# What's latest version/firmware/model for Maha C9000?



## Face (Jul 23, 2007)

Hi,

I'm thinking about buying a C9000 in the near future and would like to know what the latest revision/model number is so that I can check that I'm not getting an old version.

I saw someone mention 0G0D01 fairly recently - is this the latest? Also, where is this information found? Is it on a label on the bottom of the unit?

As always, many thanks,

Face


----------



## cam94z28 (Jul 23, 2007)

As far as i know, the current revision is still 0G0D01. 

I received one from thomas distributing about 2 weeks ago, and it was this revision. It will be printed on the bottom of the unit near the bottom of the sticker.

I believe the 0F0 revision is the one that had all the problems.


----------



## europium (Jul 23, 2007)

cam94z28 said:


> As far as i know, the current revision is still 0G0D01.
> 
> I received one from thomas distributing about 2 weeks ago, and it was this revision. It will be printed on the bottom of the unit near the bottom of the sticker.
> 
> I believe the 0F0 revision is the one that had all the problems.


I got a C9000 a few days ago directly from MAHA. It is also version 0G0D01.

Eu


----------



## lampthis (Jul 23, 2007)

Just received mine today, revision number on it is 0G0E01.
Wonder whats been changed on it.


----------



## cam94z28 (Jul 23, 2007)

I'm guessing they fixed the bug where cycle 1 (in cycle mode) repeats the same two numbers for the first slot, among other things. If they ever go back to 1 hour wait instead of two between the charge/discharge modes, I'll be wanting a new unit.


----------



## Gazoo (Jul 23, 2007)

lampthis said:


> Just received mine today, revision number on it is 0G0E01.
> Wonder whats been changed on it.



Interesting. The original version was 0FAB02. The first updated version I know of was 0G0B01. Mine is 0G0C01. Now we have a 0G0D01 and 0G0E01. I wonder if the last three digits are date codes, or maybe production runs would make more sense.


----------



## cam94z28 (Jul 23, 2007)

Gazoo said:


> Interesting. The original version was 0FAB02. The first updated version I know of was 0G0B01. Mine is 0G0C01. Now we have a 0G0D01 and 0G0E01. I wonder if the last three digits are date codes, or maybe production runs would make more sense.



If you compare the numbers, the big revision that fixed most of the problem changed the 3rd letter from an A to a 0. The other codes might just be dates.

The E in the 0G0E01 could indicate a May production run. And F/G being the Firmware revision.

If you could confirm whether yours repeats the same two numbers for cycle 1 in slot 1, we'll know if that's been corrected.


----------



## lampthis (Jul 24, 2007)

cam94z28 said:


> If you compare the numbers, the big revision that fixed most of the problem changed the 3rd letter from an A to a 0. The other codes might just be dates.
> 
> The E in the 0G0E01 could indicate a May production run. And F/G being the Firmware revision.
> 
> If you could confirm whether yours repeats the same two numbers for cycle 1 in slot 1, we'll know if that's been corrected.



I just ran a couple of batteries through a cycle in slots 1 and 2. Seems to be behaving as it should as far as I can tell.

What are the two numbers that repeats itself for cycle 1 in slot 1?


----------



## cam94z28 (Jul 24, 2007)

There is a thread that explains it a little better. But i believe, lets say, if 1592 should have been displaying, instead you'll see 1515 for the first cycle in the first slot, in cycle mode.


----------



## lampthis (Jul 26, 2007)

OK, I ran 2 more batteries through 2 cycles in cyclemode in slots 1 & 2. The results shown in the cycle history after the first charge/discharge cycle shows 550 mah in slot 1, and 514 mah in slot 2, no repeating digits.


----------



## Gazoo (Jul 26, 2007)

lampthis said:


> OK, I ran 2 more batteries through 2 cycles in cyclemode in slots 1 & 2. The results shown in the cycle history after the first charge/discharge cycle shows 550 mah in slot 1, and 514 mah in slot 2, no repeating digits.



The original post follows:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1945759&postcount=304


----------



## lampthis (Jul 26, 2007)

I just uploaded this image, it might explain better than I can. As you can see, no repeating digits. By the way, these were 2 year old AAA cells.


----------



## Gazoo (Jul 26, 2007)

I don't believe the problem was with AAA cells. Can you try it with AA's?


----------



## cam94z28 (Jul 27, 2007)

Yes definately try it with AA's. I can confirm that 0G0D01 has this bug. 
I would take a picture if I was running cycle mode right now. 

Another "bug" if you will, is that I often find slot 1 coming in way under the rest of the slots (by 150 mah or more). This is independent of cycle mode. I have probably 20-30 sets of batteries, so it's not just a coincidence. It doesen't seem to happen every time, but definately more often than not.


----------



## lampthis (Jul 27, 2007)

I'm currently refreshing some batteries, but I'll run set of AA's in the morning.


----------



## lampthis (Jul 27, 2007)

Here are the results with AA's, again, no repeating numbers after the first cycle.


----------



## Gazoo (Jul 27, 2007)

If I read Lex Luther's post correctly, it happened on the second charge cycle. I will quote him:

"""Mine first charged, then 2 hour wait, then discharged, then I think an hour wait, then charging (2nd time). During this 2nd charging, if you push the up or down button it will display "1" for which cycle, and the mAh it recorded into memory for the previous d/c."""

I am going to try it and see if I can duplicate it.


----------



## lampthis (Jul 27, 2007)

Hi Gazoo,

2019 mah is what was displayed during "rest" after the first cycle.
It was during the 2nd charge cycle when I took that pic. in post #16.
I also periodically checked it during the 2nd charge, rest, and discharge cycle and did not see any change.


----------



## Gazoo (Jul 27, 2007)

Thank you. I will report back with my results.


----------



## Face (Jul 28, 2007)

Hi,

Thank you for all the replies. I have ordered my C9000 and hopefully it will be with me early next week.

This bug that you are referring to regarding the repeating of numbers. Is this purely a "display" problem or is it something that is actually affecting the batteries themselves?

I'm now off to read through the 4,632,178 posts in the other threads about the C9000 in a hope to learn about the best charging/discharging rates, when to use what mode etc.

Again, many thanks to you all for taking the time to reply to my question.

Face


----------



## Gazoo (Jul 28, 2007)

It is a memory problem and does not effect the battery. It only happens in cycle mode, only in slot 1, and only what is recorded in memory for cycle 1. For example, I cycled two older 1650ma battery 2 times in slots 1 and 4. In memory it recorded 1414 for the first cycle, and ended up displaying 1468 after the second cycle was completed. I know it was displaying something other than 1414 after it went into rest mode ( didn't write it down), after the first discharge cycle. This did not happen in slot 4. Slot 4 recorded 1560 in memory, but is still charging so I don't have the end result yet. 

I am going to do the same test using a set of older GP2300ma cells as soon as slot 4 completes charging, and pay more attention this time now that I know exactly what to look for. I also have a new set of Sanyo 2700ma batteries I will try it with. I am curious if it is only happening between a certain range of reported capacity, like between 1000ma and 2000ma.


----------



## Gazoo (Jul 29, 2007)

I was able to duplicate the bug exactly as Lex Luther did. On the first discharge, the actual capacity reading was 1573ma, and the recorded capacity was 1515ma. However the final capacity shown was 1582ma. This is only happening in slot 1. Sorry I don't have a decent camera or I would take a picture. 

Now I am going to do the test again using my new Sanyo 2700ma batteries. I will report back when it finishes.


----------



## Gazoo (Jul 30, 2007)

Well it happened again with the Sanyo 2700ma batteries. I forgot to write down what the capacity was after the initial discharge. But the recorded capacity was 2525. This was only in slot 1. Definitely a bug, but not one worth the hassle of a replacement. I am still very happy with the charger, and I don't plan on using cycle mode. Most of the batteries I am using are eneloops. The final capacity of the Sanyo 2700ma batteries follow:

Slot 1: 2573
Slot 2: 2576
Slot 3: 2477
Slot 4: 2506


----------



## TorchBoy (Aug 6, 2007)

Gazoo said:


> The original post follows:
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1945759&postcount=304


It was quite a bit earlier than that.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1891712&postcount=142



Gazoo said:


> I don't believe the problem was with AAA cells. Can you try it with AA's?


Actually it was with an AAA that I found the problem. I've since found it happens for any cell when the slot 1, first cycle capacity is written to memory when the second cycle starts.


----------



## Gazoo (Aug 6, 2007)

Thanks for clearing that up. I have read so many threads and posts regarding this charger. But now that you have refreshed my memory I do recall reading your post.


----------



## edc3 (Aug 9, 2007)

I'm itching to buy one of these chargers but I want to be sure that I understand the "bug" correctly. The only problem is with the recorded capacity after the first cycle. Is that correct? When both cycles are finished, the capacity given is accurate? 
If that's the only problem I'll be okay with not waiting for the next version unless it's due out very soon.


----------



## Gazoo (Aug 10, 2007)

Yes, that is correct, and that bug appears to have been fixed in later versions. Read lampthis's post above. Even if you get a charger that has the bug, it is not a big deal.


----------



## edc3 (Aug 10, 2007)

Thank you, Gazoo! I needed that bit of reassurance before pulling the trigger.


----------



## Gazoo (Aug 10, 2007)

edc3 said:


> Thank you, Gazoo! I needed that bit of reassurance before pulling the trigger.



No problem... I am sure you will like it, please let us know. So far I love mine, even with the bug.


----------



## Lyvyoo (Sep 13, 2007)

Hello!
I have two questions:
1. Is possible to update yourself at home the firmware of Maha C9000, like a dvd player for exemple? If no, is really bad because Maha update frequently the firmware of this device!
2. What is the method to read the version of the firmware?
Thx guys!


----------



## jsphang (Sep 13, 2007)

Hi! Lyvyoo,

1. It is impossible for us to update firmware ourself at home. There is no input (e.g. USB, connector, etc...) for this device.

2. The firmware version is printed at the back of MH-C9000. As far as I can remember about the sequence of the firmware (from this forum) is:-
i) 0FAB02
ii) 0G0B01
iii) 0G0C01
iv) 0G0D01
v) 0G0E01
vi) 0G0E02 (This is the version I received 2 weeks ago, but not sure whether it is the latest).


----------



## TorchBoy (Sep 13, 2007)

Phang, I believe some of those model numbers have the same firmware.


----------



## TPA (Sep 14, 2007)

Can anyone identify what the differences with each model/version # are?


----------



## NiOOH (Sep 14, 2007)

TPA said:


> Can anyone identify what the differences with each model/version # are?


 
It seems like the only change was done from 0F... to 0G... So far, all the 0G... chargers seem identical.


----------



## Lyvyoo (Sep 14, 2007)

Thanks for reply, but where you find this info about the latest firmware? For example I want to see what is new on 0G0E02 since 0G0E01... Is something secret?


----------



## TorchBoy (Sep 14, 2007)

NiOOH said:


> It seems like the only change was done from 0F... to 0G... So far, all the 0G... chargers seem identical.


A couple of CPFers have mentioned that the most recent has the cycle memory write error problem fixed. About time. (See this post if you haven't heard of the problem.)


----------



## TorchBoy (Sep 14, 2007)

Lyvyoo said:


> Thanks for reply, but where you find this info about the latest firmware? For example I want to see what is new on 0G0E02 since 0G0E01... Is something secret?


I would have thought that was the least likely two batches to be different to each other. My guess is the 02 just means the second run of exactly the same product, firmware, hardware and all.


----------



## TPA (Sep 18, 2007)

Just received my C9000 from Thomas Distributing yesterday (9/17) & it has 0G0D01 stamped on it.


----------



## varuscelli (Oct 18, 2007)

Just reading over material on the Maha C9000, and I wonder if there's any relevance in the fact that I ordered a one on September 15, 2007 from Thomas Distributing (received it a few days later, maybe Sept. 20) and the number on the back is 0G0B01. 

Think I got a unit freshly dusted off from the back of the shelf? Or are they probably just randomly mixed?


----------



## TorchBoy (Mar 27, 2008)

TorchBoy said:


> It was quite a bit earlier than that.
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1891712&postcount=142


Actually, it was even earlier than that post that I found it, in January of 2007. https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1819181&postcount=249

I've just been sent a new version which I believe doesn't have that problem (I'll have to test it). 0H0AA.


----------



## chewy78 (Mar 27, 2008)

would that be newer than ogoka?


----------



## Black Rose (Mar 27, 2008)

Man, these version numbers change a lot.

I got one two weeks ago that supposedly had the latest firmware (0G0KA) and now see that 0H0AA is out.


----------



## Mr Happy (Mar 27, 2008)

We really won't know the significance of the latest version numbers (if any) until William Chueh returns to let us know.

I guess if anyone has phoned Maha to report the problem of the repeating digits bug and been sent a replacement where the problem is said to be fixed, then we will have some particular milestones in the sequence to go by.


----------



## chewy78 (Mar 27, 2008)

yesterday i got mine that was an ogoka


----------



## Eugene (Mar 27, 2008)

OGOIA on mine


----------



## Bones (Mar 27, 2008)

A reviewer on Amazon, NLee the Engineer, has postulated that the oft discussed characters on the MH-C9000 label are simply a date code, starting with the year, then month, then day.

In the example given, 0G0D01, 0G represents 2007, 0D represents April, and 01 represents the first day of the month.





Presuming 0A0A01 represents 2001 January 01, then the claim seems to have some validity, especially considering that we have only seen codes starting with 0F through 0H, which would represent 2006 through 2008.

Of course, now that the last two numbers seem to have been replaced with a single letter, the latter part of this scheme can no longer apply.

In retrospect, though, I can only recall seeing either 01 or 02 as the trailing digits, so they must have referred to something else anyway.

Perhaps other could chime in on this, especially if they have examples that disprove the validity of this scheme.


----------



## Mr Happy (Mar 27, 2008)

Mine is 0G0D01. Not only are there a lot of 01's about, there are a lot of 0D's too. The 0G for the year could be right though.


----------



## TorchBoy (Mar 28, 2008)

Thanks, Bones, that's the most sensible explanation I've seen yet. I'd say it's YYMMB, where Y and M are the year and month of manufacture and B is the batch that was made (or ordered?) in the month. It would be very rare to have more than 2 batches ordered in a single month.

Which issue fixed the repeating digits problem? Was it 0G0IA?

My 0H0AA (from the first batch in January this year?) has a much brighter screen than other versions I've seen, and it makes them look dim and dingy in comparison. Is that a new introduction with this version? It'll be interesting to see how it lights up a room tonight. Anyone want beamshots?


----------



## Mr Happy (Mar 28, 2008)

Much brighter screen?  Wow. Mine already lights up a dark room like a 60 W bulb. If it was any brighter I'd need sunglasses to view it


----------



## Bones (Mar 28, 2008)

TorchBoy said:


> ...
> It'll be interesting to see how it lights up a room tonight. Anyone want beamshots?



You might want to follow a precaution tonight that I read somewhere the pilots of the B-52 bomber implemented during the cold war, which is to wear an eye-patch.

This was to protect them against losing both eyes if the cold war turned hot, and they happened to be looking in the direction of a nuclear flash...


----------



## TorchBoy (Mar 28, 2008)

Bones said:


> Perhaps other could chime in on this, especially if they have examples that disprove the validity of this scheme.


:thinking: Black Rose has 0G0KA. K = 11th letter of alphabet, which doesn't fit with the original 0FAB01 and 02 units, which came out at the end of 2006.


----------



## Bones (Mar 28, 2008)

TorchBoy said:


> Black Rose has 0G0KA. K = 11th letter of alphabet, which doesn't fit with the original 0FAB01 and 02 units, which came out at the end of 2006.



Unless I'm missing something, shouldn't 0G0KA be interpreted as G = 2007, K = November, A = Batch One?

It's the 0FAB01 and 0FAB02 that defy the scheme.

However, since all the codes I've seen since these two fit, perhaps MahaEnergy changed their scheme at the beginning of 2007, much like they did when they changed the trailing characters from two numbers to a single letter?


----------



## Black Rose (Mar 28, 2008)

I was wondering at one point was whether they were using a hex numbering scheme, but the G and K blew that idea away quickly.

A = batch one makes sense.


----------



## TorchBoy (Mar 28, 2008)

Bones said:


> Unless I'm missing something, shouldn't 0G0KA be interpreted as G = 2007, K = November, A = Batch One?


Yes, of course. Probably.



Bones said:


> It's the 0FAB01 and 0FAB02 that defy the scheme.
> 
> However, since all the codes I've seen since these two fit, perhaps MahaEnergy changed their scheme at the beginning of 2007, much like they did when they changed the trailing characters from two numbers to a single letter?


I don't think they defy they scheme, there have just been two schemes, with the change a few months into 2007. I wonder why they still have two characters for the month though.

BTW, beamshots of the brighter screen posted: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2413737&postcount=356


----------



## Oink (Sep 9, 2008)

I must have the first firmware for this model! Mine is 0FAB01! I wonder if there is a way to return it to get a firmware update


----------



## TorchBoy (Sep 9, 2008)

We've been told the firmware can't be updated but many people have returned their chargers for a newer version after having troubles with termination roasting.


----------



## Oink (Sep 18, 2008)

Paulsfinest (where I bought it from) pushed me off to Maha, who hasn't replied my email in a week. Both scored a minus point in my book.


----------



## Black Rose (Sep 18, 2008)

Oink said:


> Paulsfinest (where I bought it from) pushed me off to Maha, who hasn't replied my email in a week. Both scored a minus point in my book.


Paulsfinest is just the retailer...for a firmware update you have to go to Maha.

I sent a message to Maha quite some time ago about my other Maha charger...never got a response from them.


----------



## Bones (Sep 18, 2008)

Black Rose said:


> Paulsfinest is just the retailer...for a firmware update you have to go to Maha.
> 
> I sent a message to Maha quite some time ago about my other Maha charger...never got a response from them.



For what it's worth, those who speak directly to MahaEnergy seem to have better results than those who correspond via email.

While it doesn't seem reasonable for them to replace a charger because it lacks the updated display, they should certainly be amenable to repair or replacement for termination roasting and, perhaps to a lessor degree, even the repeating digits fault.

MahaEnergy customer support page with their toll-free number:

http://www.mahaenergy.com/store/support.asp


----------



## Bones (Sep 18, 2008)

Oink said:


> I must have the first firmware for this model! Mine is 0FAB01! I wonder if there is a way to return it to get a firmware update



Yours is a first edition Oink.

I have one as well, and I refuse to return it for an update.

I use the well regarded Eneloop MQN05 for most of my charging, but as long as the charge current is set at or above .5C, I find the MH-C9000 terminates reliably as well.

If you happen to be in a hurry, its primary charge cyle also provides a more complete charge before switching to the top-off charge.

Most importantly, unlike the revised models which have a 4000mAh maximum cutoff, the first edition has a 20000mAh maximum cutoff.

I'm hoping to capitalize on this fact by utilizing my first edition MH-C9000, and some sort of adapter set-up, to charge the new Eneloop C & D cells when they finally become available to us deprived consumers outside of Asia.


----------



## bmoorhouse (Feb 8, 2009)

I thought the first and second editions both provided the same primary charge before switching to the top-off charge. Is that not true?

Also, do you have any concern that the top-off charge will overcharge a battery in the first edition (and second, I believe) as the primary charge is so complete?


----------



## Bones (Feb 8, 2009)

bmoorhouse said:


> I thought the first and second editions both provided the same primary charge before switching to the top-off charge. Is that not true?
> ...



As set down in the post that's hyperlinked below, it's my understanding that there has only been the one revision to the MH-C9000's charging protocols:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post2826876



bmoorhouse said:


> ...
> Also, do you have any concern that the top-off charge will overcharge a battery in the first edition (and second, I believe) as the primary charge is so complete?



No, and it's actually because my first edition MH-C9000, which definitely utilizes Negative DeltaV as its primary charge termination protocol, applies the very same top-off charge as the revised edition.

This indicates to me that Maha were satisfied that even cells that have their charge terminated by this protocol can accept the additional charge.

Mr Happy explains it further in a post in another thread, which I've also hyperlinked:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post2825364
.


----------



## bmoorhouse (Feb 9, 2009)

Thank you, Bones. You have been very helpfull.

I originally bought the C9000 for two reasons. First, to ensure the batteries I use in my flashes are fully charged for max performance. And second, to treat them better than cheaper chargers in an effort to get the longest life out of them before needing replacement.

Obviously, for the second concern, the latest version of the C9000 would be better. I have a few questions, however, about the C9000 related to my first concern.

1. As my batteries drain, the flash output drops and the recycle time increases. Assuming a 93-95% charge with the latest C9000, will I see a corresponding 5-7% drop in performance if I don't use the two hour topoff charge or is battery performance not linear like that?

2. Is there any way to know if the C9000 cutoff due to max V or -dV? Some batteries due to manufacture, design, or age will never reach 1.47v. If they stopped due to -dV, than they are 100% already and the topoff charge is not only not necessary but might not be desired. 

3. If the batteries do terminate for max V at 1.47 V, is there any way to know when the two-hour topoff charge is complete, ie when they are their closest to 100%?

Thanks for the help.


----------



## Mr Happy (Feb 9, 2009)

bmoorhouse said:


> Thank you, Bones. You have been very helpfull.
> 
> I originally bought the C9000 for two reasons. First, to ensure the batteries I use in my flashes are fully charged for max performance. And second, to treat them better than cheaper chargers in an effort to get the longest life out of them before needing replacement.
> 
> ...


 It is not linear. The flash recycle time is going to depend much more on the internal resistance of the cell than on the amount of charge. A 90% charged cell with low resistance will likely charge faster than a 100% charged cell with higher resistance. I doubt you would see much drop in performance until the batteries were down to 40% or less though.



> 2. Is there any way to know if the C9000 cutoff due to max V or -dV? Some batteries due to manufacture, design, or age will never reach 1.47v. If they stopped due to -dV, than they are 100% already and the topoff charge is not only not necessary but might not be desired.


 There is not really a way to know unless you are familiar with your batteries. Some, like eneloops will always hit max V, and others will never hit it.

By the way, it is a misconception that batteries that stop on -dV are 100% charged at that point. How charged they are depends on many things, including charge rate and battery quality. They will certainly be _more_ charged, but not necessarily _fully_ charged. Also, the last 5% will not be seen unless you use the batteries immediately after charging.



> 3. If the batteries do terminate for max V at 1.47 V, is there any way to know when the two-hour topoff charge is complete, ie when they are their closest to 100%?


It depends on the batteries. For example with eneloops the voltage will rise to about 1.49 or 1.50 V during the top off, and then start to drop down to 1.47 V or less. If you watch the voltage you can tell.



> Thanks for the help.


----------



## NiOOH (Feb 10, 2009)

bmoorhouse said:


> Thank you, Bones. You have been very helpfull.
> 
> I originally bought the C9000 for two reasons. First, to ensure the batteries I use in my flashes are fully charged for max performance. And second, to treat them better than cheaper chargers in an effort to get the longest life out of them before needing replacement.
> 
> ...


 
If you watch the voltage during charging you will know. Also, cells that terminate on -dV reach higher temeperature. If you touch the cells shortly after the end of fast charge, you will know. In my experience, most cells of good quality reach 1.47 V and thus terminate on maxV. Some cheaper cells do not reach 1.47 V initially,but after a few charge-discharge cycles do. 
Regarding the end of top-off, if you note the time when charging starts it may be calculated. Just read the charging time off the charger and add 2 hours. Another way is to listen to the charger. During top-off the charger makes a quiet but audiable noise like short beeps. After this the beeps become much shorter (maintanance charge).


----------



## jalyst (Apr 1, 2011)

Hi all,

I was wondering if one of the users with lots of experience with this model... 
Can advise which is the best Firmware/PCB revision around, & how I can find/buy it?

Apologies in advance if I'm supposed to post such questions here...
This thread seems dead, so maybe I should be posting in the aforementioned thread.

I will be setting-up my own dedicated thread soon... 
It will pose a no. of questions RE 4-5 of the most prominent smart chargers around.

I've already done *heaps* of my own research... 
But I'm still not 100% certain whether the C9000 is the most sophisticated option.

Hence I'm seeking some more detailed comparative analysis.
But that will be for another thread....

Thank-you.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 1, 2011)

Hello Jalyst,

Welcome to CPF.

The original release of the C9000 had some problems with some cells. Maha made a revision and all the units after that have done very well.

You may be able to find a place to purchase a unit by reviewing the information here.

Tom


----------



## jalyst (Apr 2, 2011)

Hi Tom, thanks for adding your thoughts.

Yes I'm aware of the problems earlier & subsequent fixes.
But there's been no subtle improvements to fw/pcb since, that users discuss etc?

In case some of the much older revisions are still floating around...
Which particular revision/s do I want to avoid?

Thank-you.


----------



## 45/70 (Apr 2, 2011)

jalyst said:


> Yes I'm aware of the problems earlier & subsequent fixes.
> But there's been no subtle improvements to fw/pcb since, that users discuss etc?
> 
> In case some of the much older revisions are still floating around...
> Which particular revision/s do I want to avoid?



Hi jalyst. There has been only one major revision of the C9000 that I'm aware of. That revision happened some years ago. Since then, there may have been some very minor changes in the C9000 charger, but I would not necessarily call them "revisions", per se.

There seems to be a common misunderstanding, as of late, that the "0x0xx" date of manufacture codes represent updated revisions of the C9000 charger. They do not. This "code" is merely the date code, which only represents the actual date of manufacture of that particular charger, and has nothing to do with firmware revisions.

Dave


----------



## jalyst (Apr 2, 2011)

Thanks for the input Dave, tis appreciated.



45/70 said:


> Hi jalyst. There has been only one major revision of the C9000 that I'm aware of. That revision happened some years ago.



Yes I recall reading snippets about this major revision & the problems that predated it, still trying to find the original/main thread/s.



> Since then, there may have been some very minor changes in the C9000 charger, but I would not necessarily call them "revisions", per se.


What changes were involved, are there any threads devoted to the discussion of this?



> There seems to be a common misunderstanding, as of late, that the "0x0xx" date of manufacture codes represent updated revisions of the C9000 charger. They do not. This "code" is merely the date code, which only represents the actual date of manufacture of that particular charger, and has nothing to do with firmware revisions.


I see, so if I get one with a recent manufacture date (say 2011)... 
Then I can be certain I've got one which incorporates that major revision, & subsequent minor revisions.

Do you know of any retailers that present the manufacture date of the C9000 they're selling? (I'm in Australia)

Thank-you.


----------



## jalyst (Apr 2, 2011)

*45/70* or anyone? 
Sorry for bumping so soon, extremely strapped for time lately.
Thank-you!

*edit*
I've now started my own dedicated thread here


----------



## 45/70 (Apr 2, 2011)

jalyst said:


> Yes I recall reading snippets about this major revision & the problems that predated it, still trying to find the original/main thread/s.



Hi jalyst. I see you've already found one of the C9000 threads. There is at least one other main one that is similar, maybe more. As VidPro suggested in one of the other threads, just do a search using the "CPF only" Google search and you should be able to find them.



> What changes were involved, are there any threads devoted to the discussion of this?


As for the minor changes that have occurred that I said I wouldn't call actual "revisions", since the first major revision, the only one I can think of at the moment is that the AAA negative contacts have been slightly redesigned two or three times. As I said, I don't really qualify this as a "revision". If there were any other changes, they were just as subtle, and mentioned in the main C9000 threads.



> I see, so if I get one with a recent manufacture date (say 2011)...
> Then I can be certain I've got one which incorporates that major revision, & subsequent minor revisions.


You would have to go back at least four years to find one of the original unrevised C9000's. I once had a 0F0xx. These were really no different than the 0H0FA, or the 0I0IA that I now have, excepting the AAA negative contacts. I seriously doubt, as popular as these chargers are, that any retailer would have any stock of the original C9000's. It is interesting to note that some people actually prefer the original C9000, as it supports cells with a capacity of up to 20,000 mAh in all modes, compared to the revised version's 4000mAh maximum. Also note that the online C9000 manual, and most of the included manuals up to a year or so ago anyway, apply only to the original unrevised C9000's. These manuals do not address the effects of the major revision that occurred earlier on, unfortunately.



> Do you know of any retailers that present the manufacture date of the C9000 they're selling? (I'm in Australia)


As I said before, I doubt that any retailers here, or down under, still have any of the original C9000's in stock. It's been a long time since they were around.

Dave


----------



## jalyst (Apr 3, 2011)

45/70 said:


> If there were any other changes, they were just as subtle, and mentioned in the main C9000 threads.



Bummer, I was hoping there's a thread focusing only on revisions & their improvements -if any.
I guess I'll just have to find the dozens of individual threads, subscribe to, & read them all!?!

Anyway I'll make sure I get a *K0*?*0*?....
Then I can be sure that all the tiny revisions done from 2006-2010 will be incorporated!
Including any minor regressions if any, "touch wood!" :|



> It is interesting to note that some people actually prefer the original C9000, as it supports cells with a capacity of up to 20,000 mAh in all modes, compared to the revised version's 4000mAh maximum.


Sux that they removed that from newer revisions, obviously a cost/quality cutting exercise!?
Supporting cells with a capacity up to 20k mAh, why is this a valuable feature for some?
If I were to obtain one of the original c9000's, I'd have to put up with it's other issues, do they outweigh this lost feature?



> Also note that the online C9000 manual, and most of the included manuals up to a year or so ago anyway, apply only to the original unrevised C9000's. These manuals do not address the effects of the major revision that occurred earlier on, unfortunately.


Why does that matter?



> As I said before, I doubt that any retailers here or down under, still have any of the original C9000's in stock. It's been a long time since they were around.


Yes but it'd still be nice to know manufacturing dates/codes to avoid, just in case there's still some floating around!


----------



## jalyst (Apr 3, 2011)

45/70 or anyone? ^ Thank-you!


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 3, 2011)

Hello Jalyst,

One of the best features of the C9000 is the ability to do a Break In that closely approximates the same test that the battery manufacturers use for determining the capacity of their cells. Keep in mind that cells that are re-labeled can state any capacity they think will sell, but if you can get back to the original manufacturers data sheet you can find what the capacity of the cells actually tested at. Since many times there is no access to the data sheet, and often the capacities are listed as "optimistic," this feature allows you to see where you stand with a particular brand of cells.

The original C9000 had a timer set to allow you to do a break in on sub C, C, and D sized cells. You would have to come up with an adapter to do this, but it would be a great feature to have. This is where the 20000 mAh limit came from.

Unfortunately, many people try to use cells that are marginal. One of the main problems with marginal cells is that they don't give a clean -dV indication. If the charger is depending upon the -dV signal to terminate the charge, and it doesn't get it, it just continues to charge the cell. With a maximum charge current of 2000 mA, you can generate a lot of heat in the cell if the termination is missed.

This happened with the original C9000. In order to correct this, Maha did two things. The first was to terminate the charge on -dV, or on reaching a maximum voltage of 1.47 volts. The other was to drop the maximum charge timer to 4000 mAh. This way it is nearly impossible to overcharge a cell.

The C9000 offers a wide variety of charging rates. This gives you lots of opportunity to screw up by choosing a rate that is not suitable for the termination used by the charger. The change "dumbed" down the charger so you can use any charge rate and not run into problems... most of the time. It is not unusual to have chargers miss terminations. Most chargers don't have the capability to quickly cook your cells, so when they miss the termination, they just continue charging until the timer times out and your cells only suffer mild abuse. Some of the charging rates that you can select with the original C9000 would be fine for charging, but if the termination was missed, the heat generated would melt the wrappers off of the cells. 

While this mostly occurred with marginal cells, there were a couple of times when it happened with quality cells as well. Since this revision there have only been a couple of reports of missed terminations, and no reports of melting cell wrappers. 

I have two units that are in constant use and I am very pleased with their performance. One is a OF and the other is a OG. Since there hasn't been any changes, I would expect your OK unit to work well.

The OF was the original unit, but mine was modified to incorporate the change and I was a beta tester of the unit after the change in termination. I may have the only OF unit that has the modification, but I don't know that for sure.

It will be interesting to see how your older (perhaps marginal) cells do in the C9000. Keep us posted.

Tom


----------



## 45/70 (Apr 3, 2011)

SilverFox said:


> The OF was the original unit, but mine was modified to incorporate the change and I was a beta tester of the unit after the change in termination. I may have the only OF unit that has the modification, but I don't know that for sure.



Hi Tom. I believe I originally had a 0F0xx unit that was the revised version. I don't remember the last two digits, but am pretty sure it was a 0F0. Maybe it was one of the last 0F's, but it worked identically to my 0H and 0I units. Then again, maybe it was a 0G0xx and I remember incorrectly. I sent it back to Maha because the display crapped out under warranty, so I don't have it anymore.

jalyst, I think Tom covered all the modifications that were done during the first revision, but one. Tom, you forgot about the 50 Watt HID back light for the LCD display! And jalyst, it is important to note that all of these modifications happened at the same time, ie, they didn't happen over a period of time but rather all in the same revision.

*EDIT:* After looking around a bit, I found the post where I mentioned my LCD display had gone bad. I also mentioned the revision of the charger. It was actually a 0G0IA. My mistake!:candle:

Dave


----------



## Mikl1984 (Apr 3, 2011)

After visible modifications in FW during last 5 years we saw 9!!! revisions of PCB for example
Maha-MH-C9000-Disassembled


----------



## 45/70 (Apr 3, 2011)

Oops! I was wrong. The first C9000 I had was an 0G0IA. I edited my previous post.

Dave


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 3, 2011)

Hello Mikl1984,

So, in function what is the difference between version 8 and version 9?

Tom


----------



## Mr Happy (Apr 3, 2011)

SilverFox said:


> So, in function what is the difference between version 8 and version 9?


I think it's difficult to figure this out without having both examples in hand and doing a detailed analysis of the differences. It is not unusual for circuit boards to go through revisions during production, and there might not necessarily be any functional differences implied. It might be, for instance, that one or two components had be swapped out for equivalents from a different source due to availability. However, I do recall that the shape of the negative battery clip for AAA cells was changed at some point, and this might be one reason for a revision.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 3, 2011)

Hello Mr Happy,

I totally agree.

As much scrutiny as the C9000 gets and as often as it gets put under the magnifying glass, if there were functional differences I would expect them to be "discovered."

I would also expect Maha to announce a major revision and use that as a sales effort. I also believe that they have documented that they do minor revisions and those are not announced because their minor revisions don't impact the base functionality of the unit.

I would love to see an upgrade, but as is it works pretty good.

Tom


----------



## 45/70 (Apr 3, 2011)

I'll say this again, perhaps a bit more clearly. I've had, at different times, one 0G0IA alongside two 0H0FA's and now, these same two 0H0FA's working alongside a single 0I0IA, performing various C9000 functions with 10 identical cells at a time, and there is no difference in how they work. There may in fact be PCB revisions, but as Mr H suggested, they apparently do not affect how these four chargers actually work, as all four have performed identically.

Dave


----------



## Mikl1984 (Apr 4, 2011)

SilverFox said:


> So, in function what is the difference between version 8 and version 9?


Function store in FW 
I am pretty sure that main target of last redesign was high freq noise reported before 
In 0J0 with REV9 PCB this issue was disappear


----------



## jalyst (Apr 4, 2011)

SilverFox said:


> <SNIP>Tom



Tom, thanks for the wonderfully in depth explanation, tis very much appreciated.
So were you a bit pissed that you had to get your original c9000 "modified"? 
From what you explained, it sounds like the original was only an issue if one had no clue what they were doing!
For the more technically adept/informed, it shouldn't have been an issue.



45/70 said:


> Tom, you forgot about the 50 Watt HID back light for the LCD display! And jalyst, it is important to note that all of these modifications happened at the same time, ie, they didn't happen over a period of time but rather all in the same revision. Dave



Okay thanks very much Dave.


----------



## jalyst (Apr 4, 2011)

Mikl1984 said:


> After visible modifications in FW during last 5 years we saw 9!!! revisions of PCB for example
> Maha-MH-C9000-Disassembled



Are you saying you've seen visible modifications to the firmware & 9 revisions to the PCB since release?
So what fixes or improvements have come about as a result?



Mr Happy said:


> I think it's difficult to figure this out without having both examples in hand and doing a detailed analysis of the differences. It is not unusual for circuit boards to go through revisions during production, and there might not necessarily be any functional differences implied. It might be, for instance, that one or two components had be swapped out for equivalents from a different source due to availability. However, I do recall that the shape of the negative battery clip for AAA cells was changed at some point, and this might be one reason for a revision.



This is true, not all revisions -fw or otherwise- will necessarily improve functionality.
There may just be firmware or hardware "bug fixes" ...

Or just different components sourced because original supplier is not available.
Which -for transparency- has to be reflected in a new revision.



SilverFox said:


> I would also expect Maha to announce a major revision and use that as a sales effort. I also believe that they have documented that they do minor revisions and those are not announced because their minor revisions don't impact the base functionality of the unit.



Can you recall where you saw this documentation of theirs?
Were they referring only to revisions of PCB or both PCB & firmware?

As there's only tiny fixes they're occasionally doing...
I can see why they don't bother rolling them into one heavily marketed "major new release".

Some fixes are bound to affect base functionality surely. 
But they wouldn't necessarily make a big deal out of that.



45/70 said:


> I'll say this again, perhaps a bit more clearly. I've had, at different times, one 0G0IA alongside two 0H0FA's and now, these same two 0H0FA's working alongside a single 0I0IA, performing various C9000 functions with 10 identical cells at a time, and there is no difference in how they work. There may in fact be PCB revisions, but as Mr H suggested, they apparently do not affect how these four chargers actually work, as all four have performed identically.



Shame you don't still have the OG to compare more closely to your others.
It's possible there's been subtle hw/fw revisions between 0H0FA & 0I0IA.
But they may not be changes that impacted base functionality in any way.
It's also possible that there no fw or hw revisions at all during that time.


----------



## billcushman (Apr 4, 2011)

The Maha C9000 is a mature product. I own two C9000s that were originally the very first version and those were cheerfully replaced by Maha with the revised version at no cost including free S & H, when the revised units were available. These units have performed flawlessly for over four years. 

Most electronic product manufacturers continually revise their products. This may be caused by parts availability, cost reduction, problem elimination, and many other factors. Detailed information is often not provided to customers or support personnel. The newest version is not necessarily the most desirable.

Buy your Maha C9000s from a reputable supplier. In the rare event you have a problem, you should have no difficulty getting it resolved to your satisfaction.


----------



## 45/70 (Apr 4, 2011)

jalyst said:


> Shame you don't still have the OG to compare more closely to your others.
> It's possible there's been subtle hw/fw revisions between 0H0FA & 0I0IA.
> But they may not be changes that impacted base functionality in any way.
> It's also possible that there no fw or hw revisions at all during that time.



Hi jalyst. The point I was making is that all four of these chargers work(ed) identically. I purchase AA cells in sets of 20. Having three C9000 chargers, I can perform maintenance on 10 cells at a time. This gives me two slots left over if I should need to charge up one or two cells during a "Break-In", or whatever.

As I said the oldest charger worked the same as the two middle aged ones, and the newest one the same as the two middle aged ones. So, deductively, one can reason that the the oldest performed identically to the newest one.

As for the newer C9000's, as far as I know, the 0J and 0K chargers are identical, as well. It is only the very first run of the C9000 chargers (0F0xx, or among those I guess) that worked differently. There of course, as has been mentioned, have been some minor mechanical differences, but all the C9000 chargers since the first and one and only firmware revision, that I am aware of, work exactly the same, as far as the characteristics of the firmware is concerned. That is to say that a 0G0xx C9000 will function identically to a 0K0xx C9000, so I wouldn't worry too much about which specific date code a "new" C9000 has on it, provided it's not a 0F0xx. As I said, it's very unlikely you would run into one of these for sale "new" nowadays.

Dave


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 4, 2011)

Hello Jalyst,

Actually another issue surfaced. The original units termination method had a tendency to heat the cells to a higher temperature even when everything was working normally. The revision reduced that heating.

Since NiMh chemistry is sensitive to damage from heat, the modification made sense to me.

Tom


----------



## jalyst (Apr 4, 2011)

SilverFox said:


> Actually another issue surfaced. The original units termination method had a tendency to heat the cells to a higher temperature even when everything was working normally. The revision reduced that heating.
> Since NiMh chemistry is sensitive to damage from heat, the modification made sense to me.



Ah i see, 
So "on the whole" you would've been happy they took that 20k mAh functionality away.
Given what they fixed in return 

Cheers


----------



## jalyst (Apr 5, 2011)

@Tom ^
Am-i-rite or am-i-wrong, or am-i-rite?


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 5, 2011)

Hello Jalyst,

You are wrong...

I am happy that they addressed the "issues" we were having with some cells. I think it made the charger that much more solid and trustworthy.

I have never viewed the C9000 as a "do it all" charger. It is excellent for AA cells, and really good for AAA cells. I have another charger to deal with other sized cells, and I have test equipment that allows me to verify the health of cells. The change in the maximum charge timer had no effect on me at all, so I don't view it as having something taken away from me, or as any functionality being removed.

Tom


----------



## jalyst (Apr 5, 2011)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Jalyst, You are wrong...



Don't you mean my understanding was right?
This is what I said in my last post:



jalyst said:


> Ah i see,
> So "on the whole" you were happy they took that 20k mAh functionality away.
> Given what they fixed in return





> I have another charger to deal with other sized cells, and I have test equipment that allows me to verify the health of cells.


Cool, what's the other charger and test equipment you use?

Thanks mate.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 5, 2011)

Hello Jalyst,

If you read what you wrote and what I wrote you will see that your emphasis seems to be that they took something away, while my emphasis is that they improved the charger. "On the whole" I am pleased with the improvement, but it has nothing to do with the maximum capacity timer.

I use my Schulze charger for other size cells, other chemistries, and for battery packs. I use the CBA from West Mountain Radio for cell testing.

Tom


----------



## jalyst (Apr 6, 2011)

But they did take some functionality away, & as you say they also fixed some nasty bugs.

And now that i understand what that functionality was, & the nature of the bugs corrected.
Given the choice between the two, I -like you- would also take the latter...

If you don't mind my asking....
What's the model names of the Schulz charger & the CBA?

Thanks!


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 6, 2011)

Hello Jalyst,

Once again you are wrong...

The purpose of the C9000 is to charge AA and AAA cells. By modifying the termination algorithm, they improved the functionality of the charger. It is now more tolerant of a wider range of cells that may be in poorer condition.

I think the word you may be looking for is capability.

By reducing the maximum charge timer value, the capability of the charger to do damage to a cell, in the event of missed termination, has been reduced. Since this is a desired feature, the functionality of the unit has actually been increased...  

The Schulze is the isl 6-330d RS. The CBA started out as the original, but has been revised several times. I think if you were to purchase a new on you would get version 3.

Tom


----------



## Bright+ (Apr 6, 2011)

Did they correct the current regulation mechanism?

When you put it in 100mA discharge, the charger simply pulsed 1A for 10% cycle, but took "flash voltage reading" under load and caused high impedance cells to read "done" even if they work just fine on real 100mA load for a long time, because the read voltage represents voltage at 1A load.


----------



## Mikl1984 (Apr 6, 2011)

Bright+ said:


> Did they correct the current regulation mechanism?


No 
The same PWM 1A and the same behavior on 0.1/0.5/1A 
If you need normal discharge look at hobby charger (my choice is iCharger)


----------



## jalyst (Apr 6, 2011)

SilverFox said:


> The Schulze is the isl 6-330d RS. The CBA started out as the original, but has been revised several times. I think if you were to purchase a new on you would get version 3.



LOL okay, I won't bother getting further into semantics.
C9000 on it's way, Feb 2011 batch 2 model.
Thanks Tom/everyone for the thoughts!


----------



## jdmc (Dec 10, 2011)

As I mention somewhere else at this forum......Another happy owner just to let everybody know interested in the numbers on the back...bought mine last month (nov '11) and with this batch: *0K0IA*


----------



## Lyubo Yanev (Jan 25, 2012)

Recieved mine today: *0K0GA*. I'm so happy :laughing:


----------



## jayflash (Jan 25, 2012)

The 1A pulsed discharge explains some measurement irregularities with some older cells. May I assume the LaCrosse BC-900 & newer 700 also pulses the discharge load?


----------



## shelm (Jan 25, 2012)

jdmc said:


> bought mine last month (nov '11) and with this batch: *0K0IA*


bought mine this month (jan '12) and with this batch: *0K0GA*

( i guess that jdmc's is from a newer batch!! but what exactly does that mean? is his firmware different from mine? )


----------



## JudasD (Jan 26, 2012)

I just received a C9000 the other day. It is a 0K0IA. Did i win anything? 

JD


----------



## chewy78 (Jan 26, 2012)

JudasD said:


> Did i win anything?
> 
> JD


 check your pockets


----------



## 45/70 (Jan 26, 2012)

As has been mentioned in other C9000 threads, the code on the back of the C9000 is a date of manufacture code, and nothing else. As far as I know, there has been only one revision of the C9000's firmware. This occurred back in 2005, or 2006 and I don't believe there have been any further revisions since. The PCB boards have changed, as well as various other components, but the firmware has remained unchanged for years.

Dave


----------



## shelm (Jan 26, 2012)

a friend forwarded a recent reply info email to me, which confirms 45/70's statement (thanks!). the message is a little unclear (mostly due to the *** :shakehead English) but whaddya gonna do?  



technical support ©2012 Maha Energy COI said:


> Hi XXX,
> 
> 
> Thank you for contacting Maha. The codes in the back are merely lot
> ...



Btw, is lot number a real English word? Couldnt find it in OALD.


----------



## bruintennis (Jan 26, 2012)

I'll have to check mine when I get home to see what version it is.


----------



## jayflash (Jan 26, 2012)

The 9000 which I recently purchased allows adjustment by 100mA, up or down, with a 2500mA charging limit. Were earlier models similar?


----------



## Mr Happy (Jan 26, 2012)

shelm said:


> Btw, is lot number a real English word?



It's two words. "Lot" being "a number of units of an article" or "a group of things" in this usage. "Lot number" is therefore the number of a particular lot, or unit of production.


----------



## shelm (Jan 26, 2012)

Thanks Mr Happy for the explanation! Now i am thinking that the Maha email makes _some _sense. Finally. Happy myself 

that is good news for all buyers who got a lot number other than 0F???, i.e. the good ones are 0G???, 0H???, 0I???, 0J???, and 0K???.


----------



## shelm (Jan 26, 2012)

jayflash said:


> The 9000 which I recently purchased allows adjustment by 100mA, up or down, with a 2500mA charging limit. Were earlier models similar?


SilverFox wrotehttp://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...ger-Comparison&p=814177&viewfull=1#post814177 in 2007:


SilverFox said:


> 4/5/07 I have also added the results for the * Maha C9000 Wizard One * charger/analyzer. The original version had some issues with termination and has been superseded by the improved version. This unit is giving the BC-900 a lot of competition, and offers a lot more flexibility.
> 
> You have to program each slot independently, and have charge rates ranging from 200 mA to 2000 ma in 100 mA steps, and discharge rates ranging from 100 mA to 1000 mA in 100 mA steps. You can use the Refresh/Analyze function to charge/discharge/charge your cells with a read out of the capacity on a large back-lit display. You can run up to 15 cycles selecting the charge and discharge rates you want. You can do a discharge only. This function even works with Alkaline cells, but is not recommended.


----------



## JudasD (Jan 27, 2012)

jayflash said:


> The 9000 which I recently purchased allows adjustment by 100mA, up or down, with a 2500mA charging limit. Were earlier models similar?



2500mA limit? Are you sure it's not 2000mA?

JD


----------



## shelm (Jan 27, 2012)

the limit is 2000mA, i've checked my printed 2011 manual and also the apparatus itself. i cant go higher than 2000mA.

errare humano est


----------



## jayflash (Jan 27, 2012)

JudasD said:


> 2500mA limit? Are you sure it's not 2000mA?
> 
> JD



My mistake, thanks for the correction.


----------



## JudasD (Jan 27, 2012)

jayflash said:


> My mistake, thanks for the correction.



No worries. i was just making sure in case there was a new version 

JD


----------



## 45/70 (Jan 28, 2012)

jayflash said:


> The 1A pulsed discharge explains some measurement irregularities with some older cells. May I assume the LaCrosse BC-900 & newer 700 also pulses the discharge load?



Hey Jay, meant to address this earlier. As I recall, the La Crosse chargers run a pulsed 500mA during discharge. This lower rate does lead to them to giving more optimistic capacity results, when compared to the Maha.



> Were earlier models similar?



The biggest difference in the one and only firmware upgrade to the C9000, was that the maximum charge was limited to 4000mAh, instead of 20,000mAh (not so good for charging D cells via adapter), and I believe the 1hr/2hr wait times were changed, I forget how though. There may have been some other minor change, as well. My memory is fading.

Unrelated to the firmware update, but occurred at the same time, was the LCD back light was changed from a 10mW LED to the now famous 50 Watt HID.

Dave


----------



## bruintennis (Feb 2, 2012)

Lyubo Yanev said:


> Recieved mine today: *0K0GA*. I'm so happy :laughing:



Mine is same OKOGA. Purchased 1/2012.


----------



## Schermann (Aug 23, 2012)

About two weeks ago I purchased my C9000 based on the advice on this forum. My lot code is 0L0EA, that being the Australian designator of the latest firmware to date. It does everything it's supposed to do without any of the past issues, at least so far. I am a little frustrated by the HIGH voltage rejection value of < 2.0001 volts but then again the dumb slow charger 250ma that comes with a 4 pack of Eneloop AA's deals with that after a 100ma MH discharge. The C9000 is fun the play with and who said "as boring as watching batteries charge"!


----------



## NeoLoop (Oct 30, 2013)

Today I bought MH-C9000, the production code is 0M0EA, unfortunately in Indonesia, I only got 1 year warranty. I had complain to MAHA Energy in USA & Thailand & Indonesia of course, they said that depend on policy distributor each country. Even in upside box they put sticker "Garansi Resmi 1 Tahun" translated : *1 Year Official Warranty* but inside the box the english manual printed *Three Year Limited Warranty*. So shame, the big company MAHA Corp. can not made universal warranty so they made customer unsatisfied & doubt about the quality & specification of product that market in Indonesia, even MAHA Engergy Technical support make sure there are identical product. As customer that bought with the same price ~ $60 (to be frankly that is very expensive price its a much of money) and only got 1 year warranty when something happen on second or third year, so I must spent more money for repair that should have been free of charge, I'm very disappointed. Beside that, the discount warranty up to 66% (I only got 1 Years) is make me & i'm sure other customer become JEALOUS & SUFFER a FINANCIAL LOSS. The reason about different policy depend on distributor doesn't make a sense, it is something wrong :thinking: that i can't accept in my mind. This is not only happen on this case, other ex. like computer motherboard GigaByte (5 Year warranty) & other electronic that import form other country Indonesia distributor or importer always put *BIG* discount up n remain only 1 year :thumbsdow. I don't know whats wrong with kind of policy. Hmm... I just pray n hope nothing happened in next years. Oh... I'm a little glad that i got new batch 0M0EA, because other shop their stock remain 4 unit all is 0L0BA (Feb 2012)--> Hahaha is not easy for sell expensive product in Indonesia that not so interesting example like this charger unit. Like you see today is Oct 2013, so that unit is stay overnight ups over year  . I tell this fact, I hope MAHA & other producer can open they eyes for customer satisfy.


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Oct 30, 2013)

Somebody needs to switch to decaf and take the blue pill.

Chris


----------



## shelm (Oct 30, 2013)

ChrisGarrett said:


> Somebody needs to switch to decaf and take the blue pill.
> 
> Chris



+ 1

i didn't understand a dang word.

or maybe there is because mine English bads.


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Oct 30, 2013)

shelm said:


> + 1
> 
> i didn't understand a dang word.
> 
> or maybe there is because mine English bads.



I think that he's 'mad' bro.

I'm into HiFi and home theatre gear and most of it has only a one year warranty.

Chris


----------



## Petir (Oct 30, 2013)

He is angry because MAHA allows local distributor to provide only 1 year warranty, even though he paid standard price for the charger.


----------



## NeoLoop (Oct 30, 2013)

Hi Petir,
You got my point  and put in simple sentence :thumbsup:


----------



## Schermann (Mar 9, 2018)

Schermann said:


> About two weeks ago I purchased my C9000 based on the advice on this forum. My lot code is 0L0EA, that being the Australian designator of the latest firmware to date. It does everything it's supposed to do without any of the past issues, at least so far. I am a little frustrated by the HIGH voltage rejection value of < 2.0001 volts but then again the dumb slow charger 250ma that comes with a 4 pack of Eneloop AA's deals with that after a 100ma MH discharge. The C9000 is fun the play with and who said "as boring as watching batteries charge"!



_6 years later, no issues and still going strong ..._


----------



## rockymountains (Apr 10, 2020)

Hello 

Has anyone heard of a firmware list with bug and fixes details?
I just bought one and the code was ACAAA
So far the charger works well I was just curious about the changes in firmware 

Thanks


----------



## Schermann (Nov 22, 2021)

C9000 - *0L0EA* - 2012 release Oceana version still going like 'as new', can't seem to beat these chargers for their long service lives... ❤️


----------

