# LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-Downs Continue...



## Bones

It seemed, at least for a while, that LaCrosse had largely rectified the melt-down problem with their Alpha-Power charger.

However, after noting the reports in the following thread of at least two melt-downs of their latest model, the BC-9009 with the v.35 firmware update, I perused the most recent reviews at Amazon and found what appears to be a significant increase in the number of melt-downs or near melt-downs in the past couple of months:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post3190563

*From Amazon*

Dated 12 Jan 2010:



> *Worked fine for two weeks, then melted*, January 12, 2010, by Michael Stratton
> 
> Yes, another melted BC-9009. It worked great when I first received it. Probably charged or refreshed six or eight sets of batteries. Then when I was running a refresh cycle (discharge 500 mA, charge 1000 mA) on the included AA batteries it self destructed. Smell of burning plastic, the LCD for the third slot turned completely black and three of the buttons sank into the charger (probably melted inside).
> 
> Just glad I was at home and could unplug the unit before something caught fire. Obviously there is a quality issue, as many others have reported the same problems. For a time Amazon had pulled availability of the BC-9009, but I see it is for sale from Amazon once again.
> 
> I sent mine back for a refund. My advice would be to stay away.
> 
> More...


Dated 10 Jan 2010:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R248CZUT53D5WN/

Dated 10 Jan 2010:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R27WJD0EA1O7R3/

Dated 07 Jan 2010:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2PN0S7VHR69AF/

Dated 05 Jan 2010 (2 Incidences):

http://www.amazon.com/review/R16BT9REEO5QY7/

Dated 05 Jan 2010 (2 Incidences):

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2S413NI95BGC2/

Dated 03 Jan 2010:

http://www.amazon.com/review/RSD32V53429SF/

Dated 02 Jan 2010:

http://www.amazon.com/review/RG4AOAUZ7UTJC/

Dated 29 Dec 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R19FBYZU542MOK/

Dated 28 Dec 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R34FWSW8QGBRBY/

Dated 26 Dec 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1NM3UBA91JIAD/

Dated 25 Dec 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2KH46D7NR3XY6/

Dated 24 Dec 2009:

htttp://www.amazon.com/review/R265JWP92XFQZI/

Dated 22 Dec 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/MsgID=Mx2OD10ZT5ERISW

Dated 22 Dec 2009 (2 Incidences):

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2WE84Q2TEP8TI/

Dated 19 Dec 2009 (2 Incidences):

http://www.amazon.com/review/R15CP9DB5DASPI/

Dated 15 Dec 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/MsgID=Mx2FSQ3IYXHPOO1

Dated 14 Dec 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/MsgID=Mx3MROLMCWQVV1K

Dated 08 Dec 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/review/RFWRPZDNWN5RI/

Dated 04 Dec 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2BRM2XYRS8NYT/

Dated 22 Nov 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/review/RK9Z23QEJZ2BW/

Dated 15 Nov 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1QVSR3EN62LT3/

Dated 05 Nov 2009 (2 Incidences):

http://www.amazon.com/review/RDRC22JHJ9SO2/

Dated 03 Nov 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/review/RPX2WEKP5IHRO/

Dated 29 Oct 2009:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1STOB1Y6JNRT8/

*From CandlePowerForums*

Dated 12 Jan 2010:



Jclem451 said:


> ...
> 
> I got it from Amazon Dec, 2009. It came with 4 AA, and 4 AAA batteries. I put the 2600 mAh AA batteries in, plugged it into an empty outlet and left the house for a couple hours. When I returned, the charger was smoking hot, as were the 2 center batteries, the display above the batteries was black, and the 2 middle buttons in the row of 4, were melted and had dropped down. I let it cool, and tried it again, and it still seems to work, but it is going back to Amazon pronto. I am lucky to still have a house.
> .



Dated 07 Jan 2010:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post3228150

Dated 02 Jan 2010 (Voltcraft IPC-1)

http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post3222370

Dated 26 Dec 2009:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post3214310

Dated 11 Nov 2009:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post3165721

http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post3168416

Anyway, something to keep in mind when choosing a location to operate any charger, and especially the Alpha-Power.

*One Possible Cause*

Insofar as the cause of the melt-downs is concerned, this speculative post by William Chueh seems the most plausible to me:



willchueh said:


> Hello folks,
> 
> Can't say I am an expert on the BC-900, but judging from the photos posted I believe the problem was not due to a "missed termination."
> 
> In the BC-900 design, it uses a very small package MOSFET (SOT23) as a linear step-down regulator which has to disspate power due to the difference in voltage between the power supply (4V) and the battery (1.5V). The power disspated by the MOSFET is the current times the voltage difference. At peak charging current, the wattage disspated is considerable.
> 
> This is not a typical design as most chargers today use a "switching buck design" which uses a inductor, transistor, diode and capacitor to convert the voltage. This design usually gives 70-80% conversion efficiency even at a large voltage difference, but it's more expensive to make.
> 
> Back to the point, I believe it is possible that the MOSFET failed due to either a surge in the Gate-to-Source voltage causing the gate oxide to break. Even more likely it is due to the aging of the MOSFET since it is taking a huge toll close or beyond its power disspation limit. As a result, the probability of MOSFET failure increases.
> 
> When a MOSFET fails, it can either become always OPEN or always SHORTED. In the latter case, there would no longer be a current limiting component between the charger and the power supply causing the all the current to rush to the batteries. Furthermore, since the MOSFET is always SHORTED there's no way to stop the charging even if the microcontrolluer unit sends the signal to stop the current. Therefore, it doesn't matter if there is a thermocouple or voltage-based termination, since the MCU is no longer able to control the charging current.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> William



*A Final Note*

I've scoured the web for reports of the less powerful LaCrosse BC-700 melting down, and have yet to locate even one...


----------



## Lightcrazycanuck

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*



This thread is better than reality TV.:thumbsup:


lovecpflovecpflovecpf


----------



## MarioJP

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*

Ok Now I am starting to really get suspicious about this now. Or am i the lucky one that have 2 of these exact same charger that i have no problems so far.

I am curious what triggers this to happen I am at a lost here. Either I am lost or gotta take the amazon reviews with a grain a salt. I have done refresh/test cycles, left it overnight, had cells overheated, used every current charge settings that this charger offers. And above that I been using this charger constantly or being put to heavy use. I have not had a meltdown despite of this. Have this charger for 3 months or so. Unless it takes many month to a year before you start to see problems?? I dont know.


----------



## Mr Happy

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*

How can I explain this to you? It is not normal behavior, it is a fault. It does not happen to every charger all the time, it happens to perhaps one charger in a hundred, or 1 in 1000. Your chargers may never develop the fault and may never do anything bad. If one person has a car that breaks down, does it mean that every car of that kind is going to break down?


----------



## Bones

.....


----------



## alfreddajero

Didnt know that this was still going on with the charger. I did a lot of searching between this charger and of course the Maha. What i wanted was a charger at a good price and one that was reliable, with the Lacrosse i was intrigued by the batteries that came with the charger and that would mean extra batts for me. But then i noticed a lot of threads on the charger melting etc.....and that really turned me off. I have had my 2 C9000's for a year now and there still charging what i throw at it. I showed my wife the pics of the melted chargers and the wrappers coming off the batts and she was like oh hell no.


----------



## TakeTheActive

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*



MarioJP said:


> *Ok Now I am starting to really get suspicious about this now...
> 
> ...I am curious what triggers this to happen...*


*Try this:*
Plug an 1800 Watt Electric Space Heater into the bottom plug of a dual outlet.
.
Insert 2 FULLY DISCHARGED AA cells into Slots 1 & 4 of your BC-900.
.
Plug the BC-900 into the top plug the same dual outlet as the 1800 Watt Electric Space Heater.
.
Set the BC-900 Charge Current to 1800mA.
.
Turn the 1800 Watt Electric Space Heater *ON-and-OFF-and-ON* *QUICKLY* and *REPEATEDLY* (to create voltage spikes on that line).
*See if your BC-900:*
Locks Up
.
Overheats
.
Melts down
.
Bursts into flames
*Disclaimer: ***ALL** of the above was intended in jest. :wave:

P.S. Re-read all of *Mr Happy's* (non-confrontational / informative) posts above. :sigh:

P.P.S. CLICK on my Sig Line LINK and read all of the *Keyword: Theory* LINKs.


----------



## MarioJP

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*



TakeTheActive said:


> *Try this:*
> 
> Plug an 1800 Watt Electric Space Heater into the bottom plug of a dual outlet.
> .
> Insert 2 FULLY DISCHARGED AA cells into Slots 1 & 4 of your BC-900.
> .
> Plug the BC-900 into the top plug the same dual outlet as the 1800 Watt Electric Space Heater.
> .
> Set the BC-900 Charge Current to 1800mA.
> .
> Turn the 1800 Watt Electric Space Heater *ON-and-OFF-and-ON* *QUICKLY* and *REPEATEDLY* (to create voltage spikes on that line).
> *See if your BC-900:*
> 
> Locks Up
> .
> Overheats
> .
> Melts down
> .
> Bursts into flames
> *Disclaimer: ***ALL** of the above was intended in jest. :wave:
> 
> P.S. Re-read all of *Mr Happy's* (non-confrontational / informative) posts above. :sigh:
> 
> P.P.S. CLICK on my Sig Line LINK and read all of the *Keyword: Theory* LINKs.




Now that's funny LOL.

In any case this is a tough case to solve. Like i said before I have 2 of these same chargers so I can charge 8 cells at a time either one of them has not melted and sometimes leave it overnight if I have to. But most of the time it is only used during the day.

Though I will say that the jack on the back of the charger I did cleaned it a bit and also the barrel connector of the adapter as it was having connectivity problems. I found that out by 2 things.

1. The readings mA charge the numbers would slightly jump around. Like for example If it was charging at 1A. The readings should be constant at 1000 during charging. In my case It would start jumping around. It would go from 1000 to 932 and back and if the numbers jumps too much the charger would sometimes reset itself.

2.One time I came back and it was charging at 200ma even though I have set it to 1A. That's when i knew the charger has reset itself, which is why I decided to clean it.

After I did some cleaning on the jack (back of the charger),and the barrel, and also the battery contacts I never had that problem show up again.

It did that on both chargers too.


----------



## PeAK

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*



Mr Happy said:


> How can I explain this to you? It is not normal behavior, it is a fault. It does not happen to every charger all the time, it happens to perhaps one charger in a hundred, or 1 in 1000. Your chargers may never develop the fault and may never do anything bad. If one person has a car that breaks down, does it mean that every car of that kind is going to break down?



I hope this is not out of context with Mario, but...
I'm sure that both Dell and Sony did not have you representing their case for their defective Lithium-Ion batteries found in a few of their exploding laptops. There were 16 incidents out of 3 million batteries sold that prompted a wide scale recall...I think the Lacrosse defect rate is presently a "bit higher"... ​This said, there is a competing product known to all CPFers that has yet to exhibit the same problem. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Mr Happy

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*



PeAK said:


> I hope this is not out of context with Mario, but...I'm sure that both Dell and Sony did not have you representing their case for their defective Lithium-Ion batteries found in a few of their exploding laptops. There were 16 incidents out of 3 million batteries sold that prompted a wide scale recall...I think the Lacrosse defect rate is presently a "bit higher"... ​


Sure, I know 

It's just that Mario seemed to keep asking why his units have never had a problem, and how could that be?


----------



## damn_hammer

i checked on the consumer product safety website, and couldn't find a any reports on the la crosse charger. obviously people are having problems, it's just odd to me why it wouldn't have been reported if this was a significant hazard.


----------



## Bones

willchueh said:


> ...
> In the BC-900 design, it uses a very small package MOSFET (SOT23) as a linear step-down regulator which has to disspate power due to the difference in voltage between the power supply (4V) and the battery (1.5V). The power disspated by the MOSFET is the current times the voltage difference. At peak charging current, the wattage disspated is considerable.
> 
> ...
> 
> When a MOSFET fails, it can either become always OPEN or always SHORTED. In the latter case, there would no longer be a current limiting component between the charger and the power supply causing the all the current to rush to the batteries. Furthermore, since the MOSFET is always SHORTED there's no way to stop the charging even if the microcontrolluer unit sends the signal to stop the current. Therefore, it doesn't matter if there is a thermocouple or voltage-based termination, since the MCU is no longer able to control the charging current.
> ...



Would it be reasonable to presume that if the MOFSET fails in the shorted position, the result would be equivalent to connecting the power supply directly to the cells in parallel circuit?


----------



## moldyoldy

fyi: to provide a standard engineering support for Mr. Chueh's reasonable speculation on a possible root cause of meltdowns in the BC-900 chargers. Note that a specific failure may be due to voltage spike or just about anything. The root cause is usually HEAT (excessive) which is nearly always the enemy of electronics! less the old tube systems where the coated cathode had to be heated to glowing to emit. <am I showing my age?>

It is standard electrical engineering design practice to rate any heat dissipating device at 1/2 of spec before implementing. ie: a 1/2 watt resistor shall not be implemented in a design at more than 1/4 watt. Ditto for active devices such as transistors and MOSFETs. Ditto for voltage ratings as well. If the mains power is "120VAC", thou shall not employ any diode with a rating less than a 400PIV, minimally it should be rated at 600PIV, and preferably rated at 1000PIV. PIV = Peak Inverse Voltage. This is historically a reliable recommendation, but it does force usage of more expensive components which raises the cost of the product.

Switching to a product level, the US Navy has recorded that most fleet failures are due to power supplies. If you review the specs for power supplies where ratings are provided for % of rated current vs expected lifespan, the numbers again reinforce the recommendation of not using any device at full rating which simply ensures a short operational life. Selecting a device at 1/2 of rated specification is still the recommendation.

To the case of the LaCrosse BC-900 & BC-700 units. As was observed before on CPF, I also have not read any case on the Internet of a BC-700 unit having "melting" problems. Note that the BC-700 is limited to a 700ma charge rate. I myself have had no failures of any kind in 2x BC-900 or 2x BC-700 chargers, nor do I believe that I have ever come close - and I do check! In a test, I have observed a charge cessation due to excessive cell temperature on the BC-900 v33 when 4 AA cells were being charged at 1000ma. Charging 4 AA cells at 1000ma is very much NOT recommended in the BC-900 except for short bursts, but certainly not from low voltage to cutoff!

As for the BC-900 unit, charging at the full rating of 1000ma for 4 cells will not only heat up the cells, but heat up the charger...excessively in my opinion. Mr Chueh's observations are completely consistent with the engineering doctrine of excessive heat kills electronics. 

By comparison, the Maha C9000 charges AA cells by default at 1000ma, but there is plenty of room between the cells and the charger itself has a bail to prop up the back end. The point is to avoid excessive heating, or operation at top heat, will eventually kill any power device. 

Recommendations? Regardless of the charge recommendations for the batteries, I rarely use more than 500ma charge rate in any of the BC-900 or BC-700 chargers. I also keep them plugged in to some sort of a good surge suppresor. I also keep the back end of the charger propped up with an eraser or anything to give the charger at least a cm or 1/2".

To further make the point: I have deployed several Maha 9V smart chargers. Those devices have also experienced "hard" failures - non-operational. I was not around when they failed. However upon disassembly, 100% of the time, those failures were in the power-handling IC. 'nuff said.

a MoldyOldy.


----------



## Lightcrazycanuck

Thanks Moldy for your report and observations.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Being in R/C for the past 25 years I can also agree to the fact that HEAT KILLS electronics!

Or crashs from high Alt.

My #1 concern when charging batteries of any chemistry is how hot the battery is getting.I keep a very close eye on the charging process and never ever leave it unattended.For double insurance I use a LiPo sack.


----------



## damn_hammer

i understand the conditioning cycle to take many hours to days? to complete. i'm not sure of the exact terminology as i own the bc-9009 but have not taken it out of the box yet. that's dedication to never let it out of your site that whole time.


----------



## KiwiMark

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*



MarioJP said:


> I have not had a meltdown despite of this. Have this charger for 3 months or so. Unless it takes many month to a year before you start to see problems?? I dont know.




I also have 2 of these and the newer one is now over 1 year old, the older one is 4 & 1/2 years old. I have yet to experience a problem with either charger. I am sure that most sold never fail.


----------



## Bones

damn_hammer said:


> i checked on the consumer product safety website, and couldn't find a any reports on the la crosse charger. obviously people are having problems, it's just odd to me why it wouldn't have been reported if this was a significant hazard.



These melt-downs have, thus far, seemed to be fairly benign in that they've only seriously damaged the charger and cells and, in some instances, whatever the charger is resting upon.

However, given my presumption that if the MOFSET fails in the shorted position, then the full output of the 4 volt power supply will be pumped directly through circuits not designed to take that much voltage or current into a small 1.2 volt cell, the potential is certainly there for a more tragic outcome. Perhaps prompted by nothing more than a tissue inadvertently dropped by a child or the chemical impurities in a sub-standard cell reacting much more violently to being connected directly to the power supply than those in the trusty Eneloop.


----------



## lrp

I've used mine, older model, for years and have experienced no problems whatsoever and totally agree with Mr. Happy!!


----------



## Bones

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*



KiwiMark said:


> I also have 2 of these and the newer one is now over 1 year old, the older one is 4 & 1/2 years old. I have yet to experience a problem with either charger. I am sure that most sold never fail.



Even though I've seen it a few times now, the last sentence in your signature line still prompts a chuckle.

Thanks.


----------



## KiwiMark

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*



Bones said:


> Even though I've seen it a few times now, the last sentence in your signature line still prompts a chuckle.



I even managed to use that line in real life, after pulling out the third light someone asked "are you afraid of the dark" and I instantly remembered something that I had read once on these forums, so I said "no, the dark is afraid of me!".

The funny thing is that I didn't even have my bright lights with me, I only had a ROP High as my brightest. My 150W and 180W hotwires were at home and I hadn't finished my 216W beast at that time. Now my brightest 3 are 80W, 180W & 216W incans, then I have my 2 3854 ROP Highs, 3853 ROP High and 3854 ROP Low plus a bunch of bright LEDs.

I think non-flashaholics just don't get why we have so many lights. Most people would not understand why I have so many chargers either - I should get rid of some of the ones that I no longer use. I currently use as required: 2 Hobby chargers, 2 LaCrosse BC-900 chargers & 2 WF-139 chargers (plus proprietary chargers for my Camera, cell phone, shaver & toothbrush). I have another half dozen or so chargers that I don't use. I have a lot of rechargeable batteries too - NiCd, NiMH, LiCo, LiMn & LiFePO4 chemistries in AAA, AA, D, 10440, 14500, 16340, 16850, 26500 & 32600 sizes. Now I'm building a collection of knives as well.


----------



## lolzertank

I received my BC-9009 in the mail from Amazon YESTERDAY and ran 2 test cycles on 8 cells total at 1A. The 3 button is now sunk down into the unit. I patched up the melted part with a piece of a paper clip, so I can still use it. I also dropped some thermal paste on the thermistors while the case was open.

Does anyone feel that using 700mA (essentially like a BC-700) might be a better idea despite being below the 0.4-1C range? It really seems like the BC-900 was not designed to charge at 1A.


----------



## Mr Happy

lolzertank said:


> I received my BC-9009 in the mail from Amazon YESTERDAY and ran 2 test cycles on 8 cells total at 1A. The 3 button is now sunk down into the unit. I patched up the melted part with a piece of a paper clip, so I can still use it. I also dropped some thermal paste on the thermistors while the case was open.
> 
> Does anyone feel that using 700mA (essentially like a BC-700) might be a better idea despite being below the 0.4-1C range? It really seems like the BC-900 was not designed to charge at 1A.


Can you post photos? Is it possible to tell where the heat came from, and how it melted the button?


----------



## Light Sabre

lolzertank;3194934Does anyone feel that using 700mA (essentially like a BC-700) might be a better idea despite being below the 0.4-1C range? It really seems like the BC-900 was not designed to charge at 1A.[/QUOTE said:


> I always charge my NMH's at 500 or 700 ma on my 3 1/2 yo BC-900's. I tried charging at 1000 ma a couple of times but the cells got to hot in my opinion and placed a fan nearby to keep them cooler. Here on CPF I read and take in other peoples opinions about something and do what I feel is best for my situation. I'm not going to charge my batteries above 700 ma. I no longer charge at 200 ma. Input from other messages in this thread about the 200 ma setting and failed terminations has changed my opinion/use of the low setting on the BC-900. I keep an eye on my chargers and have the voltage readings selected. If there was a failed termination, I would catch it within 8 hours or less.


----------



## lolzertank

Mr Happy said:


> Can you post photos? Is it possible to tell where the heat came from, and how it melted the button?



Sorry, no pics because I already fixed the button and put the unit back together. 

It basically looked like the button was pressed down way too far. The bottom part of the shaft melted into a little lump. I think the heat came from the tiny MOSFET used to regulate current on the back, which is conveniently placed right behind the metal switch on the third channel.

I fixed the button by extending its shaft back to its original length with some tape and a bent piece of a paper clip.


----------



## MarioJP

I am going to email or call the company and see whats really going on. Is la crosse like windows vista at launch LMAO!


----------



## Bones

lolzertank said:


> ...
> 
> Does anyone feel that using 700mA (essentially like a BC-700) might be a better idea despite being below the 0.4-1C range? It really seems like the BC-900 was not designed to charge at 1A.



Given the reports of consistently successful terminations at rates even less than 700mA by moldyoldy, Light Sabre and others, I would certainly give it try.

I believe that each cell or, at least, each grouping of the same cell requires initial monitoring and some degree of experimentation to determine what rate or rates are most suitable to that cell's characteristics. The objective being to find a rate that allows the charger to terminate reliably while minimizing the amount of heat generated inside the cell (and charger), especially during the latter stages of the charge cycle.


----------



## Mr Happy

lolzertank said:


> It basically looked like the button was pressed down way too far. The bottom part of the shaft melted into a little lump. I think the heat came from the tiny MOSFET used to regulate current on the back, which is conveniently placed right behind the metal switch on the third channel.


Perhaps they switched the FET for one with a higher on resistance...? 

Your experience sounds like a systematic design problem rather than the traditional meltdown event. Assuming everything is assembled and soldered correctly, one might suppose every sample of the BC9009 would do the same thing under the same circumstances.


----------



## MarioJP

Should there be a massive recall like the Sony batteries?


----------



## Turbo DV8

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*



KiwiMark said:


> I also have 2 of these and the newer one is now over 1 year old, the older one is 4 & 1/2 years old. I have yet to experience a problem with either charger. I am sure that most sold never fail.


 
Quite true, I am sure. But then, what to make of the one Amazon reviewer who claims to not only have had his first BC9009 melt down on the first charge, but also his replacement BC9009 melted down on the first charge? I'm not sure what exactly to make of that. If we take these increased recent reports, including lolzertank's above, at face value, then it seems something is newly amiss.


----------



## lolzertank

Mr Happy said:


> Perhaps they switched the FET for one with a higher on resistance...?



It wouldn't matter if they did. Assuming the power supply, battery voltage, and charge current are the same, it's still dissipating the same amount of heat.

I can think of four possible reasons why the buttons are melting now:

1) The power supply voltage was raised, perhaps to a more common voltage like 3.3V. 

2) The PCB was redesigned, moving the MOSFETs closer to the switches.

3) More vias were added in the PCB to help dissipate heat from the MOSFET, thus reducing meltdowns. The side effect is that more heat reaches the other side of the PCB and melts the buttons. 

4) The quality of the plastic used in the buttons is lower in the BC-9009 than the original BC-900.


----------



## MarioJP

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*



Turbo DV8 said:


> Quite true, I am sure. But then, what to make of the one Amazon reviewer who claims to not only have had his first BC9009 melt down on the first charge, but also his replacement BC9009 melted down on the first charge? I'm not sure what exactly to make of that. If we take these increased recent reports, including lolzertank's above, at face value, then it seems something is newly amiss.



Really, that's strange because that's where I have bought both of my chargers from amazon bc-9009 and worked flawlessly from day one.

The firmware on both my charger is 35 both adapters are 3 volts 4 amps max. I would guess that 3.3 volts is a bit too high which begs to ask. Why would they even raise the voltage in the first place??.


----------



## Elliot

I'm kind of courious about the people who buy a brand new untested piece of electrical equipment - then use it flat out at the maxium setting - without carefully watching it in the first place. Really, for the first couple of uses, how hard is it to touch the batteries and say "gee these are hot!"

I currently have five Ni metal chargers, three are much larger than the BC-900. The only one smaller is Sanyo's (came in Costco package). The Sanyo is the only one I won't use - cells gets HOT in it, eneloops encluded. 

If your cells are too hot to touch - something is wrong. Please don't wait for a meltdown, with a small, passivly cooled, plastic cased charger you _might_ get one.

I use my BC-900 charger at 500 or 700ma for AA's and 200 or 500 for AAA's. I have the display showing the voltage of all fours cell at the same time. When the voltage gets up to 1.45, I watch pretty carefully. If the voltage is 1.45 and the cell is getting warm it's done. If I can't be around, I use a cheap slow, really slow charger. 

If a cell seems to charge "funny". Throw it out!:mecry: 

Monitoring is a common practice for those of us that charge Li-ion cells.


----------



## MarioJP

Exactly!! I don't let the batteries get too hot. Fresh new NiMh batteries don't get warm at 1A charging all 4 cells at the beginning. When its at the middle and nearing the end of the charge cycle that is when the cells finally starts to get warm. Another thing I do is I flip the charger upside down so the heat rises up and away from the cells so to prevent secondary heat generated by the charger There are more vents on the bottom than on the top. The heat does travel pretty well through the plastic quite easily if charging at a high current rate and not upside down, and If the charger is not well ventilated it can probably cause a MELTDOWN. Problem with NiMh cells is you don't know when the internal resistance is high enough until you realize "gee while my cells are getting too hot all of a sudden".

Also the adapter should be 3V 4A max. I also realized that this charger does not like when there is power spikes in the line. It causes to either reset or start to heat up quite fast out of randomly. That was strange and this gave me another reason why I am glad that I cleaned the charger. Give it a good steady clean power from the source and things should be ok. I might take it apart if it needs cleaning from the inside. So far the connectivity problem was the barrel and also the jack from the back of the charger. The barrel should give a tighter feel when plugging it in to the charger though. I am starting to wonder that might be a clue to the cause of this charger melting I don't know.

Overall this is a really great charger. Definitely prefer over the Maha charger. I just do not like it. Its too clunky lol. Not to mention You can force the bc 9009 charger to charge other battery chemistry like the Ni-zn . This charger is a true analyzer the simple fact you can analyze alkalines,lithium just to measure whats the true capacities are.


----------



## moldyoldy

Elliot said:


> I'm kind of courious about the people who buy a brand new untested piece of electrical equipment - then use it flat out at the maxium setting - without carefully watching it in the first place. Really, for the first couple of uses, how hard is it to touch the batteries and say "gee these are hot!"
> 
> I currently have five Ni metal chargers, three are much larger than the BC-900. The only one smaller is Sanyo's (came in Costco package). The Sanyo is the only one I won't use - cells gets HOT in it, eneloops encluded.
> 
> If your cells are too hot to touch - something is wrong. Please don't wait for a meltdown, with a small, passivly cooled, plastic cased charger you _might_ get one.
> 
> I use my BC-900 charger at 500 or 700ma for AA's and 200 or 500 for AAA's. I have the display showing the voltage of all fours cell at the same time. When the voltage gets up to 1.45, I watch pretty carefully. If the voltage is 1.45 and the cell is getting warm it's done. If I can't be around, I use a cheap slow, really slow charger.
> 
> If a cell seems to charge "funny". Throw it out!:mecry:
> 
> Monitoring is a common practice for those of us that charge Li-ion cells.



Agreed! Monitoring should be a common practice! Do not ignore reality!

I have had a lot of chargers cross my desk(s) over the years starting from the GE NiCd cells. All chargers that were physically small with cells nearly touching each other caused significant heating. 

Dumping 4amps of current starting from some 3VDC into a small space has to eventually go somewhere - via heat dissipation. The end result is overheated cells and charger. No way to cheat on such a heat equation!

Another problem: Regardless of the theoretically correct charging parameters for a NiMh cell, if the cells overheat, cut back on the charging current! or purchase another charger.

IOW, to be specific and blunt regarding the LaCrosse BC-900 or analogous products: Charging 4 AA cells placed side-by-side at 1000ma each is very explicitly NOT RECOMMENDED due to excessive heat buildup in both charger and cells. 

In my opinion based on having possessed several copies of the BC-900 charger, the charging current in the BC-900 needs to be limited to a maximum of 700ma and preferably 500ma. Even at 700ma charge current for 4 cells, the cells get almost too hot. 

a moldyoldy.....who has examined many pieces of melted or burned electronic devices over the years - all supposedly safe.


----------



## linterno

I think this melt down is more related to poor quality batteries than LaCrosse BC-900/9009 problem.

I have cheap/poor quality batteries and eneloop ones. The cheap ones get hot when charged at 1000mA in my BC-900 so I usually charge only three at a time to allow them ventilate better (one on each extreme and the other in any of the middle bays).

Eneloops don't even get warm when charging 4 at the same time at 1000mA.


----------



## Conan

linterno said:


> I think this melt down is more related to poor quality batteries than LaCrosse BC-900/9009 problem.
> 
> I have cheap/poor quality batteries and eneloop ones. The cheap ones get hot when charged at 1000mA in my BC-900 so I usually charge only three at a time to allow them ventilate better (one on each extreme and the other in any of the middle bays).
> 
> Eneloops don't even get warm when charging 4 at the same time at 1000mA.



The latest meltdown happened to a member charging Eneloops.


----------



## linterno

Conan said:


> The latest meltdown happened to a member charging Eneloops.



I didn't find any reference to eneloops melting BC-900. The only reference in this thread I found about eneloops getting hot is:


Elliot said:


> I currently have five Ni metal chargers, three are much larger than the BC-900. The only one smaller is Sanyo's (came in Costco package). *The Sanyo is the only one I won't use - cells gets HOT in it, eneloops encluded*.



In my case my eneloop don't even get warm at 1000mA.


----------



## Bones

linterno said:


> I didn't find any reference to eneloops melting BC-900. The only reference in this thread I found about eneloops getting hot is:
> 
> In my case my eneloop don't even get warm at 1000mA.



Hi linterno,

Conan is correct, one member was RaVeN38571 and the cells were Duraloops being charged in the new BC-9009.

Additional details can be found in the last two hyperlinks in the first post.

Another report was posted by kramer5150. The cells were Eneloops and the charger was the BC-900:



kramer5150 said:


> My cousin is visiting for the holiday and was charging his eneloops in his lacrosse charger.. when this happened.
> 
> The charger + cells were SCORCHING hot, nearly burned my hand when I touched the cells. The LCD screen turned black, and _stank _to all he11 and back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What could have caused this? He uses this charger all the time for nearly 6-7 years. I always use it to charge my energizer 2450 cells when I visit his place.



There are more...


----------



## linterno

I'm sorry. I didn't find that. You are right.


----------



## Elliot

> Conan is correct, one member was RaVeN38571 and the cells were Duraloops being charged in the new BC-9009.
> ...
> Another report was posted by kramer5150. The cells were Eneloops and the charger was the BC-900:



If I remember correctly RaVen's unit was brand new - you have to watch new stuff.
"The Kramer incident" happened with an old unit which was upgraded years ago. Heat kills lots of stuff over time.


----------



## ShawnLam

I just experienced a melt-down. I am fortunate that I happened to be in the same room when it started or there is no doubt in my mind that it would have started a fire if I didn't unplug the charger as quickly as I did. It happened VERY fast. Within 30 seconds from the time I entered the room with the charger it started to smell, smoke, and melt.

I was charging a pair of Sanyo Eneloop batteries at 1,000 mA. They were spaced on either side of the charger, separated by the two middle spots. Only one melted. The batteries were in the charger for two hours.

The chargers are only 6 weeks old and this was only the second time I changed the charge current from the default of 200 mA to 1,000 mA.

I'd actually just given approval on an article I wrote for EventDV Magazine, due to appear in January. The article was a review of rechargeable batteries and chargers, for use in wireless lavaliere microphones. Needless to say the first thing I did when I had the melt situation under control was to tell my editor that I'm going to be doing a re-write, especially the part where I was recommending the LaCrosse charger.

Here is one of the photos - follow the links for a few others:
Top - Button sunk from heat
Bottom - Notice the plastic starting to melt
Inside - Board is black


----------



## Black Rose

:welcome:

Is (was) that a 900 or a 9009?

Wow, 6-weeks old and already a pile of melted goo....not good.

Glad you were able to catch that before something really bad happened.

BTW, the maximum size for pictures shown in a post is 800x600.


----------



## Conan

Good thing you caught it in time Shawn! This charger is really dangerous!


----------



## moldyoldy

yes, there have been many meltdowns reported of the BC-9xxx. however in most cases the user reported charging at 1000ma or higher. By comparison, I have not observed any reports of meltdowns of the BC-700, whether on CPF or a few searches on the Internet. Heat kills electronics sooner or later! The design of the BC-9xxx produces excessive internal heat! I strongly feel that the BC-900 or BC9009 needs to be limited to no more than a 700ma charge rate and preferably 500ma. If that is too slow, then find another charger.


----------



## Mr Happy

ShawnLam said:


> I just experienced a melt-down...



That charger was a BC-9009.

There were occasional reports of meltdowns with the BC-900, but not that many. With the BC-9009 it seems like reports of meltdowns are coming in by the week.

It may be time to suspect that there is a systematic design problem with the BC-9009 and to issue a firm recommendation against buying it?


----------



## r1gm1n

MarioJP said:


> Not to mention You can force the bc 9009 charger to charge other battery chemistry like the Ni-zn .


 
I have been wanting to do that with my 9009 Alpha. Do you mind revealing what Your method was ? I have both the PowerGenix and the Super Z brandings.


----------



## mitro

I haven had the BC-9009 meltdown but I have caught it getting very hot when charging Duraloops. I *was* doing 4 cells @ 1000ma though. I didn't know it was an issue until I did a lil' more research. Now I've got a C-9000 on the way (which I should have bought in the first place) 

EDIT: And my #4 button is sunk (apparently from the near meltdown, haven't opened it up.)


----------



## KiwiMark

moldyoldy said:


> and preferably 500ma.



Both mine have charged 4 cells at 700mA so many times that I seriously doubt the need to go down to 500mA for safety. I have also charged 4 cells at 1000mA and 2 cells at 1500mA - but now I think I will only charge at those higher rates if I will be in the same room, just in case.


----------



## Mr Happy

KiwiMark said:


> Both mine have charged 4 cells at 700mA so many times that I seriously doubt the need to go down to 500mA for safety. I have also charged 4 cells at 1000mA and 2 cells at 1500mA - but now I think I will only charge at those higher rates if I will be in the same room, just in case.


But is yours a BC-900 or a BC-9009?


----------



## Bones

Mr Happy said:


> That charger was a BC-9009.
> 
> ....
> 
> With the BC-9009 it seems like reports of meltdowns are coming in by the week.
> 
> ...



It may soon be more appropriate to state they're coming in by the day. I just had another look at Amazon and found reports of 4 more incidences since I summarized them in post 1 slightly more than a week ago:

Dated 19 Dec 2009 (Two Incidences):

http://www.amazon.com/review/R15CP9DB5DASPI

Dated 15 Dec 2009:

http://www.amazon.com ... MsgID=Mx2FSQ3IYXHPOO1

Dated 14 Dec 2009:

http://www.amazon.com ... MsgID=Mx3MROLMCWQVV1K



Mr Happy said:


> ...
> 
> It may be time to suspect that there is a systematic design problem with the BC-9009 and to issue a firm recommendation against buying it?



I agree, especially after seeing the images posted today by ShawnLam. If whatever released the melted metal sitting inside the base got that hot in thirty seconds, imagine how much hotter it could have gotten had he not been there to pull the plug.

Incidentally, NLee the Engineer, the reviewer on Amazon that has positioned himself as their de facto adviser on LaCrosse chargers, just issued this comment respecting the increasing reports of melt-downs:



> I was trying to stay out of this. Oh well...
> 
> I can report my own experience. I have two BC-900 (the older model), purchased 3-4 years ago. I have never obseved over-heating problem due to failure to detect end-of-charge signal. The BC-900 has several mechanisms to ensure proper charge-termination, including:
> - negative dV/dt
> - voltage threshold
> - thernal shut down
> So under normal conditions, it should never get hot enough to melt the plastic case. Especially when people claim that they were charging at the lowest current of 200mA. At 300mW (1.5V * 200mA) per cell, there is just not enough energy to cause a melt down.
> 
> However, suppose the charger malfunctioned due to assembly error (such as a dry solder joint), or due to excessive stress (such as an electrostatic dischage), then all bets are off. Based on the number of negative reviews, I can only assume that La Crosse has rather poor quality control, so a small percentage of defective chargers escaped QC, or failed in the field. I'm not trying to discount the bad experience reported by some users. But that's the sad consequence of cheaply-assembled consumer electronics.
> 
> More...


Scary assumptions when contrasted with the educated analysis of the symptoms and potential consequences of these melt-downs posited here...


----------



## MarioJP

So this charger melts right on first use??


----------



## KiwiMark

Mr Happy said:


> But is yours a BC-900 or a BC-9009?



I have 2 BC-900 chargers. The newer one is about 14 months old and the older one is over 4 years old.


----------



## MarioJP

what's the firmware on both those chargers?


----------



## MarioJP

r1gm1n said:


> I have been wanting to do that with my 9009 Alpha. Do you mind revealing what Your method was ? I have both the PowerGenix and the Super Z brandings.



I did gave these batteries a try I just could not help my curiosity. One thing to know is Just be careful on which AA devices you be using these batteries.

Unless you have a device that needs the extra voltage (such as older cameras with flash,etc). I would not switch to these cells. Tested these cells in my mobile phone charger. Honestly I could not even tell the difference. They last just as long as duraloops but my 2850 ansmann last longer than the powergenix cells. The only thing I noticed while using these cells was the booster chip inside the charger was getting a bit too hot really fast, and occasionally would hear a faint high pitch whining noise.

In Conclusion. I do not want to use these cells in this device again or I will soon find myself replacing it lol.

I did do a discharge capacity test after charging these Ni-Zn cells using the BC-9009.

cell 1 1520mAh
cell 2 1540mAh
cell 3 1525mAh
cell 4 1525mAh

with that being said. Now lets talk about how I was able to successfully charge these Ni-Zn for those that wants to give it a try while trying to charge these cells in the La-crosse charger.


the trick is not whether the bc 9009 would charge these cells. Its more long the lines of having it to charge these cells to full capacity while avoiding overcharging and at the same time of how to get around the "full display". In fact you be more worried of being undercharged than overcharge as you will see "full display" couple of times during charging. Well to be fair their datasheet gave me a clue to when to stop charging. 

Oh btw here is a interesting thing I discovered with these cells.

During charging there is absolutely no heat being generated whatsoever. The cells are cool even charging all 4 at 1amp for half an hour. The bc 9009 charger itself is barely warm.

Simply put these Ni-Zn cells have much higher charge efficiency than any NiMh out there on the market today.

This gave me another reason to like the La crosse charger even more! lol.

These cells are really pushing the la crosse charger as the voltage readings during charging are in the range 1.87V-1.93V. Around 1.9V that is when you want to discontinue charging. and yet no overheating, no melting at all In fact its like as if these cells were meant for the bc 9009 charger. There! overheating problem solved!!. Simply don't use NiMh to avoid overheating LOL. Seriously these cells do not warm up at all.

I think whats going on here is that the newer ones being made is just nothing more than a defect or too many of them coming out with a defect.

I guess i have to say I am one of those lucky ones considering that i order both of them from Amazon.

Though I really do hope they fix this potentially hazardous problem soon. Hopefully no fires have been reported yet.

Closing thought. This is all based on my actual experience.


----------



## KiwiMark

MarioJP said:


> what's the firmware on both those chargers?



32 & 35

I've never had an issue of any kind with either of them.


----------



## KiwiMark

MarioJP said:


> These cells are really pushing the la crosse charger as the voltage readings during charging are in the range 1.87V-1.93V. Around 1.9V that is when you want to discontinue charging. and yet no overheating, no melting at all In fact its like as if these cells were meant for the bc 9009 charger. There! overheating problem solved!!. Simply don't use NiMh to avoid overheating LOL. Seriously these cells do not warm up at all.



You would think that the higher the cell voltage the more the wattage going into them the more you are pushing the charger. But my understanding is that the more the charger has to drop the 3V input to what the cells need the harder it is working and the hotter it gets. So 1.9V per cell should mean the charger runs cooler than 1.4V per cell.


----------



## MarioJP

did both of them melted?


----------



## Mr Happy

MarioJP said:


> what's the firmware on both those chargers?


It may be time to start considering the hardware. The frequency of problems with the BC-9009 might suggest it is constructed differently inside from the BC-900 even though it is programmed the same.


----------



## r1gm1n

MarioJP said:


> . One thing to know is Just be careful on which AA devices you be using these batteries... . Tested these cells in my mobile phone charger. Honestly I could not even tell the difference.


 
If you are into such things, try them in an electric shaver. Turbo=charged !

LED Flashlights are brighter on this first generation. I do not have any Incands to try them with. 



> I did do a discharge capacity test after charging these Ni-Zn cells using the BC-9009.


 
Periodic deep discharge is healthy for rechargables. I think this unit discharges down to near the 0.9v threshold before resuscitation. 
That is okay for NiMH but, "No bueno por nada" for NiZn.



> Oh btw here is a interesting thing I discovered with these cells.
> 
> During charging there is absolutely no heat being generated whatsoever. The cells are cool even charging all 4 at 1amp for half an hour. The bc 9009 charger itself is barely warm.


 
Different chemistries have different properties. The 1 hour "Quick" charger does 2 AA's 1.6v @ 1500 mA. 
The 5 hour "Fast" charger does 2 AA's 3.2v @ 300 mA. 

The BC-9009 does have settings for 1500 mA and 1800 mA. 

Hmm ! Where did I put that fire extinguisher ?


----------



## Elliot

For the record if anyone is afraid of their bc-900/9009 and it's in good working condition; I will buy it for $13 shipped (PayPal, CONUS.)

I don't want anyone to have a fire.:devil:

For those few posters who repeatedly repost Kramer's pictures - *take a GOOD look* at the last two pictures where you see the three cells together. Look at the writing, wrapper's color/the way it melts and the endcap. The *middle cell* is a cheap Chinese made fake eneloop. 



PM me about sales


----------



## Marc999

[/QUOTE] I don't want anyone to have a fire.:devil:

For those few posters who repeatedly repost Kramer's pictures - *take a GOOD look* at the last two pictures where you see the three cells together. Look at the writing, wrapper's color/the way it melts and the endcap. The *middle cell* is a cheap Chinese made fake eneloop. 



PM me about sales[/QUOTE]


Hmm, I only see one set of 'Kramers' pics. in this thread. Anyway, I took a GOOD look at the last 2 pictures. Hasn't Sanyo come out with various eneloop packaging over the last few years? I wasn't aware there was only ever one version of eneloop. The way it melts/color/end-cap? Come on...lol.


----------



## fhenixlynx

when i use my lacrosse charger at 700 and above i run a small fan on it to help cool it,should not have to better safe than sorry!!!!! no meltdowns yet.if i leave it for any amount of time i put it in a flat pyrex dish,but dont leave home all day with it charging.


----------



## Elliot

Marc999, I have over 60 eneloops and Duraloops - all have the MIJ endcap like the two outside cells. The middle one shows the classic fake eneloop profile. 

The reason you have not seen the multiple pictures is because you haven't been keeping up with these silly threads.

You could also look for the "fake eneloop" thread. The endcaps are pictured there.


----------



## ShawnLam

I'm not going to get into the debate if the Kramer Eneloops are fakes or the real thing but the problem I experienced wasn't with the battery overheating. So if you think running a fan will prevent a meltdown don't fool yourself.

Yes my batteries were hot but the problem was that the charger experienced the meltdown, originating on the underside of the board.

And for the record my Eneloops were spaced on the outside slots and were purchased at Costco - so again, not a battery overheating problem but a defective charger that is a fire hazard.

I have to disagree with the position Elliot is taking on this matter by offering to buy used chargers. I feel it is irresponsible to imply and insist there is not problem with them as it is obvious there is a serious safety issue. I have a second charger that was purchased in the same batch as the one with the meltdown and I will offer it to US consumer product safety commission. If they aren't interested then I might just take it outside, set-up a camera, and see if I can document a meltdown.


----------



## MarioJP

I have charged 8 duraloops at the same time using both La crosse charger. all 8 at 1Amp charging. They don't get hot at all. Warm yes hot no. Though I have read somewhere that I should not buy batteries from ebay you can end up with dud ones. I only stick to sources I know like wallgreens or something similar.

In fact I quite don't trust Ebay to begin with. That's just me anyways lol.


----------



## TakeTheActive

fhenixlynx said:


> *when i use my lacrosse charger at 700 and above i run a small fan on it to help cool it,should not have to better safe than sorry!!!!!*


A fan is not going to matter if the MOSFET LOCKS UP in the FULL ON state. :shakehead It WILL delay the MAX TEMP shutdown though if the overtemp problem is NOT the MOSFET (or microprocessor) but something else. :thinking: :sigh:



fhenixlynx said:


> ...*no meltdowns yet.*if i leave it for any amount of time i put it in a flat pyrex dish,but dont leave home all day with it charging.


IMO, based on the recent FLURRY of BC-9009 'Meltdowns', *ALL* BC-9009 (and BC-900 v32) owners should operate their chargers on on inflammable surface, like either a pyrex dish or a ceramic tile. BC-900 v33+ owners could also follow suit, just as a precaution.

BTW, what model (BC-900 or BC-9009) and version # (displayed in the 4th channel readout during 'Boot') do you own?

CPF members should probably start posting BOTH pieces of information when they experience a 'Meltdown'. That means *GET THE VERSION # TODAY* while you can still read the display! 

What version # is La Crosse up to? Did the BC-9009 pickup where the BC-900 left off?

How about the BC-700? Are those version #s LT 32, or was it totally separate? :thinking:


----------



## Turbo DV8

Mr Happy said:


> It may be time to start considering the hardware. The frequency of problems with the BC-9009 might suggest it is constructed differently inside from the BC-900 even though it is programmed the same.


 
I am sorry, I can't recall or give more details, but when I had my 900 and a 9009 opened up side by side, I noted numerous visible differences both in components, and to a lesser degree, casing assembly. Although I have a BS degree in electronics technology in my distant past (long since rendered useless by a change in career .. use it or lose it!), I am not an electronics expert, so I could not give more detail even if I recalled the differences.


----------



## ShawnLam

Both my models are BC-9009 version 35. I just plugged-in the one that had the meltdown and it still runs! Pretty scary.


----------



## Turbo DV8

Elliot said:


> Look at the writing, wrapper's color/the way it melts and the endcap. The *middle cell* is a cheap Chinese made fake eneloop.


 
Are you suggesting that the LaCrosse is racist?


----------



## Elliot

ShawnLam: I'm sorry you mis-understood my offer to buy chargers. I have never said and would never say that there isn't a problem with the LaCrosse chargers. I offered to buy working chargers in good condition that people have been frightened into believing are death traps.

I feel that charging a cell is like cooking. If you burn it - do you blame the oven? I don't feel like repeating my charging methods, but when I use my chargers if a cell gets too hot - it gets thrown out, just like my steaks. I don't wait for the plastic to melt. Many people would not agree with me and that's Ok too.

Yes, equipment, especially new electronics fail at an initially higher rate than equipment that's been in service for a while. And Maha makes a better charger than the LaCrosse. It's also much larger and costs more. One should expect more for their money. I happen to like the LaCrosse for its ease of use and the "quad" display. Both chargers work for me, I gave the Maha to my best friend a while back. He likes playing with the full set of features etc. 

Years ago I worked for G.E., RCA and Bell Labs in testing and launching new products. At that time we would have never put up with a product with this failure rate. But times are different now and we (the USA) don't know how to produce anything (well almost) of quality at a reasonable cost so we leave it to the countries with the cheapest labor pool.

I got two bc-900 chargers, maybe three years ago. Delivered to my door the cost was $62. That's two chargers, 16 cells, those size adapters and two Wonderful travel bags. I love those travel bags!:thumbsup:. As soon as I checked them out one went directly to my retired brother the budding photographer. Having worrked for NASA designing their fuel cells and power supplies - he thinks the LaCrosse is just fine for its price.


----------



## bob_ninja

A quick look at Thomas Dist. has Maha C9000 @ $49 and BC900 @ $36
Not to mention extra cells that come with BC900!
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to expect (some) lower quality components are used in the cheaper product given similar functionality implemented.

You wouldn't want to redline cheaper Hondas and Toyota whereas you can redline much more expensive BMWs without damage.

Point is, lower quality products use lower quality components and are less able to deal with performance close to speced limits. Which is basically what is happening here and why BC-700 seems to be fine.

My BC900 is several years old and 99% of the time I use 200 and 500 mA rates (lately more 500). I feel that so long as it can terminate reasonably well below 0.5C it is *MUCH* safer to not push it to higher rates. I used 1000 mA maybe 2-3 times total in the past 4 years or so. As long as your cells are in good conditions (over 80% of original capacity) then below 0.5C rates should be Ok. Still I only use it when present.

Regarding newer version, it wouldn't surprise me that they switched some components to yet cheaper lower quality alternatives. Just guessing that they may be pushing hard to reduce costs to increase profits, hence more failures. Of course, this is exactly what happens when we blindly chase lowest cost products and ignore all else.

If I were getting a charger today I would probably stay away from it or maybe go with BC-700. I love mine and still use it a lot. However, I only use it when present and do all my longer tasks like refresh and conditioning on Maha C9000. You only get what you pay for, so clearly BC900/700 cannot possibly be as reliable as more expensive chargers.

Too bad, I was hoping they would actually go the other way and come up with a BC1000 of higher quality.


----------



## ShawnLam

Elliot said:


> I feel that charging a cell is like cooking. If you burn it - do you blame the oven?



Hi Elliot - thanks for taking the time to reply.

I think you might be missing the main point here. To use your cooking analogy, the problem with the La Crosse charger is that the food isn't the thing that is burning but rather the oven is burning around the food.

Rather than repeat everything I'm posting on my blog I'll simply include the links on CFP so you guys can follow the progress:
Part 1 Mainly a repeat of what I have posted on CPF, with photos.
Part 2 I contacted the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, the seller - Amazon, and La Crosse.

Result: Amazon is no longer selling the BC-9009 directly and lists it as "Product Under Review". Unfortunately marketplace sellers can still sell the charger. So I'm calling this a "small victory".

I'm working on Part 3 right now.


----------



## CM

bob_ninja said:


> ...You wouldn't want to redline cheaper Hondas and Toyota whereas you can redline much more expensive BMWs without damage.
> 
> Point is, lower quality products use lower quality components and are less able to deal with performance close to speced limits. Which is basically what is happening here...



Expensive == Quality????? 

Gotta love some of the garbage that's perpetuated on the internet. I'll crawl back into my hole....


----------



## Mr Happy

CM said:


> Expensive == Quality?????
> 
> Gotta love some of the garbage that's perpetuated on the internet. I'll crawl back into my hole....


No, you are falling into a logical fallacy yourself.

Expensive is no guarantee of quality to be sure, but cheap sure is a good indicator of poor quality. When you buy stuff at the dollar store do you expect it to be strong, well designed and long lasting?

To put it another way, the $35 cost of the BC-9009 is about the same as a tank of gas that lasts a week, or lunch for two at a moderate restaurant. Pocket change in other words. I do honestly wonder why people expect an item that costs the equivalent of pocket change to contain high quality complex electronics, to have advanced features, and to survive years of use? It really doesn't add up.


----------



## ShawnLam

Mr Happy said:


> I do honestly wonder why people expect an item that costs the equivalent of pocket change to contain high quality complex electronics, to have advanced features, and to survive years of use? It really doesn't add up.



We can't always expect that our products survive years of use but we can DEMAND and EXPECT that when they do fail they are not dangerous. A battery charger that overheats and melts is simply unacceptable. 

In my case my BC-9009 was only six weeks old.

Bottom line: The chargers are not safe and are a fire hazard. They don't have an North American safety certification.


----------



## KiwiMark

Mr Happy said:


> To put it another way, the $35 cost of the BC-9009 is about the same as a tank of gas that lasts a week, or lunch for two at a moderate restaurant. Pocket change in other words. I do honestly wonder why people expect an item that costs the equivalent of pocket change to contain high quality complex electronics, to have advanced features, and to survive years of use? It really doesn't add up.



But my older one is over 4 years old and working well. I have lost count of how many AA & AAA batteries that it has charged, but it is quite a lot.


----------



## Elliot

Great Stuff ShawnLam! :thumbsup:

I wouldn't be too concerned about the spelling of English abbreviations. For example: NiCad can't be used without permission in the US. "Ac" is just awful, but I've seen worse. (some language -> Chinese -> many languages) 

The word “battery” gets my EE friends all hot and bothered. For the things we are discussing the correct term is “cell.” But, common usage won out a long time ago.

I have no idea of what's going on with the power adapter. The UL warnings were issued for an adapter with the same numbers but very different specs. In these cases the adapter itself was breaking down (I THINK?); not the end device.

Is there a serial number on the inside of your La Crosse charger? This might help La Crosse in determining the actual site/place of manufacture. The Chinese are well known for “cottage” or home assembly and this does not sit well with anyone outside of China. 

Very interesting stuff indeed. I’ve never really trusted UL in the USA. Better than nothing, I guess. They are a private organization and their Seal of Approval carries no weight, other than its “Good Name,” the're like Consumer Reports or JD Powers. Slap a phony UL sticker on your product and all they can do is make you take it off. You can still sell the product, without their logo. 

As to the FCC: They are an arm of the US Congress, with management appointed by the President, in other words, the worst of all worlds. 

If you really want to get into dangerous home electronics – look up Trust/Ultra/xxx/Fire Li-ion cells and chargers. When Li-ion cells go, it’s like deep frying a frozen turkey.

I will be following your blogs. I like the charger, but also like your persistence.lovecpf


----------



## KiwiMark

ShawnLam said:


> the AC adapter bears a counterfeit UL Listing.



If this AC adapter is dodgy then that could DEFINITELY lead to the charger failures. Too many volts can lead to components overheating and then releasing the magic smoke (without which the components will no longer work).


----------



## Mr Happy

ShawnLam said:


> We can't always expect that our products survive years of use but we can DEMAND and EXPECT that when they do fail they are not dangerous. A battery charger that overheats and melts is simply unacceptable.
> 
> In my case my BC-9009 was only six weeks old.
> 
> Take a look at my blog post for the full details but here is part 3.
> 
> The Underwriters Laboratories has opened an investigation because the AC adapter bears a counterfeit UL Listing. The same counterfeit listing number was used on another counterfeit AC adapter and UL issued a public notice to warn customers and forced a recall.
> 
> Bottom line: The chargers are not safe and are a fire hazard. They don't have an North American safety certification. The AC adapters are illegally displaying a counterfeit UL safety certification when they have not gone through the process.


I recognize what you are saying, but please understand I was responding directly to CM's comments on quality. I think in general consumers expect too much for too little today and it has had an overall negative effect on the market when it comes to product design and quality. If you put too little money into a product you are just inviting low quality goods, whether they be battery chargers, flashlights or anything else.


----------



## CM

Mr Happy said:


> No, you are falling into a logical fallacy yourself...



So you are saying that there is no such thing as a high quality at a low price? Your "...cheap sure is a good indicator of poor quality" is a logical fallacy. For example, I buy Hondas and Toyotas. They're inexpensive. But they not of poor quality. I've taken a Honda Accord to redline more often than I care to remember. It has lasted over 250k miles before someone rammed into it. Poor quality? Nope, I don't think so.


----------



## Turbo DV8

CM said:


> So you are saying that there is no such thing as a high quality at a low price? Your "...cheap sure is a good indicator of poor quality" is a logical fallacy. For example, I buy Hondas and Toyotas. They're inexpensive. But they not of poor quality.


 
Your Honda and Toyota are made in either Japan or the US. Did he say, "...cheap sure is a good indicator of poor quality?" OK, I'll say it. Let's quit being politically correct: replace the word "cheap" with the word "China" and that'll clear up any confusion on the semantics.


----------



## LeifUK

Turbo DV8 said:


> Your Honda and Toyota are made in either Japan or the US. Did he say, "...cheap sure is a good indicator of poor quality?" OK, I'll say it. Let's quit being politically correct: replace the word "cheap" with the word "China" and that'll clear up any confusion on the semantics.



If you look around your home you will probably find that an astonishing proportion of the goods you own were made in China. Here's a few of mine: 

Stove top coffee maker: stainless steel, well finished, much better quality than more expansive Italian made units (the handle dropped off one of my expensive Italian units). 
Kitchen scales: 2 units, well made, lasted years. 
Bathroom scales: 1 unit, well made, lasted years. 
IPods: 2, one is 4 years old. 
PC: Most of my PC is made in China. 
DAB radios: 2 units, 1 is 6 years old, t'other a few years old. 

I could continue. 

The truth is that what matters is the quality control, and the machines used. The good Chinese lights no doubt are made using CNC. Chinese goods are cheap due to low labour costs not because they are bad. American (and UK) goods are expensive due to high labour costs. America can produce good and poor quality goods, as can China. 

China has some issues with consumer and worker protection, though the people who watered down milk with a toxin leading to the death of babies were executed. 

If you want a country that produces consistently low quality goods, I would look towards India.


----------



## Mr Happy

CM said:


> So you are saying that there is no such thing as a high quality at a low price?


I'm not saying that at all. But I am saying that if you cut the price, then all things being equal you will be sacrificing quality. Sure, there will be the odd exception, but a few exceptions do not disprove a trend.



> Your "...cheap sure is a good indicator of poor quality" is a logical fallacy. For example, I buy Hondas and Toyotas. They're inexpensive. But they not of poor quality. I've taken a Honda Accord to redline more often than I care to remember. It has lasted over 250k miles before someone rammed into it. Poor quality? Nope, I don't think so.


I drive Hondas too, and I know they have the best quality and reliability of almost any automobile out there. They may be inexpensive, but they are not cheap. I observed that there were much lower prices available on equivalent GM models, and there you have a totally different quality picture. They may have tried to improve a bit recently, but historically there is a very good reason for GM's financial woes, and it is not the recession.

Let's not pick fights here, huh? You know that quality costs money, and I know that quality costs money. Quality takes care in design, good process in manufacturing, and attention to detail. None of those come cheap.


----------



## LeifUK

Mr Happy said:


> Let's not pick fights here, huh? You know that quality costs money, and I know that quality costs money. Quality takes care in design, good process in manufacturing, and attention to detail. None of those come cheap.



Labour is very cheap in China. And they are skilled at investing in machinery to allow mass production with high quality. 



Mr Happy said:


> To put it another way, the $35 cost of the BC-9009 is about the same as a tank of gas that lasts a week, or lunch for two at a moderate restaurant. Pocket change in other words. I do honestly wonder why people expect an item that costs the equivalent of pocket change to contain high quality complex electronics, to have advanced features, and to survive years of use? It really doesn't add up.



I would not describe that as cheap, far from it. Cheap is the £2.50 (about $4) including shipping Panasonic AA/AAA charger that I picked up as an emergency backup. In the UK the BC-9009 charger is quite expensive compared to bog standard ones that most people buy/use. It is far more expensive than good quality electronic scales with LCD displays, if you want a comparison. 

Unfortunately price is a weak indicator of quality. It can indicate a high mark up, high distribution costs, high labour costs, high quality parts, very skilled labour, high consumer demand and/or low competition, research and development costs, and so on. Your dinner for two example requires expensive American labour. 

No doubt some Chinese goods are rubbish. 

I would have thought that the only way to know in the case of that charger is for someone knowledgeable to take one apart, and examine the insides. Apologies if you have done so, and drawn conclusions, and I missed your post.


----------



## Mr Happy

LeifUK said:


> I would not describe that as cheap, far from it. Cheap is the £2.50 (about $4) including shipping Panasonic AA/AAA charger that I picked up as an emergency backup...


You did well with that charger, but I bet that isn't the normal price, it was a special bargain, right?

I'm in the UK at the moment, and out of interest I looked at the chargers available. Tesco had practically no rechargeables but bins full of alkalines, and Argos had only Energizer or some no-name brand. The basic Energizer Quattro charger is £17.99 ($25), the Energizer Rapide charger (3-6 hour charging) is £27.99 ($39) and the Energizer 1 hour charger is £32.99 ($46).

I see electronic kitchen scales from £9.99 in the bargain bin up to about £30, with the good quality ones being in the £20-£30 range.



> I would have thought that the only way to know in the case of that charger is for someone knowledgeable to take one apart, and examine the insides. Apologies if you have done so, and drawn conclusions, and I missed your post.


I would have thought the fact they keep melting and self destructing inside is evidence enough...? (But yes, an electronic engineer has taken one of the old BC-900 models apart and has identified several significant design problems. You can find some old posts on the forum about how to modify a BC-900 to remedy the worst of the failings.)


----------



## LeifUK

Mr Happy said:


> You did well with that charger, but I bet that isn't the normal price, it was a special bargain, right?



I suspect they bought a load of them at a bargain price. So yes, that is an unusually low price. And the brand name suggests that it is not rubbish, unless I am mistaken. 



Mr Happy said:


> I'm in the UK at the moment, and out of interest I looked at the chargers available. Tesco had practically no rechargeables but bins full of alkalines, and Argos had only Energizer or some no-name brand. The basic Energizer Quattro charger is £17.99 ($25), the Energizer Rapide charger (3-6 hour charging) is £27.99 ($39) and the Energizer 1 hour charger is £32.99 ($46).



The price you pay very much depends on where you buy. If you buy items such as batteries, especially CR123a and rechargeables, from the high street, you get well and truly ripped off because people tend not to think much before buying them. For example, the per unit price for a CR123a is £9 from a well known high street store, and even the well known Play.com charge £6, but it is not hard to find branded (Panasonic) cells for ~£1.50 each online (especially if you buy 10)

I bought a Panasonic BQ-392 for £12 including shipping online, and it is not hard to find it at that sort of price. The Energiser Rapide is not hard to find at ~£15 with free batteries: 

http://shop.eurobatteries.com/energizer-rapide-charger-2xaaa-batteries-free-p-3214.html

Here is (I think) the same charger as the Lacrosse in the UK: 

http://www.batterylogic.co.uk/technoline/technoline-i-charger.asp

£42 ~ US$60. 

You also have to be careful comparing UK and US prices. You have lower distribution costs due to a larger populace speaking (mostly) English. 



Mr Happy said:


> I see electronic kitchen scales from £9.99 in the bargain bin up to about £30, with the good quality ones being in the £20-£30 range.



Depends on the shop, but that's not far off what I see. 



Mr Happy said:


> I would have thought the fact they keep melting and self destructing inside is evidence enough...? (But yes, an electronic engineer has taken one of the old BC-900 models apart and has identified several significant design problems. You can find some old posts on the forum about how to modify a BC-900 to remedy the worst of the failings.)



Thanks for the information. I think we can agree that the BC-900 is sub-standard.  From what I have heard on this forum, I'd not touch it with the proverbial barge pole. 

As an aside, what would you recommend as a good charger at a modest price, and a good charger with features as per the Lacrosse? I suspect that 'fancy' chargers are only worth buying if you use a large number of batteries (or recharge often). But I am open to alternative opinions.


----------



## Mr Happy

LeifUK said:


> As an aside, what would you recommend as a good charger at a modest price, and a good charger with features as per the Lacrosse? I suspect that 'fancy' chargers are only worth buying if you use a large number of batteries (or recharge often). But I am open to alternative opinions.


It's very difficult to recommend a good charger at a modest price. The market has a severe paucity of such chargers. On the occasions that some have been produced (e.g. the Duracell Power Gauge or Mobile chargers, sold in Europe with different names though) they have been discontinued from sale after barely a year or two.

The ideal charger would have four independent charging channels, individual automatic charge termination per channel, a 1-2 hour charging time, a design that avoids excess heat generation and keeps the batteries cool, a discharge feature, and a worldwide power supply. I have not found a charger that exactly meets all these requirements. Even if you drop features like the discharge function or worldwide power supply, or accept a slower charge rate, it is still difficult. One of the closest matches would be the Maha C401FS, but you'll never find that in the high street.

For a good charger with features like the LaCrosse you would have to select the Maha C9000. And to be honest, even if you don't use all the features it may be worth the investment. It is solidly engineered, Maha has excellent product support, and it charges batteries well. Even if you don't use the advanced features it does a very good job of the basics. Compared to the rip-off prices of the simple chargers, the C9000 does actually justify its price.


----------



## LeifUK

Mr Happy said:


> One of the closest matches would be the Maha C401FS, but you'll never find that in the high street.
> 
> For a good charger with features like the LaCrosse you would have to select the Maha C9000. And to be honest, even if you don't use all the features it may be worth the investment. It is solidly engineered, Maha has excellent product support, and it charges batteries well. Even if you don't use the advanced features it does a very good job of the basics. Compared to the rip-off prices of the simple chargers, the C9000 does actually justify its price.



Thanks.


----------



## bob_ninja

CM said:


> So you are saying that there is no such thing as a high quality at a low price? Your "...cheap sure is a good indicator of poor quality" is a logical fallacy. For example, I buy Hondas and Toyotas. They're inexpensive. But they not of poor quality. I've taken a Honda Accord to redline more often than I care to remember. It has lasted over 250k miles before someone rammed into it. Poor quality? Nope, I don't think so.



Except that BC900 would equal a Yugo more than Toyota/Honda.
The point is that *IN GENERAL* cheaper products have *LOWER QUALITY* even though some cheap products may function well for years. The problem is that as the tend to cheaper/lower quality keeps going further and further at some point the longevity/safety take a big hit.

I was simply wondering if BC900 is being pushed too far using cheaper/lower quality components, that is all.

By comparison, we all know Honda and Toyota are well aware of their brand and quality image, so they are not going down this road. They are actually the exact opposite example of companies that kept and increased quality of their components to maintain their brand image.


----------



## joeparker54

I just got a bc-9009 for christmas! I still asked for one despite the meltdowns. Currently, I'm running 4 batteries on a 1000/500ma refresh cycle. When all four cells were charging, i could definitely feel some warmth around the base of this thing. However, I happened to have an old laptop fan assembly and and an extra 5V power supply, so i rigged this up:







now, even when charging all 4 cells at 1A, the charger stays cool!

I guess my main concern is the fact that i'm going to be working quite a bit in this next week and i'm worried about leaving the charger unattended. Currently, it's sitting on a laminated Steelcase desktop with plenty of clearance from anything flammable and the power supply is plugged into my UPS. Do you guys think i'm okay to leave this alone for extended periods of time (say 8-12hrs)???


----------



## jeober

My BC-9009 overheated yesterday upon the first use. I used the Lacrosse branded 4 AA 2600 maH batteries supplied. In the test mode, the 4 batteries each topped off to full charge using the 1000ma charge rate in approx. 10 minutes at which point the charger switched to discharge at the 500ma rate. In about 5 hours the first battery reached the 100% discharge threshold (0.90v) and this channel switched back to charge although it showed only 250ma rate and this was quite variable. Within several minutes I felt a hot spot through the bottom at this battery position. Within 10 minutes and before the other batteries could reach their respective discharge terminations, the button at this first battery position had melted down and sunk.

Interestingly, the charger still retains full function. Perhaps if I hadn't intervened so quickly the failure may have been more progressive. So this isn't a irreversable failure of a component - but something physically incorrect in this particular charger by design or build.

Update:

I repeated the test cycle above. Again, the same channel [2] reached the discharge threshold and the charger switched into charge mode, charging at indicated apprx 250ma. The electronics at that position reacted and overheated in the same manner. After about 10 minutes the LCD began to flash between "full" and the subnormal charge current. Then position 1 switched over to charge. The channel 1 button proceeded to meltdown in the same manner and that channel reached the same end point after about 10 minutes. Then positions 3 & 4 switched to charge but, after a brief time at 250ma, these went to the proper 1000ma charge current. Channels 1 & 2 after the thermal event appear to shut down or stabilize. 


Update 2:

Even with buttons 1 and 2 melted down the charger still functions. I next decided to try the test cycle again, selecting down to the 700ma charge rate. All 4 channels successfully made the complete round trip. So, with no big surprise, my thermal problem appears to be related to the 1000ma charge rate, and maybe using a completely discharged battery.


----------



## ShawnLam

joeparker54 said:


> I still asked for one despite the meltdowns.



 Unbelievable. You have to be kidding me - despite all the information that demonstrates that the BC-9009 charger doesn't have any relevant safety certifications, CPF members discussing how the circuitry isn't adequate, recent photos showing damage, and assertions from the Underwriters Laboratories that the AC adapter is a fake and never underwent 3rd party safety testing and is illegally using the UL mark, you still feel the need to support this company and be a part of the PROBLEM and the reason they have been able to get away with this for so many years.

Add to that Amazon has pulled the product and the US Consumer Product Safety Commission opened an investigation.

Here is another NEW STORY from a user who had a Christmas Day meltdown!

These things aren't safe and a fan is not going to protect you. All of the safety mechanisms that prevent overheating and overcharging aren't working and the unit is pumping 1,000 mA to a full battery. I'm not an electrical guy but I understand that the battery can't handle any more charge and the only way to dissipate it is to create heat - lots of it. It doesn't take long for these units to melt - only 2 hours from start of charge for mine.

So even if you don't burn down your house you will wreck your batteries as the trickle charge mode won't engage.

I apologize if this might sound harsh but I've got a baby on the way in a few weeks and my charger almost burned my house down just before Christmas so I'm not taking this lightly and won't rest until something is done to remove this threat. I also want to show that someone doesn't need to die before this charger gets recalled.
______________


So if you want to be part of the solution here are a few easy steps you can do. No one is going to thank you but we can make our homes dramatically safer with a few simple actions:

1 - Call the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. 1-800-638-1772. Tell them that you had a meltdown (if you had one) or that you purchased a battery charger and your research tells you that it is defective and a fire hazard and you would like them to investigate and remove it from the marketplace. You can also file a report online here.

2 - Call your retailer (the one who sold it to you) and tell them the product is unsafe and you would like a refund and for them to no longer carry the product. Tell them the AC adapter has fake UL certifications and this is illegal. Retailers are being tricked too and need to be educated. They will listen to their customers.

If you bought it online and the company asks for feedback (Amazon) then add your voice - don't recommend the product, leave negative feedback, educate future consumers, and provide links to sources (like CPF).

3 - Call La Crosse and tell them you would like them to recall the product as it is not safe and has fake UL certifications. 
608-782-1610. Here is the direct line to the VP and National Sales Manager, **** Norford. 608-782-1982 x 146

Tell them you will keep educating consumers and retailers until such a time that they fix their product and get proper 3rd party certification. They currently have a European CE mark but even if it looks official it is a self-assessed certification and no 3rd party testing was done.

____________

If you have any other ideas how we can stop La Crosse from selling this unsafe product, reply to this forum. Together we CAN make a difference. We all know we can. Now lets do it.


----------



## ShawnLam

jeober said:


> My BC-9009 overheated yesterday upon the first use. I used the 4 AA 2600 maH as supplied.



jeober - thanks for sharing. Please take photos.

I was thinking the same thing - take some video of the destruction and post it online but have my defective units promised to US Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Please do your part by contacting them and sharing your experience. They take a long time to move but once they do they will probably make the biggest difference.

Also feel free to cross-post on my blog to make sure your story gets shared and consumers can be warned.


----------



## jeober

I updated my previous post. I witnessed the failure twice before my eyes with the charger in my hands. This had nothing to do with the user abuse, wrong batteries, EMC issues, or operating ambient. 

The charger will go back to Amazon.


----------



## alfreddajero

Good, spend the extra bit and please get a Maha. You will love it man.:twothumbs


----------



## TakeTheActive

ShawnLam said:


> *I just experienced a melt-down*...





jeober said:


> *My BC-9009 overheated yesterday upon the first use*...



*ShawnLam* and *jeober*,

Please VOTE and then add your 'Meltdown' Details to:

*Poll: La Crosse BC-700/BC-900/BC-9009 Charger 'Meltdown' Reports*​Thanks!


----------



## TakeTheActive

ShawnLam said:


> ...*Result: Amazon is no longer selling the BC-9009 directly and lists it as "Product Under Review". Unfortunately marketplace sellers can still sell the charger*. So I'm calling this a "small victory"...


It appears that the 'Review Period' has ended and Amazon.Com is now selling the BC-9009 directly again @ $39.99. :sigh:


----------



## alfreddajero

Well i just hope people heed the words of wisdom and know what there getting into when they order the charger.


----------



## Bones

The first post has been updated with hyperlinks to nine more melt-down reports. They involved a total of eleven chargers.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post3193233
.


----------



## Bones

While reviewing the most recent melt-down reports on Amazon, I noted this somewhat misinformed reply that's most notable for how subtly it misleads:



> jbat says:
> 
> Did you report this to LaCrosse? I don't understand this. I was just on The Candlepower forum and the moderator had stated that he hadn't heard of a meltdown in years and assumed the problem was fixed. Mine works fine. However on any charger I always calculate how much time the batteries take to charge and pull them out if it's past the time needed. I don't think any charger is safe as they all can miss the "signal" that the battery is fully charged and overcharge the battery. Also the heat sensors may be defective since all charges in this class have a built in overheat sensor.


----------



## shadowjk

I almost had a metldown while using a fan. One cell overheated, melted a bit of plastic on the charger, and vented. The charger was mostly OK though.. as far as these things are okay to begin with.

I wish Maha C-9000 had better availability, it's so hard to get them at <$150 if you aren't in north america...


----------



## Mr Happy

shadowjk said:


> I wish Maha C-9000 had better availability, it's so hard to get them at <$150 if you aren't in north america...


Standard price is £49.95 direct from Maha in the UK. You have not filled in your location so I don't know where you are though...


----------



## SilverFox

Hello Bones,

I just tried to post a comment to Jbat's remark, but since I haven't purchased that charger from Amazon, I can't post a comment.

I was trying to post this...

"Hello Jbat,

You should go back to CandlepowerForums and read a little more...

The last time I checked there were reports of 11 melt down problems with this charger.

Tom"

Oh well, if someone from Amazon makes it over here perhapes they will find this thread.

Tom


----------



## Turbo DV8

alfreddajero said:


> Well i just hope people heed the words of wisdom and know what there getting into when they order the charger.


 
Amazon needs to post on the LaCrosse page one of those helpful shopping suggestions... "People who bought the LaCrosse BC-9009 also bought the American LaFrance Fire Extinguisher."


----------



## Light Sabre

Another safety feature LaCrosse ought to add is a speaker and have the charger say "I'm melting, I'm melting" with the voice of the wicked witch on the "Wizard of Oz" after Dorothy accidenlty poured water on her.  But it probably wouldn't work anyway because the charger doesn't detect when the batteries overheat. 

Other features to add: built in smoke detector, built in fire extinguisher, 4 amp fuse, 

One thing I noticed on my AC adapter it says on the bottom sticker "*nicad rechargeable battery Ac Adapter*". Upper case and lower case are exactly as shown. My charger is 3 1/2 years old and version 3.2. What do the newer adapters say?


----------



## joeparker54

ShawnLam said:


> Unbelievable. You have to be kidding me....


Oh, believe it. I'm not kidding.



ShawnLam said:


> Add to that Amazon has pulled the product and the US Consumer Product Safety Commission opened an investigation.


...and renounced it a whopping 2 days later. It was back up for sale the 24th.




ShawnLam said:


> These things aren't safe and a fan is not going to protect you.


you make a good point. Hey, the next time your by your desktop, open up the case, reach on in and disconnect the fan on the processor - oh and stick a pencil in the one on the power supply. What the heck are those there for anyway???:shrug:




ShawnLam said:


> So even if you don't burn down your house you will wreck your batteries as the trickle charge mode won't engage.


I have working smoke alarms and homeowners insurance and the batteries cost about a buck apiece.

I understand the product is flawed and should be fixed, until then I think i found a way to get the features i want. I intend to use the charger to test/refresh and catalog all of my batteries. If i can finish in less than 30 days, i'll take it off life support (the cpu fan) and let it fail with some old cells

I apologize if this might sound harsh but you're not at all a regular at cpf, you're just looking for a place to spread your message. I'm not saying it's not warrented, but what i'm saying is that you don't understand the way some people around here view the subject. You said yourself that you're not an "electrical guy", some of us around here are. I happen to be an EE student who loves to poke and prod around in electronics. I look at the bc-9009 as a mod project. I simply want to see if I can create a way to get the features that i want in a charger and reliability. If in the end, all that costs me is a few hours of time, some spare fans i have laying around, or even a few dollars worth of resistors, caps, and some shrink-tubing - I'll still be happy.


----------



## alfreddajero

Joeparker54, please dont ever leave the charger unattended......And if you have little ones around like i do make sure they keep away from it. I keep rcr's that are in my lights away from my littlest one, since she likes to put the light in her mouth and loves to bang the light on the furniture and of course my head.....lol.


----------



## jeober

Summary of my melt-down. I posted earlier on this. 

My failure results during a discharge cycle followed by a 1000ma charge cycle using 4 batteries. Whichever channel reaches the reversal point first, that button melts down within 10 minutes. Then that channel goes into a thermal shut-down mode. There is no hard failure -- the channel will reset and recover after re-powering. I have done this 3 times, melting down three buttons separately. If the buttons where made from higher temperature plastic I wouldn't have a issue except I couldn't use 1000ma charge mode, at least starting from a 0.9v discharge point with one battery.

I'm on vacation in FL presently but when I get home I will measure my power supply voltage. I suspect the issue might lay here. What is normal open circuit voltage from a unit with no issues?


----------



## Conan

SilverFox said:


> Hello Bones,
> 
> I just tried to post a comment to Jbat's remark, but since I haven't purchased that charger from Amazon, I can't post a comment.
> 
> I was trying to post this...
> 
> "Hello Jbat,
> 
> You should go back to CandlepowerForums and read a little more...
> 
> The last time I checked there were reports of 11 melt down problems with this charger.
> 
> Tom"
> 
> Oh well, if someone from Amazon makes it over here perhapes they will find this thread.
> 
> Tom



I posted a reply at Amazon linking to our thread here.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2KH46...2&newContentID=Mx9STNYBMGT2TU#Mx2HD6LBMILWOW1


----------



## Elliot

SilverFox:

Tom, please stay out of this discussion. Your expertise and common sense has no place in this thread.:devil:


----------



## Mark620

Phew...Glad I checked on these...I almost bought one but not now...Thanks

Sorry to hear about all the "lost" $chargers$

Should I get a hobby charger/conditioner or Maha C-9000 or ??? 

I have 
NimH AAA,AA,D 
Li-ion 14500, 1634, 18650, 18500 etc.


----------



## MarioJP

Dang that's crazy the meltdowns still continues??. I have 2 of these chargers and have charged duraloops, rayovac hybrids. Sometimes I charge 8 cells at a time at 1 amp. 2 hours later or so they are done charging.

Are you guys saying that the later ones that are being manufactured are worst?

It does get quite warm to almost hot but nowhere near the melting point. Just curious what they did with the recent manufactured ones.

after all the extensive testing using this charger, I think mines does not have that issue. I am also curious about the power supply that these units are being shipped now. Mines are 3 volt 4 amps on both of these chargers.

as for joeparker54 I use a fan for both these chargers as I don't want them to warm up. Most have stated that the fan won't prevent the overheating. If that is the case sounds like something shorted inside. I wonder if they made any changes to this charger from the day that I bought mines from Amazon to what they are selling now??. Just because the charger looks alike does not mean they are alike. I say this because I been using this charger quite frequently and has not failed me. Done refresh cycles on lot of cells, test cycles too. I practically have used every featured on this charger and its still going.

And yes this charger is back up on Amazon. Whoever requested to have this charger be pulled off from Amazon, clearly Amazon was probably laughing or did not take this individual seriously lol.


----------



## SilverFox

Hello Conan,

Thanks.

Tom


----------



## SilverFox

Hello Elliot,

 

Tom


----------



## Bones

SilverFox said:


> Hello Conan,
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Tom



+1...


----------



## Bones

MarioJP said:


> ...
> 
> And yes this charger is back up on Amazon. Whoever requested to have this charger be pulled off from Amazon, clearly Amazon was probably laughing or did not take this individual seriously lol.



MarioJP,

Considering how closely you've been following this thread, you know very well that it was forum member ShawnLam that caused Amazon to pull the BC-9009. You also know very well that rather than return the charger for a full refund, he elected to incur the additional cost of forwarding the power supply to Underwriters Laboratories and the charger to the United States Consumer Protection Agency.

I find it utterly incredulous that rather than appreciate these gestures that could ultimately benefit us all, you would go so far as to actually prove your utter dearth of character by instead subjecting him to your mockery.


----------



## MarioJP

No I was not trying to mock him. I am just saying that Amazon does not care obviously. Normally this product should been recalled already.


----------



## Turbo DV8

joeparker54 said:


> I have working smoke alarms and homeowners insurance and the batteries cost about a buck apiece...


Three cheers for balls of steel, I say!  That's like saying I'm not going to fix those grinding brakes in the car because it hasn't let me down yet, and anyway, it has air bags and I have life insurance. BTW, you'll be paying a lot more than a buck for the deductible on that homeowner's insurance. 



joeparker54 said:


> I understand the product is flawed and should be fixed... I simply want to see if I can create a way to get the features that i want in a charger and reliability.


 
But you could have accomplished all that with the BC-700. Could have gone to Amazon and simply clicked on this instead of that, but rather chose to roll the potentially deadly dice for no logical reason. I have three BC-900's and one BC-700, so I'm not anti-LaCrosse, but I wouldn't touch the new BC-9009 with a ten foot pole, and I have smoke detectors just like you.:shrug:


----------



## Bones

MarioJP said:


> No I was not trying to mock him. I am just saying that Amazon does not care obviously. Normally this product should been recalled already.



That being the case, please accept my apology for interpreting your initial statement otherwise and responding accordingly.


----------



## ShawnLam

Light Sabre said:


> One thing I noticed on my AC adapter it says on the bottom sticker "nicad rechargeable battery Ac Adapter". Upper case and lower case are exactly as shown. My charger is 3 1/2 years old and version 3.2. What do the newer adapters say?



The new ones say the same thing. 3.0v - 4.0A

I thought investigating the UL listing was an avenue I could explore, and my initial investigation led me to believe that the AC Adapter was not properly listed with UL, despite a UL listing mark. The listing number was also shared with a known counterfeit AC Adapter but that appears unrelated.

I spoke with 3 individuals (including a UL investigator) and none of them was able to verify the certification. However it turns out that the UL mark is valid, just very difficult to verify as the listing was grouped under: KSAFExxxyyyyW1US, rather than with the long form mark of KSAFE0300400W1US

So looks like we are only dealing with a defective battery charger and the AC Adapter is fine.


----------



## ShawnLam

MarioJP said:


> No I was not trying to mock him. I am just saying that Amazon does not care obviously. Normally this product should been recalled already.



I'm very disappointed that the Amazon review was so short and appears to have had little or no effect, although it is difficult to quantify these things or to tell what actions will lead to a recall, which is why I'm trying a few avenues. I'm waiting to hear back from my contact at Amazon for an update.

I wasn't offended by your original comments - so no apology necessary.

I feel the same way - that Amazon doesn't care or that they are simply selling too many La Crosse chargers and the defect rate is an acceptable risk compared to the profit potential. Currently they are listed as the #10 best seller in the "home and garden" section, although it was #1 only two days ago. It is probably not a fair comparison as other electronics are in the "electronics" category but perhaps this is because it is safer to use the BC-9009 outside to prevent house fires.

I also noticed that currently they are no longer shipping outside the US, which is a change as when I purchased my defective units they were shipped to Canada.


----------



## ShawnLam

Bones said:


> MarioJP,
> You also know very well that rather than return the charger for a full refund, he elected to incur the additional cost of forwarding the power supply to Underwriters Laboratories and the charger to the United States Consumer Protection Agency.



I was able to get a full refund from Amazon after I told them that I was forwarding the defective units to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission for review and was unable to return.

I spoke with the USPSC this morning and they would like more user reports in order to escalate the issue. Here is the online link that only takes a moment.

US Consumer Product Safety Commission


----------



## chas0039

I have no skin in this game, but just this AM I received a call from La Crosse in response to an email I sent suggesting that they become involved publicly in this problem. I was very impressed with the guy's sincerity and their concern on this issue. He said they were working very hard to replicate the problem in their labs and that they were taking this seriously.

This is the first time ever, in many many years, that I have received a phone call in response to a customer service inquiry. La Crosse has significantly increased their reputation as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Light Sabre

ShawnLam I was just wondering that electrical noise of some kind is raising havoc with the MCU, FETs, etc. 

AC power noise on the adapter input primary side from: 

1) Nearby devices like computers, microwave ovens, garbage disposals, AC power communications systems, hair dryers, washers, dryters, etc.

2) Power disturbances. I have read articles about how many disturbances/day we get in just one day. Power Line Disturbances

On the adapter output side: 

3) Switching noise from the the AC adapter itself.

4) The power cord from the adapter to the charger itself acting like an antenna and picking up all kinds of stray noise. The power cord doesn't look shielded to me.

From both the charger output side and internal to the charger itself: 

5) Tantalum and electrolytic capactiors have a capactitance tolerance something like -20% to +80%. If someones adapter happened to have caps on the low side then there may not be enough filtering. Some circuit designers use the lowest voltage capacitors that they think will work. I have personally seen a device that had for example a 15 volt supply with a 16v filtering capacitor. Over time positve spikes, noise, etc will gradually destroy the dielectric insulator inside the cap. I personally use the 75% rule in most everything I design. So in the example above, for the 15V supply my calculations would give a 20V cap (15/.75) and rounded up to the next standard voltage rating would give 25V.

6) I used to do audio, tv repairs and have seen on devices that go thru a lot of hot/cold cycling form cracks around the leads on the high power componets effectively creating intermittent or open connections.

Since the discussion in this thread started, I have placed my two 3 1/2 year old (ver 3.2) BC-900's on a fire proof surface. I will find out what the adapters switching frequency is and filter it out. Add a ~3-4A inline fuse. I will have to figure out what amp rating ( I don't charge about 700ma) fuse and whether to use a fast, medium, or slow blo so that if the charger current goes wide open the fuse will blow.

If anyone has any better ides that do not involve opening the case, please let me know. I have the skills to mod the pcb if necessary, but would prefer to have a schematic before I just take someone elses word for it.

I'm glad to see that LaCrosse is taking the matter seriously. I'm not sure if they're looking into some of my ideas/experience listed above.


----------



## Turbo DV8

Light Sabre said:


> ShawnLam I was just wondering that electrical noise of some kind is raising havoc with the MCU, FETs, etc. If anyone has any better ides that do not involve opening the case, please let me know. I have the skills to mod the pcb if necessary.


 
The CPU resetting/hanging was not unheard of even back in the early days of the BC-900. All three of mine did it occasionally, and all were cured forever with simple filter caps installed on the PCB. However, even when mine did it, it never caused meltdown. When it happened, it would simply reset the unit to 200 mA charge rate, or disallow certain user inputs, requiring a quick unplug-replug of the AC adpater. But never a meltdown!

My BC-700 has never exhibited this reset/hang problem, so I have never added the filter caps, but I intend to just in case.


----------



## ShawnLam

chas0039 said:


> I was very impressed with the guy's sincerity and their concern on this issue. He said they were working very hard to replicate the problem in their labs and that they were taking this seriously.
> 
> This is the first time ever, in many many years, that I have received a phone call in response to a customer service inquiry. La Crosse has significantly increased their reputation as far as I am concerned.



On the surface it might sound like they are making an effort - they are returning calls and claim to be 'working very hard to replicate the problem' but I wouldn't go so far as to say it should increase their reputation or put them in the league of good corporate citizens.

The bottom line is that their current BC-9009 firmware 35 is experiencing a very high rate of overheating, causing meltdowns. It is important that they investigate an eventually fix the product but they have a corporate, ethical, and social responsibility to STOP SELLING the product until such a time as they can solve the issue. And while they are at it they should recall all the affected units.

This is pretty easy to do as most of their sales are from online retailers who who have all the customer information in their database.

Just my 2 cents. I don't see much happening now that Amazon has reinstated the product so I'm just going to leave this matter to the US CPSC to investigate and in the hands of the CPF members to keep documenting the issue so that it remains top of mind and doesn't just get swept under the rug.


----------



## DiverDn

ShawnLam said:


> We can't always expect that our products survive years of use but we can DEMAND and EXPECT that when they do fail they are not dangerous. A battery charger that overheats and melts is simply unacceptable.
> 
> In my case my BC-9009 was only six weeks old.
> 
> Bottom line: The chargers are not safe and are a fire hazard. They don't have an North American safety certification. The AC adapters are illegally displaying a counterfeit UL safety certification when they have not gone through the process.



ShawnLam,

I don't know what the laws are in BC, it is obvious to me that you feel very strongly that these chargers present a hazard to the normal consumer. In reading this thread it sounds like you have done some research and tried to find a solution to get this problem taken care of.

Why don't you take all of your evidence and concerns to a trail lawyer and see if there is enough facts to get a class action lawsuit started?

I hate un-needed lawsuits, but if this problem is as bad as you say it is, you should take this next step to get it corrected.

disclaimer to say that I am not a lawyer, do not or have never owned one of these chargers and have nothing to gain or lose by them being on the market or taken off the market.


----------



## ShawnLam

DiverDn said:


> ShawnLam,
> 
> I don't know what the laws are in BC...
> 
> Why don't you take all of your evidence and concerns to a trail lawyer and see if there is enough facts to get a class action lawsuit started?



One of the challenges for me dealing with this problem is that it is mainly a US problem. La Cross chargers are not easily available in Canada, except previously from US online retailers, which is how I obtained mine.

I verified with our Provincial regulations branch, the BC Safety Authority, and was told it is not even legal for a BC retailer to sell this battery charger in BC as it does not have a recognized 3rd party safety certification. The CE mark La Cross displays is a self-assessed mark that is not equivalent to UL, CSA, or dozens of others. 

Unfortunately in the US there are no national rules for electronics certification of this class of devide, although I have not looked into any State regulations as there are just too many.

The Amazon spokesperson I spoke with told me that they do not have any safety requirements from their retailers but I did let them know that we have safety requirements in Canada.

Although I don't consider my work a big victory yet as the product was only off the Amazon marketplace for a few hours, it is no longer being sold outside the US and at least not available to any Canadians.

Also being Canadian it would be too difficult for me to start any legal action and fortunately no one has been hurt or property damaged (that has been reported) so damages would be limited to a simple refund of money spent.

The other issue is that there just aren't enough people reporting their meltdowns to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, even though the online form only takes 3 minutes and you are allowed to remain anonymous. In all these years of meltdowns, I was the first to report anything to them. We all know there are many more with meltdowns because they have posted on Amazon, CPF, and returned their melted chargers to Thomas Distributing (2 confirmed) but until they report to the US CPSC that simply isn't enough.

I just hope La Crosse can figure out their problem, but how optimistic can I be? It isn't an entirely new problem, it is just that we are making more noise than before and it is getting worse.


----------



## SilverFox

Hello ShawnLam,

I really don't expect La Crosse to do anything on this. The last time we pushed about the BC-900 melt downs they responded by stating that the meltdown incidents were statistically insignificant...

I am hoping to be surprised this time, but am not holding my breath.

Tom


----------



## TakeTheActive

Bones said:


> MarioJP,
> 
> *Considering how closely you've been following this thread*, you know very well that it was forum member ShawnLam that caused Amazon to pull the BC-9009. You also know very well that rather than return the charger for a full refund, he elected to incur the additional cost of forwarding the power supply to Underwriters Laboratories and the charger to the United States Consumer Protection Agency.
> 
> *I find it utterly incredulous that rather than appreciate these gestures that could ultimately benefit us all, you would go so far as to actually prove your utter dearth of character by instead subjecting him to your mockery*.





MarioJP said:


> *No I was not trying to mock him*. I am just saying that Amazon does not care obviously. Normally this product should been recalled already.



*Bones*,

*+1* :twothumbs (*BUT* _with further details_... :tinfoil: )

Considering how STRICT the Owner(s) / Moderators of CPF are about '_personal attacks_', I personally view your post as truly "*Stepping Out on a Limb*"  . And, I feel that you stepped up and stated something that *MANY* of us have been '_thinking_' for a while. 

All any CPF member has to do is: *Search this Thread: | Advanced Search | User Name: MarioJP* to see *EXACTLY* what you're talking about.






*NOTE: *At this point in time, I don't know if the above '*Search this Thread*' LINK depends on a COOKIE on my PC, or if the imbedded SEARCHID will eventually '_timeout_', or if it will even work from YOUR PC.  I will test it from another PC on my LAN '_shortly_' (this is my *2nd* 'Experiment' into how vBulletin works (without actually waiting for the results of the 1st posted (several?) moments ago ) - *"Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained"*  ).

As for the '*mockery*', from my '_usually multiple times daily_' reading of the CPF 'Batteries Included' Forum, I honestly don't believe that THAT was *MarioJP's* intention.:shrug:

*MarioJP*,

IMHO, *NO ONE* is picking on / attacking you. What I believe is happening is:
Someone (let's say CPF member #1) posts a problem (usually, it seems, with a La Crosse charger).
You express disbelief, stating that YOUR La Crosse charger(s) work fine.
Someone else (let's say CPF member #2) posts that s/he agrees with CPF member #1.
You express disbelief, stating that YOUR La Crosse charger(s) work fine.
Someone else (let's say CPF member #3) posts that s/he agrees with CPF members #1 & 2.
You express disbelief, stating that YOUR La Crosse charger(s) work fine.
...
Do you see the '_trend_' here? 

I too get '_hackled / attacked_' for some of my posts on CPF. But, again IMHO, this '_disagreement_' relates HIGHLY to the difference between *'Subjective vs Objective'*. 'Someone' will MOST CERTAINLY retort on this statement, but, IMHO, it's only because they have NOT fully interpreted / understood / researched the information that I presented.

*PLEASE* review, not only in this thread but on CPF in general, how many times you've, sometimes REPEATEDLY, expressed DISBELIEF of something (possibly *MANY*) others have posted as fact.  :sigh:


----------



## ShawnLam

TakeTheActive said:


> It appears that the 'Review Period' has ended and Amazon.Com is now selling the BC-9009 directly again @ $39.99. :sigh:



Thanks to everyone for their Amazon reviews and reports to the US CPSC (keep them coming). Amazon has once again placed this product under review. Hopefully this time the outcome is a proper recall.


----------



## DArklite

So, is this issue also occurring with the BC900's with the updated v35 firmware?
Or just the BC900's with the v32?

Going by this thread it seems that the BC9009 is the main culprit, correct?


----------



## Elliot

Well do to ShanLam's efforts I see that Amazon (Jan. 01, 2010) has another review on the item. The net result is that vendors are taking advantage and it will cost you about $15 to $20 more if you wanted to get one. Is this a good thing? Amazon gets a percentage cut of vendors sales, so with the higher prices and no shipping cost to them they might actually make more this way. Just a guess on my part.:thinking:


----------



## Unforgiven

Elliot said:


> Well do to ShanLam's efforts I see that Amazon (Jan. 01, 2010) has another review on the item. The net result is that vendors are taking advantage and it will cost you about $15 to $20 more if you wanted to get one. Is this a good thing? Amazon gets a percentage cut of vendors sales, so with the higher prices and no shipping cost to them they might actually make more this way. Just a guess on my part.:thinking:




Perhaps with the price increase, potential buyers will pay more attention to the reviews, do some research and consider the safety factors when making a decision on their charger purchase.

It would be a shame if one were to suggest that reporting possible safety hazards is a bad thing.


----------



## Turbo DV8

Elliot said:


> Well do to ShanLam's efforts I see that Amazon (Jan. 01, 2010) has another review on the item. The net result is that vendors are taking advantage and it will cost you about $15 to $20 more if you wanted to get one.


 

That's* it*! ShawnLam is a vendor... a _shill_, I tell you!He's laughing all the way to the bank!

JK, of course.


----------



## ShawnLam

Here it the latest Amazon user with a meltdown.

January 2, 2010 Meltdown


----------



## alfreddajero

What a great way to start off the new year......


----------



## mitro

I added a review today. Meant to do it sooner.


----------



## MarioJP

Very strange to what is happening to this charger. In my case I have not had any problems of any signs of overheating and melting.

Yet I have charged many cells and repeatedly been doing so. The reports I hear that meltdowns happen on first use??. If so then I think something on the newer charger has changed.

I guess I am lucky then. I don't know what to say. Even more lucky since I have both these chargers. Have not seen any of them melt.


It is clear that the source of the problem has not been found. If tracing the problem means not only investigating la crosse technologies but as well doing a investigation of how the charger is being shipped?

Lucky there has not been a fire, but that is waiting to happen eventually. Hope this can get resolved soon


----------



## ShawnLam

MarioJP said:


> The reports I hear that meltdowns happen on first use??. If so then I think something on the newer charger has changed.



Meltdowns on the Firmware 35 BC-9009s are not only happening on first use. One of mine was at 6 weeks. I discontinued using the other one right away but I am surprised how some are still tempting fate and still using the product instead of demanding a refund.

At least there is increasing momentum and with additional users reporting meltdowns on Amazon this is sure to lead to a recall.

Here is mitro's report on Amazon.


----------



## MarioJP

I got both my chargera in August 09. Its been 5 months both chargers are firmware 35. Still working, I lost count of how many times I have used this charger to recharge my cells. The only thing is the cells gets hot when they are bad cells. I also have charged brand new cells. Charger and cells are warm until it has finish charger at 1amp charge rate.

Maybe something has changed between august and now??


----------



## Bones

The incident list in the first post has been updated to include the most recent reports from this forum and amazon.com. Including this Voltcraft IPC-1 reported by forum member saturnmond, it now totals 22 reports involving 25 separate melt-downs:





As well, thanks to all those taking the time to report their experiences to Amazon and the United States Consumer Protection Agency, the 'Item Under Review' designation continues at amazon.com. It would great to see everyone's efforts rewarded with a revision that finally addresses this hazard.

Pertinent contact numbers and hyperlinks compiled by forum member ShawnLam:



> If you have a meltdown or overheating problem, please file a report online with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. They need more reports in order to do a proper investigation and initiate a recall.
> 
> https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx





> Please add your story here:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/ ... /product-reviews/B00077AA5Q
> 
> http://www.shawnlam.ca/blog/battery-charger-meltdown
> 
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post3193233
> 
> Call La Crosse and demand they recall this dangerous product. VP Sales 608 782 1982 x146
> 
> Call the US Consumer Product Safety Commission to report this incident. 1 800 638 2772
> 
> Call Amazon to request they no longer carry this dangerous product. 1 800 201 7575


----------



## MarioJP

Voltcraft IPC-1?


----------



## joeparker54

IIRC, voltcraft is the name the charger is sold under in germany??? I'm also pretty sure in the UK, the bc-700 is sold under the name technoline.

It kinda makes ya wonder whether or not La-Crosse actually has any intellectual investment in these things or if they're simply rebranding them as well:shrug:


----------



## MarioJP

I wonder where mines is made from. These 2 chargers don't seem to have the defect compared to the most recent LA Crosse chargers.

They both say the LA Crosse Logo. I am currently charging 4 cells (2 on each charger) at 1800mA charge rate.

I come back an hour later the charger and cells are still warm no signs of overheating on both the chargers.

I guess I got the lucky chargers??

the date that I got both is aug 09. I think its the power supply unit that might be defective. Has anyone tried a third party adapter and see if that is the problem??

Just does not makes any sense that I am not affected or even aware of the issue until these forums. Could it also be that la crosse outsourced after aug 09??. its these little things we should pay close attention.


----------



## Turak

I too....fall into the category of....one of the people who have had absolutely NO problems with my LaCrosse BC-900 chargers.

I have 2 of them, both purchased from Thomas-Distributing. They both have the v33 firmware in them.

I have used EVERY possible setting they have...and regularly charge 4 cells at a time using the 1000mA charge/500mA discharge rates. Warning - older cells can tend to heat up a bit at the very end of the cycle (true -deltaV). When they start doing that, I then drop down to using the 700mA charge/350mA discharge rates on those older cells. I also use the 500mA charge/250mA discharge and the 200mA charge/100mA discharge rates quite often as well, mostly on AAA cells.

I have caught a couple missed terminations, although they occurred using the lower charge rates on older batteries....definitely not a good combination.

I actually like my 2 Lacrosse BC-900 chargers every bit as much as my 2 Maha MH-C9000 chargers, although for different reasons.

Another thing.....

KEEP AN EYE ON NEW CELLS......at least for the first few (3-5 cycles). ALL NEW NiMH cells are subject to missing terminations during the first few cycles when using chargers that rely on -deltaV as their primary termination method. The -deltaV drop becomes much more pronounced after just a few cycles.

Yes.....even our beloved Eneloops and any other LSD cell too can suffer from this problem.

I've seen a few posts blaming the missed termination on low charge rates with new cells...quite true. When using low charge rates and new cells you are MUCH more likely to run into a missed termination. On a new cell definitely stick with the .5C - 1C charge rate, and even then....keep any eye on them.

FYI . . . . The biggest reason that you do not see missed terminations on the MH-C9000's is that it actually terminates using a set maxV point (1.47V - its supposedly secondary termination method) more often than it ever hits -deltaV (it's supposedly primary termination method). Although I did have a couple (out of well over a hundred or more AA cells) odd, off-brand cells that would hit -deltaV at 1.45V.

Maha was also having troubles with the -deltaV terminations, so they lowered the maxV so far (1.47V) that now, almost all cells tend to hit the set maxV point before they ever hit -deltaV. So the result is no missed terminations, but a slightly undercharged battery...even when compared to their other chargers that do actually use -deltaV.

Someone with a rev. F MH-C9000 may actually hit -deltaV much more than someone with a rev. G or H charger since the set maxV point was higher.


----------



## MarioJP

See this is whats getting my attention. Obviously someone needs to test the power supply unit and simulate under load test using some sort of tester to test power supplies. the 4 cells i was charging earlier are now done without any meltdowns. Sure they were getting warm close to hot but the charge was terminated.

I touched the charger itself, the charger is just warm even at the bottom. The cells were warmer than the charger.

The pictures that I have seen about the melted charger needs to test the power supply unit. After all transformers can cause a lot of problems if there is a defect.

Second possibility,especially when La-crosse is hearing these reports I wonder if they changed the design of this charger that made the problem worst??.

I think the power supply should of been tested first. here are the specs of my chargers

they are both BC-9009 with firmware 35

Both chargers comes with a 3V 4A AC adapter. If the power supply has been changed then that can be a problem.

I even forced this charger to charge Ni-ZN cells and whats strange is these cells don't heat up at all.

so the only 2 possibility I can think of is 

1.after aug 09 some design changes were made??
2.Power supply since aug 09 is pushing too much than what the charger can handle.??

I did read somewhere where the power supply that are coming in these new units the volts is 3.3v-3.5v if that is the case this is very bad and disaster is waiting to happen. Charger as it is already at its limits at 3 volts. 3.3v to 3.5v is just pushing it. If the MOSFET fails this is bad.

why would they up the voltage is beyond me.


----------



## Elliot

Well, it is Monday evening Jan. 04, 2010 here on the East Coast and Amazon has the “for Sale” out on the hot little items again. What do we make of that? Pease don’t blame me – I just report the facts. 
Want it delivered Tuesday, January 5? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout.


----------



## MarioJP

I see its back in stock. Wonder what kind of test that they did and what is la crosse saying. I am just try to figure why I am not having this problem yet identical packaging.

Other things I want to know is how long before the meltdown happens??.


----------



## LeifUK

I wonder if Amazon are putting themselves into a legally vulnerable position by continuing to sell an item despite numerous reports of fires/meltdowns? 

Some years ago the advertising jingle of British Coal was "Come home to a real fire". Maybe LaCrosse could adopt that?


----------



## MarioJP

For what I seen is its not big enough for them to be too concern. The questions is exactly what kind of "review" they did on this "item"??.


----------



## e_dogg

Did anyone notice this customer image in the listing?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00077AA5Q/?tag=cpf0b6-20


----------



## alfreddajero

Damn...now that is bad.....did you read the description, all that was left was the casing of the battery.


----------



## Bones

LeifUK said:


> ...
> 
> Some years ago the advertising jingle of British Coal was "Come home to a real fire". Maybe LaCrosse could adopt that?



And if British Coal wasn't willing to share, perhaps they could adopt one of these:

"LaCrosse chargers, let us light up your life!".

"LaCrosse chargers, let us light up your life's possessions!".

Or, if Ikea was willing to share, "LaCrosse chargers, Unböring!"


----------



## Mr Happy

MarioJP said:


> I am just try to figure why I am not having this problem yet identical packaging.
> 
> Other things I want to know is how long before the meltdown happens??


Other people have reported the button melting incident on the discharge cycle, doing a 500 mA discharge, 1000 mA charge. Just after the discharge ends and the charge starts, one of the buttons melts and sinks. If you really want to melt your charger you could try that and see...


----------



## LeifUK

MarioJP said:


> I see its back in stock. Wonder what kind of test that they did and what is la crosse saying. I am just try to figure why I am not having this problem yet identical packaging.
> 
> Other things I want to know is how long before the meltdown happens??.



At the risk of stating the obvious, there are many classes of failure. It could be a design flaw, in which case you will see a melt down if you reproduce certain conditions. Or it could be a quality control issue, with some units displaying a manufacturing flaw. In this case you might never see the problem. Of course it could also be a problem that appears with time e.g. a wire is too thin, gradually breaks, and hey presto, your house is toast.


----------



## MarioJP

Mr Happy said:


> Other people have reported the button melting incident on the discharge cycle, doing a 500 mA discharge, 1000 mA charge. Just after the discharge ends and the charge starts, one of the buttons melts and sinks. If you really want to melt your charger you could try that and see...



whaaaa! oo:. I have lost count of doing exactly what you have said. I also do a discharge before charging my cells.

I even have done refresh cycles have it sit there for hours. I been using these features a lot.

I even discharged 4 ni-zn cells that are between 1.9V down to 1.6V. During discharge it gets warm but does not melt.

I am starting to wonder if its a design flaw of the charger itself or the AC power adapter is pushing too much current than what the charger can handle or combination of both??.

I literally have used the refresh/discharge modes like there is no tomorrow.

Sometimes I charge cells at 1.8A and the charger is still warm during charging. (just don't charge bad or crappy cells at that rate).

Just curious. I want to know what is the voltage coming out of the AC adapter from these new units??


----------



## Black Rose

Mario, my first car was rated as a POS by Consumer Reports, but I drove it trouble free for almost 9 years.

In other words, not every BC-900/9009 is going to go


----------



## MarioJP

Black Rose said:


> Mario, my first car was rated as a POS by Consumer Reports, but I drove it trouble free for almost 9 years.
> 
> In other words, not every BC-900/9009 is going to go



And what is the likely of 2 of these chargers not going poof. Sometimes I use both at the same time to charge 8 cells, yet neither of the chargers does not have the problem of overheating or melting. This is what's getting my attention. Need to find the source of the problem or many of the problems of these new units after Aug 09.

Knowing how the Economy is going today it is possible that LA Crosse technologies secretly outsourced their production??. Although the charger does says "Made in China"


----------



## verge

I will not buy a car that is notoriously known to set itself ablaze regardless of maintenance and safe driving.


----------



## Bones

MarioJP said:


> ...
> 
> here are the specs of my chargers
> 
> they are both BC-9009 with firmware 35
> 
> Both chargers comes with a 3V 4A AC adapter. If the power supply has been changed then that can be a problem.
> 
> ...
> 
> so the only 2 possibility I can think of is
> 
> 1.after aug 09 some design changes were made??
> 2.Power supply since aug 09 is pushing too much than what the charger can handle.??
> 
> I did read somewhere where the power supply that are coming in these new units the volts is 3.3v-3.5v if that is the case this is very bad and disaster is waiting to happen. Charger as it is already at its limits at 3 volts. 3.3v to 3.5v is just pushing it. If the MOSFET fails this is bad.
> 
> why would they up the voltage is beyond me.



Regrettably, no matter how many times you post that it must be otherwise, there is no credible evidence that your BC-9009 is in any way distinguishable from those that are melting down.

Yours is version 35, this is the version that is melting down:



ShawnLam said:


> Both my models are BC-9009 version 35. I just plugged-in the one that had the meltdown and it still runs! Pretty scary.



They were melting down well before to August 9th:



> *Dangerous Meltdown*, June 30, 2009
> This charger worked great for 4 weeks. And then it happened! I Put 2 aaa NIMH Batteries in to be recharged. Went to take a shower and when I came downstairs, I just thought I would take a look at the status of the batteries. To my horror, I saw 2 batteries with the acid leaking out of the jacket of the batteries! Little bubbles of acid coming out. I turned it off but by this time it was so hot i had to use a paper towel to remove them! After that, I noticed the bottom of the charger where the batteries lay was melted! WHAT!!!
> ...


Your power supply's output is 3.0 volts and 4.0 amperes, this is identical to those connected to the chargers that are melting down:



ShawnLam said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, while I sincerely hope that you'll be able submit another 22 posts to this thread repeatedly stating that your BC-9009 continues to work perfectly, and therefore can't be the same as those that are melting down, I trust that you are still taking the appropriate precautions 'just in case'.


----------



## MarioJP

Its been 5 months with this charger. I suppose it can fail within a year or so, but failing on first use there is a flaw somewhere. I still continue to use this charger and I can't explain why both of my chargers has not melted but for others it has.

And seems like Amazon has finished reviewing "this item" and is now back in stock. I wonder what kind of "review" did Amazon did and the "item" has "passed" to sell again??.


----------



## Turbo DV8

MarioJP said:


> I am starting to wonder if its a design flaw of the charger itself or the AC power adapter is pushing too much current than what the charger can handle or combination of both?


 
Power supplies don't "push" current into the charger. If the charger requests it, the power supply will deliver it, up to it's rated output. If the charger has a defective component and it draws excessive current, the power supply is all too eager to try to deliver it.


----------



## MarioJP

That I know. I was going by if the voltage on the AC adapter was higher than the charger not current. Since its 3v going in to a 3v charger, them that rules out that possibility. (Assuming the label is accurate than what the adapter is delivering lol).

I hope something is done to resolve this problem.


----------



## Bones

"LaCrosse chargers, Unböring!"

I posted the above in jest earlier in this thread, but it's nonetheless amply illustrated by these two submissions from Amazon:


> *First one Melted, Second One Exploded My Batteries*, January 5, 2010
> I got this charger for Christmas a few weeks ago and was really excited because I had some older NiMh AA rechargeable batteries (2500mah) that needed to be refreshed. After putting them through the refresh cycle at 250mA, a few hours later I come back and find that my room smells like something's burning and one of the Display Buttons had melted and was permanently lower than the others. After contacting Amazons Customer Service, they sent me another one and I sent this one back.
> 
> The second charger arrived just a few days later (props to Amazon's customer service) and I used it a few times to charge up some batteries and refresh a few older ones. This one worked fine for a couple weeks or so until I used it to refresh another set of 4 NiMh rechargeable batteries (2500mah) at 250ma discharging current. The batteries were in the charger for about 15 hours and it seemed like it was almost done going through the discharge/charge cycles. I went into the other room for a bit and came back to the sound of sizzling, smoke and half melted batteries sitting in the charger.
> ...





> *Blew both batteries right out of the charger*, August 8, 2009
> Came home to find this after charging two Lenmar NiMH 2000mAh batteries. I only wish that I was home to hear it explode (it blew both batteries right out of the charger). Even though this happened, I loved my BC-900 and I'm getting another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please note that credit for the original report of the second submission belongs to e_dogg via post 152.


----------



## Apollo Cree

Let's get real here. 

I don't know what, if anything is wrong with the charger design. It's entirely possible that there's some component that fails and puts the charger into "self destruct" mode. 

It doesn't matter how long your charger goes before self destructing. That doesn't mean it won't. Did you ever have an electronic device that went a long time, and then died because of a failing component? Now, imagine that when the component fails, it makes the device melt down. 

Do you really want to risk this?


----------



## arteitle

Chalk up one more melting BC-9009. What follows is the account that I sent to LaCrosse Technology, Amazon.com, and the CPSC:
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]I just received a new BC-9009 charger from Amazon.com today; on the bottom it's stamped "9N9 V32 U", if that's important. I also have a year-old BC-900 which has worked well. But, having read on Candlepowerforums.com and Amazon.com that recent BC-9009s have been overheating and melting, I cautiously tested the new charger by running the four supplied AA NiMH cells simultaneously through the charger's "Test" cycle at 1000 mA charge (500 mA discharge). The initial topping-off charge and discharge stages of the cycle went seemingly without trouble, but around the time that the cells started switching back into charge mode to finish up, I noticed an acrid smell of burning plastic, and found that button #2 felt soft to the touch, like its support was melting. Needless to say, I removed the cells and unplugged the charger. Clearly, something is wrong with this charger (and apparently many others). Should I return the charger to Amazon.com, or to you, for a properly working replacement? I'm not confident that I'll get a non-melting replacement from Amazon.com. Thanks.[/FONT]​


----------



## LeifUK

MarioJP said:


> Its been 5 months with this charger. I suppose it can fail within a year or so, but failing on first use there is a flaw somewhere. I still continue to use this charger and I can't explain why both of my chargers has not melted but for others it has.
> 
> And seems like Amazon has finished reviewing "this item" and is now back in stock. I wonder what kind of "review" did Amazon did and the "item" has "passed" to sell again??.



Let's say that 1 in 100 are faulty. So your chance of getting 1 faulty unit is 1/100 = 1%. The probability of getting at least 1 dud in 2 purchases assuming simple Bayesian statistics is (if I remember correctly):

P(dud + okay) + P(okay+dud) + P(dud + dud) = 2*(0.01*0.99) + 0.01*0.01. 

That is roughly 2% which means that you have a roughly 98% probability of not getting any faulty units. Chances are you will get two good ones even assuming a high failure rate of 1%. 

Now would you buy a unit where there was a 1 in 100 chance that it might burn your house down? 

The fact that one person had two failures, one being a replacement unit suggests some sort of correlation i.e. a faulty batch, or something specific to the way that person uses the unit that triggers a fault.


----------



## Elliot

> Now would you buy a unit where there was a 1 in 100 chance that it might burn your house down?


Has anyone ever reported a house fire EVER? Or even just a little fire?


----------



## Unforgiven

Elliot said:


> Has anyone ever reported a house fire EVER? Or even just a little fire?




So if actual flames weren't reported, it would be ok to use? 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=17116648


----------



## Elliot

If the charger is not working - it should not be used. I was just asking if there were any house fires actually started by this charger, because a number of people implied that it will burn your house down to the ground.

ex. post #78 - right before mine - the one I was responding to.


> 1 in 100 chance that it might burn your house down



But, I'm glad you managed to find a 4 year old post about the guy who was charging his cells unattended on a piece of wood.


----------



## ShawnLam

I just had a look at the most recent user reports on Amazon - to say they look fishy is an understatement. What do you think?

After averaging one user review per day for the past few weeks, all of a sudden there are 7 new user reviews within an hour giving 5 stars ane one with a 4. The reviewers all look too "fresh" to be authentic. Only two have any other review history, one for a $12.99 feng shui crystal that was reviewed today and the other for a competing La Crosse product.

3
4
5
6
7

Looks like a concerted effort to bury the recent meltdown reports. I wouldn't be surprised if you soon see a new model number in an effort by La Crosse to distance themselves from their past, like they did with the BC-900 that became the BC-9009.


----------



## Unforgiven

Elliot said:


> ... I was just asking if there were any house fires actually started by this charger, because a number of people implied that it will burn your house down to the ground.
> 
> ex. post #78 - right before mine - the one I was responding to.
> 
> 
> But, I'm glad you managed to find a 4 year old post about the guy who was charging his cells unattended on a piece of wood.



I was replying to your post asking about reports of fire which seemed to imply that melting plastic and heat deformed battery casings aren't reasons enough to be concerned about a fire hazzard.


So it's good to go if there are no flames, it hasn't burned a house, is not used on wood furniture and the reports of issues are less than 3years 11months (corrected) old? 

Gotcha. 


In your opinion, under what conditions and on which surfaces in the home would it be safe to use this charger?


----------



## Elliot

> by Elliot:
> Has anyone ever reported a house fire EVER? Or even just a little fire?



That was my Post - How does that imply anything other than a question?

I sit corrected, the report you pointed to was NOT 4 years old, it was 3 years and 11 months old. Sorry, for not being more specific.


----------



## TakeTheActive

ShawnLam said:


> I just had a look at the most recent user reports on Amazon - to say they look fishy is an understatement. What do you think?
> 
> *After averaging one user review per day for the past few weeks, all of a sudden there are 7 new user reviews within an hour giving 5 stars ane one with a 4*...
> 
> ...*Looks like a concerted effort to bury the recent meltdown reports*...


9 reviews today! 

Just enough to get the last 'Meltdown' Report off the first page (it's now Review #11). Fishy indeed! :shakehead

*EDIT: *Maybe "some folks" should visit Amazon and add some Helpful / Not Helpful votes to some 'select' posts? :thinking:


----------



## Unforgiven

Elliot said:


> That was my Post - How does that imply anything other than a question?
> 
> I sit corrected, the report you pointed to was NOT 4 years old, it was 3 years and 11 month old. Sorry, for not being more specific.





Time frame corrected in my previous post.


----------



## KiwiMark

I have decided to continue using my BC-900 chargers as usual because they work well, giving my batteries a full charge in a reasonable time. I might however find a piece of non-flammable material to sit my 2 chargers on and also charge my batteries while I am in the same room (that isn't that hard - it is my bedroom/computer room and I spend a lot of time here). It just seems sensible to not leave batteries charging and go out for a few hours - probably a sensible approach with any batteries in any charger.

If there is a 98% chance that neither of my chargers are faulty then I'll be damned if I am going to spend money to replace them. If a reasonable percentage of the 1% that are faulty manage to fail in the first year then the fact that both mine are a year old with no issues probably reduces the chance that either of mine are faulty by a reasonable amount. I don't think I'll get too paranoid when the chance of either of my chargers being faulty is probably under 1 in 500.


But:
I don't know that I would buy one now if I needed a new charger - especially with the chance of a batch failure.


----------



## LeifUK

Elliot said:


> Has anyone ever reported a house fire EVER? Or even just a little fire?



I was explaining to the other poster that it was quite probable that his would be fine even if the fault probability was quite high e.g. 1 in 100. 

Regarding fires, in most, or maybe all, the reports I see the owner turns the unit off when they smell burning, so there is a question as to what would happen with an overnight meltdown. If there were some, I missed the reports. 

Anyway. regardless of whether or not actual fires have started, the unit is obviously a fire risk. 

The suggestions that someone is purposefully moving the fault reports off the Amazon product front page is shocking. If someone is in contact with US authorities concerning a failure, maybe they could report these suspicions? (I am a UK national, and do not own the charger in question.)


----------



## ShawnLam

TakeTheActive said:


> 9 reviews today!
> 
> Just enough to get the last 'Meltdown' Report off the first page (it's now Review #11). Fishy indeed! :shakehead
> 
> *EDIT: *Maybe "some folks" should visit Amazon and add some Helpful / Not Helpful votes to some 'select' posts? :thinking:



Absolutely disgraceful. I cannot believe Amazon is allowing this to continue. Well at least their inaction and the recent flurry of comments is so obvious that it warrants media attention.

I agree - please add helpful posts on Amazon, vote-up the meltdown ones and down the bogus ones.


----------



## Elliot

Really good! 
Another thread that’s crossed over into the world of the bizarre. Like the guy on “Mythbusters” used to say, "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


----------



## Turbo DV8

ShawnLam said:


> After averaging one user review per day for the past few weeks, all of a sudden there are 7 new user reviews within an hour giving 5 stars ane one with a 4.


 


> 9 reviews today!
> 
> Just enough to get the last 'Meltdown' Report off the first page (it's now Review #11). Fishy indeed! :shakehead


 


> P(dud + okay) + P(okay+dud) + P(dud + dud) = 2*(0.01*0.99) + 0.01*0.01.
> 
> That is roughly 2% which means that you have a roughly 98% probability of not getting any faulty units.


 
It all makes perfect sense! Due to the increase in melt down reports, people flocked to buy them, and they just happened to be the 98% who had good luck!


----------



## Apollo Cree

This does remind me that I really need to set myself up a battery/charging station with some sort of a fire resistant enclosure, storage, etc. Even thought I don't have any BC-900x chargers.


----------



## uk_caver

Turbo DV8 said:


> It all makes perfect sense! Due to the increase in melt down reports, people flocked to buy them, and they just happened to be the 98% who had good luck!


It'd be interesting doing an experiment - in a while, someone who honestly has had a bad experience posts a comment without telling anyone else, and then looks to see if there's another flurry of positives.

On a more general note, who are the people who write a review for something they've only just bought, which they know little about and haven't really worked out how to use, giving it 5 stars. Why would they think anyone else could find their review remotely helpful?


----------



## Bones

Planned or not, that mini-flurry of positive reviews on Amazon has just been topped with one relating yet another melt-down:



> *Junk*, January 7, 2010
> Well, I purchased this item without fully reading the reviews. Read reviews after purchase and many of them stated that this item overheats and was dangerous. But some stated that this occurred with an older model. Well, I received the 9009 model. I did an initial charge/discharge cycle of the new batteries as per the instructions. This took a long time. Had to stop/start because I didn't want to leave it charge while I wasn't home. While they were charging, the unit overheated. The LCD screen developed a black spot from the heat. Also, the two middle buttons on the unit sunk down into the unit (presumeably from the intense heat melting the plastic inside...thus the buttons lost support). A plus for Amazon though. I contacted them about the product failure and they sent me a prepaid return shipping label. They credited my account after receiving the charger. I can only speak for my unit...this thing was a disaster waiting to happen. The possibility for it to cause damage or a fire existed. Luckily, I read the reviews (which I should have done prior to purchase). I placed the charger while charging for fear of it overheating. If I hadn't done this, it could have damaged my counter top. Gave it one star because you have to rate it. Would have given it no stars.
> ...


Some encouragement for those who're wondering if it's even worth their while to report their melt-downs:



> *Too Many Reports*, January 7, 2010
> I ordered the BC-9009, and while waiting for it to arrive started reading the many user reports on Amazon, and elsewhere on the net regarding this device melting, i.e. safety issues. Please do your research, and then make a decision. I returned mine as soon as it arrived. It didn't make sense to take a chance wondering if I'd be the next one.
> ...


Incidentally, if someone with posting privileges on Amazon is so inclined, the following comment would benefit from a reply with a reference to the event linked below it:



> *How safe are the BC9009 (v35) from melt downs ???? *January 6, 2010
> NLee the Engineer says:
> All rechargeable NiMH cells have built-in pressure-relief vents. In case of severe over-heating, they may release gas or even leak electrolyte. But they are not going to 'explode' like fire crackers.
> ...





> http://www.amazon.com/ ... /customer-gallery/A393DG8WYDSH18
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/customer-gallery/A393DG8WYDSH18


Fail-safes are also subject to failures, which makes unqualified statements as to their effect inadvisable and, in this case, demonstrably wrong.


----------



## Conan

Bones, I made a reply to NLee, showing him the picture and using your words to finish my message. 

http://www.amazon.com/safe-BC9009-m...t&newContentID=MxSAWPJ21ARXNI#Mx2WB7QV2Z0AMZW


----------



## TakeTheActive

ShawnLam said:


> *Absolutely disgraceful...
> 
> ...I agree - please add helpful posts on Amazon, vote-up the meltdown ones and down the bogus ones.*


For as far back as I can remember, "NLee the Engineer" held the #1 position for the "Most Helpful" review of the La Crosse BC-900. (*It's a darn shame that Amazon didn't create a NEW entry for the BC-9009 but instead merged all of the data from the "less meltdown-prone" BC-900 into one lump*). :thumbsdow

Recently, he updated his review:


NLee the Engineer on Amazon said:


> [IMPORTANT NOTICE on Jan 5, 2010]
> My old BC-900 has served me well for the past 4 years. But recenetly there is an inrush of reports on 'meltdown' of the new BC-9009. I can only assume that La Crosse is having very poor quality control with the new model. My advice is to stay away from BC-9009 for now, until the situation has been rectified...


SUDDENLY, he has dropped to the #2 position:
98.6599% - 589 of 597 people found the following review helpful: 
By esanta "esanta"
.
98.2973% - 866 of 881 people found the following review helpful:
By NLee the Engineer
Timing? :thinking:

For those not familiar with the Amazon site, when you CLICK on the LINKs "nnn customer reviews" or "see all nnn customer reviews...", on the top of the resulting new page, Amazon displays:
The most helpful favorable review (Left side)
The most helpful critical review (Right side)
followed by the rest, sorted by either:
Most Helpful First or
Newest First
...which currently defaults, for me, to "Most Helpful First". I wonder...  



uk_caver said:


> ...On a more general note, who are the people who write a review for something they've only just bought, which they know little about and haven't really worked out how to use, giving it 5 stars. Why would they think anyone else could find their review remotely helpful?


I find it odd that folks are voting "Not Helpful" on 'Meltdown' Reviews. :shrug:

Interesting to watch...

*NOTE: *The last posted La Crosse BC-700/BC-900/BC-9009 Charger 'Meltdown' Report was 12/28/2009 - maybe that thread needs a 'plug'  :

*La Crosse BC-700/BC-900/BC-9009 Charger 'Meltdown' Reports*​


----------



## KiwiMark

TakeTheActive said:


> Recently, he updated his review:SUDDENLY, he has dropped to the #2 position:
> 
> 98.6599% - 589 of 597 people found the following review helpful:
> By esanta "esanta"
> .
> 98.2973% - 866 of 881 people found the following review helpful:
> By NLee the Engineer
> Timing? :thinking:



I took a look and read through his (NLee) review and found it helpful, so I clicked on the 'yes' at the end. Maybe more of us that think his review is helpful need to put our vote in?


----------



## TakeTheActive

Back "*Under Review*".



Amazon said:


> ...*Price: $64.99* & this item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping. Details
> You Save: $4.96 (7%)
> 
> *In Stock.
> Sold by cindystenger and Fulfilled by Amazon.*
> Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) is a service we offer sellers that lets them store their products in Amazon's own warehouses, and we directly pack, ship, and provide customer service for these items...
> 
> *Only 1 left in stock--order soon.*



*ShawnLam*,

Any count as to how many times this status has toggled back-and-forth? :shakehead


----------



## TakeTheActive

KiwiMark said:


> *I took a look and read through his (NLee) review and found it helpful, so I clicked on the 'yes' at the end. Maybe more of us that think his review is helpful need to put our vote in?*


Many of us don't deal with mathematics on a daily basis anymore, so, without actually looking into something, our initial perception of it may be incorrect.

Wondering approximately how many votes it would take to restore 'NLee the Engineer' to #1, I created the following 2 equations:


Code:


(866+x) / (881+x) = .99

(589) / (597+y) = .98

To get 'NLee the Engineer' UP to 99% would require *619 Helpful Votes*. 

To get 'esanta' DOWN to 98% would require *4 Not Helpful Votes*. :thinking:

Makes it more clear to me NOW how easily 'NLee the Engineer' was 'de-throned'... 

Reminds me old that old saying: "*1 'Aw $hit' Wipes Out 1000 'Attaboys'...*"​


----------



## LeifUK

It is interesting to analyse the reviews: 



 Jan 9: 1 review => 1 star.
 Jan 8: 1 review => 1 star.
 Jan 7: 13 reviews => analysis below.
 Jan 6: 1 review => 4 star.
 Jan 5: 2 reviews => both 1 star.
 Jan 3: 1 review => 1 star.
 Jan 2: 2 reviews => 1 star and 5 star.
 Dec 30: 2 reviews => 2 star and 5 star.
 Dec 29: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 28: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 27: 1 review => 4 star.
 Dec 26: 3 review => 1 star, 4 star, 5 star.
 Dec 24: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 25: 1 review => 1 star.
 
I got bored and stopped there but I think there might be a trend. :huh: If we ignore the Jan 7 spurt, the reviews are absolutely appalling. And the Jan 07 spurt is completely and totally out of trend i.e. an unusually large number of reviews on one day, and the average rating for that day (52/13 = 4 star) is totally out of whack with the average for the other days (40/18 = 2.2 stars). In other words, my simple statistics suggests that the Jan 07 results are very suspicious. (I am sure someone with a better understanding of statistics could work out the probability of the Jan 07 spike.) 

So let's look at the Jan 7 reviewers. I list the rating, the user name, and the total number of reviews written: 


1 star: *BillJ*, loads of previous reviews.
 4 star: L. Rodriquez Martinez, 1 review.
 2 star: Kurt, 1 review.
 4 star: A. Billings, 2 reviews both on 7 Jan 1200.
 4 star: K. Young, 4 reviews, including one in 2006.
 5 star: Dwight Barnes, 2 reviews including one ~ 1 year ago.
 5 star: R. Barcellos, 1 review.
 4 star: A Michael Piper, 3 reviews, all on 7 Jan 2010.
 5 star: Kenneth V. Daley, 1 review.
 5 star: PCSOF8, 1 review.
 5 star: Marques de Santilana, 1 review.
 5 star: Rajesh Geevarghese, 1 review.
3 star: Dean A. Bower, 1 review, criticises the shipping time only.
There are 13 reviews and 10 people give 4 or more stars. Of these 10 people, 6 have only done 1 review, 1 has done 2 reviews on the same day, and one has done 3 reviews, all on the same day. My quick random check of ~7 reviewers from 2009 found that most had many reviews to their name, i.e. it is unusual to do just 1. These 8 reviewers could all be fake as they could have been created recently due to no previous history. The 3 star reviewer has only 1 review, and criticises the shipping time. So he could also be a recent fake. That means that 9 people are possible fakes. Among the other good reviews, 2 are from established users, and 2 good reviews is not unexpected along with some bad ones. Of course one or both could be from LaCrosse employees/friends. We have no way to know. 

In my opinion someone, maybe employed by LaCrosse, or a Lacrosse seller, has posted a large number of fake reviews. Not all the 13 are fake, but in my opinion most are. Unless anyone can explain how so many reviews from people with no previous history could have appeared in one day, and why the average rating on this day is so totally out of kilter with the average over other 13 days going back to Dec 25 2009. (I could have gone back further but boredom struck.)

Actually one explanation has occurred to me. It could be that some people read this thread, and decided to post their good experiences. So, if you are one of the people who gave a good amazon review on Jan 07 2010, please let me know via this thread so that we can tick you off as a real person, rather than a fake. Still, even if that is true, why do we not see a lot of reviews on other dates around Jan 07? This explanation does not ring true to me.


----------



## LeifUK

Further to the above, I checked Amazon reviews back to June 2009 and most reviews are 4 or 5 stars, so this fire hazard issue is recent, or it has recently got worse.


----------



## uk_caver

Deleted


----------



## ShawnLam

TakeTheActive said:


> Back "*Under Review*".
> 
> 
> 
> *ShawnLam*,
> 
> Any count as to how many times this status has toggled back-and-forth? :shakehead




This marks the third time. 

The funny thing is that I want to buy an Amazon Kindle and add some items to my Amazon sellers account on my blog but have been waiting for a permanent decision from Amazon before I decide if I will continue to buy and refer to Amazon, in the mean time I've been buying from other retailers, even if there is small price premium.


----------



## eyrich74

Everyone is focusing on Amazon selling these. An online seller that is frequently suggested on these forums is also still selling the BC-9009 and 900.

www.thomasdistributing.com

Has anyone contacted them?


----------



## uk_caver

They don't seem to have any reviews for the 9009.

If someone is selling something in good faith, unless there's a manufacturer recall, or people who have bought it from them complain to them about it, it's a fairly hard decision to stop/suspend selling something.

Though I'm not at all suggesting that any of the things below have happened in this case, from reports elsewhere, how can a dealer know what the actual failure rate is, whether anyone might have been misusing a charger and blaming the device, or even whether one or more people are pursuing a personal agenda?

Contacting a company is probably best done by customers, rather than third parties.


----------



## Turbo DV8

ShawnLam said:


> The funny thing is that I want to buy an Amazon Kindle...


 
Good idea. Buy some "Kindle-ing" to go with that LaCrosse!


----------



## Apollo Cree

LeifUK said:


> Further to the above, I checked Amazon reviews back to June 2009 and most reviews are 4 or 5 stars, so this fire hazard issue is recent, or it has recently got worse.



It seems that most people really like it except for those who say they've had one melt down.


----------



## vali

LeifUK said:


> [...]
> 4 star: L. Rodriquez Martinez, 1 review.
> [...]
> 5 star: Marques de Santilana, 1 review.
> [...]



I think those two are fake ones at least. 

Why? The correct spanish surname is Rodriguez, not Rodriquez, and you can check "Marques de Santillana" in Google.

Of course I can be wrong too...


----------



## r1gm1n

LeifUK said:


> In my opinion someone, maybe employed by LaCrosse, or a Lacrosse seller, has posted a large number of fake reviews. Not all the 13 are fake, but in my opinion most are. Unless anyone can explain how so many reviews from people with no previous history could have appeared in one day, and why the average rating on this day is so totally out of kilter with the average over other 13 days going back to Dec 25 2009. (I could have gone back further but boredom struck.)


 
I did not realize that Jesse Ventura's new show was being seen across the pond. But conspiracy theory is best discussed in "The Cafe".

It is pretty clear that you did not shop with Amazon this past holiday season. E-mail invitations have been sent to many of their customers to review one of their purchases. Mine was for freeze-dried Beef Stroganoff.

Most people do not write a review. So they replied when prompted.

I know you want to believe, but sorry.


----------



## r1gm1n

vali said:


> I think those two are fake ones at least.
> 
> Why? The correct spanish surname is Rodriguez, not Rodriquez, and you can check "Marques de Santillana" in Google.
> 
> Of course I can be wrong too...


 
A quick check would have shown you that the reviewer did spell his name right and a little typo was made by the poster.

And the use of screen names needs no explanation, even you use a screen name.


----------



## Bones

Conan said:


> Bones, I made a reply to NLee, showing him the picture and using your words to finish my message.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/safe-BC9009-melt-downs-/#Mx2WB7QV2Z0AMZW



Thanks for posting a reply Conan. The linked image provides an important emphasis that grossly overheated NiMH cells can fail with significantly more violence than a mere release of gas or leakage of acid.

If we presume that this incident was caused by a MOFSET failing in the shorted position, perhaps the exceptional violence is attributable to the fact that in this case there were only two AA cells available to absorb the full output of the power supply.

This, in turn, makes me wonder what would happen if a MOFSET failed in the shorted position with only a single AAA cell in the charger.


----------



## uk_caver

r1gm1n said:


> It is pretty clear that you did not shop with Amazon this past holiday season. E-mail invitations have been sent to many of their customers to review one of their purchases. Mine was for freeze-dried Beef Stroganoff.
> 
> Most people do not write a review. So they replied when prompted.


That's certainly possibly part of an explanation, though it might require some amount of luck for people to all write a review on the same day, even if the review requests all went out at the same time.
It would also seemingly require a fair degree of luck for so many people to be on their first ever review, unless it is common for people to write only one review.

I guess the extra splurge of good reviews yesterday might arguably be a case of people waiting until the weekend to write, though many of them also seemed to be first-timers.

For the 9 January set of reviews, we have positive reviewers with
1,1,1,1,6,2,2,1 reviews in total

For comparison, for the Maha C9000, recent reviewers had
1,3,11,7,26,7,13,17,21,3 reviews in total

At the very least, that does look a little peculiar.


----------



## LeifUK

r1gm1n said:


> A quick check would have shown you that the reviewer did spell his name right and a little typo was made by the poster.



Yes, sorry about that, I had difficulty reading the name due to the font.


----------



## LeifUK

uk_caver said:


> That's certainly possibly part of an explanation, though it might require some amount of luck for people to all write a review on the same day, even if the review requests all went out at the same time.
> It would also seemingly require a fair degree of luck for so many people to be on their first ever review, unless it is common for people to write only one review.
> 
> I guess the extra splurge of good reviews yesterday might arguably be a case of people waiting until the weekend to write, though many of them also seemed to be first-timers.
> 
> For the 9 January set of reviews, we have positive reviewers with
> 1,1,1,1,6,2,2,1 reviews in total
> 
> For comparison, for the Maha C9000, recent reviewers had
> 1,3,11,7,26,7,13,17,21,3 reviews in total
> 
> At the very least, that does look a little peculiar.



That is my opinion too. It is a possible explanation, but one would expect a spread, in the form of a bell curve, and not a surge on one day.


----------



## uk_caver

LeifUK said:


> ...one would expect a spread, in the form of a bell curve, and not a surge on one day.


Make that _two_ days.


----------



## LeifUK

r1gm1n said:


> I did not realize that Jesse Ventura's new show was being seen across the pond. But conspiracy theory is best discussed in "The Cafe".
> 
> It is pretty clear that you did not shop with Amazon this past holiday season. E-mail invitations have been sent to many of their customers to review one of their purchases. Mine was for freeze-dried Beef Stroganoff.
> 
> Most people do not write a review. So they replied when prompted.
> 
> I know you want to believe, but sorry.



uk_caver has given a good response to your post. I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I have no idea who Jesse Ventura is. I simply presented a simple analysis of the reviews for the product. I have no agenda either way. If you can present some compelling evidence that contradicts my analysis, that's great. 

You say that emails were sent to Amazon customers requesting a review. I was not aware of that, even though I am an Amazon customer. It is a good point, and on that basis we might then expect to see similar peaks for other products. You did check didn't you? Okay, let's do so. But to minimize statistical errors, it might make sense to include popular products, where there are a lot of purchases likely to show any trend of the kind you suggest, and some more specialist products. 

====================================================

1) iPod Touch 32 GB, a popular product: 


Jan 09 2010: 17 reviews.
Jan 08 2010: 6 reviews.
Jan 07 2010: 20 reviews.
Jan 06 2010: 3 reviews.
 Jan 05 2010: 6 reviews.
 Jan 04 2010: 3 reviews.
 Jan 03 2010: 5 reviews.
 Jan 02 2010: 6 reviews.
Jan 01 2010: 6 reviews.
Dec 31 2009: 7 reviews.
Dec 30 2009: 19 reviews.
Dec 29 2009: 7 reviews.
Dec 28 2009: 42 reviews.
Dec 27 2009: 3 reviews.
Dec 26 2009: 10 reviews.
Conclusion: a peak around 7-9 Jan 2010, comparable to the Xmas peaks. 

2) Maha C9000, a similar product, which should perhaps show similar sales stats. Sadly there are no reviews during the period in question. :mecry:

3) LaCrosse BC-700 charger, almost the same product, lots of reviews, but not many recent: 


Jan 09 2010: 0 reviews.
Jan 08 2010: 0 reviews.
Jan 07 2010: 0 reviews.
Jan 06 2010: 0 reviews.
 Jan 05 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 04 2010: 0 reviews.
 Jan 03 2010: 0 reviews.
 Jan 02 2010: 0 reviews.
Jan 01 2010: 1 reviews.
Dec 31 2009: 1 reviews.
Dec 30 2009: 0 reviews.
Dec 29 2009: 0 reviews.
Dec 28 2009: 0 reviews.
Dec 27 2009: 0 reviews.
Dec 26 2009: 0 reviews.
Conclusion: not many reviews, but no peak. 

4) Sanyo Eneloop 8 Pack AA Batteries, a specialist product with loads of reviews, though many are for related products e.g. 4 pack (?). 


Jan 09 2010: 8 reviews.
Jan 08 2010: 1 reviews.
Jan 07 2010: 1 reviews.
Jan 06 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 05 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 04 2010: 0 reviews.
 Jan 03 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 02 2010: 0 reviews.
Jan 01 2010: 0 reviews.
Dec 31 2009: 1 reviews.
Dec 30 2009: 2 reviews.
Dec 29 2009: 4 reviews.
Dec 28 2009: 4 reviews.
Dec 27 2009: 0 reviews.
Dec 26 2009: 3 reviews.
Conclusion: a clear peak around Jan 9 2010, twice the size of the Xmas peaks. 

5) Nikon D90 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Nikkor Zoom Lens


Jan 09 2010: 0 reviews.
Jan 08 2010: 0 reviews.
Jan 07 2010: 2 reviews.
Jan 06 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 05 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 04 2010: 0 reviews.
 Jan 03 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 02 2010: 0 reviews.
Jan 01 2010: 1 reviews.
Dec 31 2009: 1 reviews.
Dec 30 2009: 0 reviews.
Dec 29 2009: 0 reviews.
Dec 28 2009: 1 reviews.
Dec 27 2009: 0 reviews.
Dec 26 2009: 1 reviews.
Conclusion: no peak. 

6) Nintendo Wii, a popular product with loads of reviews: 


Jan 09 2010: 2 reviews.
Jan 08 2010: 1 reviews.
Jan 07 2010: 7 reviews.
Jan 06 2010: 0 reviews.
 Jan 05 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 04 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 03 2010: 2 reviews.
 Jan 02 2010: 4 reviews.
Jan 01 2010: 4 reviews.
Dec 31 2009: 2 reviews.
Dec 30 2009: 4 reviews.
Dec 29 2009: 6 reviews.
Dec 28 2009: 9 reviews.
Dec 27 2009: 3 reviews.
Dec 26 2009: 3 reviews.
Conclusion: a peak around 7 Jan 2010, consistent with the Xmas peaks. 

7) Sennheiser CX300-B Earbuds (Black), loads of reviews:


Jan 09 2010: 1 reviews.
Jan 08 2010: 0 reviews.
Jan 07 2010: 2 reviews.
Jan 06 2010: 0 reviews.
 Jan 05 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 04 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 03 2010: 2 reviews.
 Jan 02 2010: 0 reviews.
Jan 01 2010: 1 reviews.
Dec 31 2009: 1 reviews.
Dec 30 2009: 1 reviews.
Dec 29 2009: 0 reviews.
Dec 28 2009: 1 reviews.
Dec 27 2009: 1 reviews.
Dec 26 2009: 1 reviews.
 Conclusion: no real peak. 

8) Freeze-dried Beef Stroganoff: not enough review to draw conclusions. Sounds disgusting though. :nana:

====================================================

The above is a small sample that I chose in order to get either popular products with lots of reviews, or similar products. I found it quite hard to find similar products with reviews in the period in question. I can't say that my choice is good or bad, it just is. 

I would say there is a peak in the number of reviews after Xmas day, no doubt because people are at home, and playing with new 'toys'. There is sometimes a spurt near 7 Jan 2010, but never anything out of kilter with the Xmas trend, except perhaps for the Sanyo Eneloop, though even there the 9 Jan peak is only twice the Xmas peak. I looked closer at the reviewers for 09 Jan 2010 and there are 2 new reviewers with reviews only on that date, and 6 established reviewers. 

I know the above is far from complete, and it is hard to prove anything, but I still think the LaCrosse review pattern is very unlikely, even including your new information. There is some sort of peak around 7-9 Jan 2010 as you suggest, and and the LaCrosse B9000 does have a few reviews from established reviewers on 7 Jan 2010. But the size of the peak is quite unexpected, and the number of new reviewers is unexpected. 

Another point is that the LaCrosse charger is a specialist product, and I find it unlikely that people would review that product alone in response to an Amazon request. If you get a LaCrosse charger, chances are you own products that use AA/AAA batteries, and hence you review those products. And surely you would also own and have reviewed other products. 

I can't prove anything, but the suggestion by other people that someone might be fabricating reviews for the LaCrosse charger to hide bad reviews is consistent with my simple analysis, and I think many if not most of the reviews are fake. There might be 4 or 5 real ones, with some high ratings among them, and a few 1 stars. 

I am open to other explanations/analyses. (I honestly had no idea how the analysis would turn out when I started.)


----------



## LeifUK

uk_caver said:


> Make that _two_ days.



The 13 day peak is isolated, with 1 review on the days either side. Maybe you are referring to the 3 day peak at Xmas, but maybe you'd agree that that one is not unexpected.


----------



## uk_caver

LeifUK said:


> The 13 day peak is isolated, with 1 review on the days either side. Maybe you are referring to the 3 day peak at Xmas, but maybe you'd agree that that one is not unexpected.


No, I was referring to the 7th and 9th January peaks.
I guess it _could_ be that the 9th peak was people waiting until the weekend who would otherwise have written on Thursday, in response to a single bulk review request, or that there were two rather unusual bursts of review requests a couple of days apart.

However, I guess Amazon knows which reviews were in response to requests from them, and which weren't, whatever people here might wonder.


----------



## LeifUK

uk_caver said:


> No, I was referring to the 7th and 9th January peaks.
> I guess it _could_ be that the 9th peak was people waiting until the weekend who would otherwise have written on Thursday, in response to a single bulk review request, or that there were two rather unusual bursts of review requests a couple of days apart.
> 
> However, I guess Amazon knows which reviews were in response to requests from them, and which weren't, whatever people here might wonder.



Ah, okay, I see what you mean. They weren't there when I looked. Here is the latest tally: 


Jan 9: 8 reviews => 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 1 (5 new reviewers).
 Jan 8: 1 review => 1 star
 Jan 7: 13 reviews => 1, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3 (9 new reviewers).
 Jan 6: 1 review => 4 star.
 Jan 5: 2 reviews => both 1 star.
Jan 4: 0 reviews.
 Jan 3: 1 review => 1 star.
 Jan 2: 2 reviews => 1 star and 5 star.
Dec 31: 0 reviews.
 Dec 30: 2 reviews => 2 star and 5 star.
 Dec 29: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 28: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 27: 1 review => 4 star.
 Dec 26: 3 review => 1 star, 4 star, 5 star.
 Dec 25: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 24: 1 review => 1 star.
There are an incredible number of 4 and 5 star reviews appearing on 7/9 Jan 2010. So it looks even more odd, even allowing for a general review request from Amazon. 

To review the product you have to have made a purchase. In which case you need to create an account, and enter credit card details and an address, which would make it hard for one person to create fake reviews without using the same card and address details for multiple accounts. I was able to create a second Amazon account and make purchases using the same credit card and address details as per my old account. 

I guess Amazon should be able to check if any reviewers use duplicate card/address details.


----------



## uk_caver

Some recent non-single-review reviewers had made a previous review some years ago, so have clearly been customers for a while.

Whether you'd count them as spontaneous coincidences, or people prompted (legitimately by Amazon, or less so by others) to write a review,* they* weren't created recently for the purpose.


----------



## TakeTheActive

TakeTheActive said:


> For as far back as I can remember, "NLee the Engineer" held the #1 position for the "Most Helpful" review of the La Crosse BC-900....
> 
> ...Recently, he updated his review... ...SUDDENLY, he has dropped to the #2 position (01-08-2010 @ 03:47 PM ):
> 98.6599% - 589 of 597 people found the following review helpful:
> By esanta "esanta"
> .
> 98.2973% - 866 of 881 people found the following review helpful:
> By NLee the Engineer





TakeTheActive said:


> ...Wondering approximately how many votes it would take to restore 'NLee the Engineer' to #1, I created the following 2 equations:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> (866+x) / (881+x) = .99
> 
> (589) / (597+y) = .98
> 
> To get 'NLee the Engineer' UP to 99% would require *619 Helpful Votes*.
> 
> To get 'esanta' DOWN to 98% would require *4 Not Helpful Votes*. :thinking:



'NLee the Engineer' is back at #1 (01-10-2010 @ 1:18 PM ):
98.3108% - 873 of 888 people found the following review helpful:
By NLee the Engineer
(*7 New Votes: 7 'Helpful' / 0 'Not Helpful'; UP 0.0135%*: 98.2973% -> 98.3108%)
.
98.1666% - 589 of 600 people found the following review helpful: 
By esanta "esanta"
(*3 New Votes: 0 'Helpful' / 3 'Not Helpful'; DOWN 0.4933%*: 98.6599% -> 98.1666%)
The damage from 3 'Not Helpful' votes was over 36 times (3654%) the improvement from 7 'Helpful' votes.

*To: *New La Crosse BC-9009 'Meltdown' readers of this thread - please enter your details:

*La Crosse BC-700/BC-900/BC-9009 Charger 'Meltdown' Reports*
(8 reports total - 1 since 12/28/09)​


----------



## LeifUK

uk_caver said:


> Some recent non-single-review reviewers had made a previous review some years ago, so have clearly been customers for a while.
> 
> Whether you'd count them as spontaneous coincidences, or people prompted (legitimately by Amazon, or less so by others) to write a review,* they* weren't created recently for the purpose.



That's right, that's why I looked in some detail at the 7 Jan 2010 reviewers. Even excluding new reviewers, there would be two recent peaks, but much smaller. It is those reviewers who only have 1 review, or a few reviews on the same day that *could* have been created recently. As to whether any were 'fakes', we don't know. 

Amazon *might* have asked all purchasers of this product to review it as a result of the fault reports. That would explain the peaks, but no-one here has mentioned that, so it looks to be a non starter. So the only legitimate explanation I know for the peaks is the recent Amazon global review request. But other products do not show such gigantic peaks compared to previous days. 

Were I Amazon, I would check the details of the recent reviewers. But they have better things to do with their time.


----------



## LeifUK

r1gm1n said:


> E-mail invitations have been sent to many of their customers to review one of their purchases.



On what date did you receive the email request from Amazon?


----------



## r1gm1n

As popularized by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." 



LeifUK said:


> On what date did you receive the email request from Amazon?


 
will you rate your transactions on December 10, 2009 at Amazon.com?‏From:




*Amazon Marketplace* ([email protected]) Sent:Thu 1/07/10 1:47 PM

will you rate your transaction on December 8, 2009 at Amazon.com?‏From:



*Amazon Marketplace* ([email protected]) Sent:Thu 1/07/10 1:41 AM

Help the Amazon Marketplace community by rating your recent transaction. It's easy--just click the "Leave seller feedback" link below.


----------



## r1gm1n

From:



*Amazon.com* ([email protected]) Sent:Sat 1/09/10 12:36 AM



LeifUK said:


> On what date did you receive the email request from Amazon?


 
Thank you for your recent purchases from Amazon.com. 
We invite you to submit reviews for the products you purchased or share an image that would benefit other customers. Your input will help customers choose the best products on Amazon.com. 
It's easy to submit a review--just click the *Review this product* button next to the product. 



Mountain House Wild Rice and Mushroom Pilaf - Serves 2 (Purchased on 12/01/2009) 
by Mountain House 


 
...or share an image. 



Mountain House Potatoes n Beef - Serves 2 (Purchased on 12/01/2009) 
by Mountain House 


 
...or share an image. 



Powergenix ZR-PGX5HRAA-4B 5-Hour Fast Charger with 4 AA 1.6v High Voltage Rechargeable Batteries (Green) (Purchased on 11/30/2009) 
by PowerGenix 


 
...or share an image.


----------



## LeifUK

r1gm1n said:


> I did not realize that Jesse Ventura's new show was being seen across the pond. But conspiracy theory is best discussed in "The Cafe".
> 
> It is pretty clear that you did not shop with Amazon this past holiday season. E-mail invitations have been sent to many of their customers to review one of their purchases. Mine was for freeze-dried Beef Stroganoff.
> 
> Most people do not write a review. So they replied when prompted.
> 
> I know you want to believe, but sorry.





r1gm1n said:


> As popularized by Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."



r1gm1n: I'm sorry you feel the need to bring the conversation down to the the level of insults and put downs. I would rather you engaged in polite discussion on the basis of facts rather than snide remarks. 

Regarding the review requests that you received from Amazon, they are nothing special. I get that kind of request from Amazon all the time. It's what happens after you make a purchase i.e. they send you a request to review an item. I have not made a recent purchase, which is why I have not received a review request recently. But I had plenty before Xmas. In other words, your review requests cannot account for the recent massive spikes in the number of reviews for this product. 

Let's look at the facts. 

Over the last few weeks, or months, the charger has received 1 or 2 reviews a day, mostly 1 star, with a few 4 and 5 star ones. A week or so ago someone started threads on this forum discussing the issues, and one or two people have contacted the manufacturer/distributer. A few days later the number of reviews jumped massively, and most of those reviews are glowing i.e. 4 and 5 stars. Both the number of reviews, and the nature, are completely inconsistent with the previous product review history. When we look at some other products on Amazon, none show similar spikes in the number of reviews. So, how do you explain that? 

Something very strange is going on, and it might involve fraud by someone. Of course it might be kosher, but that is why in my opinion Amazon should look closely at the reviews. 

The only legitimate explanation I have come up with is that Amazon, after receiving fault reports, explicitly asked all previous purchasers of that product to review it. But no-one has reported receiving such a request from Amazon, so as yet there is zero evidence for that idea. 

You like to use short phrases, so here is one for you. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is most probably a duck.


----------



## uk_caver

Ultimately, Amazon will know who they did or didn't prompt to review the product.

If they _did_ happen to have a system that sends out a clutch of review requests for the same product at the same time to most of the people who wrote recent good reviews they'll know that was the reason for the spike, though they may well ponder the merits of a system which causes review histories to look pretty suspicious.

If they _didn't_ ask for the reviews, then the reviews will likely have been fairly counterproductive.

It's _possible_ that faced with a steady flow of poor reviews, they actually did deliberately ask people for reviews to get an idea of what more past purchasers actually thought.
However, unless they actually doubt or disbelieve the accounts of meltdowns, the logic of that approach would seem a bit lacking - if there's a fairly low rate of a potentially serious failure on a product, asking for reviews from customers who haven't yet complained, and getting 10 or 20 good reviews doesn't actually provide any useful information at all.


----------



## DiverDn

Off topic for sure, but relevant to the current discussion about Amazon. Take what you want from this article about Amazon and their marketing strategies in relation to the reviews on their products.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2009-12-30/news/amazon-s-supply-chain/


----------



## LeifUK

One day further on and here is the latest tally: 


Jan 10: 8 reviews => 5, 2, 5, 5, 5, 1, 4, 5 (1 new reviewer)
Jan 9: 8 reviews => 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 1 (5 new reviewers).
 Jan 8: 1 review => 1 star
 Jan 7: 13 reviews => 1, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3 (9 new reviewers).
 Jan 6: 1 review => 4 star.
 Jan 5: 2 reviews => both 1 star.
Jan 4: 0 reviews.
 Jan 3: 1 review => 1 star.
 Jan 2: 2 reviews => 1 star and 5 star.
Dec 31: 0 reviews.
 Dec 30: 2 reviews => 2 star and 5 star.
 Dec 29: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 28: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 27: 1 review => 4 star.
 Dec 26: 3 review => 1 star, 4 star, 5 star.
 Dec 25: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 24: 1 review => 1 star.
On 10 Jan 2010 there are 7 reviewers with previous reviews going back more than a week or two, so they look genuine, and the last one may of course be genuine. 

It looks like someone or something is prompting genuine purchasers of this product to post reviews. It would be interesting to know when these people ordered the product. Either that or there was a recent massive sales surge, prompted perhaps by the sparkling reviews posted in December 2009.


----------



## scropes

Total newb here and sorry if this was already posted, but I never saw this notice on Amazon before and thought it might be new?

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00077AA5Q/?tag=cpf0b6-20
*"Item Under Review*

While this item is available from other marketplace sellers on this page, it is not currently offered by Amazon.com because customers have told us there may be something wrong with our inventory of the item, the way we are shipping it, or the way it's described here. (Thanks for the tip!)
We're working to fix the problem as quickly as possible."


----------



## uk_caver

That happened on (or at least by) Saturday, I think.
I posted something about it, but then saw post #193, then realised (assumed?) post #188 had been about the same thing, and deleted my post.

In hindsight, I should probably have rewritten my post, rather than just deleting it, since #188/#193 could easily be thought of as talking about something entirely different, and I'm still not even sure that they're not.

Scropes, having the clear mention of the review from you does seem like a good idea.


----------



## scropes

Thanks uk. Yeah I pretty much figured I probably wasn't the first to notice or mention it, but was reading through this thread late into the night and didn't seem to pick up on those posts you referenced, so my apologies again if it was duplicate info. 

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who contributes to this forum. I can't claim to have a clue what any of you are talking about, but reading through some posts on this forum really helped me make what I feel was a great decision in purchasing my MH-C9000. As a frequent customer of Amazon and someone who almost purchased a La Crosse unit from them, I have been curiously following the whole meltdown issue and was atleast glad to see them take some action.


----------



## ShawnLam

scropes said:


> Total newb here and sorry if this was already posted, but I never saw this notice on Amazon before and thought it might be new?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00077AA5Q/?tag=cpf0b6-20
> *"Item Under Review*
> 
> While this item is available from other marketplace sellers on this page, it is not currently offered by Amazon.com because customers have told us there may be something wrong with our inventory of the item, the way we are shipping it, or the way it's described here. (Thanks for the tip!)
> We're working to fix the problem as quickly as possible."



Item is back on sale after three product reviews. What will it take to get Amazon to pull it permanently or for a recall to be issued? I've started contacting several media outlets in an effort to get some more exposure. Maybe this 3rd review might be enough to give this story a hook.


----------



## arteitle

ShawnLam said:


> Item is back on sale after three product reviews. What will it take to get Amazon to pull it permanently or for a recall to be issued? I've started contacting several media outlets in an effort to get some more exposure. Maybe this 3rd review might be enough to give this story a hook.


I saw it was back on sale earlier today, so I emailed Amazon about my second, replacement charger also melting, and it also looks like someone else posted a one-star review today reporting a meltdown. As of a few minutes ago the item was once again "under review". What could their "review" process consist of if they keep concluding that there's no problem?


----------



## TakeTheActive

*-=-=- Attn: CandlePower Forum | La Crosse Charger/Analyzer 'Newbies' -=-=-*​


Jclem451 said:


> *I have the 9009, ver 32, which doesn't seem to be a choice here, so I picked the only model that has a ver 2 as a choice*...


*Reference: **Poll: La Crosse BC-700/BC-900/BC-9009 Charger 'Meltdown' Reports*

From this thread:


arteitle said:


> Chalk up one more melting BC-9009... ...*on the bottom it's stamped "9N9 V32 U"*...



The *Version* number of your La Crosse charger is the number that's momentarily displayed on the LCD for cell #4 when you 'Boot' (Power up) your charger. The number on the bottom, we believe (discussed elsewhere on CPF), relates to the case.

AFAIK, the BC-9009 began with v35 firmware.

*Jclem451*, if you would please correct your Poll entry from BC-900 v32 to BC-9009 v35, it would be appreciated.

Thanks! 

*__________________________________________________*​
*NOTE: *
To the folks who voted but did not post details, details would be appreciated.

To the folks who posted details but not in the format requested, PRETTY PLEASE?​


----------



## Bones

arteitle said:


> I saw it was back on sale earlier today, so I emailed Amazon about my second, replacement charger also melting, and it also looks like someone else posted a one-star review today reporting a meltdown. As of a few minutes ago the item was once again "under review". What could their "review" process consist of if they keep concluding that there's no problem?



I think Amazon's review process consists of their legal division advising them when they think the risk to continue selling the BC-9009 has shifted to the point where it is or isn't within acceptable parameters.

Thanks to your efforts, along with those of ShawnLam and the many others who have posted here and on Amazon, just when they think the risk has once again become acceptable and they remove the 'Item under Review' designation, another review or two reporting more melt-downs gets posted and the marketing division is again advised to discontinue sales.

Hopefully, we can keep beating them down to the point where Amazon insists that LaCrosse actually fixes this long-standing problem. There are countless reviews indicating that even if it cost a few dollars more, this charger would experience a massive surge in popularity if only LaCrosse would finally remedy its failures.


----------



## jhellwig

ShawnLam said:


> Item is back on sale after three product reviews. What will it take to get Amazon to pull it permanently or for a recall to be issued? I've started contacting several media outlets in an effort to get some more exposure. Maybe this 3rd review might be enough to give this story a hook.





When I clicked the link it said that it is back under review and the price was 81 bucks. That thing just keeps getting more expensive.

Well now that I look again it is being sold and shipped by someone other than amazon.


----------



## e_dogg

jhellwig said:


> When I clicked the link it said that it is back under review and the price was 81 bucks. That thing just keeps getting more expensive.
> 
> Well now that I look again it is being sold and shipped by someone other than amazon.


 
Right...every time it's under review, Amazon itself is not selling the charger. But it's still available via one of their marketplace partners who can price it however they see fit. The lowest price from an marketplace partner who has it in stock is the price displayed.

The $81 price you saw was the cheapest price from a partner. It seems to vary a lot too.


----------



## LeifUK

Here is the latest tally: 


Jan 12: 3 review => 5, 1, 1 (1 new reviewer).
Jan 11: 0 reviews.
Jan 10: 8 reviews => 5, 2, 5, 5, 5, 1, 4, 5 (1 new reviewer).
Jan 9: 8 reviews => 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 1 (5 new reviewers).
 Jan 8: 1 review => 1 star
 Jan 7: 13 reviews => 1, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3 (9 new reviewers).
 Jan 6: 1 review => 4 star.
 Jan 5: 2 reviews => both 1 star.
Jan 4: 0 reviews.
 Jan 3: 1 review => 1 star.
 Jan 2: 2 reviews => 1 star and 5 star.
Jan 1: 0 reviews.
Dec 31: 0 reviews.
 Dec 30: 2 reviews => 2 star and 5 star.
 Dec 29: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 28: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 27: 1 review => 4 star.
 Dec 26: 3 review => 1 star, 4 star, 5 star.
 Dec 25: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 24: 1 review => 1 star.
Still under review whatever that means.


----------



## MarioJP

so what is going to happen from here on?


----------



## jcvjcvjcvjcv

I have four (4) of these charger, but then with Conrad IPC-1 on them and never had a single melting problem. 

But then again I don't charge my batteries at 1000 mA. Why would I? If I want heat I turn on the radiator, if I want full batteries I grab something out the stock of charged ones. Charging = overnight stuff. Who cares if it takes 1 hour or 8?


----------



## LeifUK

Hohum:


Jan 14: 2 reviews => 5, 5
Jan 13: 2 reviews => 1, 1 (1 new reviewer)
Jan 12: 3 review => 5, 1, 1 (1 new reviewer).
Jan 11: 0 reviews.
Jan 10: 8 reviews => 5, 2, 5, 5, 5, 1, 4, 5 (1 new reviewer).
Jan 9: 8 reviews => 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 1 (5 new reviewers).
 Jan 8: 1 review => 1 star
 Jan 7: 13 reviews => 1, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3 (9 new reviewers).
 Jan 6: 1 review => 4 star.
 Jan 5: 2 reviews => both 1 star.
Jan 4: 0 reviews.
 Jan 3: 1 review => 1 star.
 Jan 2: 2 reviews => 1 star and 5 star.
Jan 1: 0 reviews.
Dec 31: 0 reviews.
 Dec 30: 2 reviews => 2 star and 5 star.
 Dec 29: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 28: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 27: 1 review => 4 star.
 Dec 26: 3 review => 1 star, 4 star, 5 star.
 Dec 25: 1 review => 1 star.
 Dec 24: 1 review => 1 star.
Still under review whatever that means.


----------



## TakeTheActive

*Amazon.Com: LaCrosse BC-9009 'Meltdown' Reviews...*

*LeifUK*,

Please consider adding:
The Day-of-the-Week (to easily determine if more folks post reviews on the weekend).
.
My suggested 'indented, monospaced font formatting' (to aid in 'visual alignment') to your somewhat ongoing list.
I've been following your list, but became curious as to the 'Day-of-the-Week'. I found the 'Variable Font' cumbersome to use when comparing dates / review(s) / star(s). I also 'Standardized' your 'Star' report(s). 

Thanks! 

*NOTE: *I tried a few of what I thought were '_supposed to be_' monospaced fonts, but "Courier New" was the ONLY one vBulletin displayed as monospaced. 

Also, vBulletin wouldn't accept SPACE SPACE as *TWO* Spaces, so I had to resort to UNDERSCORE SPACE (would you prefer ZERO SPACE?) to maintain the alignment. 

*__________________________________________________*​
*THU* Jan 14: _2 review(s) => 5, 5
*WED* Jan 13: _2 review(s) => 1, 1 (1 new reviewer)
*TUE* Jan 12: _3 review(s) => 5, 1, 1 (1 new reviewer)
*MON* Jan 11: _0 review(s).
*SUN* Jan 10: _8 review(s) => 5, 2, 5, 5, 5, 1, 4, 5 (1 new reviewer)
*SAT* Jan 09: _8 review(s) => 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 1 (*5 new reviewers* )
*FRI* Jan 08: _1 review(s) => 1
*THU* Jan 07: 13 review(s) => 1, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3 (*9 new reviewers* )
*WED* Jan 06: _1 review(s) => 4
*TUE* Jan 05: _2 review(s) => 1, 1
*MON* Jan 04: _0 review(s).
*SUN* Jan 03: _1 review(s) => 1
*SAT* Jan 02: _2 review(s) => 1, 5
*FRI* Jan 01: _0 review(s).
*THU* Dec 31: _0 review(s).
*WED* Dec 30: _2 review(s) => 2, 5
*TUE* Dec 29: _1 review(s) => 1
*MON* Dec 28: _1 review(s) => 1
*SUN* Dec 27: _1 review(s) => 4
*SAT* Dec 26: _3 review(s) => 1, 4, 5
*FRI* Dec 25: _1 review(s) => 1
*THU* Dec 24: _1 review(s) => 1

*LEGEND: *Number(s) after the '*=>*' are the individual STAR(s) for that day's review(s).
​
IMO, *THU* Jan 07: 13 review(s), seems 'out-of-place'. :thinking:


----------



## Light Sabre

I thought this was a flashlight, battery, and charger website. All I see in this thread any more is how many reviews are on Amazon on which day about the BC-900 or BC-9009. The mods oughta close it. No useful information any more.


----------



## TakeTheActive

Light Sabre said:


> *I thought this was a flashlight, battery, and charger website*...


Agree. :thumbsup:



Light Sabre said:


> ...*All I see in this thread any more is how many reviews are on Amazon on which day about the BC-900 or BC-9009*...



For whatever '*reason*' , IMHO, YOU are OVER-REACTING!  :thumbsdow

IMO, *LeifUK's* useful '*Amazon Reviewer(s) Reports*' are a MINUTE FRACTION of the (currently) *234* Total Posts in this *VERY* important "*Notification to NEW La Crosse BC-9009 Onwers*" thread.



Light Sabre said:


> ...*The mods oughta close it. No useful information any more*.


Take a *"Chill Pill"!* You are ALWAYS free to choose to IGNORE *ANY* thread (on *ANY* forum)... :grouphug: 

SEARCH on User Name "TakeTheActive" to see how often I've been 'Shot Down" for something I've posted.


----------



## Turbo DV8

Light Sabre said:


> _*All I see in this thread any more*_ is how many reviews are on Amazon on which day about the BC-900 or BC-9009.


 
Well, sort of... I see that, and one person complaining about it. Ummm... try another thread, might be one suggestion fer ya to try out?:ironic: I think I recall someone, somewhere here started another thread today which you could check out, maybe?


----------



## LeifUK

Light Sabre said:


> I thought this was a flashlight, battery, and charger website. All I see in this thread any more is how many reviews are on Amazon on which day about the BC-900 or BC-9009. The mods oughta close it. No useful information any more.



I find it interesting to see how Amazon respond to very real concerns that a product might be a fire risk. And some people here suggested there was fraud going on, and I thought so too. Now I don't think there is.


----------



## LeifUK

*Re: Amazon.Com: LaCrosse BC-9009 'Meltdown' Reviews...*



TakeTheActive said:


> *LeifUK*,
> 
> Please consider adding: [snip]



Will do. And you've done the formatting for me!


----------



## LeifUK

*Re: Amazon.Com: LaCrosse BC-9009 'Meltdown' Reviews...*

Update with new format as requested: *SAT Jan 16: 01 review(s) => 3 (meltdown!)*
*FRI Jan 15: 02 review(s) => 5, 1*
* THU* Jan 14: 02 review(s) => 5, 5
 *WED* Jan 13: 02 review(s) => 1, 1 (1 new reviewer)
 *TUE* Jan 12: 03 review(s) => 5, 1, 1 (1 new reviewer)
 *MON* Jan 11: 00 review(s).
 *SUN* Jan 10: 08 review(s) => 5, 2, 5, 5, 5, 1, 4, 5 (1 new reviewer)
 *SAT* Jan 09: 08 review(s) => 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 1 (*5 new reviewers*)
 *FRI* Jan 08: 01 review(s) => 1
 *THU* Jan 07: 13 review(s) => 1, 4, 2, 4, 5, 5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3 (*9 new reviewers*)
 *WED* Jan 06: 01 review(s) => 4
 *TUE* Jan 05: 02 review(s) => 1, 1
 *MON* Jan 04: 00 review(s).
 *SUN* Jan 03: 01 review(s) => 1
 *SAT* Jan 02: 02 review(s) => 1, 5
 *FRI* Jan 01: 00 review(s).
 *THU* Dec 31: 00 review(s).
 *WED* Dec 30: 02 review(s) => 2, 5
 *TUE* Dec 29: 01 review(s) => 1
 *MON* Dec 28: 01 review(s) => 1
 *SUN* Dec 27: 01 review(s) => 4
 *SAT* Dec 26: 03 review(s) => 1, 4, 5
 *FRI* Dec 25: 01 review(s) => 1
 *THU* Dec 24: 01 review(s) => 1​ *LEGEND: *Number(s) after the '*=>*' are the individual STAR(s) for that day's review(s).





TakeTheActive said:


> IMO, *THU* Jan 07: 13 review(s), seems 'out-of-place'. :thinking:



Unless someone has prompted previous purchasers of this product to post reviews. Maybe that is part of the Amazon 'product under review' process. Clearly the product has a serious fault, and I wonder what it would take for them to withdraw a product.


----------



## r1gm1n

LeifUK said:


> Regarding the review requests that you received from Amazon, they are nothing special. I get that kind of request from Amazon all the time. It's what happens after you make a purchase i.e. they send you a request to review an item. I have not made a recent purchase, which is why I have not received a review request recently.


You are confusing the _'rate a transaction'_ requests with the _'review a product'_ requests. I included copies of both. The 'rate a transaction' does come to everyone after every transaction. The 'review a product' is much more selective. I know you want to believe.

PS. Most people on this side of the pond that have read Samuel Clements consider him one of the great American _*humorists*_ .


----------



## uk_caver

Assuming it is all down to Amazon, maybe they have consciously asked for reviews due to the presence of negative ones, despite (or maybe because of) the content of negative reviews generally being 'potential danger' rather than just 'I don't like this product'.

Possibly they're actually looking to see if they get 'meltdown' reports among the prompted reviews, which would make it even less likely that those bad reviews could be any part of any unfair anti-manufacturer campaign?

Still, whatever the cause, it doesn't necessarily look good to have a few odd spikes of 'great product' reviews among a background reporting level that's recently been about 50% negative.
Also, unless they keep asking for reviews, or the product changes, presumably those spikes will end up being slowly pushed down the list by the regular level of spontaneous reviews.


----------



## Light Sabre

_*TakeTheActive*: Sorry fresh out of chill pills. Must have used up all the ones in the freezer_. :nana:

We're on page 8 now. so many message and not enough time to review them all. Has anyone done an autopsy on ones that have melted down to see what component(s) inside were damaged? Someone said they put in extra filter caps and switched to a lower voltage AC adapter or power supply but that was a preventative measure.

I have been keeping tabs much more closely on the 2 BC-900's that I have and have noticed what I considered unusual behavior a time or 2 and pulled the batteries. Not sure if it was a real problem or not. I have purchased a few indoor/outdoor thermometers that have a wired outdoor probe (while such an animal still exists since most are wireless now) that fits perfectly between the batteries so that I can keep an eye on what's normal temp and what's not. Will see how it goes.


----------



## LeifUK

r1gm1n said:


> You are confusing the _'rate a transaction'_ requests with the _'review a product'_ requests. I included copies of both. The 'rate a transaction' does come to everyone after every transaction. The 'review a product' is much more selective. I know you want to believe.
> 
> PS. Most people on this side of the pond that have read Samuel Clements consider him one of the great American _*humorists*_ .



I have no idea what Samuel Clements has to do with this. And I don't care for the nature of your earlier posts where you attempt to ridicule and insult me. 

And what you say above does not accord with what you said earlier. This is what you said in your earlier post: 

"It is pretty clear that you did not shop with Amazon this past holiday season. E-mail invitations have been sent to many of their customers to review one of their purchases. Mine was for freeze-dried Beef Stroganoff. Most people do not write a review. So they replied when prompted. I know you want to believe, but sorry."

According to your earlier posts, you received these requests from Amazon: 


will you rate your transactions on December 10, 2009 at Amazon.com?‏From:




*Amazon Marketplace* ([email protected]) Sent:Thu 1/07/10 1:47 PM
 will you rate your transaction on December 8, 2009 at Amazon.com?‏From:



*Amazon Marketplace* ([email protected]) Sent:Thu 1/07/10 1:41 AM
 Help the Amazon Marketplace community by rating your recent transaction. It's easy--just click the "Leave seller feedback" link below.
And in the next post you pasted details of the products that you bought: 


Mountain House Wild Rice and Mushroom Pilaf - Serves 2 (Purchased on 12/01/2009) by Mountain House 
Mountain House Po=tatoes n Beef - Serves 2 (Purchased on 12/01/2009) by Mountain House
Powergenix ZR-PGX5HRAA-4B 5-Hour Fast Charger with 4 AA 1.6v High Voltage Rechargeable Batteries (Green) (Purchased on 11/30/2009) by PowerGenix 
The above look like three requests to review the three products that you bought not long before. I do shop with Amazon, and I do receive the standard requests as per the above. I usually just delete the emails. 

However, you suggested that Amazon were sending out special review requests at the start of the New Year. So I tried to find evidence for that by looking at a range of products (see post 206). There were some spikes similar in size to those seen in the post Christmas period. This could be due to Amazon sending out global review requests every 10 days maybe. Who knows. But, and this is the important point, no other product showed the same trends as the LaCrosse charger i.e. massive spikes in early January 2010. The only one with a large recent spike was the Sony Eneloop AA batteries. Here is the updated data: 



Jan 17 2010: 1 review.
Jan 16 2010: 0 review.
Jan 15 2010: 0 review.
Jan 14 2010: 1 review.
Jan 13 2010: 1 review.
Jan 12 2010: 1 review.
Jan 11 2010: 1 review.
Jan 10 2010: 1 review.
Jan 09 2010: 7 reviews.
Jan 08 2010: 1 reviews.
Jan 07 2010: 1 reviews.
Jan 06 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 05 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 04 2010: 0 reviews.
 Jan 03 2010: 1 reviews.
 Jan 02 2010: 0 reviews.
Jan 01 2010: 0 reviews.
Dec 31 2009: 1 reviews.
Dec 30 2009: 2 reviews.
Dec 29 2009: 4 reviews.
Dec 28 2009: 4 reviews.
Dec 27 2009: 0 reviews.
Dec 26 2009: 3 reviews.
That is not consistent with the LaCrosse charger trend. So, the recent spikes in the number of reviews for the LaCrosse charger is unusual. 

Looking closer at the Jan 07 2010 reviews showed that most were by new reviewers. That was suspicious, as other also noted. But later reviews show a large number of established reviewers, who must be genuine (ignoring implausible scenarios). 

So, this means either that there was a massive sales spike recently (unlikely given the atrocious reviews), or that someone is purposefully sending out extra review requests for this product to people who made purchases earlier. I assume the latter is the case and that it forms part of the Amazon review process.


----------



## LeifUK

uk_caver said:


> Assuming it is all down to Amazon, maybe they have consciously asked for reviews due to the presence of negative ones, despite (or maybe because of) the content of negative reviews generally being 'potential danger' rather than just 'I don't like this product'.
> 
> Possibly they're actually looking to see if they get 'meltdown' reports among the prompted reviews, which would make it even less likely that those bad reviews could be any part of any unfair anti-manufacturer campaign?
> 
> Still, whatever the cause, it doesn't necessarily look good to have a few odd spikes of 'great product' reviews among a background reporting level that's recently been about 50% negative.
> Also, unless they keep asking for reviews, or the product changes, presumably those spikes will end up being slowly pushed down the list by the regular level of spontaneous reviews.



Yes, I'm sure Amazon have to take into account that there might be a campaign by a competitor, or a disgruntled employee. 

As an aside, did you notice this on the same page: 

*What Do Customers Ultimately Buy After Viewing This Item?*




*68%* buy the item featured on this page:
Kidde FA110 Multi Purpose Fire Extinguisher 1A10BC 3.5 out of 5 stars (20)
$24.08


 *14%* buy 
Kidde FX10K Kitchen Fire Extinguisher, 82CI 4.3 out of 5 stars (15)
$24.00


 *6%* buy 
Kidde KL-2S Two-Story Fire Escape Ladder with Anti-Slip Rungs, 13-Foot 3.8 out of 5 stars (66)
$37.98


 *6%* buy 
Kidde 466204 Pro 10 Fire Extinguisher 5.0 out of 5 stars (1)
$68.66

(Okay, just in case there are lawyers about, the above is a joke. I did not see the above on the same page.)


----------



## Mr Happy

LeifUK said:


> The above look like three requests to review the three products...


I've got to say they do not. They look like requests to rate the performance of marketplace vendors (i.e. do they deliver on time, do they deliver what is promised, do they help to fix problems with the order...?)

A review request looks like this (I received one recently):
_Dear XXX,_
_Thank you for your recent purchase from Amazon.co.uk._
_We invite you to submit a review for the product you purchased..._​It is quite different as you can see.


----------



## LeifUK

Mr Happy said:


> I've got to say they do not. They look like requests to rate the performance of marketplace vendors (i.e. do they deliver on time, do they deliver what is promised, do they help to fix problems with the order...?)



This risks going off on a pedantic tangent. You can check the original posts which I did not quote in full for the sake of brevity. They are posts 214 and 215 on page 8. 

You will see that he received three requests to review transactions with sellers outside Amazon for products that he bought not long before Christmas, and he also got a request to review each product. That is what would be expected. I can't see any reason to see this as suggesting that Amazon was sending out a larger than usual number of review requests to everyone. He was trying to explain the massive review peak in early January.


----------



## r1gm1n

LeifUK said:


> This risks going off on a pedantic tangent. You can check the original posts which I did not quote in full for the sake of brevity. They are posts 214 and 215 on page 8.
> 
> You will see that he received three requests to review transactions with sellers outside Amazon for products that he bought not long before Christmas, and he also got a request to review each product.


 
will you rate your transactions on December 10, 2009 at Amazon.com?‏From: Amazon Marketplace ([email protected]) Sent:Thu 1/07/10 1:47 PM
will you rate your transaction on December 8, 2009 at Amazon.com?‏From: Amazon Marketplace ([email protected]) Sent:Thu 1/07/10 1:41 AM
From: Amazon.com ([email protected]) Sent:Sat 1/09/10 12:36 AM

Three separate emails, sent at three different times, each having nothing to do with the others.

rate your transactions on December 10, 2009 

rate your transaction on December 8, 2009 

The products for review were purchased November 30 and December 1.



LeifUK said:


> You can check the original posts which I did not quote in full for the sake of brevity. They are posts 214 and 215 on page 8.


----------



## LeifUK

r1gm1n said:


> will you rate your transactions on December 10, 2009 at Amazon.com?‏From: Amazon Marketplace ([email protected]) Sent:Thu 1/07/10 1:47 PM
> will you rate your transaction on December 8, 2009 at Amazon.com?‏From: Amazon Marketplace ([email protected]) Sent:Thu 1/07/10 1:41 AM
> From: Amazon.com ([email protected]) Sent:Sat 1/09/10 12:36 AM
> 
> Three separate emails, sent at three different times, each having nothing to do with the others.
> 
> rate your transactions on December 10, 2009
> 
> rate your transaction on December 8, 2009
> 
> The products for review were purchased November 30 and December 1.



This has gotten very tedious. 

Here are your product review requests: 



r1gm1n said:


> From:
> 
> 
> 
> *Amazon.com* ([email protected]) Sent:Sat 1/09/10 12:36 AM
> 
> Thank you for your recent purchases from Amazon.com.
> We invite you to submit reviews for the products you purchased or share an image that would benefit other customers. Your input will help customers choose the best products on Amazon.com.
> It's easy to submit a review--just click the *Review this product* button next to the product.
> 
> 
> 
> Mountain House Wild Rice and Mushroom Pilaf - Serves 2 (Purchased on 12/01/2009)
> by Mountain House
> 
> 
> 
> ...or share an image.
> 
> 
> 
> Mountain House Potatoes n Beef - Serves 2 (Purchased on 12/01/2009)
> by Mountain House
> 
> 
> 
> ...or share an image.
> 
> 
> 
> Powergenix ZR-PGX5HRAA-4B 5-Hour Fast Charger with 4 AA 1.6v High Voltage Rechargeable Batteries (Green) (Purchased on 11/30/2009)
> by PowerGenix
> 
> 
> 
> ...or share an image.



The above was posted by you. Those are standard product review requests for the three products that you bought recently are they not? 

And then you had some requests to review the transactions, as you bought from Amazon market place sellers. The rate a transaction has nothing to do with rating the product so I'll ignore it. 

So what makes you think that a large number of people had out of the ordinary review requests? 

And in any case, as I have already said so many times, even if we assume that you are right (and I see no evidence for that), the review trends for other products I chose at random show no trends consistent with your suggestion. 

In fact the LaCrosse Charger shows a *gigantic* jump in the number of reviews around 7 Jan 2010. And that *gigantic* jump is unexplained. To some people, including myself, it initially looked very suspicious, but looking at subsequent days rules that out. 

As several people have said, it could be that the Amazon product under review process involves sending out review requests for the LaCrosse charger to previous purchasers who have not posted a review. That would be my guess, though it might be wrong.


----------



## MarioJP

Obviously these reviews are going nowhere. Should I stop using this charger because its a fire hazard but yet I have lost count to how many times I have used this charger??

The point is until there is a serious incident like a fire this product won't be recalled. Obviously Amazon is just "reviewing" but not focusing the actual problem.

Before you know it, this product is going to be put back in stock. Who knows maybe the problem will get fixed when La-crosse redesign the charger.

These reviews statistics are really getting out of hand and is not doing a thing to solve the problem.

Case in point

"
*Item Under Review*

*While this item is available from other marketplace sellers on this page, it is not currently offered by Amazon.com because customers have told us there may be something wrong with our inventory of the item, the way we are shipping it, or the way it's described here.* (Thanks for the tip!)
We're working to fix the problem as quickly as possible."


how does the way it is shipped or the way the product is described has to do with overheating and melting??.


Does not make any sense whatsoever.


----------



## Mr Happy

Here's the basic thing. Some people are having problems, many people are not. If you are one of the many, be happy. Keep using the charger, but put it on a heatproof surface and keep an eye on it. Then if something does go wrong it won't be a disaster (except for the charger of course).


----------



## uk_caver

A useful thing to know would be how quickly chargers that do fail tend to fail.

Having read some of the Amazon reviews, some do seem to fail pretty quickly.


----------



## arteitle

uk_caver said:


> A useful thing to know would be how quickly chargers that do fail tend to fail.
> 
> Having read some of the Amazon reviews, some do seem to fail pretty quickly.


Both of my new BC-9009s had softening, sinking buttons and a smell of melting plastic on their first use, which was a four-cell test cycle at 1000 mA of the included AA batteries. My year-old BC-900, however, continues to work fine.


----------



## LeifUK

arteitle said:


> Both of my new BC-9009s had softening, sinking buttons and a smell of melting plastic on their first use, which was a four-cell test cycle at 1000 mA of the included AA batteries. My year-old BC-900, however, continues to work fine.



If you look back over the review history, the reviews used to be glowing (no pun intended). So the issue might only be for one or more batches. Whether it is a manufacturing fault, or a design one, I've no idea. (Someone might have figured that out.)


----------



## KiwiMark

Mr Happy said:


> Here's the basic thing. Some people are having problems, many people are not. If you are one of the many, be happy. Keep using the charger, but put it on a heatproof surface and keep an eye on it. Then if something does go wrong it won't be a disaster (except for the charger of course).



+1

I can't see the sense in stopping the use of a good charger that works well and has never given any problems. But a heatproof surface is not a bad idea for any charger and batteries - just in case.


----------



## arteitle

I noticed today that Amazon no longer lists the charger as being "Under review", but at the same time they no longer offer it for sale from their inventory at all. It's listed as being available from one seller for $99, but that's it. My interpretation is that they've stopped carrying the BC-9009. They still carry the BC-700, which so far has no reports of meltdowns.


----------



## ShawnLam

I noticed the same last night but wanted to wait and see if we there would be another change hours later, like we experienced on January 12 when the review status expired and it was back on the market for a few hours before it went back on review again.

I'll call this VA day, for Victory on Amazon. 

I'm going to request a statement from their PR department but my initial thoughts are that the lack of both a review status and supply from Amazon indicates that they are no longer carrying the product, due to a high number of defects and the efforts of those on CPF.



> "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
> — Margaret Mead


----------



## ShawnLam

Looks like Thomas Distributing has also stopped carrying the BC-9009 as well. Eugene Thomas was not in and unavailable for comment but the employee I spoke with told me that the decided to no longer carry the product as it was having some problems and they did not want to offer it to their customers if they did not feel it was safe.

Here is the dead link

VA & VT day! I think those are the big ones that I can find but I'm going to work on some of the smaller ones, including Action Packaged, currently the only Amazon marketplace seller listed.


----------



## uk_caver

If the earlier versions were more reliable, presumably the problem should be fixable, since they should know what changes they might have made?


----------



## Mr Happy

uk_caver said:


> If the earlier versions were more reliable, presumably the problem should be fixable, since they should know what changes they might have made?


I don't know that they actually make it. They seem to source it from an external manufacturer and put their branding on it. Hence the same item sold in Europe under different brands like Voltcraft.


----------



## uk_caver

Well, _someone_ should know what changes might have been made.


----------



## Mr Happy

What I'm getting at is the evident lack of customer care or warranty support from LaCrosse when people have problems suggests that somebody doesn't really care enough about this charger to do much about it. If LaCrosse buys it in from outside, and the outside vendor is not terribly concerned about how well it works, then it would tend to explain the current situation.


----------



## e_dogg

I just looked at the Amazon listing...it's not for sale from any of their marketplace affiliates either. It simply says "*Sign up to be notified when this item becomes available."*


----------



## LightOnAHill

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*



Mr Happy said:


> How can I explain this to you? It is not normal behavior, it is a fault. It does not happen to every charger all the time, it happens to perhaps one charger in a hundred, or 1 in 1000. Your chargers may never develop the fault and may never do anything bad. If one person has a car that breaks down, does it mean that every car of that kind is going to break down?




It may be more than a fault. It may be a flaw.


----------



## Turbo DV8

Here's a thought, after all the pats on the back have subsided... Unless there is an actual recall, which would require the identification of a specific run of defective product _to _recall, this is nothing more than putting a damper on their sales. And unless actual fires have been started, I doubt there would be any recall at all. Think about it. So a couple sellers have decided to not sell it. If there is no official recall, the BC-9009 will continue to be made, maybe "corrected" maybe not, but who knows what we'll find on the shelves? No recall = no reason for purging of current units from the supply line.


----------



## jeober

My first unit melted down and I posted this on Amazon on Dec 25. My wife had bought another unit to use at her school, also last December. She said it worked fine.

I asked her to bring it home. I put 4 batteries on the 1000ma Test cycle and ended up with two buttons melted down. So this unit is also going back.

I tried to post a new review on amazon and the button for this is gone. I also tried to edit my original review and couldn't.

What's the deal here with Amazon?


----------



## Turbo DV8

jeober said:


> I tried to post a new review on amazon and the button for this is gone. I also tried to edit my original review and couldn't.
> 
> What's the deal here with Amazon?


 
Clearly, it's another conspiracy! Either that, or once they pulled the plug and it is no longer sold by Amazon, reviews and edits of reviews are no longer allowed? Just a guess.


----------



## ShawnLam

jeober said:


> My first unit melted down and I posted this on Amazon on Dec 25. My wife had bought another unit to use at her school, also last December. She said it worked fine.
> 
> I asked her to bring it home. I put 4 batteries on the 1000ma Test cycle and ended up with two buttons melted down. So this unit is also going back.
> 
> I tried to post a new review on amazon and the button for this is gone. I also tried to edit my original review and couldn't.
> 
> What's the deal here with Amazon?



Makes sense that the review feature is disabled when they stop listing the item.

I've posted a 4th update on my blog - feel free to add your story in the comments.


----------



## MarioJP

So does this means this charger is gone for good and stuck with the bc 700??


----------



## n3eg

jeober said:


> ...My wife had bought another unit to use at her school, also last December. She said it worked fine. I asked her to bring it home. I put 4 batteries on the 1000ma Test cycle and ended up with two buttons melted down.


 
If that was my wife's charger, I'd owe her two weeks of doing the dishes...


----------



## MarioJP

that is weird how it just melts like that???


----------



## Turbo DV8

> Originally Posted by *jeober*
> 
> 
> _...My wife had bought another unit to use at her school, also last December. She said it worked fine. I asked her to bring it home. I put 4 batteries on the 1000ma Test cycle and ended up with two buttons melted down._


 


n3eg said:


> If that was my wife's charger, I'd owe her two weeks of doing the dishes...


 
If that were universally true, then they would sell like hot cakes if marketed on HSN...


----------



## ShawnLam

LaCrosse claims to have identified the meltdown issue and is voluntarily replacing the affected AC adapters.

Link here


----------



## sqchram

Bravo. Great find shawnlam, mine does not


----------



## HappyCamp

ShawnLam said:


> LaCrosse claims to have identified the meltdown issue and is voluntarily replacing the affected AC adapters.



Supposedly the issue is that the new AC adapters were outputting to high of a voltage.

I measured my BC-900 AC adapter's voltage and it was 3.03 volts.

My BC-9009 AC adapter's voltage was 3.20 volts.


----------



## uk_caver

That doesn't seem like a huge difference.

I wonder if some adapters were sometimes giving out rather more than that.


----------



## MarioJP

That is possible actually. At 3V alone it is at its limit and with high current charging it can get quite hot. It does not have to be a huge difference to cause a problem.

3V is where it should be and not higher than 3.00. Not perfect on the dot but you get the idea. The MOSFET chip you be quite surprise how sensitive it can be.

never mind the heating factor. For all I know that extra .20V is enough to cause the program on the chip to crash or malfunction. And if it regulates the amount of current I would be guessing it be drawing maximum current draw from the adapter. Minus well just short circuit the charger as that is what is happening.

Case in point. Takes a split second static discharge to crash a motherboard on a computer permanently. Parts of it still function but boy it crashes for no apparent reason. Had a buddy of mine that he was Overclocking his system and accidentally went off by couple of millivolt and fried the cpu. Only thing I don't know is how high he had it in the first place that caused this.


----------



## Russel

That is interesting. 

Just out of curiosity, I measured the voltage from the BC-900 and BC-700 AC adapters I have.

BC-900 3.037 volts

BC-700 3.153 volts

AC supply to adapters 119.7 volts AC

Both chargers, the BC-900 and BC-700, have been used dozens of times without problems. My Standard charging method is 700ma with the BC-700 and 1000 or 1500ma with the BC-900 charging two cell at a time. Batteries are almost exclusively Eneloop AA cells.

My AC adapters don't have the symbol on the AC adapter that signifiys a problem unit. Of course, they arn't BC-9009 adapters.


----------



## MarioJP

Russel said:


> That is interesting.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, I measured the voltage from the BC-900 and BC-700 AC adapters I have.
> 
> BC-900 3.037 volts
> 
> BC-700 3.153 volts
> 
> AC supply to adapters 119.7 volts AC
> 
> Both chargers, the BC-900 and BC-700, have been used dozens of times without problems. My Standard charging method is 700ma with the BC-700 and 1000 or 1500ma with the BC-900 charging two cell at a time. Batteries are almost exclusively Eneloop AA cells.
> 
> My AC adapters don't have the symbol on the AC adapter that signifiys a problem unit. Of course, they arn't BC-9009 adapters.



question is which adapter is plugged to which charger??

3.1V?? I am hoping it is plugged on the bc-700 instead of the bc-900?? That's quite high.

another factor to consider since technically ac adapters is a power transformer. Wouldn't be surprise if any interference can be causing the chip to crash.

As long as the chip does not crash the charger is ok. For those that had chargers that melted the chip probably crashed the moment the charger started charging the cells without the user even knowing about it.

Definitely between the BC-700 and BC-900 are 2 different programs programmed on the physical chip I am also guessing the bc-700 has a higher resistance than the bc-900 or its like this

BC-700 slight higher resistance = handling voltage maybe up to 3.1V.
BC-900 or 9009 has a much lower resistance which definitely requires no more than 3.00V anything higher you putting it in risk as when the chip crashes your bc-900 has now become a 4AA battery holder directly connected to you AC adapter with no regulation whatsoever lol.

Something has changed since Aug 09. Would start with the AC adapter which I am glad la crosse is stepping up to plate


----------



## Russel

MarioJP said:


> question is which adapter is plugged to which charger??
> 
> 3.1V?? I am hoping it is plugged on the bc-700 instead of the bc-900?? That's quite high.


 
Yes, as I posted, the AC adapter with 3.153 volts DC output is the one that came with the BC-700. 



MarioJP said:


> another factor to consider since technically ac adapters is a power transformer. Wouldn't be surprise if any interference can be causing the chip to crash.


 
Agreed. That is why I always plug my chargers into a UPS, or as the case may sometimes be with my MH-C9000, a 12 volt car battery that is charged with a solar power system.


----------



## Bones

If you're willing to wade through it, this thread will provide an educated insight into why a relatively small increase in the output voltage of the BC-9009's power supply resulted in such a dramatic rise in the number of melt-downs:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post1549704

It might also be considered cautionary reading for all owners of a LaCrosse BC-9x series charger.


----------



## Russel

Specs: http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/NTGS3443T1-D.PDF

I see that the MOSFET component is only rated for 0.5 watts of heat dissipation. But isn't it being switched completely on and off? 

How much heat is dissipated through it? 

And how does a slight increase in input voltage affect it? 
(Input voltage apparently does affect it, as LaCrosse is replacing AC adapters due to high output voltage.)


----------



## uk_caver

So the components were always hovering close to the edge of failure, and only needed a minimal change in input voltage to ramp up the failure rate from the level it was previously at?


----------



## NutSAK

ShawnLam said:


> LaCrosse claims to have identified the meltdown issue and is voluntarily replacing the affected AC adapters.
> 
> Link here




I don't see any suggestion to terminate usage of the recalled adapter until it is replaced....


----------



## uk_caver

Russel said:


> I see that the MOSFET component is only rated for 0.5 watts of heat dissipation. But isn't it being switched completely on and off?
> 
> How much heat is dissipated through it?
> 
> And how does a slight increase in input voltage affect it?


The other thread linked by bones suggested it was being used in linear mode.

If that was the case, then if there was a fairly small current-sense resistor, that could mean the FET was having something around 1.6V to deal with, given a 3V supply.
However, that'd mean that a supply increase of 0.2V would only be about a 12% increase in heat, which isn't exactly a great amount - charging somewhere vaguely warm with a 3V supply might end up with hotter components than charging somewhere cool with a 3.2V supply.


----------



## Mr Happy

uk_caver said:


> The other thread linked by bones suggested it was being used in linear mode.
> 
> If that was the case, then if there was a fairly small current-sense resistor, that could mean the FET was having something around 1.6V to deal with, given a 3V supply.
> However, that'd mean that a supply increase of 0.2V would only be about a 12% increase in heat, which isn't exactly a great amount - charging somewhere vaguely warm with a 3V supply might end up with hotter components than charging somewhere cool with a 3.2V supply.


Hmm. By my calculations an increase of 0.2 V on 1.6 V dropped leads to an increase in power dissipation of

[(1.6+0.2)/1.6]^2 = 1.27

That would make it an increase of slightly over 25%. If a component was right at the edge that could be significant.


----------



## uk_caver

Mr Happy said:


> Hmm. By my calculations an increase of 0.2 V on 1.6 V dropped leads to an increase in power dissipation of
> 
> [(1.6+0.2)/1.6]^2 = 1.27
> 
> That would make it an increase of slightly over 25%. If a component was right at the edge that could be significant.


If the [average] current is constant, isn't the power increase proportional to the voltage increase?


----------



## Russel

uk_caver said:


> The other thread linked by bones suggested it was being used in linear mode...


 

I am no expert, but wouldn't that be very inefficient? I thought the device pulsed on and off to charge batteries. My impression was that PWM allowed a smaller switching device because it didn't have to disipate the excess energy. Of course, the switching on and off generates heat in the device, but not nearly as much as using it in a linear fashion.


----------



## uk_caver

If average current control was by pure PWM, then presumably there'd need to be a resistor of reasonable size in the circuit to limit peak current to a decent value, not overloading the PSU when multiple channels were operating?
A 50mOhm FET, a ~0R25 load resistor and a single AA cell would pull quite a current from the supply.

Also, if the transistor was just going on/off, unless it had a pretty poor drive circuit, then it shouldn't be getting particularly hot, or significantly hotter with a slightly higher PSU voltage.
If there was a weak drive, if the frequency stayed the same, and minimal heat was dissipated when the FET was on, the heat dissipation in the FET should presumably be similar at all the different power levels, since it would only be dissipating during transitions between zero and the same peak current.

I suppose that with a known 3V supply, it would be possible to design a drive circuit that used the FET in linear mode, but which had a ballast resistor which in combination with the sense resistor would soak up most of the excess voltage in the case of a full (~1.5V) cell at full drive current (1A)

In _that_ case with a properly tweaked design, the FET might normally only have to deal with a small voltage. Even when a pretty flat cell was inserted, its voltage would fairly quickly rise to ~1.2V (or maybe be rejected), or could be dealt with by starting flat cells on a lower charge current.
That kind of circuit possibly _*would*_ be highly sensitive to small increases in supply voltage, since the dissipation in the FET could increase substantially, but I got the impression that that wasn't how the BC-900 worked


----------



## TakeTheActive

*La Crosse BC-9009 / BC-900 MOSFET (SOT23) Thermal Runaway and/or Failure*

*jtr1962* had the answer in 2006: *BC-900 power supply discovery*





Now that we know WHAT La Crosse changed:


La Crosse said:


> ...La Crosse Technology recently switched to a new AC adapter that meets California Energy Commission (CEC) requirements.
> 
> La Crosse Technology has discovered that *this new AC adapter has an increased voltage output*;...


*Reference*


----------



## MarioJP

The question is what is going to happen now?


----------



## r1gm1n

MarioJP said:


> The question is what is going to happen now?


La Crosse is replacing, free of charge, the adapters purchased between October 01, 2009 and January 15, 2010.

Click here: https://www.lacrossetechnology.com/support/bc9009/


----------



## DarkNova

My BC-700 AC adapter has the "IV" symbol, although it is listed as manufactured by "Ktec".


----------



## Bones

DarkNova said:


> My BC-700 AC adapter has the "IV" symbol, although it is listed as manufactured by "Ktec".



Presumably, this indicates that the adapter for your BC-700 has also been brought into accordance with CEC requirements DarkNova:



> La Crosse Technology recently switched to a new AC adapter that meets California Energy Commission (CEC) requirements.
> 
> ...can be identified by the Roman number IV on the adapter.
> 
> ...


If you have a way to measure, it would be interesting to learn whether the output voltage of your adapter is comparable to Russel's, especially if his happens to be a pre-IV version:



Russel said:


> That is interesting.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, I measured the voltage from the BC-900 and BC-700 AC adapters I have.
> 
> BC-900 3.037 volts
> 
> BC-700 3.153 volts
> 
> AC supply to adapters 119.7 volts AC
> ...


----------



## Nite

Well I had just bought two of these...love the batteries. However the form only allows me to order one charger.... but i have two power supplys with the bad IV symbol on them.

Definitely need to call them. One of the chargers 4 bays is bad.

I hear they have good customer support.anyone know where to buy these cells and what brand they really are if not made by la crosse?


----------



## Russel

DarkNova said:


> My BC-700 AC adapter has the "IV" symbol, although it is listed as manufactured by "Ktec".


I had to look again, mine is also made by Ktec, but no “IV” symbol.






Bones reply to DarkNova (quoted above the photo)



Bones said:


> If you have a way to measure, it would be interesting to learn whether the output voltage of your adapter is comparable to Russel's, especially if his happens to be a pre-IV version:


I am also interested in what voltage the “IV” version BC-700 AC adapter puts out.


Again, for reference, the output of the BC-700 AC adapter in the photograph above:

BC-700 3.153 volts
AC supply to adapters 119.7 volts AC


----------



## DarkNova

Russel said:


> I had to look again, mine is also made by Ktec, but no “IV” symbol.
> 
> I am also interested in what voltage the “IV” version BC-700 AC adapter puts out.
> 
> 
> Again, for reference, the output of the BC-700 AC adapter in the photograph above:
> 
> BC-700 3.153 volts
> AC supply to adapters 119.7 volts AC




My BC-700 IV adapter puts out 3.157 V (unloaded) with the AC supply currently at 122.3 V, so that seems pretty similar to yours.

My adapter also looks identical to yours, except there is a "IV" with a circle around it in the lower right corner, next to the plus sign, and below it it says "80BH". These markings are identical to the one on the LaCrosse page talking about the recalled adapter, so I don't know if I should be concerned or not. All the other numbers are the same as in your picture.


----------



## KiwiMark

I just checked my power adapters - one is bang on 3.00V and the other is about 3.03V, they are plugged into 240V 50Hz AC power. I guess I should be fine, mine are both older than 1 year old.


----------



## Russel

DarkNova said:


> My BC-700 IV adapter puts out 3.157 V (unloaded) with the AC supply currently at 122.3 V, so that seems pretty similar to yours.
> 
> ...I don't know if I should be concerned or not. All the other numbers are the same as in your picture.


 
I alway charge AA cells at 700ma with my BC-700. I have used mine dozens of times without any problems. Also, I don't think there have been any reports of meltdowns with the BC-700, so I would say your charger is fine.


----------



## Russel

KiwiMark said:


> I just checked my power adapters - one is bang on 3.00V and the other is about 3.03V, they are plugged into 240V 50Hz AC power. I guess I should be fine, mine are both older than 1 year old.


 
What model charger BC-700, BC-900, or BC-9009?


----------



## Apollo Cree

I'm rather concerned if 3.2V vs. 3.0 volts makes the charger melt down. That's not really a very large voltage variation. Of course, maybe the IV supply occasionally varies to an even higher voltage.


----------



## KiwiMark

Russel said:


> What model charger BC-700, BC-900, or BC-9009?



BC-900 One about a year and a half old and the other about 5 years old.


----------



## MarioJP

My both AC Adapters gives out 3.05 for my two bc-9009 and I have no problems. This means that this problem is becoming clear that any AC adapter pushing above 3.05 to almost 3.1v was design for the bc-700 and mistakenly was added to the bc-9009 line, or La crosse switched suppliers that makes the ac adapters, which also explains why there has been no reports for the bc-700. Reason?? bc-700 can tolerate more voltage as the bc-700 is the crippled version of the bc-900 or 9009.

I was going to ask what happens if you used the bc-700 adapter to the bc-900 but never mind now i know the results of this.


----------



## Mr Happy

uk_caver said:


> Mr Happy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. By my calculations an increase of 0.2 V on 1.6 V dropped leads to an increase in power dissipation of
> 
> [(1.6+0.2)/1.6]^2 = 1.27
> 
> That would make it an increase of slightly over 25%. If a component was right at the edge that could be significant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the [average] current is constant, isn't the power increase proportional to the voltage increase?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are quite right. I don't now remember why I thought otherwise.


----------



## Bones

Re-posted for ease of reference:

ShawnLam's high-resolution image of the power-supply which is subject to the LaCrosse replacement initiative:



ShawnLam said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And his link to the power-supply replacement initiative webpage:



ShawnLam said:


> LaCrosse claims to have identified the meltdown issue and is voluntarily replacing the affected AC adapters.
> 
> Link here
> ...



On a related note: Even with the replacement power supply, I believe this charger should still be treated with an additional degree of caution. The fact that a relatively small increase in input voltage caused such a dramatic increase in the number of melt-downs is very indicative of the marginal safety and operational tolerances documented in this thread:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post1549704
.


----------



## FlashPilot

*What is your adapter voltage?*

Can others with the *version IV adapter* please post their voltage results?

Mine is 3.20 volts from the adapter, and it should be 3.0! Im in for the free replacement but I wonder if the higher voltage might have further compromised the reliability of this dangerous product.

Its amazing how crappy some of the QC is in China... lesson learned (again).:sick2:

Thanks.


----------



## guggie

My AC adapter outputs 3.194 volts. I have the recalled model. Anyone know how to modify our adapters to get teh voltage down to 3.0V while we wait for our replacements? For those of us that are technogeeks, that would seem worthwhile.


----------



## Apollo Cree

guggie said:


> My AC adapter outputs 3.194 volts. I have the recalled model. Anyone know how to modify our adapters to get teh voltage down to 3.0V while we wait for our replacements? For those of us that are technogeeks, that would seem worthwhile.



Get the replacement. Who knows if the higher nominal voltage is the whole problem? What if the problem is that the voltage varies, sends out spikes occasionally, doesn't limit the current the way it should, etc.?


----------



## MarioJP

Does this means that the melting problem might be solved and be put back on stock like Amazon?.


----------



## Bones

TakeTheActive said:


> *jtr1962* had the answer in 2006: *BC-900 power supply discovery*
> ...



jtr1962 actually experimented with voltage levels below the 3.0V advocated by LaCrosse in an attempt to reduce the stress on the charger's MOFSETs and other components:



jtr1962 said:


> Hence the reason why I'm now running my two BC-900s on a 2.8V power supply. See this thread. The stock supply is around 3.0 to 3.1 volts. My modded supplies give about 2.8 volts no load and about 2.6 volts at the charger when all four charging stations are at 1000 mA. The MOSFETs get warm but not very hot like before. I agree 100% that the MOSFETs are overstressed at the stock power supply voltage. In fact, it really concerned me the first time I noticed how hot they were getting.
> ...



It's not posted in the originating thread, but anyone debating whether to follow jtr1962's lead should be aware of this qualifier:



willchueh said:


> jtr1962,
> 
> I believe you got the right idea. However, there is a slight problem. BC-900 uses a single output power supply. When you reduce the output voltage of the PSU, you are simultanesouly reducing the voltage to the MOSFET and the voltage to microcontroller.
> 
> The BC-900 uses a form of inexpensive mounting called Chip-On-Board (COB) to cut cost. If you've seen the guts of the charger, it is under the black epoxy. It is basically a silicon wafer without a case. These types of ICs are pretty sensitive to input voltage. Without knowing the exact specs, your supply voltage to the IC could be below the required voltage and may cause stability (latching) and reference voltage problems.
> 
> All the chargers we design almost always have a secondary voltage regulator (1% regulated output) right before the controller IC. However, I believe the BC-900 lacks this.
> 
> The best way would be to just reduce the voltage to the MOSFET but not to the main IC. I would imagine that, however, it is not an easy modification.
> 
> William



The rest of the story:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com ... post1549704
.


----------



## guggie

Apollo Cree said:


> Get the replacement. Who knows if the higher nominal voltage is the whole problem? What if the problem is that the voltage varies, sends out spikes occasionally, doesn't limit the current the way it should, etc.?



The replacement is already ordered. I'm just looking to see if there is a way I can modify my current supplies ( I have two chargers) while I wait for the new adapters. It would be nice if someone had a simple fix like, crack open the wall wart case, find resistor xyz, change it to abc, attach another to R1345 and to R1346, etc.


----------



## jhellwig

I just don't understand why the powersupply is 3 volt. I could understand 5 but 3? I am guessing that it is 3v to eliminate components in the charger circuitry. The voltage sensitivity tells me that there isn't much regulation in the charger itself.


----------



## Apollo Cree

jhellwig said:


> I just don't understand why the powersupply is 3 volt. I could understand 5 but 3? I am guessing that it is 3v to eliminate components in the charger circuitry. The voltage sensitivity tells me that there isn't much regulation in the charger itself.



If it uses a linear series pass element in the voltage/current regulator in the power supply, the lower input supply voltage will generate less heat inside the unit. The ideal thermal design would be to have the input voltage at the minimum voltage that would still allow the device to work. Any extra voltage on the input would have to be "thrown away" in the charging process. 

It's possible that the relevant regulation circuitry inside the charger is a switching circuit instead of linear, which could be less sensitive to a slightly higher input voltage.


----------



## MarioJP

so is this charger really is discontinued for good??


----------



## Apollo Cree

MarioJP said:


> so is this charger really is discontinued for good??



It seems the most likely outcome is that the manufacturer will change the power supply (wall wart) and continue selling them.


----------



## jtr1962

Apollo Cree said:


> It's possible that the relevant regulation circuitry inside the charger is a switching circuit instead of linear, which could be less sensitive to a slightly higher input voltage.


Unless LaCrosse changed something on their newer BC-900s, there is no switching circuit. The PCBs on the ones I modded had absolutely no inductors. It's a pure linear circuit, which is why my power supply mod reduced the operating temperatures. I'll also add that my modded BC-900s are still working fine, although I used them a lot less once I purchased a pair of MH-C9000s.


----------



## Bones

The latest review of the BC-9009 at Amazon:



> *LaCrosse warranty service is fake*, February 16, 2010, by Alexander Shakhnazarov "MV"
> 
> I sent my BC-90009 for warranty repair.
> 
> I've been told that unit is backorder and I'll get replacement after 6 (six!) months or they can send me MUCH CHEAPER BC700.
> 
> With no other option I agreed to get BC-700.
> 
> More...


I can't help but wonder why LaCrosse is, in effect, refusing to replace his unit with another BC-9009.

Their excuse that it's on back-order for over six months just doesn't sound _bona-fide_ (sorry, _Oh brother, where art thou?_ re-runs are showing on a few of the super-stations).


----------



## FlashPilot

Bones said:


> The latest review of the BC-9009 at Amazon:
> 
> I can't help but wonder why LaCrosse is, in effect, refusing to replace his unit with another BC-9009.
> 
> Their excuse that it's on back-order for over six months just doesn't sound _bona-fide_ (sorry, _Oh brother, where art thou?_ re-runs are showing on a few of the super-stations).


 
The most likely reasons are:

1) They are being sued and cant stand the publicity. :thumbsup:

2) They are reengineering their monstrosity before more of these trashy devices become firebombs. :thumbsup:

3) They are no longer allowed to distribute their trashy products within the US. :thumbsup:

I still cant believe I bought one of these things! Thanks to all those that contribute in this forum, I'll never leave this thing plugged in while I'm not close by to monitor it.

It'll be interesting to measure the current and voltage output of their new wall wart... for all the good it'll do me.

LaCrosse would rather let houses burn to the ground rather than admit to a gross engineering deficiency and recall their chargers.* I'll be leaving my own warnings around the net informing others not to purchase ANYTHING from this irresponsible company. I hope you will all be diligent in doing the same.*

For now, Ill charge AAA's @ 200 mA and AA's @ 500 mA... and hang out to babysit this trashy thing to completion. On one occasion, it failed to terminate the charge of a AAA. After an hour past when the other 3 batteries completed charging, the battery became hot so I pulled it off the charger. I wonder what might have happened if I wasn’t around to stop its self-destruction.

SUCH JUNK!


----------



## Turbo DV8

FlashPilot said:


> For now, Ill charge AAA's @ 200 mA and AA's @ 500 mA. On one occasion, it failed to terminate the charge of a AAA. After an hour past when the other 3 batteries completed charging, the battery became hot so I pulled it off the charger. I wonder what might have happened if I wasn’t around to stop its self-destruction.
> 
> SUCH JUNK!


 
Don't blame the BC-9009 for a AAA cell failing to terminate at 200mA charge rate! Blame cells that are beginning to become junk, and won't terminate at 0.25C. Keep in mind, the cell that didn't terminate was being monitored by the BC-9009 in identical fashion to the other three that terminated fine, so don't be so fast to blame the La Crosse. That points to a cell getting finicky, not the charger.


----------



## FlashPilot

Turbo DV8 said:


> Don't blame the BC-9009 for a AAA cell failing to terminate at 200mA charge rate! Blame cells that are beginning to become junk, and won't terminate at 0.25C. Keep in mind, the cell that didn't terminate was being monitored by the BC-9009 in identical fashion to the other three that terminated fine, so don't be so fast to blame the La Crosse. That points to a cell getting finicky, not the charger.


 
Point taken, thank you. Still, I can find no information from the manufacturer specifically instructing the user that their AAA's cant be charged on their own equipment at 200 mA, so in fact the manufacturer should be liable. This happened with the brand new batteries that came with the charger after only 3 or 4 full cycles. It hasn’t done it again since, but the heat of the battery at the time was such that the plastic coating had greatly softened. and it burned my finger when removing it from the charging bay. Im sorry but I tend to strongly disagree with you. The failure to terminate the charge in a timely manner is well documented in the forum and other places. I do accept partial blame, as I wasn’t to diligent in doing my investigations BEFORE I bought this cheapo charger. Now looking at the Maha and dumping this POS in ebay.

The replies of denial that La Crosse continues to tell its concerned customers is nothing short of an outrage and borderline criminal. May they find their way to the gods of "chapter 11" in an extremely expeditious manner.


----------



## Turbo DV8

FlashPilot said:


> This happened with the brand new batteries that came with the charger after only 3 or 4 full cycles. It hasn’t done it again since...


 
That is also not uncommon for new, non-LSD cells to fail to terminate the first few cycles when using too-low a charge rate. From everything in your description of your incident, what you experienced had nothing to do with the charger melt-downs, and was quite normal when chagring new, non-LSD cells at too-low a current.


----------



## Mr Happy

Turbo DV8 said:


> That is also not uncommon for new, non-LSD cells to fail to terminate the first few cycles when using too-low a charge rate. From everything in your description of your incident, what you experienced had nothing to do with the charger melt-downs, and was quite normal when chagring new, non-LSD cells at too-low a current.


This is all true, but the one piece of data that doesn't fit is that "the plastic coating had greatly softened. and it burned my finger when removing it from the charging bay". I have never seen an AAA cell get that hot when being charged at 200 mA, no matter how long it is left on charge. This seems to suggest a charge current greater than 200 mA was being applied, which is not inconsistent with previously observed fault conditions in the BC-900.


----------



## FlashPilot

That is interesting. The charger was definitely set at its default setting of 200 mA at the time this happened. Three of the batteries finished within 15 minutes of each other. The overheating one went on for another hour before I became concerned and decided to remove it. That’s when I noticed that it was overheating. Is it possible that the failure is intermittent with a repeat looming in the future? I now only use eneloops, but touch them frequently as I babysit the damn thing.


----------



## Turbo DV8

Mr Happy said:


> I have never seen an AAA cell get that hot when being charged at 200 mA, no matter how long it is left on charge. This seems to suggest a charge current greater than 200 mA was being applied, which is not inconsistent with previously observed fault conditions in the BC-900.


 
He stated the other three slots terminated fine. As far as I understand the failures, when the charger fails it's not going to cause only one slot to runaway overheat, while the other three are under complete control.


----------



## MarioJP

FlashPilot said:


> That is interesting. The charger was definitely set at its default setting of 200 mA at the time this happened. Three of the batteries finished within 15 minutes of each other. The overheating one went on for another hour before I became concerned and decided to remove it. That’s when I noticed that it was overheating. Is it possible that the failure is intermittent with a repeat looming in the future? I now only use eneloops, but touch them frequently as I babysit the damn thing.



I charge my AAA cells at 700mA they all terminate without overheating. Use these cells for my 16 led flashlight. I figure AAA cells don't have much capacity anyways so at least charging them faster can be a fair trade.


----------



## uk_caver

Mr Happy said:


> This is all true, but the one piece of data that doesn't fit is that "the plastic coating had greatly softened. and it burned my finger when removing it from the charging bay". I have never seen an AAA cell get that hot when being charged at 200 mA, no matter how long it is left on charge. This seems to suggest a charge current greater than 200 mA was being applied, which is not inconsistent with previously observed fault conditions in the BC-900.


It would seem odd for a cell to get finger-burningly hot when only having ~300mW of energy input.


----------



## uk_caver

Turbo DV8 said:


> He stated the other three slots terminated fine. As far as I understand the failures, when the charger fails it's not going to cause only one slot to runaway overheat, while the other three are under complete control.


Depending how the failures actually happen, I guess it might be possible that charging cell->overcharging cell is more likely than charged cell->overcharging cell - a fault might stop a PWM drive on high, or simply have active FETs latching on, while not affecting cells not being charged.

If fault timing purely random, if cells were generally charged with ones in a similar charge state, there may be much more time for a fault to randomly happen in between 'start of charge' and 'first cell charged' than between 'first cell charged' and 'all cells charged'.


----------



## ValVe

Hi guys! 

I've just nearly experienced a meltdown on a BC-9009 with a "IV" power supply. Third button became kinda soft to the touch ;-)

So i've dismantled the unit to look what's inside.

The tiny TSOP6 mosfets are definitely the cause, as they're heating up pretty badly, and 2nd and 3rd are almost below the buttons, which are made of crappy plastic with a low melting point.

So I've made a small aluminium heatsink just wide enough to fit between the jutting soldered parts, to help dissipate heat more evenly. It's now glued to the pcb using a couple drops of epoxy, and I've put a generous amount of thermal compound to the mosfets.

And guess what? The aluminium plate is also running hot at ~70` Celsius during a 1 Amp charge of 4 AA cells. I wonder how it even managed to work before. 

Me wants some weed the engineers were smoking while designing this crap.


----------



## Bones

Hi ValVe,

Welcome to CPF, and many thanks for the details on heat-sinking your BC-9009. We eat this stuff up around here.

Considering the flaws you and others have noted in its design, it will be interesting to see whether the replacement power supply will actually bring the temperatures down enough to eliminate the melt-downs.


----------



## ValVe

Well, I've been testing the heatsinked unit extensively for several hours now, with the the PSU at 3.2 VDC.

So far, the buttons have not softened up, and the heatsink is not going above 75C. Without fans or forced airflow or anything, just sitting fully assembled on a metal sheet.

If the buttons do melt, however, I'm thinking about modding them too - maybe molding something more substantial with quicksteel or something like that to replace the lower part. 

As far as experience shows, heatsinked mosfets are now very unlikely to go into thermal runaway, if they had somehow done that before.

I've also applied much more grease to the NTCs, as there was almost none before that. Something tells me that may have caused at least half of the critical termination failures.

BTW, no free replacement PSU's here in Russia, alas :-(


----------



## Mr Happy

ValVe said:


> So I've made a small aluminium heatsink just wide enough to fit between the jutting soldered parts, to help dissipate heat more evenly. It's now glued to the pcb using a couple drops of epoxy, and I've put a generous amount of thermal compound to the mosfets.


If you can post a photo of this modification the details would be nice to see.


----------



## MarioJP

Any of you guys have an idea what is going to happen next with this charger. Or no more La crosse??


----------



## FlashPilot

ValVe said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> I've just nearly experienced a meltdown on a BC-9009 with a "IV" power supply. Third button became kinda soft to the touch ;-)
> 
> So i've dismantled the unit to look what's inside.
> 
> The tiny TSOP6 mosfets are definitely the cause, as they're heating up pretty badly, and 2nd and 3rd are almost below the buttons, which are made of crappy plastic with a low melting point.
> 
> So I've made a small aluminium heatsink just wide enough to fit between the jutting soldered parts, to help dissipate heat more evenly. It's now glued to the pcb using a couple drops of epoxy, and I've put a generous amount of thermal compound to the mosfets.
> 
> And guess what? The aluminium plate is also running hot at ~70` Celsius during a 1 Amp charge of 4 AA cells. I wonder how it even managed to work before.
> 
> Me wants some weed the engineers were smoking while designing this crap.


 
Can you please post a few pics of your heatsinks? I may do the same thing with mine.

Agreed... this thing must have been engineered by complete morons.

Thanks.


----------



## ValVe

Here it is...

(The grease is not conductive)

The four studs on case' bottom part happened to be just where they are needed to press this thing to PCB. 

Maybe they actually were planning to fit something like that in here? But... uh... forgot? ;-)


----------



## Conan

MarioJP said:


> Any of you guys have an idea what is going to happen next with this charger. Or no more La crosse??



Why don't you email La Crosse instead of asking this question repeatedly to forum members who have no control over the future of La Crosse?


----------



## SilverFox

Hello FlashPilot,

Welcome to CPF.

I don't think complete morons were involved in the engineering... I think it may have been really cheap morons... :devil:

Tom


----------



## FlashPilot

ValVe said:


> Here it is...
> 
> (The grease is not conductive)
> 
> The four studs on case' bottom part happened to be just where they are needed to press this thing to PCB.
> 
> Maybe they actually were planning to fit something like that in here? But... uh... forgot? ;-)


 
Good job Valve! :thumbsup:

First off, let me begin by apologizing for the long post.

While babysitting my potential fire starting little charger, I was online looking at all the heat sinking options available for cooling small electronic packages. For about $3 per unit production costs, La Crosse could have protected the mosfets and the clusters of chips just below them from heat buildup.

In trying to determine what gets hot and what stays cool, I removed the back cover of the charger and proceeded to recharge 4 AA's at 1000 mA. After about 3 minutes of charging, using my pinky finger, I carefully touched each component to find out where all the heat was generated. I was surprised to find that most of the heat was coming from the clusters of chips just below the mosfets (they are typically cluster of 6 or so, just below each of the 3 mosfets). While the mosfets were warm, they were not as warm as the clusters below them.

Valve, after looking at your pic and how you devised the shape of your heatsink, I was curious as to why you didn’t cover all the small chips below the mosfets. Maybe it was a quick build to ease some of the thermal load. Either way, I commend you for your efforts. I returned to my pinky finger tests and checked all the smaller chips to see if there was a difference in heat (especially the ones you left unprotected) and they were all about the same heat in the cluster. After messing around with a saw, dremel and some 3/16 aircraft aluminum, I came to the conclusion that there was no way to use a one piece heat sync to do the job sufficiently. On my charger example, all the chips were of a slightly uneven height. Because of this, there would be to large of uneven gaps of heat sync paste between some of the chips and the aluminum heat sync for my liking. For the paste to work correctly, there should be very little used between the two mating surfaces. Not wanting to create more of a problem, I decided to rethink this. If I was smart, I would have tossed the whole mess into the garbage... where it belongs. Heh!

In the mean time, I tested at 700 mA and 500 mA to see if less heat would be generated at lower currents. At 700 mA, there was slightly less heat but it was still uncomfortable to touch. At 500 mA (where I normally charge AA's) it was warm but not uncomfortable to touch. I then returned to 1000 mA and flipped the charger right side up and left for 5 minutes. When I returned, I could smell plastic melting so I quickly confirmed proper charging voltage and then immediately terminated the charge. Feeling around the board, The mosfets were very hot and the smaller clusters of chips just below them were really very hot! I couldn’t find any soft or melted plastic so maybe the smell was from just breaking in from that higher temperature... again, I never charge at 1000 mA, and that was a first. Its also interesting to note that until this time, all the other tests had been conducted with the charger on its back with the cover off, and with the mosfets and smaller chips pointing skyward (heat rises... hmm). Messing around a bit more, I found out that charging with the unit upside down has a huge impact on heat containment and absorption, even with the bottom case removed. No wonder this damn thing gets so hot! The heated components are mounted to the bottom of the board, and with very little ventilation to allow the heat to escape through the top. While there are vents on the side and bottom, they don’t seem to be very effective in evacuating the rising heat. It just sits there and cooks itself. :sick2:

A few thoughts for better cooling:

1) Get a sledge hammer and pound this POS into oblivion, then mail it back to the morons that ignored all the problems its customer complained about with this ill fated design.

OR

2) Get a small sealed metal equipment box (4" x 4" x 6" should do nicely). Leave the bottom cover of the charger off and use it as a template to cut a hole in the top of the equipment box. We are going to cut that hole the same size as the bottom charger plate. Look how the case fits in a groove on the bottom of the charger plate and it will become apparent what you will need to do. If it’s the right size, we can drop the charger onto the top of the equipment box hole we just cut and screw it in place using the existing hardware that came with the charger. Just drill the holes in the equipment box correctly and take your time lining things up and trimming metal where it doesn’t fit. This box will now become the new bottom for the charger. Now get a small PC style fan and cut a hole in one side of the equipment box to mount the fan. We want the air flow from the fan to push into the box for forced positive pressure. In effect, we just created a positive pressure forced air sealed plenum for this trashy little charger. Looking at the board inside the charger, it seems reasonable that the forced air flow should do a fairly good job of cooling both sides of the board as well as some spill for the batteries. This seems like a far better option than simply keeping a house fan blowing on the unit while its charging, because a house fan only cools the batteries and the top plastic housing... not what's inside.

There are probably many other things to consider. I read in other threads that this charger probably needs to sense the batteries getting warm at the end of the charge cycle to terminate properly. Because of this, a fan blowing from across the charger was discouraged because it would keep the batteries to cool. The heat sensors are mounted on small towers that sense the heat of the batteries while charging. Also, if the batteries get to hot, the unit is supposed to suspend charging until the batteries cool before it resumes charging. These sensors were bedded with a very small amount of thermal paste to facilitate heat transfer. If there were air moving past the sensors, this might defeat their effectiveness in being able to detect an overheating condition. From the way these sensors are mounted, it looks possible to shield them with a small dose of thermal grease where they make contact to the battery contact, and then coat the rest of the tower stanchion with electrolytic grease to shield it from the cooling breeze blowing from the fan. Maybe a piece of heat shrink tubing would accomplish the same goal. The key to this entire mod is to keep everything reversible (because most other mods that others have tried on this piece of junk have failed miserably) and this unit is still under warranty - so we need to anticipate returning it to La Crosse after if blows up like a hand grenade. 

If after the addition of this fancy new cooling system, this miserable POS still keeps overheating, its possible to use flat copper wire bent in tiny "U" shaped pieces, and attach them to each chip with minimal thermal glue to help assist in heat dissipation. These little pieces of wire would be directly in the plenums air stream and should prove most effective.

Maybe all this doesn’t mean two hoots! I've also read that because of the inferior quality and inadequate sizing of the mosfets, they just might be like tiny obama surprise packages, destined to fail at any moment and send a runaway 3 volts with full wall-wart current directly to your unsuspecting batteries. This, regardless of heat or intended charging current.

Maha, will be saying "Mahahahaha!, you should have bought me!" There's another thread out there where a Maha engineer explains the pitfalls of the La Crosse design. Reading into it, calling it garbage would be putting it nicely... but what the heck.

If you read this far, Thank You for reading. I know its all very boring and hardly worth the effort to mod... but hey, its another fun project! Right? Its what we all live for. Uh-huh...

Pray to the "Gods of Chapter 11" that La Crosse becomes a bad memory in the very near future.

Comments on my ducted plenum cooling concoction would be appreciated.


----------



## FlashPilot

SilverFox said:


> Hello FlashPilot,
> 
> Welcome to CPF.
> 
> I don't think complete morons were involved in the engineering... I think it may have been really cheap morons... :devil:
> 
> Tom


 
Thanks SilverFox,

My animosity towards La Crosse is due to their gross lack of support and denial of a potentially serious problem. May they burn down their own facility with one of these pieces of junk.

BTW... lovecpf
With flashlight in hand, its a great time to be alive!


----------



## guggie

FlashPilot:

Is your charger using the IV (recalled) wall wart power supply? What is its output voltage?


----------



## VegasF6

I just joined this thread so I am not up on it yet, I need to see which power supply is which. What a shame I love this charger:

Valve, neat job on your heatsink.

Flashpilot, are you talking about the smd resistors? They should be quite warm, they are resistors after all. If they are cool enough that you can keep your finger on them they should be fine.


----------



## ValVe

My measurements (with a pyrometer, not a pinky) show that the resistor clusters do not need additional heatsinks, never going above 55C in any mode.

But you can cover them too, if you want. Not that they need it badly. 

However, they sit lower on the pcb than the mosfets, so you'll need to work something out, and they have conductive parts on top, unlike the mosfets, so it is unsafe to put a metal heatsink tightly onto them. You may short something out easily.

So far I've cycled 4 sets of AAs at 1A and 2 sets of AAAs at 0.7A on my unit, and no melting buttons/burning smells/black screens or anything.


----------



## guggie

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-Downs Continue...NEW ADAPTER ARRIVED*

Got the new adapter today. It's heavier than the old one, slightly beefier molding at the charger/plug end. The prongs for the wall are now a module that snaps in, presumably for compatibility with foreign outlets. The voltage output is now 3.02V (no load). I'm charging with it now at 200ma and no smoke yet! :candle:


----------



## ValVe

*guggie,

*At 200 mA the heat dissipation is no more than 0.5W on each mosfet, which is completely acceptable. So it's neither interesting nor useful. The old adapter was working fine enough with low currents.

Please try *4 * 1A and 2 * 1.8A* -- that would be really interesting, as 0.2V decrease seems like a pathetic attempt to step back a little from the brim of extinction.

Heat buildup is most intensive when cell voltage is as low as possible.

Of course, no fans or draughts, and watch your unit closely -- the softened up buttons are a sure sign of impending thermal runaway and meltdown.


----------



## FlashPilot

guggie said:


> FlashPilot:
> 
> Is your charger using the IV (recalled) wall wart power supply? What is its output voltage?


 
Yes, type IV recall. Its output is 3.20 volts. I will retest once I get the new one.


----------



## guggie

ValVe said:


> *guggie,
> 
> *
> Please try *4 * 1A and 2 * 1.8A* -- that would be really interesting, as 0.2V decrease seems like a pathetic attempt to step back a little from the brim of extinction.



Uhh, no thanks. I don't want to charge my new Eneloops or any old cell for that matter, at .5C to almost 1C. Nothing to be gained except for shorter battery life. I usually charge at about .25C so the 500ma setting works well.


----------



## ValVe

guggie said:


> Uhh, no thanks. I don't want to charge my new Eneloops or any old cell for that matter, at .5C to almost 1C. Nothing to be gained except for shorter battery life. I usually charge at about .25C so the 500ma setting works well.



But we'll never know if the new PSU solves the problem then...


----------



## MarioJP

ValVe said:


> But we'll never know if the new PSU solves the problem then...



From what I heard even at 500mA caused the charger to melt


----------



## DieselDave

I wish I would have researched more before ordering. I ordered the 700 but the seller called me and said they were all gone but he had the 9009 so I took it. I've only had it two weeks and it's the recalled power supply. Live and learn, on the shelf for a month. I must say I didn't get any overheating issues at 500 and below. I refreshed most of my AA's before I found this thread, ignorance is bliss.


----------



## vali

guggie said:


> Uhh, no thanks. I don't want to charge my new Eneloops or any old cell for that matter, at .5C to almost 1C. *Nothing to be gained except* for shorter battery life. I usually charge at about .25C so the 500ma setting works well.



So a reliable termination signal is not a gain for you?. I dont try to start _again_ another discussion about chargin rates, but if someone who dont know what charge current to use may think "lower is better" according to this comment. Check what can happen here -> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/262366


----------



## uk_caver

vali said:


> Check what can happen here ->


But what actually happens depends on the charger.
If a given charger consistently terminates well at lower rates, that trumps general observations on cell behaviour.


----------



## MarioJP

I once did a test and charge the cells at 200mA. Charger did terminated and did not overcharge. But man is too slow for me. How do you guys have this much patience lol.


----------



## ValVe

Well, as for the charge current -- I have a Robiton Smart 3000 charger, which can only charge AAs with 3A current and AAAs with 1A, but has active cooling, and no discharge or refresh or anything fancy. 

I've been charging almost all my cells in it for almost a year - hundreds of cycles - and they've mostly retained their capacity, always terminated gracefully, and not even one crapcell burst or leaked.

BTW, today I've tried 1.8A charge of 2 cells after full discharge on BC-9009, and everything is still fine, although the bottom part became quite warm. Seems that the heatsink does its job nicely.


----------



## vali

ValVe said:


> Well, as for the charge current -- I have a Robiton Smart 3000 charger, which can only charge AAs with 3A current and AAAs with 1A, but has active cooling, and no discharge or refresh or anything fancy.
> 
> I've been charging almost all my cells in it for almost a year - hundreds of cycles - and they've mostly retained their capacity, always terminated gracefully, and not even one crapcell burst or leaked.



The thing is you need to how your charger behaves. As long as it terminates correctly, then its ok. Unfortunately most non-cpf people think lower current=better allways and some fry their cells using the charger incorrectly (and then complain and start calling names...).

Your post suggest that charging at 0.5C will shorten the life of the cells and thats not a good idea to charge old cells at that rate. The thing is the older and beated the cell, the more current you need to get a reliable -dV (There are lots of test in the forums with charging graphs about this). I was trying to prevent someone from crapping his cells by following that post blindly.


----------



## ValVe

vali said:


> The thing is you need to how your charger behaves. As long as it terminates correctly, then its ok. Unfortunately most non-cpf people think lower current=better allways and some fry their cells using the charger incorrectly (and then complain and start calling names...).
> 
> Your post suggest that charging at 0.5C will shorten the life of the cells and thats not a good idea to charge old cells at that rate. The thing is the older and beated the cell, the more current you need to get a reliable -dV (There are lots of test in the forums with charging graphs about this). I was trying to prevent someone from crapping his cells by following that post blindly.



The only thing I'm suggesting is that someone should test the new replacement PSU for BC-9009 at maximum current and not be afraid that this one experiment instantly blows their cells all over the place.


----------



## uk_caver

vali said:


> Unfortunately most non-cpf people think lower current=better allways


Consumer-targeted chargers seem to follow the lines of faster == better, all the way up to 15 minute chargers.


----------



## MarioJP

I called la crosse again as the previous person I spoke with was not aware the situation. This time I got clear info to what's going on. Person told me that the ac adapters with the roman number symbol did not meet the california's requirements. These adapters the voltage were slightly high, which is why most got a notification by email to get it replaced.

She also said that these units are back order as they have to replace every single ac adapter for every single unit before they are sold again. She said they might be available around May or June


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

I feel like the LaCrosse BC-900 design had all the right intentions, just something wasn't right. Perhaps they ran over budget and had to regain money via transformer or resistor selection. I mean, the dern'd thing even has a cell temperature monitor! the sanyo branded charger doesn't have that, nor does it have adjustability of charging rates.

My friend charges his eneloops at a pretty conservative rate of 200mA. Should I advise him to up it to more accurately terminate the charge cycle, or does this unit generally terminate in the right place at 200mA?

I saw the comparison thread of 400mA vs 2A charge rates, the 2A had an obvious termination signal, while the 400mA didn't, BUT the temperature rose, and I assume the BC900 monitors this. Would I be alright in recommending he up his chrge current to, say, 500mA? He is very iffy about going as high as 1A, and honestly, so am I. He doesn't mind the charge times, and has a decent-sized stock of eneloops on hand.


----------



## MarioJP

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I feel like the LaCrosse BC-900 design had all the right intentions, just something wasn't right. Perhaps they ran over budget and had to regain money via transformer or resistor selection. I mean, the dern'd thing even has a cell temperature monitor! the sanyo branded charger doesn't have that, nor does it have adjustability of charging rates.
> 
> My friend charges his eneloops at a pretty conservative rate of 200mA. Should I advise him to up it to more accurately terminate the charge cycle, or does this unit generally terminate in the right place at 200mA?
> 
> I saw the comparison thread of 400mA vs 2A charge rates, the 2A had an obvious termination signal, while the 400mA didn't, BUT the temperature rose, and I assume the BC900 monitors this. Would I be alright in recommending he up his chrge current to, say, 500mA? He is very iffy about going as high as 1A, and honestly, so am I. He doesn't mind the charge times, and has a decent-sized stock of eneloops on hand.



I would have to say they probably went over budget. Sounds reasonable to me.

Charge rate above 2A I think that will shorten the life of cells very fast. 1A is balanced between shorter charge time and cell life. But lower charging rate makes the cells last longer.

200mA if the charger can terminate properly. Then probably. I would try charging the cells at 500 at least. 200 is just slow. Now of course that is just my opinion and what applications you be using these cells on. If each charge cycle lasts days or even weeks before needing recharging. 200 is good. But if applications draws to the point of only lasting hours then I don't know what to say of what the charging rate should be.

I do like the fact that this charger by default charges the cell at 200mA and not 1A. But the option is there if you need the cells soon. Also because 200mA is slow anyways I would monitor as well just in case it does overcharge. The tests that I did terminates where it should without overcharging. But if its lingering in your mind of cells being overcharged. Just keep an eye on it.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Great information, thank you very much, Mario!

These cells here are mainly used for wireless keyboards and mice, while his personal eneloops are used for photoshoots only occasionally, after which he goes on a big charging spree and charges all his LSD cells. For the most part, the charger reports up to 100mAh more than what is on the label of the eneloops. Can this be an indicator of passing the charge cutoff, or simply an indicator of how high-quality the cells are?

I think I will suggest to him to try 500mA charge rate, that way we could potentially charge a group of cells in one work day instead of having to interrupt the charge cycle.


----------



## ValVe

Uh, okay... as there are no brave ppl here, I've tried it myself with a lab PSU at 3.02V in the same conditions.

The heatsink maxed at 68 Celsius at 4 * 1A, with 3.2V it was like 73.2 degrees.

So yeah, it seems that the unit really runs *a little bit* cooler with lower voltage PSU. Nice but no cigar.


----------



## vali

As long as you get reliable terminations, the charging rate is ok. Eneloops dont crap themselves as fast as other cells do and that helps too (in fact they seem to last forever)

The problem arises when people try to charge regular cheap NiMH that were charged withouth care before. They will have a pretty high internal resistance and getting a noticeable termination signal will need more than usual current. I read in some forums people complaining about how they cooked "good" cells with a C9000 or BC900 and saying that those fancy chargers are a bad idea. Almost allways they were charging those "good" cells (think on 5-year old cells charged all that time with dumb chargers) at too low current, about 400-500 mA.


----------



## uk_caver

bshanahan14rulz said:


> For the most part, the charger reports up to 100mAh more than what is on the label of the eneloops. Can this be an indicator of passing the charge cutoff, or simply an indicator of how high-quality the cells are?


Charge-in is generally going to be more than charge actually stored.

That may particularly be the case when charging slowly. Charge acceptance (mAh out/mAh in) in NiMH cells is a little lower at low charge rates, so even with a perfect termination, it will take more total mAh to fill a cell when charging at C/10 than when charging at C/2.

Also, it could be that the termination is slightly delayed, though a small overcharge at low rate isn't generally going to be a great problem.


----------



## MarioJP

ValVe said:


> Uh, okay... as there are no brave ppl here, I've tried it myself with a lab PSU at 3.02V in the same conditions.
> 
> The heatsink maxed at 68 Celsius at 4 * 1A, with 3.2V it was like 73.2 degrees.
> 
> So yeah, it seems that the unit really runs *a little bit* cooler with lower voltage PSU. Nice but no cigar.



Will admit that the charger does get warm to almost hot charging 4 cells at 1A. Just as long it does not gets too hot! I am ok I use cooling fan to keep it cool.

Even though with the ac adapter with the lower voltage might not be much but it definitely looks like it made a difference of not having it to melt. Don't know if that is the only contributing factor but I am waiting for the poster to reply back of the results of his new AC adapter.


----------



## guggie

What if it isn't only the heat generated by charging and poor dissipation that causes the problem, but rather a failure of the mosfet due to repeated exposure to the 3.2V instead of the 3.0V? With the new power supply, there would be no further problems expected at all. 

BTW, my charging of 2 Duracell LSD AAs at 200ma went well with the new supply. No warmth to the cells, they terminated fine, and took about 1450mah. The device they were in, a Garmin Vista HCX GPS showed they had about 1/4 of their capacity left when I removed them to do the charge. FWIW, that actually was a great estimate for the cells that are rated 2000mah and tested at about that too one month ago!

I'll do my next charges on some cells at 500ma.


----------



## MarioJP

guggie said:


> What if it isn't only the heat generated by charging and poor dissipation that causes the problem, but rather a failure of the mosfet due to repeated exposure to the 3.2V instead of the 3.0V? With the new power supply, there would be no further problems expected at all.



:thumbsup:


----------



## ValVe

guggie said:


> What if it isn't only the heat generated by charging and poor dissipation that causes the problem, but rather a failure of the mosfet due to repeated exposure to the 3.2V instead of the 3.0V? With the new power supply, there would be no further problems expected at all.
> 
> BTW, my charging of 2 Duracell LSD AAs at 200ma went well with the new supply. No warmth to the cells, they terminated fine, and took about 1450mah. The device they were in, a Garmin Vista HCX GPS showed they had about 1/4 of their capacity left when I removed them to do the charge. FWIW, that actually was a great estimate for the cells that are rated 2000mah and tested at about that too one month ago!
> 
> I'll do my next charges on some cells at 500ma.



Those mosfets are rated for much higher gate-to-source and drain-to-source voltages (12 and 20 V), so there's no way they can fail because of overvoltage.


----------



## TakeTheActive

ValVe said:


> Uh, okay... *as there are no brave ppl here*, I've tried it myself with a lab PSU at 3.02V in the same conditions...


For many, now that La Crosse officially identified the culprit, *jtr1962* already did the 'Experiment' back in 2006:

*La Crosse BC-700/BC-900/BC-9009 Charger 'Meltdown' - La Crosse Responded*​


----------



## Turbo DV8

MarioJP said:


> ...the ac adapters with the roman number symbol did not meet the california's requirements. These adapters the voltage were slightly high...


 
What does this have to do with "California?" Does California require a slightly lower voltage to conserve energy or something, and LaCrosse makes a "California-only" version of this charger, to be used safely with the lower voltage PS? If they don't make a "CA-only" version, they are implying that their BC-9009 sold outside CA will work just fine with the higher voltage! What a line of bull!

Caution: OFF-TOPIC RANT AHEAD! 

Although I wouldn't put it past California for a second to "mandate" lower "voltages," and generally sticking it's political nose into things it knows nothing about. Politicians will be mandating in 2011 that flat-panel TV's consume much less energy. The TV manufacturers can't work miracles, so they will simply reduce the maximum white level, making the "green" 2011 TV's washed out in bright ambient light. The politicians get a notch on their bedpost, the "greenies" feel better, and the general consumer gets an inferior product. And so it goes... Oh well.


----------



## MarioJP

I am just going for what she said. Because of that symbol it just did not pass the California's regulation. I am just curious to know if the replacement AC adapters made a difference or not.


----------



## GAReed

un


Turbo DV8 said:


> What does this have to do with "California?" Does California require a slightly lower voltage to conserve energy or something, and LaCrosse makes a "California-only" version of this charger, to be used safely with the lower voltage PS? If they don't make a "CA-only" version, they are implying that their BC-9009 sold outside CA will work just fine with the higher voltage! What a line of bull!
> 
> Caution: OFF-TOPIC RANT AHEAD!
> 
> Although I wouldn't put it past California for a second to "mandate" lower "voltages," and generally sticking it's political nose into things it knows nothing about. Politicians will be mandating in 2011 that flat-panel TV's consume much less energy. The TV manufacturers can't work miracles, so they will simply reduce the maximum white level, making the "green" 2011 TV's washed out in bright ambient light. The politicians get a notch on their bedpost, the "greenies" feel better, and the general consumer gets an inferior product. And so it goes... Oh well.


 
oi
https://www.lacrossetechnology.com/support/bc9009/

then 
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-400-2009-013/CEC-400-2009-013.PDF

I gave up reading on page 61, but like you said, Oh well.

I don't know what my links have to do with 'not passing' other than, maybe they had to come up with a new wall wart... it didn't pass and oh-by-the-way... it may well over heat your charger... cheers friends.


----------



## Bones

Contrary to MarioJP's posts stating that the power-supply bearing the 'IV' symbol did not meet 'California's regulation', the LaCrosse website clearly states that the sole reason they switched to that supply was because it did, in fact, meet California Energy Commission (CEC) requirements:



> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Moreover, when you consider that everything we've learned about this charger points to a product that's been consistently compromised to cut costs, I think it's entirely possible that in an attempt to meet the CEC requirements on the cheap, LaCrosse tried to get away with providing an off-the-shelf supply after conducting a cursory compatibility check, and only discovered after the fact that its slightly higher voltage output was the one compromise that would end up completely breaking the poor charger's back.

After watching LaCrosse deny there was even a melt-down problem with the BC-9x series charger for close to half a decade, I'm deriving great satisfaction seeing them try to put humpty dumpty back together again. An effort, no doubt, primarily aimed at convincing major retailers like Amazon and ThomasDistributing to reinstate it into their product line-up.

I'm also troubled by inferences that the replacement power supply will eradicate the safety issues with these chargers. That clearly isn't the case when the findings in this and many other threads are taken into consideration, so hopefully these inferences won't result in a relaxation of the precautions which are called when using these or, for that matter, any other charger in our inventory.


----------



## guggie

Bones said:


> Contrary to MarioJP's posts stating that the power-supply bearing the 'IV' symbol did not meet 'California's regulation', the LaCrosse website clearly states that the sole reason they switched to that supply was because it did, in fact, meet California Energy Commission (CEC) requirements:
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, when you consider that everything we've learned about this charger points to a product that's been consistently compromised to cut costs, I think it's entirely possible that in an attempt to meet the CEC requirements on the cheap, LaCrosse tried to get away with providing an off-the-shelf supply after conducting a cursory compatibility check, and only discovered after the fact that its slightly higher voltage output was the one compromise that would end up completely breaking the poor charger's back.
> 
> After watching LaCrosse deny there was even a melt-down problem with the BC-9x series charger for close to half a decade, I'm deriving great satisfaction seeing them try to put humpty dumpty back together again. An effort, no doubt, primarily aimed at convincing major retailers like Amazon and ThomasDistributing to reinstate it into their product line-up.
> 
> I'm also troubled by inferences that the replacement power supply will eradicate the safety issues with these chargers. That clearly isn't the case when the findings in this and many other threads are taken into consideration, so hopefully these inferences won't result in a relaxation of the precautions which are called when using these or, for that matter, any other charger in our inventory.




Wow. A lot of conjecture in that post. Now some of mine, with some facts thrown in.

My reading and understanding of the situation is that the type IV adapter was new and was intended to meet the CEC requirements. These were sold between October 1st 2009 and January 15th 2010. However, this new adapter was found to have elevated voltage output and that is why it is being replaced. They have not said that this has anything to do with meltdown issues, though CPF members seem to have made this correlation with a fair amount of certainty. I bet that the new adapter (the type IV) has less standby milliamp draw (more efficient than the prior model it replaced) thus satisfying the CEC. Unfortunately, the output spec is off. The recalled type IV may, in fact, still satisfy the CEC requirements. But if it is associated with a fire risk, may not meet UL labs standards.


----------



## GAReed

Bones said:


> Contrary to MarioJP's posts stating that the power-supply bearing the 'IV' symbol did not meet 'California's regulation', the LaCrosse website clearly states that the sole reason they switched to that supply was because it did, in fact, meet California Energy Commission (CEC) requirements:
> 
> yeah and MarioJP's repeating what "she" said and before we go any further, it could have been what "he" at La Crosse said... could be they know more about clocks and weather devices... just sayin, ya hit their www site and ya gotta wonder, just how serious they are about chargers and this isn't recent, with v3x firmware issues the worlie.wide.webbie brings up. I wanted one, got a c9000 and gc-60.. might get one... later.


----------



## MarioJP

So the question remains is did the replacement of the AC adapter solved the problem?


----------



## Mr Happy

MarioJP said:


> So the question remains is did the replacement of the AC adapter solved the problem?


No, the question is that being this is the most destructive battery charger in the world, and would blow your batteries clean up, do you feel lucky? Well, do you?


----------



## MarioJP

funny how you say that cuz i am lucky


----------



## jhellwig

I think that it is a joke that anyone would design a device that it extremely voltage sensitive. Something that is so voltage sensitive should not have dirty power coming from a wallwart through an unshielded cable. It would seam to me that you would want a your dirty power being filtered and regulated inside the charger body itself to eliminate possibility of outside interference. 

That is just my two cents from my electrical and electronics knowledge.

There isn't even a choke on the cord of the dang thing. That is the cheapest insurance you can put on those junk wallwarts.


----------



## Turbo DV8

Here's my scenario. Given what we know and, dare say, what we might imagine... I have three BC-900's and one BC-700. I also somehow happen to have a spare fourth BC-900 wall wart. None are "recalled." All four BC-900 AC adapters output within 3.01V - 3.03V OC. The BC-700 AC adapter outputs 3.12V OC. Would anyone feel safer not using the 3.12V BC-700 adapter with the BC-700, and just use the slightly lower voltage spare BC-900 adapter?


----------



## NutSAK

Turbo DV8 said:


> Would anyone feel safer not using the 3.12V BC-700 adapter with the BC-700, and just use the slightly lower voltage spare BC-900 adapter?



I don't think it would be any consolation to me. I've seen other posts here that show a slightly higher output for the BC-700 adapter and, likewise, mine outputs 3.14V, vs. 3.02V for my BC-900. Considering that there have been relatively few incidents with the BC-700, I don't think I would bother swapping adapters.

Since you have an extra available though.... :shrug:


----------



## guggie

No new posts lately. I assume people are receiving their new adapters and having good experience with them?


----------



## ValVe

Or maybe they're now... er.. homeless ;-)


----------



## Bones

guggie said:


> No new posts lately. I assume people are receiving their new adapters and having good experience with them?





ValVe said:


> Or maybe they're now... er.. homeless ;-)



Is this what they mean by Yin Yang?

I must admit though, that after monitoring Lacrosse's behavior and response throughout the half-decade that the BC-9x series debacle has been ongoing, it would be difficult to characterize their motives or actions as ever leaning towards white...


----------



## Mr Happy

I suspect that LaCrosse started out selling the BC-900 as nothing more than a gimmick, something that would catch the eye of people leafing through those in-flight shopping catalogs full of everything you never knew you wanted until now, like golf ball monogramming kits. It was supposed to be used once and then lost in the back of a drawer somewhere. I suspect nobody was more surprised than they when people actually started giving good reviews of the BC-900 and recommending it to others. They are now the bemused purveyor of a fancy gadget that unintentionally turned out to be a useful tool -- leaving them overwhelmed and unprepared for the amount of investment people have in the device.


----------



## lgflorin

Did anyone received the new AC adapters ?

"You should receive your replacement AC adapter about a month after submitting an order."(from LaCrosse site)

Is more than 45 days and nothing was sent.


----------



## arteitle

lgflorin said:


> Did anyone received the new AC adapters ?
> 
> "You should receive your replacement AC adapter about a month after submitting an order."(from LaCrosse site)
> 
> Is more than 45 days and nothing was sent.


Yes, I received two new AC adapters for my two BC-9009s after a couple of weeks.


----------



## guggie

lgflorin said:


> Did anyone received the new AC adapters ?
> 
> "You should receive your replacement AC adapter about a month after submitting an order."(from LaCrosse site)
> 
> Is more than 45 days and nothing was sent.



I got 2 as well within a couple of weeks for each of my chargers. Everything's working great! :thumbsup:


----------



## TakeTheActive

lgflorin said:


> Did anyone received the new AC adapters ?
> 
> "*You should receive your replacement AC adapter about a month after submitting an order.*"(from LaCrosse site)
> 
> Is more than *45 days* and nothing was sent.


AFAICT, DEMAND exceeded SUPPLY...

(and "*The early bird catches the worm...*"). 

'_Somewhere_' I believe that I read "~2-3 months"...


----------



## MarioJP

And suddenly the melting stops with these new ac adapters. Did not know a slight difference in voltage can make a difference.


----------



## Turbo DV8

MarioJP said:


> And suddenly the melting stops with these new ac adapters. Did not know a slight difference in voltage can make a difference.


 
Well, if someone is taking your picture of you standing on the edge of a cliff, and he tells you to take just one slight step backwards, that can make a big difference when you're right on the edge!


----------



## McAllan

Turbo DV8 said:


> Well, if someone is taking your picture of you standing on the edge of a cliff, and he tells you to take just one slight step backwards, that can make a big difference when you're right on the edge!



I'd even say you're not standing on the edge of a cliff but on a wall. One step forward and it's not working properly and one step backwards is a catastrophe.

It's not a very smart design to let it depend very stiffly on the supply voltage. A good design can be quite tolerant until the very last step before the critical component/functionality.
And especially in a device as the BC-900 charger there's a lot of random properties like the DC plug, the wire and such. While that won't mean more power to the charger if the power supply output voltage is just right it can easily mean the charger gets less than it optimally needs limiting charging current on max.

At least one of the KD/DX LiIon chargers is relying on the same fragile construction method 

Further more such a fragile construction also means you just can't grab an of the shelf power supply and expect it to work. With a proper design like the Maha C9000, GP chargers and many other even low cost ones I have/have seen that's no problem. While the specs of those typically says 12 v I wouldn't be surprised if they would work just fine with everything from 8-15 v (and of course the power supply must be able to deliver the required current).


----------



## Conan

McAllan said:


> At least one of the KD/DX LiIon chargers is relying on the same fragile construction method



Sorry for the OT but which Li-Ion charger is that?


----------



## McAllan

Conan said:


> Sorry for the OT but which Li-Ion charger is that?



This one. Of course you can use it with other power supplies. But be sure they're very strictly meeting the requirements. In fact even then I wouldn't recommend using it anyway. The others like the often recommended UltraFire is much better if you get a correctly adjusted one and preferably using that with a known quality external power supply since I wouldn't trust the internal mains supply in the long run.
And no unregulated ones with the DSD either (which is no problem with the Maha C9000 etc. - actually I mostly use an unoriginal unregulated iron core with my C9000 since it's like it whines a bit less using that).


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

Last night I was charging 4 Rayovac Hybrid AAs on my v35 BC-900. These are quality cells than have only been used for a few charge cycles purchased specifically for use in one light (TK40). I plugged the charger in, inserted the 4 batteries set for a standard charge with a rate of 1000mA and let them charge during dinner (within sight). I estimated that the batteries were 60% discharged before going on the charger.

I have a habit of getting up to check them every 10-20 minutes because I don't like them to trickle charge for too long at a high rate. After some time, how long I could not say, I got up to check them again and noticed something odd. First, on the charge rate display, bays 1 and 2 displayed 1000 (or there abouts) and bays 3 and 4 displayed '000'. Hmm, that's odd I thought. Maybe part of the screen was going out. So then I toggled through the menu some more and came to the accumulated capacity (mAh) display. Bays 1 and 2 displayed 1400, and bays 3 and 4 displayed 1350. So, at least according to the unit, bays 3 and 4 had stopped charging; however the voltage display was not indicating that bays 3 and 4 were "FULL". All of the batteries, including 3 and 4 felt equally very warm, nearly hot to the touch. I can calculate that bays 3 and 4 were "off" for about three minutes based on the rate of charge and the difference in accumulated capacity, but would that have been enough time for them to cool down noticeably? I guess what I'm asking is, was this a meltdown in the making that I averted? I am this close to throwing my charger in the trash and buying a Maha.


----------



## NutSAK

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I can calculate that bays 3 and 4 were "off" for about three minutes based on the rate of charge and the difference in accumulated capacity, but would that have been enough time for them to cool down noticeably? I guess what I'm asking is, was this a meltdown in the making that I averted?



Mine does this when the cells reach max threshold temperature during charge. The charger stops charging the hot cells and will read "000" on the current display, because no current is being applied to the cell. I've only had this occur with 4 cells in the charger at 1000mA. Two cells have never reached a high enough temperature to pause the charge process.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

NutSAK said:


> Mine does this when the cells reach max threshold temperature during charge. The charger stops charging the hot cells and will read "000" on the current display, because no current is being applied to the cell. I've only had this occur with 4 cells in the charger at 1000mA. Two cells have never reached a high enough temperature to pause the charge process.


 
So in all likelihood I had a missed termination then? Why else would there be enough heat generated to cause a shutdown? I thought the higher the charge rate (up to 1C) the better off I was because they would terminate correctly and quickly following -dV or whatever it's called.


----------



## NutSAK

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> So in all likelihood I had a missed termination then? Why else would there be enough heat generated to cause a shutdown? I thought the higher the charge rate (up to 1C) the better off I was because they would terminate correctly and quickly following -dV or whatever it's called.



That's hard for me to determine, not knowing how much capacity you had used from the cells. In the case of mine, I had not reached a full capacity charge on my fully depleted Ray-O-Vacs when the pause occurred. Even though the chances of proper termination are greater at higher charge rates, the higher charge rate itself will cause higher cell temperatures. I don't know if the charge rate alone should be enough to reach max temp.

I do notice that my Ray-O-Vacs _seem_ to get hotter with a 1000mA charge than my Eneloops do, but that could just be my impression. I don't recall ever seeing my BC-900 pause due to high temps when charging Eneloops, but I tend to only charge two cells at a time.

Sorry I can't be of more help. I don't think you were headed for a "meltdown" however.


----------



## TakeTheActive

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> So in all likelihood I had a missed termination then?


Not necessarily.

IMO, you experienced the PROPER operation of a BC-900 v35 as designed.



was.lost.but.now.found said:


> ...First, on the charge rate display, bays 1 and 2 displayed 1000 (or there abouts) and bays 3 and 4 displayed '000'... ...then I toggled through the menu some more and came to the accumulated capacity (mAh) display. Bays 1 and 2 displayed 1400, and bays 3 and 4 displayed 1350. So, at least according to the unit, bays 3 and 4 had stopped charging; however the voltage display was not indicating that bays 3 and 4 were "FULL"...



The thermistors detected HIGH TEMP, the processor signaled the MOSFET to shut down, it complied, and the cells cooled down. On a 'Defective AC Adaptor' BC-9009, when the processor signals the MOSFET to shut down, it cannot because it's in 'Thermal Runaway'. Thus, it continues to COOK the cells, melt the plastic, etc...



was.lost.but.now.found said:


> ...Why else would there be enough heat generated to cause a shutdown?


High Internal Resistance plus poor airflow / tight cell bay spacing (compared to the C9000). I always run my BC-900 v33 on top of 2 hexagonal wooden pencils. Even with my stockpile of *CRAP* cells, I rarely see an '000' overtemp condition. I do see ~120°F on my RadioShack Digital thermometer now and then.



was.lost.but.now.found said:


> ...I thought the higher the charge rate (up to 1C) the better off I was because they would terminate correctly and quickly following -dV or whatever it's called.


True.

Try charging (via TEST):
2 cells @ 1000mA using bays 1 & 4
.
4 cells @ 700mA using bays 1 - 4
.
2 cells @ 1500mA using bays 1 & 4
Besides monitoring the Capacity, keep track of the Voltage. The La Crosse chargers usually terminate healthy cells around 1.53VDC. Please post your results.

Also, whenever the cells get hot, if you don't have a digital thermometer handy, you can determine the temperature by using the procedure in: *La Crosse BC-900 LCD Temperature Translation Table*


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

These cells vaired between 1.41 and 1.44V when I pulled the plug.

Thanks for all the specifics and help TTA.


----------



## guggie

TakeTheActive said:


> Also, whenever the cells get hot, if you don't have a digital thermometer handy, you can determine the temperature by using the procedure in: *La Crosse BC-900 LCD Temperature Translation Table*



Now that's something new to me!


----------



## TakeTheActive

guggie said:


> Now that's something new to me!


CLICK on my Sig Line LINK - you may find something else new to you.


----------



## purduephotog

NutSAK said:


> Mine does this when the cells reach max threshold temperature during charge. The charger stops charging the hot cells and will read "000" on the current display, because no current is being applied to the cell. I've only had this occur with 4 cells in the charger at 1000mA. Two cells have never reached a high enough temperature to pause the charge process.



I saw this for the first time with the POS powerex cells I have.

I've run well over 200x powerex cells through 3 chargers at work on 'refresh' and only the MAHA powerex cells give us any fits. They don't hold a charge at all- in fact, by the time I'm done refreshing them they're already back down to 0.94V. What a waste of money- we won't even deliver them to a customer because of this.

So I will probably end up purchasing more Tenergy LSD cells- they're cheap and after 2 years of running them at home I've still not had any problems with them.

That's 5x BC-900 chargers running 24/7 for the past year or so with no issues.


----------



## Turbo DV8

TakeTheActive said:


> Also, whenever the cells get hot, if you don't have a digital thermometer handy, you can determine the temperature by using the procedure in: *La Crosse BC-900 LCD Temperature Translation Table*


 


> The temperature was measured on the contact pins to the accu.


 
Am I correct in understanding that the only way to measure the "RAW" numbers is to probe an IC inside the unit?


----------



## swxb12

Looks like the 9009 is now open to order again on Amazon...I wonder if this means that the hardware has been updated?


----------



## MarioJP

swxb12 said:


> Looks like the 9009 is now open to order again on Amazon...I wonder if this means that the hardware has been updated?



Looks like the AC adapter issue has been resolved I highly doubt its new hardware. So far the reviews indicates no more melting since it was put back in stock.

I called them up since the last person seemed new there, but the second time spoke with another person that she said something about the ac adapter caused the charger to be recalled as there was a major problem and would be available once the adapters have been replaced with the correct one.

Do want to emphasize that sorry for those that had their chargers melted. If i would of bought mines past august I probably be in the same boat of this issue. Just strikes me that I was not affected by this. This does raises a lot of questions to why they switch power supplies in the first place. If its not broken do not fix it?

on a side note I wonder if it was a good idea to have backlit display? or would this be annoying at night? I know the Maha has it. That's one feature i admit that's cool lol.


----------



## TakeTheActive

swxb12 said:


> Looks like the 9009 is now open to order again on Amazon...*I wonder if this means that the hardware has been updated?*


*La Crosse BC-700/BC-900/BC-9009 Charger 'Meltdown' Reports - La Crosse Responded: 02/11/10*​


----------



## guggie

MarioJP said:


> Looks like the AC adapter issue has been resolved I highly doubt its new hardware. So far the reviews indicates no more melting since it was put back in stock.
> 
> I called them up since the last person seemed new there, but the second time spoke with another person that she said something about the ac adapter caused the charger to be recalled as there was a major problem and would be available once the adapters have been replaced with the correct one.
> 
> Do want to emphasize that sorry for those that had their chargers melted. If i would of bought mines past august I probably be in the same boat of this issue. Just strikes me that I was not affected by this. This does raises a lot of questions to why they switch power supplies in the first place. If its not broken do not fix it?
> 
> on a side note I wonder if it was a good idea to have backlit display? or would this be annoying at night? I know the Maha has it. That's one feature i admit that's cool lol.



You need to go back and read earlier posts in this thread. The whole AC adapter issue is well discussed. BTW, the new adapter is clearly more expensive to produce than the old one given that it has a replaceable piece to adapt to various type of wall jack configurations.


----------



## KiwiMark

guggie said:


> BTW, the new adapter is clearly more expensive to produce than the old one given that it has a replaceable piece to adapt to various type of wall jack configurations.



I thought that feature was introduced to lower the cost? My understanding is that instead of manufacturing several different power adapters with different wall jack configurations, they could make just one power adapter in much larger numbers with several replaceable pieces made to adapt to various wall jack configurations.


----------



## guggie

KiwiMark said:


> I thought that feature was introduced to lower the cost? My understanding is that instead of manufacturing several different power adapters with different wall jack configurations, they could make just one power adapter in much larger numbers with several replaceable pieces made to adapt to various wall jack configurations.



Hmm. Extra plastic moldings, metal inserts, labor to attach...but...you may be correct. I wonder why the new ones weigh more? Anybody crack one open yet?


----------



## illumiGeek

*LaCrosse BC-9009 safe now?*

i had a BC-9009 that melted down. Thought that one was supposed to be the "fixed" model? :scowl: Got it from Amazon late last year and had to return it.

I've had a BC-900 for years that I love, and want to get another, but after returning my 9009 to Amazon I noticed it was no longer available. Then I checked Thomas Distributing and they didn't have them either. Shortly after that I got an email about the PSU recall (too late). 

So I waited a while and then Thomas had them again, but decided to wait for Amazon (free shipping). Well now Amazon has them again, but Thomas Distributing has pulled the BC-9009 product listing. It is completely gone from their site, not just out of stock, and that worries me. :sweat:

So anyone know the status on this unit? What's the scoop? Is this thing still bugged, or are the new units safe to buy?


----------



## growler

I wanted to report that the other day, my BC-900 had a meltdown. I was attempting to do a Discharge Test on 4 AA NiMH batteries. When I came home, the batteries were split apart, there was black burnt debris (looked like small pieces of charcol) around the charger. Plastic on the cathode end of the charger was melted. It was still powered up when I returned home so the charger was hot. Why didn't the protection circuitry kick in?!?

After using the charger for a couple of years, this happens. Though the charger was being used on a melanin based kitchen counter, it did not scorch the counter top. But, the amount of blackened debris was very concerning.

It was powering up, so, I'll check the version of the embedded software. 
I'm all for a class action...I didn't think that this would happen to me.


----------



## MarioJP

Sounds like the battery popped or vented.??


----------



## core

growler said:


> Why didn't the protection circuitry kick in?!?



It probably did, or tried to. But when the MOSFET goes into thermal runaway in the 'on' state there's nothing it can do. Somewhat like taking your foot of the accelerator while your car is racing down the mountain out of control without brakes -- not terribly useful.

Can you post a picture of your power supply? Or at least see if it has the infamous "IV" on the sticker? Maybe measure the output voltage with a meter?


----------



## TakeTheActive

core said:


> ...*Somewhat like taking your foot of the accelerator while your car is racing down the mountain out of control without brakes*...


More like a broken accelerator pedal return spring - I've had that happen, once...



core said:


> ...Can you post a picture of your power supply? Or at least *see if it has the infamous "IV" on the sticker?* Maybe measure the output voltage with a meter?


A BC-900 would have been sold BEFORE the advent of the "IV" walwart. But, I too would be interested in the open circuit output voltage of the walwart.


----------



## malow

not sure if explosion fits in the "meltdown" topic, but a photographer posted some pics of his BC-900:
_
"Jim and I were staying at the Howard Johnson motel in Edson, Alberta, Canada, when disturbed by a loud sound. At first I thought there was a homicide in the next room, but it turned out to be my battery charger increasing its carbon footprint."_

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wikipix/4802577688/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wikipix/4801749097/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wikipix/4801947805/


----------



## VegasF6

Neat pics, thanks. Though, really it was the battery that exploded, not the charger. And it is hard to say what the condition of that battery was, or that it even was a rechargeable.


----------



## MarioJP

OMG. Looks like it could of hurt anyone if they were standing there.


----------



## malow

VegasF6 said:


> Neat pics, thanks. Though, really it was the battery that exploded, not the charger. And it is hard to say what the condition of that battery was, or that it even was a rechargeable.


well, the probable cause to make a ni-mh battery explode while charging, is due to a bad charger. also, non-rechargeable wont charge if i remember due to internal resistance test.

and by the colors and the internal parts that exploded, looks like a Kodak pre-charged battery:

http://www.pix4online.com/images/kodak/Kodak_AA-recharge.jpg


----------



## MarioJP

malow said:


> well, the probable cause to make a ni-mh battery explode while charging, is due to a bad charger. also, non-rechargeable wont charge if i remember due to internal resistance test.
> 
> and by the colors and the internal parts that exploded, looks like a Kodak pre-charged battery:
> 
> http://www.pix4online.com/images/kodak/Kodak_AA-recharge.jpg




I don't know about that I have to question that. I had older cells hissed and popping sounds, but no explosions, one thing is true is they do get hot that's about it. I think the cell on those pics are poorly made probably no vent seals. that just goes to show is never to buy cells that are unknown. If nimh can handle a 15 minute charger, it can certainly handle this charger.

From the looks of it the way the cell exploded looks like the separator just sprung out like a spring.

Starting to wonder if the cell was a dud one or non rechargeable. Who knows maybe Kodak cells are crap in the first place. Then again only brands I have used so far are Energizers,Duracell,Ray O Vac hybrids and also La Crosse Cells.


----------



## Beacon of Light

Has anyone here ever had LaCrosse replace a charger and the cells it destroyed during the meltdown before? I had a meltdown but the contact I had with Michelle from LaCrosse makes me feel they never want to admit the fault is their charger but the cells. I will send it in but I won't if there are no documented cases of LaCrosse actually replacing the cells and the charger.


----------



## MarioJP

I did some digging around while back and it seems that the V33 has a higher temp cutoff than the v35. I wonder if that could be the problem??


----------



## Beacon of Light

mario jp, probably. I have the notorious v.32 so we know it didn't have the lower temp cutoff which is probably what happened with mine.


----------



## Mr Happy

Beacon of Light said:


> mario jp, probably. I have the notorious v.32 so we know it didn't have the lower temp cutoff which is probably what happened with mine.


Possibly the cut-off wouldn't help. Many have speculated that the meltdown problem occurs when the internal circuit gets locked into a high current on state, possibly due to a mains glitch, and will not respond to any inputs. In that state it would not respond to any high temperature signals either.


----------



## 45/70

Mr Happy said:


> Possibly the cut-off wouldn't help. Many have speculated that the meltdown problem occurs when the internal circuit gets locked into a high current on state, possibly due to a mains glitch, and will not respond to any inputs. In that state it would not respond to any high temperature signals either.



Just a reminder to all, that nikiwind's capacitor mod seems to eliminate the resetting problem many of these units have. I have frequent (at least once per day) mains instability problems, as I live in a rural area, and have cured the resetting problem with my v.32 BC900 by performing this mod. I don't know whether the mod will prevent the situation Mr Happy mentions above, but it should go a long ways towards helping to prevent it.

As Mario says however, though I improved the thermistor contact area when I did the mod, the v.32 versions are still capable of cooking cells, as the temp cutoff is higher than the v.33 and later versions. Still, I consider this a worthwhile mod, as it can clear up at least some of the problems associated with this charger.

Dave


----------



## Light Sabre

I have 2 BC900's version 32. Have had them 4 years. They are protected first by a surge arrestor and then by a UPS. I only charge AA's at 700mA and AAA's at 500mA. Haven't had a single problem whatsoever. After hearing about all the problems other people have been having I thought about building a safety fuse and cable deal. It would have a jack for the AC Adapter, the fuse in a small project box would be a 4A fast blow, and about a foot or 2 of cable to plug into the charger. If the charger locks up and goes full blast the fuse would blow immediately. This wouldn't require any mod to the AC adapter or the charger itself. You could even put a capacitor in the project box for additional noise filtering.


----------



## MarioJP

I have Version 35 and cells gets hot as it is. I do notice a pattern when cells gets that hot even at 500mA rate. That shows that the cells are becoming crap. I have the Lacrosse AA and AAA cells that came included. Charging AAA cells at 500mA can easily overheat the cells. So I am thinking that the version 35 they lowered the cutoff temp just enough to avoid melting.


----------



## Turbo DV8

Beacon of Light said:


> Has anyone here ever had LaCrosse replace a charger and the cells it destroyed during the meltdown before?


 
Although I feel your pain, and own three of the BC-900's myself, I think it bit unreasonable to expect a company to replace your 2+ year old BC-900 which has, what, a one year warranty? If you'd expected this extended duration free replacement period from the get-go, should have done some warranty homework first and gone with Maha's three year warranty in the first place.


----------



## Mr Happy

This is a tricky one. Warranties usually are designed to cover defects in manufacture. But it would appear from detailed analysis by knowledgeable people that the BC-900 is defective in _design_. Since LaCrosse is evidently unwilling to admit this in public, you are left with two options: buy it and take the risk of a meltdown, or decline to accept the risk and don't buy it.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why LaCrosse has not done the obvious and had the design defects corrected (or at least improved). It seems they would rather do nothing while continuing to deny there is a problem.

While the BC-900 is a charger I found rather interesting and almost bought before I learned more about the subject, I am now very firmly in the don't risk it camp.


----------



## Beacon of Light

Turbo DV8 said:


> Although I feel your pain, and own three of the BC-900's myself, I think it bit unreasonable to expect a company to replace your 2+ year old BC-900 which has, what, a one year warranty? If you'd expected this extended duration free replacement period from the get-go, should have done some warranty homework first and gone with Maha's three year warranty in the first place.



there is a huge difference in warranty issues where the item just stops working and a recall issue where the product melts or blows up causing fires. Safety issues should be covered despite the warranty. Had I placed the cells on the charger and left for a couple of hours to do some errands, I could have returned to my sister's house being on fire. 

Also that customer service representative was supposed to email me instructions on returning the charger and power supply back to LaCrosse and not surprisingly I got nothing from them. I will be calling again Monday morning. I'm going to get a manager on the phone and raise some hell to get some satisfaction with this assbackwards company.


----------



## WDG

Mr Happy said:


> ...Quite frankly, I don't understand why LaCrosse has not done the obvious and had the design defects corrected (or at least improved). It seems they would rather do nothing while continuing to deny there is a problem...



I'd guess they're following the advice of their legal counsel on this (not that it's necessarily good advice.) Anytime a company corrects a discovered defect or problem with any product, it's an admission that there was a defect or problem to begin with. Some companies wither from the potential legal liability that exposes them to. Others 'man-up' and say, "You know what? We made a mistake. Now we're going to make it right."

In the 80's there was long debate in the motorcyclist press about the issues with shaft-drive, where acceleration would push the rear tire down and deceleration would pull it up, potentially causing a loss of grip at an inopportune time. The solution was known to pretty much everyone, but almost no company wanted to implement it, as it was expected to expose them to an endless string of lawsuits.

From what I'm reading here, it seems plausible that LaCrosse may be trying to walk a very fine line between getting sued for admitting a problem and getting sued for ignoring it. When someone gets hurt, maybe that'll bring it to a head.

(P.S. I'm not an attorney, so the above are merely my personal observations & opinions.)


----------



## Beacon of Light

So there have been no casualties resulting from the BC-900 or BC-9009 causing fires which caused someone's death? If this thing caused a fire, you can bet a lawsuit would result. All the documented cases of meltdowns and such would be brought into evidence as well.

Lord knows had this charger caused a fire at my sister's place, I would have gotten a lawyer ASAP and sued the crap out of LaCrosse.


----------



## Turbo DV8

Beacon of Light said:


> there is a huge difference in warranty issues where the item just stops working and a recall issue where the product melts or blows up causing fires.


 
But just for the sake of argument, La Crosse would counter that neither the BC-_900_ nor it's power adapter was ever recalled!


----------



## Turbo DV8

WDG said:


> In the 80's there was long debate in the motorcyclist press about the issues with shaft-drive, where acceleration would push the rear tire down and deceleration would pull it up, potentially causing a loss of grip at an inopportune time. The solution was known to pretty much everyone, but almost no company wanted to implement it, as it was expected to expose them to an endless string of lawsuits.


 
The "_almost _no company" would be BMW, which solved the issue of "shaft-jack" long ago with their Para-lever final drive... do I get a brownie or a gold star? Anything?


----------



## Beacon of Light

Turbo DV8 said:


> But just for the sake of argument, La Crosse would counter that neither the BC-_900_ nor it's power adapter was ever recalled!



I know that's exactly the angle the idiot customer service agent (Michelle) said when I mentioned the numerous cases of meltdowns of the BC-900 v.32, I countered that while they were never recalled, they SHOULD have been with the possibility of causing fires, regardless of if it was out of warranty or not.


----------



## WDG

Turbo DV8 said:


> The "_almost _no company" would be BMW, which solved the issue of "shaft-jack" long ago with their Para-lever final drive... do I get a brownie or a gold star? Anything?



Yep! BMW it was. I'm fresh out of brownies, so a Gold star to you! I haven't kept up with bikes so much in the last ten years, so I'm uncertain if this is still the case, but would not be at all surprised to learn nothing has changed.

When I was researching for my first helmet (Marushin) it was said that around 25% of the cost of helmets was legal expenses from lawsuits. That was around 1987, so I'd bet it's higher, now.


----------



## illumiGeek

Wow, those pics in the flickr link are the same charger I have. I thought most of the troubles were with the 9009, but now I'm wondering if I should sh*tcan my BC-900?

Mine says v22 on the bottom, but when I plug it in the display reads:

01 01 35

so I'm guessing that means v35 firmware? The wall-wart says model KSAFE0300400W1US on the sticker, and there's a 1308 stamped in the plastic.

How worried should I be about using this charger?


----------



## Light Sabre

illumiGeek said:


> Wow, those pics in the flickr link are the same charger I have. I thought most of the troubles were with the 9009, but now I'm wondering if I should sh*tcan my BC-900?
> 
> How worried should I be about using this charger?


 
IMHO I belive what is happening is that the electronics are pretty good and work decently. There are 3 problems going on. 1) the case of the charger has the batteries too close together for high current charging. Seems like a lot of people go by the 1/2C charging rule which puts you ~1A. 2) No fan to keep the batteries cool. My Rayovac IC3 charger has the batteries further apart and has a fan and can charge the IC3 batteries in 15-20 minutes. 3) When charging at 200mA sometimes the -delta V at the end of a charging cycle is too small for the charger to detect. So the charger just keeps going and going.

I have a version 3.2 BC-900 charger which from what I have read online has some problems. After reading all the messages on CPF about the BC-900 and BC-9009, what I do is charge AA's at 700mA and AAA's at 500mA. I have had no problems with this setup. The batteries get luke warm at end of cycle. My 2 chargers are here 2 feet to my right. I frequently check the display readings and battery temperature by hand. Both units sit on top of a small metal cookie sheet (non flammable). The power path to the chargers wall warts is as follows: wall plug, high joule surge arrestor, UPS, and a power strip with a short cord which has a largish night light plugged into it so that I can see from across the room whether the chargers are on or not. Lastly the power strip is turned off when the chargers are not in use. I have very few power glitches or power outtages where I live. So I think I have all the bases pretty much covered.


----------



## 45/70

Light Sabre said:


> ......what I do is charge AA's at 700mA and AAA's at 500mA. I have had no problems with this setup.



That's a good recommendation, Sabre. I do the same with my v.32 BC-900. It's been modified, but still has problems at lower rates than what you use. At the other end, in the Winter, when the room is a bit cooler (~65F), I usually go for 1000mA for AA cells, and haven't had any problems.

You do need to keep an eye on all of the La Crosse chargers, though. They aren't C9000's, that's for sure. Still there are some advantages to the La Crosse chargers that make them worthwhile. The biggest plus being that when they complete the charge, the cells are pretty much charged, unlike the C9000's, which require an unmonitored 2 hr "top off" charge. 

Dave


----------



## Batang Regla

So its not advisable to buy these two models and buy bc700?


----------



## 45/70

Batang Regla said:


> So its not advisable to buy these two models and buy bc700?



If you're referring to the La Crosse BC-9009 and BC-900, I 'd say yes. The BC-700 has had far fewer problems, however I believe it (and almost all "smart" chargers utilizing -dV) can have problems with termination, if the charge rate is too slow.

As for the Maha, it's a much better charger/analyzer, in my opinion. Still, it has it's caveats, but none seem to be safety issues. I have three C9000's and one BC-900, so......

Dave


----------



## Trancersteve

I have had my V33 for 5 years now and have never had a problem with it not terminating the charge. I always use 500mAh, 700mAh or 1000mAh charge current.

I also have the C9000 which I think is a fantastic charger. However the high frequency whine that my C9000 produces is boarding on unacceptable, so much so that I have banished it to the spare room when I use it!

What I like about the BC900 is the batteries come off the charger FULL! Unlike the C9000 which needs further time to reach maximum charge by trickle charging.. something which I find quite annoying if you are in a hurry and want a truly charged cell.


----------



## Notsure Fire

Trancersteve said:


> I have had my V33 for 5 years now and have never had a problem with it not terminating the charge. I always use 500mAh, 700mAh or 1000mAh charge current.
> 
> I also have the C9000 which I think is a fantastic charger. However the high frequency whine that my C9000 produces is boarding on unacceptable, so much so that I have banished it to the spare room when I use it!
> 
> What I like about the BC900 is the batteries come off the charger FULL! Unlike the C9000 which needs further time to reach maximum charge by trickle charging.. something which I find quite annoying if you are in a hurry and want a truly charged cell.



Well said. I observed the same things.


----------



## Mikl1984

bob_ninja said:


> I was hoping they would actually go the other way and come up with a BC1000 of higher quality.


Prediction from 2009 became reality in 2011 
LaCrosse BC1000 appears on site http://www.lacrossetechnology.com/bc1000/index.php
Identical specs in comparison with BC900 and BC9009
Main question - what's inside?


----------



## Lynx_Arc

Mikl1984 said:


> Prediction from 2009 became reality in 2011
> LaCrosse BC1000 appears on site http://www.lacrossetechnology.com/bc1000/index.php
> Identical specs in comparison with BC900 and BC9009
> Main question - what's inside?


 
Not remembering things completely it does say it won't charge bad cells (my 900 charges cells that blink on two other chargers), it also states it will halt all operations if a cell overheats. Not sure if the older ones did that or that would prevent meltdowns any better.


----------



## Mikl1984

My latest BC9009 (FW37 New PCB) are able to charge dead or even alkaline cells , but in manual you may find


> Damaged batteries detection


Some test for those FW you may find here La-Crosse-changed-design-BC-9009


----------



## bleagh

Mikl1984 said:


> Prediction from 2009 became reality in 2011
> LaCrosse BC1000 appears on site http://www.lacrossetechnology.com/bc1000/index.php
> Identical specs in comparison with BC900 and BC9009
> Main question - what's inside?



Yes, I saw this link a few weeks ago. But it's been several weeks, and still no product and no price listed. Maybe just another color + name change?


----------



## Bones

Notwithstanding Lacrosse's assertions they resolved the issue(s) which caused the most recent flurry of BC-9009 melt-downs, I note that it's once again under review at Amazon:





http://www.amazon.com/item/bc-9009/

I also note that ThomasDistributing has completely removed both the BC-9009 and the much more reputable BC-700 from their sales inventory:

http://www.thomasdistributing.com/search/lacrosse/

I imagine these developments go a long way towards explaining the pending release of the version bearing model number BC-1000:

http://www.lacrossetechnology.com/product/bc-1000/

It will be interesting to see whether they make any substantive improvements to the BC-1000, or just base the new model number on cosmetic changes as they claimed was the case when they superseded the BC-900 with the BC-9009.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

I remember you folks saying that the power adapter was suspect, and I remember seeing that LaCrosse was exchanging old with new ones. Does anybody have a source for power adapters that work with these, or can I just use any 3V 4A+ supply? If any of you have had success with another common transformer, please post up! Thanks in advance!


----------



## VegasF6

If you have the old model shouldn't they replace it under the recall? And if you purchase a new model it should have the updated power supply anyhow. Without going back through the whole thread, IIRC to tell the new from the old measure unloaded voltage. It seems like the charger is very picky about input voltage so if you were to use your own, make sure it is a regulated, quality power supply.

One dealer I like is MPJA.com. They do carry meanwell and other quality p.s. as well as cheapies. I am looking at a 3V 5A switching transformer for only $8, but then, who knows how good it is. At least it is UL listed, and made by AULT. Should be decent.


----------



## Mr Happy

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I remember you folks saying that the power adapter was suspect, and I remember seeing that LaCrosse was exchanging old with new ones. Does anybody have a source for power adapters that work with these, or can I just use any 3V 4A+ supply? If any of you have had success with another common transformer, please post up! Thanks in advance!


I think you can only safely use the exact power supply from LaCrosse. It appears that one of the deficiencies of the BC-900/9009 chargers is that they don't have a properly regulated input circuit for the power. They rely on the power supply to perform part of the regulation. So if you use a different power supply you risk problems.

You can tell proper chargers in that they use a 12 V input. The LaCrosse is uniquely insane in having a 3 V input for a high power circuit.


----------



## KiwiMark

Mr Happy said:


> So if you use a different power supply you risk problems.


 
3V should be fine IF it is 3V - if its voltage is poorly regulated and it can rise to 3.5V or more then it could lead to a meltdown. Just grabbing a power supply with 3V written on it and trusting that it will not exceed 3.01V or drop below 2.99V may be a bit too trusting!


----------



## Mr Happy

KiwiMark said:


> 3V should be fine IF it is 3V - if its voltage is poorly regulated and it can rise to 3.5V or more then it could lead to a meltdown. Just grabbing a power supply with 3V written on it and trusting that it will not exceed 3.01V or drop below 2.99V may be a bit too trusting!


I don't know if this is sufficient. It may be that if you connected the charger to a regulated bench supply at exactly 3 V but with unlimited current there might still be a problem. Remember that no simple wall wart charger has perfect regulation, and I rather suspect that the charger relies somewhat on current limiting due to voltage sag in the supply.


----------



## HooNz

Turbo DV8 said:


> The "_almost _no company" would be BMW, which solved the issue of "shaft-jack" long ago with their Para-lever final drive... do I get a brownie or a gold star? Anything?


 
Ha , who practically copied it off Moto Guzzi!


----------



## Russel

HooNz said:


> Ha , who practically copied it off Moto Guzzi!



I thought the first version was introduced in 1985 on the Magni "Le Mans."


----------



## RepProdigious

I don't know if my Lacrosse BC-RS900 counts as a contender for this great thread but for a point of reference mine has been great for a couple of years now!






wait for it....












_However _(don't you hate it when any story has a however :devil the same cannot be said about the wall plug. I was just charging my eneloops like i always do and for now aparent reason the scharger just... stopped. Here's what i found after a small investigation:
















Well _there's_ your problem  If that doesn't count as a  i don't know what does :naughty:

I've been on the hunt for a new wall adapter for quite a while now on cpfmp but i just cant get in contact with anybody who has a broken charger and a good adapter...... so now i'm just running it on my own home-brew powersource:






Now if this combination goes poof it will be quite something


----------



## shadowjk

3.3V? Wasn't the only meltdowns, uh, "issues", admitted by Lacrosse related to DC adapter outputting 3.2V instead of 3V?


----------



## KiwiMark

shadowjk said:


> 3.3V? Wasn't the only meltdowns, uh, "issues", admitted by Lacrosse related to DC adapter outputting 3.2V instead of 3V?


 
That is my understanding - the higher than 3V output causes more heat in some components, especially when charging at the maximum rate. As far as I'm aware this is exactly what this thread is about.


----------



## HooNz

That picture up a few posts looks like a "Flashover" imo and to see that on a low dc device really confuses me (thats not hard either) as it imply's a substantial over-voltage not a miserable .2v or even 20v .


----------



## HooNz

Russel said:


> I thought the first version was introduced in 1985 on the Magni "Le Mans."



A bit OT so i'll be quick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swingarm , so i am corrected by wiki! , i recalled it was in Italy so i just assumed Moto Guzzi , the Italian sold it to Kawasaki first , early 80's , then BMW copied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moto_Guzzi

Added- since this is the last OT post on this from me , i thought i would mention that FN Motorcycles (Belgium) is listed as the first shafty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_(motorcycle)) , back in the days when riveted belt drives were still common!


----------



## Mr Happy

HooNz said:


> That picture up a few posts looks like a "Flashover" imo and to see that on a low dc device really confuses me (thats not hard either) as it imply's a substantial over-voltage not a miserable .2v or even 20v .


Ah, but the picture in question is of the mains AC power supply, not the charger...


----------



## VegasF6

Mr Happy said:


> Ah, but the picture in question is of the mains AC power supply, not the charger...


 
Exactly, that may be the high voltage side of the supply.

RepProdigious whats on the other side of that board above the burnt area?


----------



## RepProdigious

Indeed, the poof picture is the wall adapter, not the charger.

And about that whole 3.3v thing..... It'll be fine (famous last words :naughty! I tried one of those 'universal' chargers that should give exactly 3V (which by the way it doesn't) but the best i could find was a 12VA 1A max transformers and that one really didn't cut it. When charging cells at 1000mA the current display on the charger would drop back and forth all the way down to 700mA so that can't be good. I guess the supplied wall adapter really does put out 3A without too much voltage sag, nifty little thing.

Without any proper power supply the charger is useless so i just decided to give the whole 3.3v thing a go and when its actually charging cells the voltage sag from the PSU is plenty to keep things safe. Now i just have to keep an eye on the little LaCrosse to make sure its not running idle (no load = high voltage) so i just treat it like i do my li-ion charger, its in the fire-and-explosion-proof container just in case and i only use it when i can keep an eye on it. And when it does go poof (let's face it, chances are it will the way im treating it :twothumbs) ill shoot some more disaster pics for you guys because i know you like that kind of stuff.... and that will finally give me a proper reason to buy me a new one :thumbsup:


----------



## RepProdigious

VegasF6 said:


> RepProdigious whats on the other side of that board above the burnt area?


 
Big *** capacitor. Unfortunately i tossed the adapter so i cant shoot any pics but there was as good as no visible damage on the other side of the board.


----------



## HooNz

Mr Happy said:


> Ah, but the picture in question is of the mains AC power supply, not the charger...


 
Thanks , that explains that and also that i should read more carefully and not just look at pictures! .


----------



## HooNz

Double post.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Background and resolution:
My friend purchased two BC-9009 at a greatly discounted price. They were discounted because it was a brand new full kit, sans charging adapter. I guess it had been cannibalized to fix another customer's already purchased 9009. Anyways, he was looking for a suitable adapter and had a generic multi-range power adapter. I tested it and the voltage was way off, so I advised him not to use it until I could find a suitable replacement. In the mean time, he called up LaCrosse and explained that he had purchased these two chargers and that they did not come with any power adapters. They are sending him two adapters FoC.


----------



## RepProdigious

bshanahan14rulz said:


> Background and resolution:
> My friend purchased two BC-9009 at a greatly discounted price. They were discounted because it was a brand new full kit, sans charging adapter. I guess it had been cannibalized to fix another customer's already purchased 9009. Anyways, he was looking for a suitable adapter and had a generic multi-range power adapter. I tested it and the voltage was way off, so I advised him not to use it until I could find a suitable replacement. In the mean time, he called up LaCrosse and explained that he had purchased these two chargers and that they did not come with any power adapters. They are sending him two adapters FoC.


 
Im typing them an e-mail right now!!


----------



## mmbridges

I sent an email to La Crosse hoping to find when the BC-1000 will be released. Here is the response I got:

[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]*Regarding Model Number*: BC-1000

Thank you for your email and interest in our product. Unfortunately, we do not currently have a date of release or suggested retail price that can be provided. Please watch our website for any updates. Thanks again.

For efficient processing when responding to this e-mail please use your email program's "Reply" option to maintain the email thread. Please do not change the subject line of your email.
If you have not already done so, please provide your full name and contact information. This will enable us to serve you better and more efficiently.
Regards,

Technical Support Representative
La Crosse Technology Ltd.
2817 Losey Boulevard S
La Crosse, WI 54601
www.lacrossetechnology.com/support 





The suspense is killing me! Anyone else got any insight? I'm wondering if they are delaying in order to keep from cannibalizing their BC 9009 sales? In the meantime any alernatives with the same detailed capacity reporting features?

[/FONT]


----------



## MarioJP

I have 2 La Crosse AC adapters and both of them are putting out 3.00v on the dot. I am trying to understand, and ask the question.. What happened??. Why did they change the specs of their AC adapter for the BC-9009??


----------



## caltemus

They changed the adapter to meet California efficiency regulations, but this caused an issue with the voltage output from the power supply, causing the charger, which has little tolerance for over-voltage, to fail and it melted and/or damaged cells.


----------



## Nite

My BC 9 series charger had a single button sink down a bit. I own two of these, one seems ok. One is slightly newer than the other, Both needed new power adaptors, but one seems to have gotten too hot anyway... It got kinda hot when I tried charging some AAA nimh at 500mah. It should've detected the high temperature and shutoff, or so I thought.


----------



## beegdaddy

Hi guys

I just bought a BC-1000 last Friday and have been TESTing my batteries at 500mA/1A over the past 2-3 days.

Haven't gotten any burnouts yet (fingers crossed).


----------



## jayflash

Not that it's of ultimate importance, but my old BC- 900's power supply has a much heavier cord than my new Maha -- which is twice the size of the LaCrosse charger.


----------



## HIDC

Three BC-900, 6 years, no burnouts yet but the power adapter on one of them died a few days ago.


----------



## MarioJP

Hmmm. I wonder if this thread is gonna have a chapter. Is it one of those things in life, where La Crosse is forever cursed no matter what they do?:devil:. What I don't understand is how can a couple of 100mV turn into a serious situation...wow.


----------



## ShawnLam

When they initially confirmed that they had a problem with their power adapters they put a link on their website to request a replacement (and thus avoid a recall). But I'm not sure if they even honoured these requests. My request was never fulfilled and the link is long gone.


----------



## Russel

MarioJP said:


> [...] What I don't understand is how can a couple of 100mV turn into a serious situation...wow.



As I understand it, the LaCrosse BC-9009 and BC-900 chargers use a linear voltage regulator to control the charging output voltage. That means that the excess voltage is disipated in the regulator as heat. More voltage = more heat. If the regulator is already being stressed to or past is design specification a couple hundred miliivolts on a 1.5V regulator can result in catastrophic failure.

I have two BC-900, and two BC700 chargers that have never had a problem, but the power supplys on all four chargers don't exceed 3.0 volts.


----------



## lemlux

I also have 3 BC900's that are about 6 years old. I paid for two of them and LaCrosse sent me the third no charge because one charger's third position display wouldn't light up and the second and four positions only light up partially. "Partially" allows me to distinguish between "Full" and a partial number.

I still have the partial display charger because LaCrosse's gracious support people didn't want to deal with the hassle of processing a return. It's sad to read that their customer service seems to have gone downhill in the intervening years.

The two perfect chargers still do everything satisfactorily. The charger with the partial display is used for conditioning cycles only.

I really appreciate being able to discharge my BC900's at 500mA. Heat management concerns seem to limit most chargers' discharge rates to between 300 to 350 mA.


----------



## bdcolletti

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*



Mr Happy said:


> How can I explain this to you? It is not normal behavior, it is a fault. It does not happen to every charger all the time, it happens to perhaps one charger in a hundred, or 1 in 1000. Your chargers may never develop the fault and may never do anything bad. If one person has a car that breaks down, does it mean that every car of that kind is going to break down?



I have a BC-900 from July 2007 that still works without problems. I used it everyday for the first four years, then used it less often. It never overheated, even with a full load.


----------



## n3eg

*Re: LaCrosse BC-9009 / BC-900 - The Melt-downs Continue...*

Is there anyone still watching this thread who knows the part number for the FET? I picked up a BC-900 real cheap that has one bad channel and a toasted FET, and would like to replace it.


----------

