# Rechargeable AA battery shoot out



## davidefromitaly (Oct 21, 2009)

warning

this are datas read on my instruments, may be inaccurate, i have only 4 batteries of every type, maybe one or more of them are damaged and give weakest results, my methodology is different from the IEC standard so may give different results




 

 

 



shoot-out updated at 13 feb 2010

uncompressed file 5.28MB

http://www.speedyshare.com/files/20922732/ultimate_battery_shoot_out.xls

the same file but compressed 33KB

http://www.speedyshare.com/files/20922733/ultimate_battery_shoot_out.xls.7z

download the file and open with excel or calc or compatible

ask if you don't understand something

*how to read the spreadsheet*

_Cycles_: are the cycle of discharge and charge, from the first discharge out from the box until they die

_routine charge_: is the charge method used for the battery if nothing else is write in the cycle column

_routine discharge_: is the discharge method used for the battery if nothing else is write in the cycle column

_D. 1A [start-1.1V-0.8V-average]_: this mean Discharge at 1A, i will write in the four box under the battery the starting voltage without load, the mAh erogated by the battery until it reach 1.1 and 0.8V with load, the average voltage with load (if you multiply the average voltage with the mAh you find the total energy that the battery can store)

_C. routine [start-peak-mAh-dT]_: this mean Charge with method described under the battery description like "routine charge", i will write in the four box under the battery the starting voltage without load, the peak voltage with load during the charge, the mAh erogated by the charger, the difference in temperature from the start to the end of the charge

in the discharge description there is also the time after the last charge start the discharge, can be 24 hours or 30 days or something else

the readings of voltage under load are made directly from the battery for avoid the resistance of the wires that takes some mV

charges and discharges are made without a cooling fan except the charge at 5A where i use a fan but at a very low speed just for move the air in the charger that is quite closed


----------



## marschw (Oct 21, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

DX carries the GP cells here.


----------



## clintb (Oct 21, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Maha Powerex 2700
Maha Imedion 2100 (LSD)


----------



## timbo114 (Oct 21, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Tenergy 2300mAh LSD


----------



## davidefromitaly (Oct 22, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

i have added your suggestions, but i appreciate if you write me also some good dealers that have more brands so i can save a bit for shipping...

i have a weight limit of around 4lb. so i can't test too many cells, i prefer to stay on the more common ones


----------



## Marduke (Oct 22, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Test request: 100 cycles on Sanyo 2700's and Sanyo Eneloops, then do 0, 30, 60, & 90 day self discharge tests. If that much time is not feasible, 0 and 30 day tests would be the second most preferable. 

Thanks.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Oct 22, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



Marduke said:


> Test request: 100 cycles on Sanyo 2700's and Sanyo Eneloops, then do 0, 30, 60, & 90 day self discharge tests. If that much time is not feasible, 0 and 30 day tests would be the second most preferable.
> 
> Thanks.




yeah something like that

first of all i think to discharge all the batts at 500mA

then charge them, some at 0,2C, some 0,8C, some at 2C

i have 4 of each, so i will select the highest with the lowest capacity and run them in pair, so i can test what happend with overdischarge and partial discharge

the other 2 i will test in single mode but with different charge method, dunno maybe one with -dV and one with temperature raise...

initially i will do a 24hr 30days 6 months test with well formed batts, then i think to do a 24hr and 30 days test every 30 cycles and the 6 months maybe every 90-120 cycles...


----------



## old4570 (Oct 22, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*







I look forward to your results : The Duracell 2650 might be the only one I have that your planning on testing .


----------



## kimck99 (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Hi David,

I would to see these LSDs tested:

Delkin 2300 mah
Nexcell EnergyON 2100 mah
Lenmar R2GAA 2150 mah

These can be found at Thomas Distributing.

As a FYI, a similar effort was conducted about 2 years ago on a different forum - here. After reviewing those test results, I've been a fan of Maha Imedions. Might be provide some data points.

Good luck and looking foward to following your 'journey'.


----------



## Billy Ram (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Throw in Titanium 2700s. They are not LSDs but but perform well among LSDs in other tests.
Billy


----------



## Meterman (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Hallo _davidefromitaly_,

as an interesting test object I'd like to suggest the new LSD accubattery AA from Switzerland (not so far from you). I've got some samples since a few days and they seem to be promising.

BTW: I'm always interested in good measuring equipment and thus I'd like to know, what device you intend to use for the analysis. Would you please tell me?

Wulf


----------



## davidefromitaly (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

i have a robbe 8393, a european RC charger/analyzer

i have a 4lb weight limit so i can't test ALL the batteries... i prefer to stay on the most available

but the new energizer semi-LSD are disappears?


----------



## spencer (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

I would say the list in first post (currently) is very good. Obviously the more batteries the better but since you want to limit the list I would not worry about the ones you currently can't find (because they aren't very common) but add the Titanium 2100 LSD and the Titanium 2700. 

Just remembered they don't make the Titanium 2100 LSD anymore. Forget that one.


----------



## madmook (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

I'm also interested in results from the Tenergy 2300 LSD.


----------



## videoman (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Try to add the Ansmann 2850 from thomasdistributing


----------



## clintb (Oct 24, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



videoman said:


> Try to add the Ansmann 2850 from thomasdistributing


Before they're even tested, I'd bet many folks here would be in agreement those will be underperforming by quite a bit. IIRC, the Maha Powerex 2700's hold the distinction of best performing high capacity non-LSD cell. It's up to the OP, but if I were testing, I'd not waste money on anything over 2700 mAh, unless, of course, he has the money to burn and time to devote. 

edit: NM, he's going to test them. It'll be interesting, though not surprising if they fall flat on their face.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Oct 25, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

edit...


----------



## sremick (Oct 28, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Newbie here, but this thread is basically exactly what I'm looking for.

I'd add to the list the following:

CTA 2700mAh AA $10.97/4
Nexcell 2700mAh AA $10.97/4
Delkin Power 2900mAh AA $12.97/4
MAHA PowerEx 2700mAh AA $24.97/8 $49.57/16

Prices are TD. These are the batteries I'm looking at for future purchase but would love a review. Have been getting the PowerExes due to their good rep but I'd be curious on how those others compared relatively.

For what it's worth, I have an MH-C9000 charger.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Nov 9, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



davidefromitaly said:


> -4 ansmann max-e
> -4 ansmann 2850
> -4 delkin 2300 lsd
> -4 duracell active charge
> ...



ok this is my last configuration, i will post a datasheet for the datas, what do you prefer, microsoft excel or openoffice calc?


----------



## Alan B (Nov 9, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Google spreadsheet.


----------



## sremick (Nov 9, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



davidefromitaly said:


> ok this is my last configuration, i will post a datasheet for the datas, what do you prefer, microsoft excel or openoffice calc?


OpenOffice, definitely.


----------



## spencer (Nov 9, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

But does Excel open Calc files? I know Calc open Excel files.


----------



## Zeroignite (Nov 9, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

You can just tell OO to save it as an excel file every time.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Dec 4, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

we can start to rock guys? :rock:


----------



## Egsise (Dec 4, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Any chance of getting comparisons of the positive and negative ends?

something like this:


----------



## davidefromitaly (Dec 4, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



Egsise said:


> Any chance of getting comparisons of the positive and negative ends?



sure, but for all or some brand? cause for all togeter will be difficult to caught the details, i can do a macro on a specific brand


----------



## spencer (Dec 4, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



davidefromitaly said:


> we can start to rock guys? :rock:



LETS DO IT! That is a lot of batteries. The results of this test will be interesting and valuable.

EDIT: Are the Duracell pre-charged the white topped or black topped versions?


----------



## slappomatt (Dec 4, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

they appear to be the standard non-loop version of Nimh batteries.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



slappomatt said:


> they appear to be the standard non-loop version of Nimh batteries.



see the label, DX1500 mean LSD for duracell, while DC1500 are standard

i'm working on the spreadsheet, here you can find a preliminary version

password: forcpfonly

click here for download the spreadsheet


----------



## spencer (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

But I mean the tops of the LSD Duracell batteries. They sell two different kinds of battery and there is no way to tell the difference except that the tops are a different colour and one is made in Japan and the other is made in China.


----------



## Egsise (Dec 5, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



davidefromitaly said:


> sure, but for all or some brand? cause for all togeter will be difficult to caught the details, i can do a macro on a specific brand


Well, all, because that is the only way to make sure what cells you are testing, differences in positive and negative ends.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Dec 8, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

here you can do further comparisons













sorry for the delay in the test but i'm really too busy in this period


----------



## Egsise (Dec 8, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Nice but what i meant was something like this to check if some cells are the same, just sold with different brand.



UnknownVT said:


> here's a good comparison pic of the eneloop, RoV Hybrid and Kodak Pre-Charged that's been around for a while - from NLee the Engineer on Amazon
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Egsise (Dec 18, 2009)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

I bought Ansmann Max-E cells and they look a lot like ROV hybrids.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Jan 29, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

this is the first part of test, what do you think? i'm going in alphabetical order, think to finish in a month, i can charge/discharge only 3/4 batts per day


http://www.speedyshare.com/files/20640528/ultimate_battery_shoot_out.xls.zip

password: forcpfonly

i take updated the first post


----------



## MattK (Jan 30, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

David,

Since there is an accepted industry and engineering standard, the IEC standard, why not use that STANDARD to do your testing if you want it to be the 'ultimate' shoot out?

You seem to have arbitrarily picked charge and discharge currents and you're not following the standard, from what I can see, with break in cycles and resting.


----------



## LeifUK (Jan 30, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Can you explain what the figures mean? 

For example, for the Duracell Precharged (China), the first four green columns display data for the first of four cells tested. The top left corner is as follows: 

D. 1A [start-1.1V-0.8V-average] 1.30 1160 1290 1.18
C. 200mA [start-peak-mAh] 1.255 1.476 2550 ----

Okay, I am starting to understand most of it. They key is at the left (doh!). It looks like the second row is the start and peak Voltage followed by the mAh. The first row is the start voltage, unknown, unknown, and the average voltage. 

It looks very interesting and potentially useful.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Jan 30, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



MattK said:


> David,
> 
> Since there is an accepted industry and engineering standard, the IEC standard, why not use that STANDARD to do your testing if you want it to be the 'ultimate' shoot out?
> 
> You seem to have arbitrarily picked charge and discharge currents and you're not following the standard, from what I can see, with break in cycles and resting.



cause i prefer to use more heavy tests, that can help more who do a heavy use of batteries, like us of CPF that load batts at 4-5A, use several batts in series, use fast chargers etc. my test will se also how batts will degrade with different uses, like charge at 5A instead of 1.5A, overdischarge vs. partial discharge, discharge at 4A instead of 1A or 400mA



LeifUK said:


> Can you explain what the figures mean?
> 
> For example, for the Duracell Precharged (China), the first four green columns display data for the first of four cells tested. The top left corner is as follows:
> 
> ...



yeah i need to do some FAQ, there are a huge quantity of datas that i try to concentrate in a little spreadsheet

*D. 24h 1A [start-1.1V-0.8V-average]*

this mean: Discharge after 24 hours from the charge at 1 ampere, starting voltage without load, mAh erogated by the batteries until it reach 1.1V and 0.8V with load, average voltage during discharge with load

*C. routine [start-peak-mAh-dT]*

this mean: Charge with method described where you see "routine charge" under the battery description, starting voltage without load, peak voltage reached during charge with load, mAh erogated by the charger until the end, difference in temperature from the start to the end of the charge in celsius degrees

the voltage readings with load are made directly from the batt for avoid to calculate the resistance of the wires that take some mV

charges up to 1.5A and all discharges are made without fan, while charges at 5A are made with a fan at very low speed, just for mode a little the air that is closed in the charger


----------



## LeifUK (Jan 30, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Thanks.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Jan 30, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

first comments after few charges:

ansmann 2850: arrived discharged, aren't real 2850 but around 2400-2500 at 1A of load, they can't handle 4A of load with decent voltage drop

ansmann max-e: arrived charged around 77% of capacity, are real 2000mAh and take quite well 4A of discharge

delkin ready to use: arrived at 25% of capacity, are only in the 1400-1500 range of capacity, 3 of 4 handle quite well 4A of discharge while one suffer much more


----------



## MattK (Jan 30, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



davidefromitaly said:


> cause i prefer to use more heavy tests, that can help more who do a heavy use of batteries, like us of CPF that load batts at 4-5A, use several batts in series, use fast chargers etc. my test will se also how batts will degrade with different uses, like charge at 5A instead of 1.5A, overdischarge vs. partial discharge, discharge at 4A instead of 1A or 400mA





davidefromitaly said:


> first comments after few charges:
> 
> ansmann 2850: arrived discharged, aren't real 2850 but around 2400-2500 at 1A of load, they can't handle 4A of load with decent voltage drop
> 
> ...




If you're doing multiple tests why not use an accepted, STANDARDIZED methodology for one of those tests?

It's fine and even desirable to do other tests but it's irresponsible and dishonest to claim cells do or do not make their rated capacities, as you have done in other threads, based upon a methodology of your own creation when the factory rated capacities are based upon an accepted STANDARD which is in use industry wide.

Who is charging at 5A? Why?

Again, your posts are misleading using the term 'real' since you aren't using the 'real' standard for battery capacity measurement.

*Real*: 'You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.'


----------



## spencer (Jan 30, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

What is the standard? 

And I can't unpack the zip file on my mac.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Jan 31, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



MattK said:


> If you're doing multiple tests why not use an accepted, STANDARDIZED methodology for one of those tests?



cause i prefer a method more near to our (or only my?) use



> It's fine and even desirable to do other tests but it's irresponsible and dishonest to claim cells do or do not make their rated capacities, as you have done in other threads, based upon a methodology of your own creation when the factory rated capacities are based upon an accepted STANDARD which is in use industry wide.



i have tested other batts (not the ones included in this comparison) at 1/10C and there isn't a big difference compared to a 1A discharge, and sometime the capacity at 1/10C is less that at 1A, this is reported also in the tests made by silverfox

also if i discharge after 1 hour from the last charge i can obtain a higher capacity but this is caused by the state of overcharge of the anode that disappear in few hours, i prefer to discharge after 24 hours that is more near to a normal usage

i have to test only few batteries, maybe that i have some bad ones (for example i'm testing the energizer 2450 that give me only around 1100mAh, this don't mean that ALL the energizer 2450 are 1100mAh but mine for sure)




> Who is charging at 5A? Why?



15min chargers arrive up to 8A of charge... btw i charge at 5A only one batt of every set of 4



> Again, your posts are misleading using the term 'real' since you aren't using the 'real' standar
> d for battery capacity measurement.
> 
> *Real*: 'You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.'



ok i can write "what my instruments read"



spencer said:


> What is the standard?
> 
> And I can't unpack the zip file on my mac.



the standard for measure capacity is: charge at 1/10C for 16 hours, wait one hour, discharge at 1/10C

while when they declare the cycles use the charge at 1/2 to 1C with 10mV of minus voltage termination

as you can see, for declare the capacity they overcharge the battery reducing the life, for declare the cycles they charge at the correct capacity but they don't say that in this way the capacity is a little less

i upload both zipped and non-compressed version now

http://www.speedyshare.com/files/20666879/ultimate_battery_shoot_out.xls


----------



## MattK (Jan 31, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

The IEC standard, grossly oversimplified is:

Before testing a battery may have up to of 5 charge/discharge cycles for break-in.
At ambient 20 °C ± 5 °C
- Charge at 0.1C for 16 hours
- rest for 2 hours
- discharge at 0.2C 
- rest for 2 hours
- Charge at 0.1C for 16 hours.
- Discharge the battery and note the measured capacity
- repeat up to 5 times and pick the best result

15 min chargers are not good for regular NiMh batteries. There is a special 'fast charge' chemistry variant that is made. Companies selling chargers at those rates should specify special batteries only. These super high rate chargers almost universally make regular batteries too hot which lowers their charge acceptance considerably to the tune of 25-50% and significantly shortens cycle life.

Testing battery performance is very complicated because there is a huge amount of variables. This is why a STANDARDS exists so that we can measure them across a level playing field and have meaningfull capacity ratings.

To achieve any valid results you would consider:
- ambient temperature & airflow (real testing is done is a control oven)
-number of charge/discharge cycles on the batteries being tested. 
-how it was charged (pulse linear etc)
-How the charge was terminated
-discharge current
-cutoff voltage during discharge 
-voltage power supply stability
-instrumentation calibrated to within 1-2%
-some other stuff I must be forgetting

David, saying "what my instruments read," is no more accurate since your instruments are only part of the issue here.
Perhaps if you qualified that under your, "1.5C charge and 1A Discharge test regime you oberserved.." that would be a fairer way of expressing your results.

What I don't understand is that you want to make the 'Ultimate AA battery shoot out,' but you're not even close to using the standardized methodology, or some reasonable facsimile of, as at least one of your testing regimes.


----------



## Rexlion (Jan 31, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Maybe the thread should be renamed, "AA battery shoot out, my way". 'Cause it doesn't sound very ultimate IMO. 

I can appreciate the tester's point of view to some degree. The testing standards may have been agreed upon by those in the industry, who necessarily have an interest in the resulting numbers (i.e., in keeping the numbers a little on the high side if possible, like 'do it 5 times and pick the highest result'). Nevertheless the standards yield a dependable, fairly repeatable way to compare the different cells at their optimum possible capabilities. 

By contrast, I don't think this high charge/discharge testing method will yield results of high repeatability or dependability across the board, so the results will likely be of more limited usefulness and interest IMO. Not really ultimate.


----------



## spencer (Jan 31, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

The IEC standard is not realistic of real use by people on this forum.


----------



## MattK (Jan 31, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



Rexlion said:


> Maybe the thread should be renamed, "AA battery shoot out, my way". 'Cause it doesn't sound very ultimate IMO.
> 
> I can appreciate the tester's point of view to some degree. The testing standards may have been agreed upon by those in the industry, who necessarily have an interest in the resulting numbers (i.e., in keeping the numbers a little on the high side if possible, like 'do it 5 times and pick the highest result'). Nevertheless the standards yield a dependable, fairly repeatable way to compare the different cells at their optimum possible capabilities.
> 
> By contrast, I don't think this high charge/discharge testing method will yield results of high repeatability or dependability across the board, so the results will likely be of more limited usefulness and interest IMO. Not really ultimate.



Exactly.



spencer said:


> The IEC standard is not realistic of real use by people on this forum.



Based upon what information do you make this statement?

Now, that said, I don't think you're wrong but I'm not a fan of folks proclaiming things in an authoritative manner without FACTS to back up their OPINIONS.

The IEC standard is, as Rexlion points out, a consistent methodology which yields dependable results.

Speaking of 'real world," I don't think most people here charge at 1.5A or 5A, which is what David does. In my experience most people buy cheap chargers which are usually 500mA or less for AA's so if you want to go 'real world' I suggest using the cheap, low rate chargers most folks use for charging as a starting point. It won't be an accurate test - but it would be 'real world'.


----------



## Anders (Jan 31, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

Hello David.

We all saw in Silverfox thread about Charger comparition that it was 47 % difference between the charger that did it best to the charger that undercharge the cells most.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/70935


When not using 0,1 C *16 h, it is very hard to compare any results from other tests at all.

This test is useful to compare your cells in this test but only if your charger always have the exact same charge termination on every cell, always. 
I think it is hard to get the same results when using -dV.

What kind of charger do you use David?, it seems that I have missed that.

Thanks for the shoot out btw.

Anders


----------



## davidefromitaly (Feb 1, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

ok, can a moderator modify the title with "rechargeable AA battery shoot-out" or "rechargeable AA battery stress test"?

i'm doing this test only cause all we know that IEC standard is unreal (like spencer say)

i want to know how last a battery when charged at 5A, 1.5A, when deep discharged or partially discharged, calculate the self discharge, see how the voltage drop at 4A of load, etc.

temperature is ambient temperature, so around 19-20C in winter and up to 28-30C in summer

i discharge with a CBAII and charge with a Robbe PowerPeak that is a RC charger like the Triton for example... they aren't calibrated but i see that datas are near to what i read here when other people do tests with CBA or C9000, 1-2% of difference, not more

so, i repeat, i don't want to do a IEC test cause nobody use batteries in IEC way, if you use the IEC standard read the battery datasheet, if you use the battery like me read my test


----------



## PeAK (Feb 1, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



davidefromitaly said:


> ok, can a moderator modify the title with "rechargeable AA battery shoot-out" or "rechargeable AA battery stress test"?



You can rename yourself...maybe call it "My Way"




davidefromitaly said:


> ...
> so, i repeat, i don't want to do a IEC test cause nobody use batteries in IEC way, if you use the IEC standard read the battery datasheet, if you use the battery like me read my test



I find that SilverFox's "Shootout" to be the most useful and if you want to use the word ultimate, I would say his is closer to the ultimate in terms of thoroughness. What do you find lacking in his tests that would want you to do your own thing ?


----------



## MattK (Feb 1, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



davidefromitaly said:


> i'm doing this test only cause all we know that IEC standard is unreal (like spencer say)
> 
> i want to know how last a battery when charged at 5A, 1.5A, when deep discharged or partially discharged, calculate the self discharge, see how the voltage drop at 4A of load, etc.
> 
> ...



I know what you're saying however:
1 - charging at 5A and 1.5A is not real world for most users.

2 - charging with a Robbe PowerPeak RC charger and discharging with a CBAII is not 'real world.

3 - continuous discharge is not real world - most people cycle and rest their battery powered products numerous times.

4 - A CBAII is far more accurate than a C9000 and NEITHER is within 1-2%.

No one uses the battery like you or your methodlogy. Your test is no more real world than the IEC standard. That's what got me started on the 2 threads - when you said 'real capacity' with regards to the Ansmann. Your test is no more or less 'real' than IEC.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Feb 1, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



PeAK said:


> You can rename yourself...maybe call it "My Way"



i can't... i'm waiting for a moderator



> I find that SilverFox's "Shootout" to be the most useful and if you want to use the word ultimate, I would say his is closer to the ultimate in terms of thoroughness. What do you find lacking in his tests that would want you to do your own thing ?



i really like the tests by silverfox but:

1. i'm testing other battery brands
2. i'll evaluate the health of them during the whole life
3. i'm testing the self discharge and how it change during life
4. i'm testing variuos charging and discharging method


----------



## PeAK (Feb 1, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



davidefromitaly said:


> i can't... i'm waiting for a moderator


As I said...you do not need a moderator to rename your thread. Go to "Advanced Menu".



davidefromitaly said:


> i really like the tests by silverfox but:
> 
> 1. i'm testing other battery brands
> 2. i'll evaluate the health of them during the whole life
> ...



He has already done item #2 and #4 but you can easily find those threads yourself. There are various others doing #3, it would be a waste of buying batteries and time to do all the brands you specified, yourself, better to distribute the task and use search in these forums as different members already have provided that information for different brands they use.

That leaves item #1 and I think Matt's point cannot be overemphsized. Use standard testing practices so that we are not comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## kramer5150 (Feb 1, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

I use energizer 2450 and just got some rayovac 4.0 cells. Even though I don't charge / discharge mine anywhere _near _your test conditions... still I am interested to see how well they hold out.

You dont need a mod to change a thread title. Just double click to the right of your thread title, in the sub-forum listing page.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Feb 2, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



kramer5150 said:


> I use energizer 2450 and just got some rayovac 4.0 cells. Even though I don't charge / discharge mine anywhere _near _your test conditions... still I am interested to see how well they hold out.



at what rates you charge and discharge?

i'm at the first cycles of the energizer 2450 and i can say that all 4 on 4 of them are unable to charge with -dV at 1.5A and 5A, i'm charging them with dT

and most important they have only around 1100mAh of capacity at 1A of discharge, i think i have 4 damaged batteries

the "good" thing is that they hold the voltage quite well

i have also 4 energizer 2300 "new formula" and they are far better


----------



## davidefromitaly (Feb 2, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*



PeAK said:


> As I said...you do not need a moderator to rename your thread. Go to "Advanced Menu".



in the advanced menu i can modify the post title but not the thread title, any moderator can confirm this


----------



## teo_92 (Feb 10, 2010)

ciao davide!! sono teo_92 di cpfitalia....per favore contattami via mail che non so più cosa fare per entrare nel forum italiano e mi serve un e-mail di un utente dato che sono interessato ad una sua inserzione...la mia mail è: [email protected]
fammi sapere al più presto per favore....grazie mille!!


----------



## DM51 (Feb 10, 2010)

Welcome to CPF, teo 92.

Unfortunately we are not set up to moderate posts in languages other than English. Posts in other languages are liable to be deleted at the discretion of CPF staff.


----------



## Archie Cruz (Feb 10, 2010)

DM51 said:


> Welcome to CPF, teo 92.
> 
> Unfortunately we are not set up to moderate posts in languages other than English. Posts in other languages are liable to be deleted at the discretion of CPF staff.


He's saying that he can't get into CP Italy. Not much there to moderate


----------



## DM51 (Feb 10, 2010)

Archie Cruz said:


> He's saying that he can't get into CP Italy. Not much there to moderate


I understood enough to see it didn't need to be deleted. If I had been unsure, it would not have remained there long enough for you to practice your translation skills.


----------



## davidefromitaly (Feb 13, 2010)

teo_92 said:


> ciao davide!! sono teo_92 di cpfitalia....per favore contattami via mail che non so più cosa fare per entrare nel forum italiano e mi serve un e-mail di un utente dato che sono interessato ad una sua inserzione...la mia mail è: [email protected]il.it
> fammi sapere al più presto per favore....grazie mille!!



i'll send you a PM 

here and on the first post the links for the updated datas... the shoot out go on

uncompressed file

http://www.speedyshare.com/files/20922732/ultimate_battery_shoot_out.xls

compressed file

http://www.speedyshare.com/files/20922733/ultimate_battery_shoot_out.xls.7z


----------



## davidefromitaly (Feb 18, 2010)

i have start to charge the powergenix ni-zn

during charge at 1A the voltage rise istantly at 1.9V, i have dropped the current gradually during charge for stay under 1.9V, during the charge the battery remain really cool

i have also try to overcharge the battery, i give around 150-200mAh more and the voltage raise at 2V and the battery leak a bit 

so, like li-ion/poly batts, they don't absorb the overcharge, this mean that is dangerous a serial charging but is absolutely safe a parallel charging


----------



## berry580 (Feb 19, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

hi, thank you for all your efforts in this AA shoot out. For the people who has trouble understanding the technical figures, can you make a brief conclusion with your findings?

So what's not and what's not?

thank you alot! =D


----------



## Linger (Apr 16, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

+1 How have the ni-zn cells held up for your tests?

(beside the topic rant re: methodology - If everyone tests under the industry standard why does David need to repeat them? surely all these cells have already been tested under the IEC so in interest of completleness some one else's results (battery station's?) could be posted as an additional table. But spare David the trouble of all those 16h charges and lets praise the man for documenting performance in quick charges, long wait times, and rapid(ish) discharges. Yes to replicate flashlight use some down-time could be used between bursts - this could be highly illuminating if some recover to a markedly higher rate.
Yes David made up his methods, and if he applies them accurately and consistently then I feel a lot of good comes from the work he's put into it.)


----------



## MattK (Apr 16, 2010)

*Re: Ultimate AA battery shoot out*

My 'beef' is that David has repeatedly made any number of perjorative posts about various cells not attaining their rated capacity - under his testing. Since he is using an entirely different test methodology than the ones used by the factories to generate their specifications, a standardized, published and universally used methodology, I believe his claims to be unfair and innacurate. 

You might want to read the entire thread. I addressed this very clearly early on:


MattK said:


> It's fine and even desirable to do other tests but it's irresponsible and dishonest to claim cells do or do not make their rated capacities, as you have done in other threads, based upon a methodology of your own creation when the factory rated capacities are based upon an accepted STANDARD which is in use industry wide.
> 
> Again, your posts are misleading using the term 'real' since you aren't using the 'real' standard for battery capacity measurement.
> 
> *Real*: 'You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.'


----------



## davidefromitaly (Apr 18, 2010)

i think to end the first part of the test in 15-20 days. i will post some reasuming tables with the original datas

btw some batts that i have don't match the rated capacity, i don't think is a my error, i can't do the same error for 4 batteries... maybe i have some damaged cells and other people have them in good condition with 100% capacity. some cells was deep discharged out of the blister, may be this can had damaged them


----------



## snakebite (Apr 18, 2010)

what keeps prompting for a login?


----------



## Linger (Apr 18, 2010)

Matt K,
You're totally right. Initially I had read the whole thread, from beginning on through to the end. But I didn't take notes and some details (like unsubstanciated references to a 'real') were forgotten when I got to posting 3pgs later.
My original post edited.

I take the middle - True it is hard to counter a manufacturer's claim with-out replicating her/his methodology. 'Actual capacity' of cells cannot be stated with-out reference to the testing conditions that those capacities where derived under. But the manufacture rated specs are almost a red herring as rating by the IEC standard may not be reflective of cells performance in the wild.
As such I feel the info the OP produces here may be qualitatively more useful than the official specs (I'll give him benefit of the doubt on internal validity of his study and presume accurate / reliable methodology. It would take independent replication for external validity to be established)
I rank my own cells by their performance in my applications (which places a '2000mah' rated cell above a '2650mah' rated one)


----------



## Black Rose (Apr 18, 2010)

snakebite said:


> what keeps prompting for a login?


old4570's picture host (post #8)


----------



## MattK (Apr 19, 2010)

Linger - As I stated above I have no problems with other testing methods; my issue is using those results to declare a capacity real or fake. Inevitably the standards used here will be much more demanding; much higher discharge rates, less than perfect charge rates, etc, and I'm fine with that so long as the results are not used libelously.


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 21, 2010)

The problem with different discharge rates used for calculating results is that the effect of Peukert's Exponent (PE) is something I haven't seen discussed. Ideally, batteries would have a PE of 1.0, however they do not. The PU varies between batteries of different design even if they have the same chemistry. Therefore capacities derived using different methodologies cannot be compared to each other with anything other than anecdotal correlation. Tests done by one method are no more "real" than tests done using another method. If my testing method only discharges cells at 0.01C, the delivered capacity will be higher than those done with a 1C rate. Are they Real? Sure they are. But can't be correlated to other tests done with different rates. The ONLY way to compare results between tests is to perform the EXACT same test on the cells every time. That's what the IEC standard is for.
I gotta side with MattK on this. His results are valid, per his methods, but results derived using them cannot be compared, nor judgments made, regarding even the same cells using another testing method.


----------



## davidefromitaly (May 10, 2010)

http://www.speedyshare.com/files/22376163/brand_new_test.xls

finally i have concluded the first part of the test. here you can find the datas about the first 4 charge/discharge cycles. i have left in spreadsheet format so you can sort datas as you want

next step will be to test them after 17 cycles so they will be perfectly formed

ps
don't take in count the datas for ni-zn cells, there is an error and i must correct it. the other cells are correct


----------



## beamis (May 12, 2010)

MattK said:


> Linger - As I stated above I have no problems with other testing methods; my issue is using those results to declare a capacity real or fake. Inevitably the standards used here will be much more demanding; much higher discharge rates, less than perfect charge rates, etc, and I'm fine with that so long as the results are not used libelously.



I don't believe it's libel to state the battery X does not hold Y capacity when used in typical fashion. If a car company advertised that their car got 50 miles to the gallon on a flat track at 6 mph with a tailwind, I wouldn't endeavor to reproduce those conditions to test their claims. I would drive the car in conditions that were typical and see what the results were. If it turned out that the car got 15 miles to the gallon in real world driving, I would rate it as a dud and it wouldn't be libelous to say so.



JimmyM said:


> His results are valid, per his methods, but results derived using them cannot be compared, nor judgments made, regarding even the same cells using another testing method.



I don't believe that was his intention (to compare with other methodologies). I believe the intent was to say, "battery X is rated at Y in their 'lab' conditions, but in real world use they are more like Z."


----------



## davidefromitaly (May 12, 2010)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## Paul_in_Maryland (May 12, 2010)

*3-way rechargeable AA battery shoot out at Engadget*

Engadget today reports on its shootout between Eneloop NiMH, Energizer NiMH, and PowerGenix NiZn AAs. Tested in electronics--camera flash, keyboards--the three brands were found to be more similar than different.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz (May 12, 2010)

*Re: 3-way rechargeable AA battery shoot out at Engadget*

That's an awful lot of work testing all those batteries Davide. Good on ya, well done.


----------



## MattK (May 13, 2010)

beamis said:


> I don't believe ...



Please read the entire thread.


----------



## JimmyM (May 13, 2010)

beamis said:


> I don't believe it's libel to state the battery X does not hold Y capacity when used in typical fashion. If a car company advertised that their car got 50 miles to the gallon on a flat track at 6 mph with a tailwind, I wouldn't endeavor to reproduce those conditions to test their claims. I would drive the car in conditions that were typical and see what the results were. If it turned out that the car got 15 miles to the gallon in real world driving, I would rate it as a dud and it wouldn't be libelous to say so.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that was his intention (to compare with other methodologies). I believe the intent was to say, "battery X is rated at Y in their 'lab' conditions, but in real world use they are more like Z."



Define "Typical use", Define "Real world driving" You're actually proving my point for me.


----------



## davidefromitaly (May 17, 2010)

these are datas after 30 days from the last charge, the percentual isn't calculated from the labeled capacity but from the capacity i have read after 24h from the charge at 1A of load

please note that the first four batts give some strange datas... i think cause they are still in forming condition


----------



## beamis (May 18, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> Define "Typical use", Define "Real world driving" You're actually proving my point for me.



Typical use in my mind is a use that more closely reflects the load placed on batteries in devices like flashlights, radios, headlights, and other relatively high-current, intermittent use devices. That along with more typical charging regimens like 1A or 2A and then sitting for a day or a week before use. It doesn't have to be spot on, just MORE close than a 0.2C discharge within an hour of a 16-hour dumb charge.

Perhaps your point is that not everybody uses their batteries in the same way? If that's the case, no testing regimen is more accurate than any other. All you can do is find one that more closely resembles your pattern of usage. I suppose if you only use dumb chargers for a 16-hour charge and run a TK40 with 32 AA batteries to keep the discharge down to 0.2C the industry standard ratings will give you the information you need. My point is that if everyone only tests batteries in one regimen we'll never really have a good idea how they'll function in our various devices, and it's ok to say battery X sucks because it's rated as Y mAh, but only delivers Z mAh at 3A.


----------



## Ray_of_Light (May 18, 2010)

Davide,

testing LSD batteries on a 30 days period is not going to show their LSD performance.
Good eneloops that I have have lost 25% charge in 3 years time while at 20 C. The first 5% is lost in the first 30 days; this is due to the decay of nickel superoxides which form during the charge (more the -dV, more they form).
True LSD performance requires a testing over a period of 6 months, at least.

Regards

Antonio


----------



## davidefromitaly (May 18, 2010)

Ray_of_Light said:


> Davide,
> 
> testing LSD batteries on a 30 days period is not going to show their LSD performance.
> Good eneloops that I have have lost 25% charge in 3 years time while at 20 C. The first 5% is lost in the first 30 days; this is due to the decay of nickel superoxides which form during the charge (more the -dV, more they form).
> ...



if you recharge a battery every 3 years... you don't need rechargeables


----------



## MattK (May 18, 2010)

beamis said:


> Typical use in my mind is a use that more closely reflects the load placed on batteries in devices like flashlights, radios, headlights, and other relatively high-current, intermittent use devices. That along with more typical charging regimens like 1A or 2A and then sitting for a day or a week before use. It doesn't have to be spot on, just MORE close than a 0.2C discharge within an hour of a 16-hour dumb charge.



Radios are low-medium drain.
David is doing constant run, not intermittent testing. Most people use flashlights intermittently.
Most AA powered flashlights do NOT pull 2A or 4A.
Most people do not use 1A and 2A chargers, rather 'most' people are using .2-.8Ah chargers.



beamis said:


> Perhaps your point is that not everybody uses their batteries in the same way? If that's the case, no testing regimen is more accurate than any other. All you can do is find one that more closely resembles your pattern of usage. I suppose if you only use dumb chargers for a 16-hour charge and run a TK40 with 32 AA batteries to keep the discharge down to 0.2C the industry standard ratings will give you the information. My point is that if everyone only tests batteries in one regimen we'll never really have a good idea how they'll function in our various devices, and it's ok to say battery X sucks because it's rated as Y mAh, but only delivers Z mAh at 3A.



Standards are _made accurate_ or relevant by general application/use. 

It is NOT OK to say, "battery X sucks because it's rated as Y mAh, but only delivers Z mAh at 3A," this is exactly what is problematic.

I don't have a problem with David making up his own methodology like Tom/Silverfox has already done but the issue that I have raised repeatedly was his using his OWN standard to declare batteries real/fake based upon his own (frankly flawed) methodology and results.


----------



## Ray_of_Light (May 18, 2010)

davidefromitaly said:


> if you recharge a battery every 3 years... you don't need rechargeables



I have some small batches of different batteries, of different chemistries, which I keep under observation for a long term battery study I'm conducting. The eneloops I mentioned are part of that study; I don't use them in my equipment and/or flashlights.

Anthony


----------



## davidefromitaly (May 18, 2010)

MattK said:


> Most AA powered flashlights do NOT pull 2A or 4A.
> Most people do not use 1A and 2A chargers, rather 'most' people are using .2-.8Ah chargers



i have 3 cells charged at 200mA with timer

btw this is a comparative test, one cell is best of another, i don't say that is best of all

i can have also some damaged cells, for example all my powerex 2700 are totally discahrged in less of 30 days, i can't belive that all the powerex 2700 in the world have a so high self discharge


----------

