Reference: mitro's pile of battery graphs

65 posts / 0 new
Last post

Pages

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA
Reference: mitro's pile of battery graphs

I'm looking to compile a lot more data on different cells but I just can't afford to buy every size of every brand. Wink I was hoping I could get some members to send me theirs and then I can test them and send them back. All it would cost is the shipping to me and a week of being w/o your cells.

Just a few things:

1. I REALLY need to keep this within the US.

2. The newer the cells, the better. I'd appreciate if you'd include a note with the cells and let me know the age and approximate number of cycles (I know this is hard sometimes. Just get it in the ballpark)

3. I really prefer to have a pair (or more). I'd do a single cell, but the results would be less significant.

4. For now, I'm only looking for lithium cells. Maybe I'll do NiMH later. (I'd do primaries too, you just won't get them back. :p)

Once tested, I will post the results and graphs so we could more accurately compare different brands/sizes.

All tests are done with a West Mountain Radio CBA II that I've used extensively and gotten pretty well dialed in (I have the "pro" sofware which allows you to calibrate volts/amps so that it matches my DMM).

If you are interested, post here or PM me. Also, I'd love to hear requests of cells that the members would like to see tested. Thanks in advance. Smile

Edited by: sb56637 on 08/26/2014 - 17:39
mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

Here's an example:

mitro's Trusfire "Flames" 18650 #1 (click thumbnail to see full-size image)

0.5 Amps - 2538 mAh

1.5 Amps - 2464 mAh

3.0 Amps - 2386 mAh

Not sure exactly how I want to format everything, but I'm sure it will evolve over time.

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

Anybody? I can also easily combine old results with new tests so that we can see how different cells compare.

 

Well here's one of mine again:

mitro's Sanyo 2600 18650's #1 & #2 

Received/Age: 06/11 (new)

Source: hkequipment

3 Amps

#1: 2441mAh

#2: 2455mAh

(to be updated with new tests later)

(click thumbnail to see full-size image)

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

I want to test whatever anybody is using. I'd just like to get an idea of how popular cells stack up against each other in identical tests and how they perform at currents that are often demanded of them.

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

Here's an interesting one. Two pairs of Trustfire "flame" 14500s bought a month and a half apart discharged @ 1.5 amps

mitro's Trustfire"flame" 14500s #1-4

 

They're clearly different cells. Not a bad thing in THIS case, but it illustrates that you never really know... until you test. Smile

 

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

The discussion of protection circuits made me want to see at what voltage I could get it to kick in So I grabbed a Trustfire 18650 blue label "2500" that has been put in my recycle pile and decided to move the test cutoff voltage lower to see where it would cut off. Here's the graph:

Trustfire 18650 blue label "2500" #2

Discharge rate: 3A

3A is too much for this ol' girl. Smile It managed almost 1700 mAh, but hit about 40 degrees C doing it.

The low voltage protection kicked in at 2.05v (±0.05v). I'm not entirely sure what it thinks its protecting at that low of a voltage.:)

fishinfool
fishinfool's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 03/09/2010 - 00:30
Posts: 4342
Location: Hilo, Hawaii

Thanks for all of your hard work mitro.   

 

Don wrote:

"But as I said long ago, you are more likely to be killed by a dead fish dropped by a seagull in the Sahara Desert than by a lithium ion

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

fishinfool wrote:

Thanks for all of your hard work mitro.   

 

Thank you! Sorry, I missed this when you posted it. I've been working too hard. Smile
mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

mitro's AW "2900" 18650s (Panasonic NCR18650 based)

Number of cells: 3
Purchased: 9/4/2010
Link

Usage: Some cells used more than others. Typically in single cell lights running 1 to 3 Amps on high. Kept topped off most of the time.

Protection: It took a 10A discharge to trip over current. I have not tested the low voltage protection.

All tests were done within the last month.

0.5 Amps

#1: 2878 mAh
#2: 2827 mAh
#3: (Error made in calibration - need re-test)

1.5 Amps

#1: 2735 mAh
#2: 2710 mAh
#3: 2702 mAh

3.0 Amps

#1: 2685 mAh
#2: 2690 mAh
#3: 2676 mAh

5.0 Amps

#1: 2719 mAh
#2: 2705 mAh
#3: 2703 mAh

At 5A the cells heat up to about 40 degrees C by the end of the discharge. I assume the increase in capacity at a greater load is a result of this.

All discharge rates for #1

 

MF UF test:

3.356 Amps

Using my Manafont Ultrafire T6 XM-L 3-mode P60 dropin in an L2i body I tested the max current the battery would deliver.


AW 2900 #1 vs. Sanyo 2600 #2 @ 3.0 Amps

AW: 2685 mAh

Sanyo: 2455 mAh


Here's an interesting way to look at the comparison of the two cells:

Watt hours to 2.8v (when discharged @ 3A)



Sanyo: 8.732Wh
AW: 8.800Wh

Thats a 0.78% increase in power to 2.8v by going from the 2600 to the 2900.  There's more to it, and at lower discharge rates it would be greater, but mAh doesn't tell the whole story.

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

 brted's Bestinone.net IMR 10440 #1 & #2 (rated 350mAh)

Thanks for loaning me your cells, Ted!


Number of cells: 2
Purchased: 5/2011

0.5 Amps

 

#1: 314 mAh
#2: 325 mAh

1.0 Amps

 

#1: 174 mAh
#2: 150 mAh

1.5 Amps

 

#1: 77 mAh
#2: 88 mAh

The cells just barely warm during the 1.5A test.

MF UF test:

NOT TESTED

Bestinone.net IMR 10440 vs. AW ICR 10440 @ 1.5 Amps

The AW does  123mAh @ 1.5A (to 2.5v) but, none of the cells handle the load very well. I'm certain that if there is such a thing as an IMR 10440... this ain't it. Smile Better news to come...

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

brted's Bestinone.net IMR 14500#1 & #2 (rated 600mAh)


Number of cells: 2
Purchased: 5/2011

0.5 Amps

#1: 722 mAh
#2: 748 mAh

1.5 Amps

#1: 699 mAh
#2: 709 mAh

3.0 Amps

#1: 544 mAh
#2: 548 mAh

MF UF test:

4.028 Amps :)

Using my Manafont Ultrafire T6 XM-L 3-mode P60 dropin in an L2i body I tested the max current the battery would deliver.


Bestinone.net IMR 14500 vs. AW IMR 14500 @ 3.0 Amps

 

The AW does  609mAh @ 3.0A (to 2.5v). Why is every comparison to an AW? Well.. that's what I mostly have and as much as I'd like to find the same performance for less bucks, I haven't had much luck. These generic IMR 14500s are stacking up quite nicely against the AWs though. And how about 4 Amps when hooked to the Manafont dropin?!? I'd be more than happy to own a bunch of these.

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

brted's Bestinone.net IMR 18650 #1 & #2 (rated 1500mAh)


Number of cells: 2
Purchased: 5/2011

0.5 Amps

#1: 1416 mAh
#2: 1427 mAh

1.5 Amps

#1: 1372 mAh
#2: 1372 mAh

3.0 Amps

#1: I lost the graph! Sorry!
#2: 1336 mAh

5.0 Amps

#1: 1319 mAh
#2: 1291 mAh

MF UF test:

3.946 Amps

Using my Manafont Ultrafire T6 XM-L 3-mode P60 dropin in an L2i body I tested the max current the battery would deliver.


Bestinone.net IMR 18650 vs. AW IMR 18650 @ 3.0 Amps


 

The AW does  1370mAh @ 3.0A (to 2.5v). Here i am with the AW again. Smile You have to remember that this is my best run of 6 between two AW IMR cells against a single run of one cell. I'm calling the generic the winner. Why? It has the flatter graph. That extra voltage of the AW's top-end in something like a 980L is only going to heat it up even more. I'm definitely impressed with these and I need to do some more tests (higher and lower amps) on my AWs to compare more thoroughly.

bushytails
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/11/2011 - 21:53
Posts: 167

Looking at your numbers, you might want to double-check the calibration...  They're too good!

From the tests I've seen other people do, chinese batteries rarely/never have over their rated capacity, but you got 2538 from a 2400 battery, and 748 from a 600...  Unless chinese batteries have suddenly become a much better buy than people thought, something's fishy there.  Smile

I could live without some of my batteries, but I'm completely broke right now (well, not COMPLETELY...  but I have $20 to live on for the next week...) - if you wanted to pay shipping, I could send you four ultrafire 3000mah 18650s, two trustfire 2500mah blue (a couple years old, but only 20 cycles or so), one trustfire 2500mah grey unprotected (sorry, only one - others are soldered into a laptop pack), two really funky (protection supposedly on the positive instead of negative end, and put on at a 15 degree slant on one of them!) no-brand 2200mah ones, two trustfire grey protected 10440s, two trustfire flame 16340s, and two no-brand 16340s.  I could also send a pair of 14500 and a pair of 18650 flames, but you already have those, so probably wouldn't add anything, and the 18650s would be the ones I'd be using while the others were absent.  Hrmm, I also have some (... 200) 1350mah 18650s, that are ~10 years old but have 0 cycles on them, if you wanted to test a couple for a lark...

--Bushytails

 

brted
brted's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 01/12/2010 - 19:44
Posts: 2371
Location: Atlanta

It's great to see these results. Thanks for putting your equipment to good use and doing all the work to run the tests and publish the results. I wasn't able to test them at high currents and I'm amazed to see them hold up. I knew the 14500's were pretty good, but I didn't expect as much from the 18650's. Even though the 18650's are short of their 1500mAh nominal capacity, they still do pretty well under high loads.

I knew the 10440's were pretty pointless, so no surprise there. Even a LCR 10440 doesn't have much capacity and LMR's are always going to be less. Reminds me of the quote someone has over at CPF about Maglite solitaire's: I've seen matches burn brighter and longer.

Great job!

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

EDIT: Nevermind.

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

brted wrote:

It's great to see these results. Thanks for putting your equipment to good use and doing all the work to run the tests and publish the results. I wasn't able to test them at high currents and I'm amazed to see them hold up. I knew the 14500's were pretty good, but I didn't expect as much from the 18650's. Even though the 18650's are short of their 1500mAh nominal capacity, they still do pretty well under high loads.

I knew the 10440's were pretty pointless, so no surprise there. Even a LCR 10440 doesn't have much capacity and LMR's are always going to be less. Reminds me of the quote someone has over at CPF about Maglite solitaire's: I've seen matches burn brighter and longer.

Great job!

Thanks again for letting me put them through their paces. Its a bummer that the 10440s were such dogs but the 14500s and even the 18650s made up for it. The AW 18650 come in under their rated capacity by more than the generics (1600 vs. 1500) So they definitely hold their own.
mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

mitro's Callie's Kustoms 18650 #1 & #2 (rated 3100mAh - Panasonic NCR18650A based)


Number of cells: 2
Purchased: 6/2011

0.6 Amps (changed from the usual 0.5A to see if the cell was accurately rated over 3000mAh - also see comments a the bottom of the post)

#1: 3100 mAh
#2: 3094 mAh

(not corrected for measurement error - actual capacity closer to 3045 mAh)

1.5 Amps

#1: 2940 mAh
#2: 2943 mAh

3.0 Amps

 

#1: 2901 mAh (was undercharged a little - need to re-do)
#2: 2949 mAh

5.0 Amps

Run #1

#1: 2920 mAh
#2: 2939 mAh

Run #2

#1: 2934 mAh
#2: 2959 mAh

These were the first tests run, so it looks like the cells were waking up. Smile

MF UF test:

3.781 Amps

The max current drawn from the cell using the Manafont Ultrafire T6 P60 drop-in in a L2p host.

Low voltage cut-off

2.44v (±0.02v)

The cells were charged up a little (from  fully depleted) and then discharged @ 3A until the protection was tripped.

Callie's Kustoms 3100mAh 18650 vs. AW 2900 18650 and others

coming soon

Comments:

My 0.5/0.6A measurements are coming up a little high. This is something I already know how to fix but it will make comparison to past tests difficult. I'm more concerned with comparing with the cells I've already tested than trying to match other's results. 1.5 Amp and 3.0 Amp results should be pretty close while 5 Amp results may be a little low.

EDIT: For example, the 0.6A tests here are actually drawing 0.59A. the test for #1 lasted 5.166 hours. that means that the result is 51.66 mAh high, so #1 should be 3048 mAh.

sb56637
sb56637's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 01/08/2010 - 09:29
Posts: 6840
Location: The Light

Looking great Mitro! Thanks a lot for sharing this data with us.

Sticky'd as a reference post.

Budget Light Forum ...where Frugal meets with Flashlight!

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

Thank you!

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

Nothing new here. This is copied from brted's Generic IMR thread

Here's the 18350s at 3 Amps: (click thumbnail for graph)

 

 I tested both cells 3 times. I'm not real thrilled with the way #2 is lagging behind and just the consistency in general. Still... they perform acceptably. I just wish I had some of the Ultrafire 18350s to compare them to. The #2 cell is getting more capacity with each run, but I wish I knew what I did to get 915mAh out of #1. Smile Here they are compared to the AW IMR 18350s:

 

 I took the middle run from each of the generics and here is a single (only) run a pair of the AW IMRs. I like the curve of the AWs a lot better. That would give you higher current reading from the MF UF dropin or the like. The generics look like they're running out of wind at 3A and I bet there would be a big drop in capacity at 5A. But I don't think I'm going to try 5A. They are already getting warm at 3A. I'm doing 1.5A tests now, but I figured that 3A would be most relevant.

 I'm going to try them both with the Manafont Ultrafire dropin and get some readings just to compare further.

EDIT: ok... done Smile

(MAX from turn-on - tested with my Vichy VC99 with leads from my hobby charger)

AW - 4.325 amps

Generic - 3.506 amps

As long as they hold up, I think they are a good buy. I wish I had a larger sample size, but its safe to say that if your light will hold them, they're going to do better than ANY 16340.

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

I've added the ability to monitor the amperage with my DMM inline with the tester. So I can verify the current draw of the CBA along with the cell voltage (which I'd already been doing). The bad news is that it threw my calibrations all off. So now I have to do partial tests to dial in the voltage correction factor AND the amperage correction factor. Even without calibrating the amperage, it looks like my results are AT WORST accurate within 5%. This should knock it down below 2% for a worst case scenario. Not really sure its worth it now, but I can't easily go back.

Long story short... I had what I thought was a good idea but its going to take even more time and a second DMM to not gain much over my previous setup. This is nothing new nor suprising for me and my endeavors. Smile

2100
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: 05/28/2011 - 10:28
Posts: 4512
Location: SINGAPORE

Mitro, so you are saying that your tests are all accurate to within 5% at worst? 

I'd already be very happy it they were 10% worst case.  I have 3 pairs of generic IMRs coming my way that didn't cost much (18350, 18500 and 14500s), thank you very much for the nice info!  Sealed

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

2100 wrote:

Mitro, so you are saying that your tests are all accurate to within 5% at worst? 

I'd already be very happy it they were 10% worst case.  I have 3 pairs of generic IMRs coming my way that didn't cost much (18350, 18500 and 14500s), thank you very much for the nice info!  Sealed

My measurements are within 5% of being accurate. There's still other factors to consider. Number one being variations in charging (which I do my best to minimize, but are impossible to eliminate.

I'd bet my house that I can get the Ah and Wh within 10%. Typically on a 0.5A I could be off 10 or 15 mA per hour of testing. That's 50-75maH on a 2500maH cell so 2-3%. Shorter tests have less error. My worst test is a 5A, at a possible 50mA per hour of testing (its actually more accurate at only 1% of the discharge current), but it would take a mighty large cell to make that significant since most 5A tests last a fraction of an hour.

It looks like I took a step backwards with my new hook up. Where I used to be able to plug in a pre-tested correction factor for voltage at a given amperage, I have to calibrate every single cell I test at every amperage I plan on testing. I think I'll be going back to the old way. Adding the DMM in line just added uncertainty and more connections.

EDIT: I may have to get a pair of those 18500s for some shorty Skyray action.

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

I'm actually to the point where I think too much import is put in the cells we are using. Here's an interesting (or at least I think so) comparison.

This is part of a graph of a constant 3A discharge. Its also using watt-hours instead of amp-hours. The Trustfire (flame - bought from Manafont) puts out 88% of the power of the Panasonic based 3100 when going down to 3.0v. At 3.25 only the Sanyo is out ahead of the pack.

From what I've tested the NANJG 8x7135 driver ACTUALLY cut out above 3V. I'm not sure if its the resistance of the host or what, but I can't get LiFePO4 cells to run on this driver on high at all. These cells have VERY little voltage sag so I know its certainly above 3.0v battery voltage.

A little bit of a tangent, but I just have observed that specifically with the 8x7135 drivers you are wasting a lot of capacity.

Now in the dressed up direct drive lights like the 980L, I think these higher capacity/lower voltage cells are a better choice.

DasFriek
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 8 months ago
Joined: 06/26/2011 - 16:26
Posts: 294
Location: Ohio

Hi mitro, I hope you dont mind i borrow your graphs from time to time as comparisons when i post a test i did with my cells. I ALWAYS say its your graph and work that made it and give you credit. I figured as long as i did that you wouldn't mind. But if you do mind pls tell me and ill stop.

I know its to late now, But can you start doing graphs that include "Time" as a factor so i can see when 3.3v is reach at say 30 minutes? I like graphs like that for lights that shut off at 3v and also i always stop my tests at 3v as i dont see any real world use to test a cell down too 2.5v like many people do to try and say a cell does reach its "Stated" capacity.

If it cant do it at 3v its shouldn't be counted below that.  Now i see you do sometimes use 2.8v and 2.5v and thats your choice, But i guess if its a single cell light with direct drive it could have some extra run time giving it some meaning. Thats just my opinion and is no big deal as the real reason is of including the "Time" axis is.

BTW thats for all your hard work and stress on your cells also, I use a Hyperion 720i which is so easy to use. But its a time consuming job since you dont want to walk away from cells being discharged at 5A and try and do something outside. So a Thank you for your work from someone who knows how much it takes to do all this. Let alone the expense. 

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

I have no problem with you using the graphs! That's what there for. Smile

I CAN do graphs with voltage over time and I'd be happy to do one if there's a specific one you'd like to see, but to do it for every test would add quite a bit of work.

You can get a pretty good idea just by looking at the graphs for amp hours. Just look at the approximate amp hours at the target voltage and divide by the test amps (and multiply by 60 if you want minutes).

OR you can just ask me and I can look it up in the data.

DasFriek
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 8 months ago
Joined: 06/26/2011 - 16:26
Posts: 294
Location: Ohio

If there is a specific one id like to see ill ask, Thanks.

Math makes my head hurt Smile 

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

Callie's Kustoms High Discharge 18650 #1 (rated 2250mAh - Panasonic CGR18650CH)

Number of cells: 1

Cell Graph:

Capacities discharged to 3.0v:

  • 0.5A: 2310 mAh
  • 1.5A: 2182 mAh
  • 3.0A: 2192 mAh
  • 5.0A: 2095 mAh
  •  10A: 1862 mAh

MF UF test:

4.652 Amps

The max current drawn from the cell using the Manafont Ultrafire T6 P60 drop-in in a L2p host.

Low voltage cut-off

N/A

Callie's Kustoms High discharge 18650 vs. others

3A:

  • AW IMR
  • Bestinone.net
  • Sanyo 2600
  • Callie's Kustoms 3100
  • Trustfire Flames 2400
  • Callie's Kustoms HD 2250

Comments:

This is one heck of a cell. You aren't going to come close to its capacity in any other IMR 18650. It destroys the AWs I have and the Bestinone.net cells I tested. It doesn't quite have the capacity of today's LiCo cells, but it holds voltage higher than just about all of them. The only competition are the Sanyo 2600s I have and there's nothing intrinsically safe about them.

They do get plenty hot during a 10A discharge, so I wouldn't use them at that rate, but so do my AWs (Which I actually haven't completed a full discharge @ 10A due to them getting so hot)

The 4.6A draw I got from the MF/UF test is the highest I've ever seen, it even beats an IMR 26650.

xxllmm4
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 05/28/2011 - 04:27
Posts: 288
Location: Washington

Thanks for testing them! I knew they where good but wow! How do you think they feel about them over at CPF? Wink

mitro
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/25/2011 - 11:58
Posts: 707
Location: Montgomery, IL USA

xxllmm4 wrote:

Thanks for testing them! I knew they where good but wow! How do you think they feel about them over at CPF? Wink

I'm not sure, but I can't come up with a reason to buy AWs over these. The AWs i have are now almost 2 years old, but even when they were new they didn't live up to what I expected from them (neither did the 16340 or 26500 IMR for that matter). These Panasonics are in a whole 'nother league, so I don't think it should take much convincing over there. They like to spend money. Smile

I'm going to charge and discharge this one like I would any other IMR and see how it is after some use (and likely abuse).

Milestar
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 08/12/2011 - 03:23
Posts: 1
Location: Shenzhen/Hong Kong

Some buddies here recommended Mitro to be a condidate to review our new updated WP2 charger, and I have sent a message and waiting for confirmation, can I have the honor?

Miles

Pages