and another type of cell. See this post: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/3156788&postcount=3
> 
> Observe how if you draw a horizontal line at 1.47 V the cheap NiMH cell never hits it, but the eneloop goes through it like a moon rocket. Therefore if the charger is set to stop charging at 1.47 V it will stop every time with an eneloop, but it will never stop on max voltage with the cheap cell.



But I am reading those graph right, 1.47 is reached at approximately 1750mAh of charge input. Does the graph show NOT fully discharged battery? Otherwise 1750mAh of charge input is lot less than what is needed for a 2000mAh cell.

Thanks,
- Vikas

P.S. I have some really bad cells (energizer 2500) which shoot through 1.47V on my hobby charger, the resting voltage is actually higher than 1.5V. Of course they have no real capacity left.


----------



## Mr Happy (Nov 19, 2009)

Vikas Sontakke said:


> But I am reading those graph right, 1.47 is reached at approximately 1750mAh of charge input. Does the graph show NOT fully discharged battery? Otherwise 1750mAh of charge input is lot less than what is needed for a 2000mAh cell.


Yes, your observation is correct about the charge input. When charging eneloops the C9000 tends to stop early and leave them with slightly less than a full charge. But if you leave them on the charger it will continue with a topping off charge of 100 mA for two further hours after Done appears, which gently brings them closer to full capacity.

It's not all bad though. It means the eneloops will stay completely cool during charging, and the slight undercharge will maximize the number of charge cycles you get from them before they wear out.


----------



## pobox1475 (Nov 19, 2009)

> When charging eneloops the C9000 tends to stop early and leave them with slightly less than a full charge.


 Which contributes to extending their service life, right?


----------



## Mr Happy (Nov 19, 2009)

pobox1475 said:


> Which contributes to extending their service life, right?


Yes, I believe so.


----------



## NeoLoop (Oct 30, 2013)

Turak said:


> In my limited experience so far, I would have to say.....
> 
> They don't technically 'need' a break-in cycle, but it sure doesn't hurt.
> 
> ...



Wow.. if ran BIC 2 can make their cell in maximum capacity than I will try it. Now is BIC 1 .... since last night.. is about 12 hours right now  
hmm... really test my patience. I look it is about 859 mAh right now. is this temporary result will fine ?


----------

