The newly upgraded samsung 30QT-6 has stronger power

Huh…
Those are taken from where?
And they refer to INR 18650 22F / 35E / 29E

Anyways, why defend Samsung? My comment was in regards to their coding from what is published. You haven’t given the link to that gibberish; if there’s no drawing / explanation to refer to what those numbers / letters to.

To get things straight, you offer new battery chemistry with a new nomenclature (30QT-6), but don’t have the documentation to support this. Yes, you have your in-house analysis, but not Samsung’s.

And then to defend Sam’s confusing coding, you post more gibberish.

My take is re-wrapped cells.

Now if they were wrapped with Vapcell, I’d be more forgiving. I like your batteries and find they do perform as stated. And you do sell newer chemistries -staying on top of the curve.

Yes, now the batteries get cheaper when the quantity is higher, but why the big price difference all of a sudden?

1x battery = US$ 9.98
2x battery = US$ 12.98 = US$ 6.49 per battery
3x battery = US$ 17.98 = US$ 5.99 per battery
4x battery = US$ 22.98 = US$ 5,74 per battery
5x battery = US$ 27.98 = US$ 5.60 per battery

The new 30Qs I just got in from 18650BatteryStore look just like these with the added warning stamped on them. Don’t know if that’s new or I just haven’t ordered them in a while :smiley: These guys are my source the last six months here in the US and I’ve been very happy buying from them.

I paid $4.99 each for the 30Qs with shipping VERY reasonable ($6 for 8 cells to Kansas). They also have some great sales monthly. My super cool new Molicel P42a 21700s came from these guys too. Of course they just dropped in price this week from $7.50 to $5.99 each. :stuck_out_tongue:

I can’t speak to the existence of a new version, or how to discern them, but the markings on my cells (from Illumn) are consistent with the document. Other threads here on the discussion of authenticity have pictures illustrating the markings on the cell body beneath the wrapper, which are more descriptive and perhaps more difficult to counterfeit than those on the wrapper.

Such markings are for meant Samsung’s internal usage, and the partners it decides to share them with. They’re not designed for easy decipherability by members of the general public, who aren’t the intended market.

There are three cells in the picture, all are different.
The top one has an improper date code and the warning; the middle cell is the Malaysian 30Q and again with an improper date code (the last line should have a number (capacity group), a letter (for year; 2010 = A), two digits (month, week) according to Samsung’s datasheet). But all the cells I’ve encountered have three numbers and if they are the date code then the top cell code would imply 2011, March, 1st week. And if this is a newer chemistry cell, that can’t be from 2011.
The bottom cell I can’t make why only one number and what the KF5T would attribute.

And as I firstly remarked, these cells are not labeled as “30QT-6”.

Your cells are consistent with which document? The Samsung Datasheet that I posted or the one from Vapcell Denis (which I believe refers to the can markings)?
As for authenticity, the cells that are pictured show the PET tube markings. Samsung has a code system for this and if it is so construed to not be decipherable by the general public, they further the proliferation of counterfeits. It may not be in one’s interest to remove the wrapper to inspect the can.

And then Samsung makes a warning intended to the general public - so, not exclusive to the OEM market…

So my beef is with this “30QT-6” There is no such marking on the cells that are posted on Facebook. And what better way to gain traction with a FB post!

this is 30QT

@Vapcell Dennis;

Prove it!

Show me some legit documentation from Samsung. Not some excerpt as you previously did.

Link a datasheet. Not FB, Not other battery types.

Try to pass PDF document on Baidu website

Comparison between new version 30qt-6 and old version

Verification Code: uawn

Can you look up the PDF file?

Can’t download the PDF but got screenshots. Album


1st- the cell is deemed “30Q6” and not “30QT-6”

2nd - this is but a minor upgrade; other than a slightly better cycle life and cold temperature discharge all other characteristics are almost the same.

Thank you very much for sharing

yeah,but only 30QT have new version in market

Maybe there will be 6 version in other places in the future

The power performance was also improved, and the samples were sent to HKJ

I have also done the test and comparison, especially the discharge end has been improved

Expect power performance to surpass Sony vtc6 and match vtc6a

High end batteries, whether in terms of power or capacity, are very exciting. Because the progress of lithium battery technology is very slow

Most importantly, the cycle life has been significantly improved

So it’s a very good cell

@ vapecell Dennis;

You don’t have to quote the entire post - quite annoying.

You should always post all info (and especially the manufacturer’s data) to be peer-reviewed prior to stating “stronger power”.

And BTW the cell is termed “30Q6”

Downloading from Baidu Cloud is always a challenge for those not inside mainland China.

I was able to find some instructions before to access the English portal, which requires entering a mobile phone number, which Baidu will send a ‘dynamic password’ to allow logging into the Baidu Cloud, and download the files shared there.

I’ve download the PDF file, hoping the PDF file can be shared publicly. Quick Google search for “upload/share PDF online” pointed to a “DocDroid” website (not sure if this is a good site or not). Download link below.

Link to the “Introduction of 30Q6_comparison - 20191216.pdf” (filesize: 1.2Mb)

Regarding the Samsung date code.

I remember in another post that someone mentioned getting Samsung 30Q (not 30Q6) which has the date code (under the wrapper) of “L30Q” (previously normal Samsung 30Q date code will look like “L0I5” or “L0J2” where the second digit/letter is “0” to signify possibly as the item code (“0” = 30Q)

“L30Q” doesn’t seem to follow the mentioned Samsung date code format.

I noticed on the Samsung 30Q6-T, the “date code” portion also looks like “30Q”, as the following pics show:

Samsung 30Q ‘141’ below has ‘L30Q’, while the Samsung 30Q6-T below shows “R30Q”.

I wonder if the “KH1T” label (on the 30Q6-T) is a date code, and how it might be decoded?

Can someone confirm me if these Samsung 30Q are for vape or electronic cigarette, I am confused because it has written “not for electronic cigarette or vape”

guerrerohalcon, neither the Samsung 30Q nor any other battery is “for vape or electronic cigarette”. These devices are not specifically designed for such duty, they are still “power products” and their users are meant to be responsible, believe right and know how to deal with them. Indulging in vices is no license for misuse and will never be.

If you aim to safely use batteries Battery University is full of great wisdom and articles. You could start with BU-808: How to Prolong Lithium-based Batteries, his most read article.

Dear Barkuti, thanks for your reply. Actually I am a battery seller in my country, and I do not want to sell someone something that causes them a problem or injury. But I have already found out and the reason for such a note in the battery is to demarcate responsibility in the use of it. So it works for the vapos! Excuse my English, I am using the translator !!

Look at the printed 3. Legit 30Q (and 40T) have angular top not rounded. These are rounded.

(If a 40T has a code with a 3 in it anyways)

Would you happen to have sample picture?

So far I’ve gotten these different labels of Samsung 30Q - “SDI 136” “SDI 138” “SDI 141”, “SDIEM 136” and the “30Q6-T”

The 6pcs on the right side all appear to be genuine (based on capacity test, and also using YR1030 resistance meter to test IR).
The “136” might be a bit older, I measured around 12.6-12.8mOhms AC IR with the YR1030.
The “138”, “141”, “30Q-T” I measure from 11.3-12.0mOhms AC IR with the YR1030.
Capacity test also get around 2900+ mAh.
They have the correct format date code (“0” in the 2nd position) or “L30Q” / “R30Q” as mentioned above.
They also arrived from shipping condition to be from 3.35v-3.45v. (the YR1030 resistance measurements above are tested from shipping condition)

(one of the 30Q “SDI 136” has a rounded “3” and the other has a straight dots “3”, but they test the same (capacity & YR1030 IR), so I would suppose they are genuine, but with slightly different fonts. The SDIEM has a slightly different font too.

Only the left side “30Q” does not appear to be a genuine 30Q (I got it from Fireflies flashlight) — its capacity tests similar to genuine 30Q, but the AC IR is around 21mOhms (YR1030), plus the ‘code’ shows a “9” (so probably a Samsung 29E?)

Well I got 3 of these maybe 18 mos ago from Amazon:

And searching internet did not find any clearly “legit” 30Q pics that had a rounded 3.

Mine were only 2200 mah. Work ok for lo drain but I definitely think I was ripped off or very unlucky and got subpar genuine cells.

Got a 40T a few months ago and noticed wrap creased and again a rounded 3 in the battery code and, searching again, did not find any legit pics with a rounded 3 in the battery code. Have not tested capacity yet.

I may be wrong, but i looked long and hard at legit sites (Liion, Illumn, etc.) and did not find any pics with rounded 3s.

Anyway, just my non-tech observation.

Fact is that they are responsible for whatever may happen to them. This is no exemption for any involved responsibilities, and yes the battery notes are meant for that. They're scared of @#$% filing lawsuits against them.

At times I wonder if they are choosing the right battery type. Li-ion was designed with gradually decreasing output voltage as it is discharged. This was probably of use many years ago, when devices had much less sophisticated electronics, to help with state of charge gauging. Nowadays electronic devices use coulomb counting and other means to measure state of charge, and I think they don't need batteries with gradually decreasing output voltage at all. LiFePO4 is a somewhat less energy dense chemistry, but its output voltage stays nearly flat along the discharge, this means nearly all the battery energy can be used without losing power output in a mech mod, while also LiFePO4 is an amazing power battery (mech users enjoy LiFePO4). These 26650 cells (made by Power Long Battery) feature outstanding power output and performed great when they were tested by Mooch. They're now for sale (check out for Vapcell discount coupons), I guess Vapcell didn't wanted to mess with them and decided to completely drop the product instead of seeking out for the safety documentation Mooch was asking, if available. Power Long Battery makes lots of LiFePO4 battery cells, but God knows.

But this is another story. What matters here is to raise people's awareness to understand that a power battery needs to be carried in some sort of proper box. Plastic battery boxes are sold everywhere, by the way.

Sun, 08/02/2020 - 13:22