Table of tested chargers, comments?

81 posts / 0 new
Last post
Venom
Venom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 03/28/2017 - 07:29
Posts: 186
Location: Massachusetts

Great chart! It’s alot easier to find the good/bad chargers.

I have a suggestion, instead of overlapping smiling face for a 1 1/2 rating, can you do a smiling face and a half of a smiling face that don’t touch each other?

FPV
FPV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 days ago
Joined: 07/14/2017 - 12:36
Posts: 573
Location: Traveling on the job

I am looking for a new charger and this table will be a very good resource. thank you!

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 54 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6807
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Venom wrote:
I have a suggestion, instead of overlapping smiling face for a 1 1/2 rating, can you do a smiling face and a half of a smiling face that don’t touch each other?

I like the overlapping faces better Smile

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

Parametrek
Parametrek's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 10 hours ago
Joined: 02/08/2017 - 19:50
Posts: 131

Most people do care quite a bit in my experience, thank you for being so chill about it.

I’m basically done and am putting on the finishing touches now. If I want to flesh out some details (like MSRP, official pages, and paired bays) it could take the rest of the weekend.

I’ve found a few minor typos: the Fenix ARE-X1+ has backwards battery diameters. The JetBeam i4 Pro and TrustFire TR-001 have backwards lengths. The Ikea Veinninge has “0.02 amps” for the “max all slots” current.

edit: The HG-1206W has 0.3/0.6/0.6 for the currents which is weird but I think I understand what is going on there. The BT-C100 has 1.6 for “max all” and 2 amps for “max single” which seems weird for a single-bay charger. What is up with that?

Try the largest, fastest, most flexible flashlight search engine: parametrek.com

40 brands, 2027 models and still growing!

NEW: sleeping pad search engine, battery database

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 54 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6807
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Parametrek wrote:
Most people do care quite a bit in my experience, thank you for being so chill about it.

It is the internet, I have no way of controlling my data. In my opinion the best way is to let people use it and ask them to credit me (with a link).

Parametrek wrote:
I’m basically done and am putting on the finishing touches now. If I want to flesh out some details (like MSRP, official pages, and paired bays) it could take the rest of the weekend.

And some hours every week from no on (Prices changes).

Parametrek wrote:
I’ve found a few minor typos: the Fenix ARE-X1+ has backwards battery diameters. The JetBeam i4 Pro and TrustFire TR-001 have backwards lengths. The Ikea Veinninge has “0.02 amps” for the “max all slots” current.

Thanks, I have fixed it.
Errors was unavoidable when typing in data for nearly 200 chargers.

Parametrek wrote:
edit: The HG-1206W has 0.3/0.6/0.6 for the currents which is weird but I think I understand what is going on there. The BT-C100 has 1.6 for “max all” and 2 amps for “max single” which seems weird for a single-bay charger. What is up with that?

The 1206 has 0.6A, it can be delivered to a single cell or shared between two cells with 0.3A for each.
The BT-C100 is a bit problematic, probably 2A in both field are more correct, but it is only valid for NiMH.

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

Parametrek
Parametrek's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 10 hours ago
Joined: 02/08/2017 - 19:50
Posts: 131

Found one more typo, the SC-C5 has the wrong chemistries listed.

So I feel the prototype is ready for you guys to take a look at: http://chargers.parametrek.com

I’ve added three requested features already. Whether or not a charger is enclosed, common cells that should fit, and how many channels a charger has. Though I was only able to find 4 that didn’t have the expected number of channels.

Next I’ll be adding MSRP information. Or maybe buying a new charger Smile

HKJ, I hope you like how it is looking.

Try the largest, fastest, most flexible flashlight search engine: parametrek.com

40 brands, 2027 models and still growing!

NEW: sleeping pad search engine, battery database

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 54 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6807
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Parametrek wrote:
Found one more typo, the SC-C5 has the wrong chemistries listed.

That was bad, my generator swapped two chemistries, it is fixed now.

Parametrek wrote:
I’ve added three requested features already. Whether or not a charger is enclosed, common cells that should fit, and how many channels a charger has. Though I was only able to find 4 that didn’t have the expected number of channels.

What do you mean by channels?

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

Parametrek
Parametrek's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 10 hours ago
Joined: 02/08/2017 - 19:50
Posts: 131

Same thing that you mean by channels in your reviews. If a charger can only do pairs of batteries, then it has half as many channels. Hank had asked for this information to be included so I put it in.

Try the largest, fastest, most flexible flashlight search engine: parametrek.com

40 brands, 2027 models and still growing!

NEW: sleeping pad search engine, battery database

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 54 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6807
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Parametrek wrote:
Same thing that you mean by channels in your reviews. If a charger can only do pairs of batteries, then it has half as many channels. Hank had asked for this information to be included so I put it in.

Number of channels and doing batteries in series is not the same thing.
The Ikea 12 slot charger has two charge channels, but do not do batteries in series or change the charge current depending on number of batteries.
All chargers where the current is red do AA/AAA batteries in series.

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

J-Dub74
J-Dub74's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/14/2015 - 17:17
Posts: 2231
Location: Michigan

Henrik, it’s incredibly helpful having all your reviews in one place like this. Your reviews are always the first place I look when considering chargers or cells. Thumbs Up Thank you!

About the only thing I can think of that would be nice to have (perhaps this has already been mentioned?) would be the ability to sort by column. I’d sort by rating and once below a certain score I know I’m not interested. I must admit I was confused a bit at first by your rating system at first, particularly the overlapping faces. I would have suggested the one and a half face thing too but I hadn’t scrolled down enough yet to see your scoring system was explained at the bottom. Maybe that could be at the top instead of the bottom? Anyway, once I understood the scoring system I too now like your half hidden peek-a-boo face for the “fairly good” ranking. Smile

If you don’t change a thing I’m certainly satisfied with this and I’ll be referring to it often. Beer

Oh and Parametrek, I like your take on arranging all this too. Adds a nice bit or sortability. Thumbs Up

srvctec
srvctec's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 06/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 35
Location: Central Kansas, USA

Excellent resource and very informative.  I was considering a Folomov A4 after seeing them in the Illumn email today but don't see it listed in the chart, unless I missed it in the 3 times I went through it.

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 54 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6807
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
srvctec wrote:

Excellent resource and very informative.  I was considering a Folomov A4 after seeing them in the Illumn email today but don’t see it listed in the chart, unless I missed it in the 3 times I went through it.

No, I have never seen that charger.
Browsers usual has a page search function (Often Ctrl-F) that makes it easy to check a list.

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

BazzH
BazzH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 05/27/2016 - 17:19
Posts: 263
Location: The Hague, Netherlands

Awesome HKJ!

I want to thank you for all your efforts in testing. I base most of my buying decisions (cells and chargers) on your thorough work!

You also do a very good job in educating people about the workings and save handling of batteries. I personally learned a lot from your website and your test comments.

Thank you!

teacher
teacher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 02/23/2016 - 19:04
Posts: 9596
Location: NE & SW Alabama

/\
.
+1

You never know how a horse will pull until you hook him up to a heavy load./"Bear" Bryant 

 .................................. "Slow is Smooth, Smooth is Fast" ...................................

       Texas Lumens Flashlights / M4D M4X Deals : sign up - save $$$$  

         Rudeness Level _ mΩ _ {width:70%} _ LightWiki _ LED Tint Chart  

      Xlamp size chart _ BatteryU _ Flashaholic? Need Professional Help???            TheOriginal _ TAB _ LightSearch _ BatterySearch _ 14500's _ DiCal 

 

                                             

TheIntruder
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 20 hours ago
Joined: 03/09/2018 - 02:11
Posts: 118

Typo? Shouldn’t the Xtar SV2’s max single slot current be 2A, not 1A?

Thanks for a fantastic resource.

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 54 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6807
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

TheIntruder wrote:
Typo? Shouldn’t the Xtar SV2’s max single slot current be 2A, not 1A?

Thanks for a fantastic resource.

Yes, is should. It is fixed now and thanks for the help.

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

meeshu
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 06/19/2012 - 06:58
Posts: 84
Location: NZ

There seems to be a couple of inconsistencies with charger test reviews. I would like to see more consistency in the reviews so a better and more logical comparison between chargers can be made.

 

The first inconsistency is that the 2500V and 5000V isolation/insulation test is either not done for some chargers, or if it was done, the results of the tests were not mentioned in the reviews. These test results should be mandatory for all chargers with results of those tests posted, please.

 

Second inconsistency is that really "old" batteries are not always tested, or if they are, the results of those tests were not mentioned in the reviews. It is important to see how chargers handle older batteries/cells as well as new batteries/cells. Again this test should be mandatory with accompanying test results in the reviews, please.

 

Also, some chargers have updated firmware which may address any issues shown in test of chargers with earlier versions of firmware. So chargers that have updated their firmware should be retested with the latest firmware, please.

 

Ideally, all charger reviews should be revised/updated where necessary to add the 2500V/5000V tests, plus the testing of really old batteries/cells, and chargers with latest firmware should be retested also.

 

Thank you.

Flashlights: JETBeam JET-E01R, Klarus Mi1c, 3 x Manker E11 (two faulty), 2 x iTP SA1, JetBeam JET μ (unused), JetBeam JET I MK (sold), Klarus Mi10 (unused) 

Chargers: Miboxer C2-6000, Miboxer C4-12, iSDT C4, OPUS BT-C3100, OPUS BT-C2000, LaCrosse BC-900, Voltcraft IPC-1, Tenergy TN268, plus a few smaller chargers

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 54 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6807
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
meeshu wrote:

The first inconsistency is that the 2500V and 5000V isolation/insulation test is either not done for some chargers, or if it was done, the results of the tests were not mentioned in the reviews. These test results should be mandatory for all chargers with results of those tests posted, please.

These test are not relevant for usb powered charger and I did not do them before I got equipment to do it.
I may forget it a few times, if I get reminded about it I will do it, if I still have the charger.

meeshu wrote:

Second inconsistency is that really “old” batteries are not always tested, or if they are, the results of those tests were not mentioned in the reviews. It is important to see how chargers handle older batteries/cells as well as new batteries/cells. Again this test should be mandatory with accompanying test results in the reviews, please.



I can only do test with old batteries when I have old batteries. Sometimes batteries gets to old and are removed from the test set.

meeshu wrote:

Also, some chargers have updated firmware which may address any issues shown in test of chargers with earlier versions of firmware. So chargers that have updated their firmware should be retested with the latest firmware, please.



Usual I do not know when chargers get updated, there is also an issue about time used to test a charger. For some of the more advanced chargers it can take 3 weeks, I do not not wish to retest that very often.

meeshu wrote:

Ideally, all charger reviews should be revised/updated where necessary to add the 2500V/5000V tests, plus the testing of really old batteries/cells, and chargers with latest firmware should be retested also.



I do not keep all the old chargers, this makes it impossible for me to do more tests on them. Often I have new chargers to test and I prefer to use my time on them.

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

meeshu
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 06/19/2012 - 06:58
Posts: 84
Location: NZ

Thanks for the prompt reply.

 

It is appreciated that some time is required to (re)test chargers, but to make a meaningful comparison between chargers the same full range of tests should be applied to all tested chargers as far as possible.

 

One of the important aspects of chargers is their ability to recharge older batteries/cells. So the use of older cells in these tests should be standard as part of the tests. Certainly some old cells get "retired" eventually, but surely other similar older cells could be made available for testing instead!?

 

There are still a lot of older chargers available for sale which have since had their hardware and/or firmware upgraded which would most likely produce different test results compared to the earlier test results.

 

If a previously reviewed charger is no longer in your possession, then surely you could request another updated version of the charger be submitted for review!?

 

The ISDT C4 charger, for example, has had several revisions of its firmware (now at 1.1.0.6 I believe) since the initial test review. It would be very useful to see improvements (if any) have been made to this charger!

Flashlights: JETBeam JET-E01R, Klarus Mi1c, 3 x Manker E11 (two faulty), 2 x iTP SA1, JetBeam JET μ (unused), JetBeam JET I MK (sold), Klarus Mi10 (unused) 

Chargers: Miboxer C2-6000, Miboxer C4-12, iSDT C4, OPUS BT-C3100, OPUS BT-C2000, LaCrosse BC-900, Voltcraft IPC-1, Tenergy TN268, plus a few smaller chargers

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 54 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6807
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
meeshu wrote:

One of the important aspects of chargers is their ability to recharge older batteries/cells. So the use of older cells in these tests should be standard as part of the tests. Certainly some old cells get “retired” eventually, but surely other similar older cells could be made available for testing instead!?

Most of the time I have old cell, but how old varies a bit. With LiIon the 18350-IMR has been used for many years on all chargers. With NiMH it is usual a 2500mAh cell that gets old.

meeshu wrote:

There are still a lot of older chargers available for sale which have since had their hardware and/or firmware upgraded which would most likely produce different test results compared to the earlier test results.

Yes, I know that, but I do generally not now which chargers gets updated.

meeshu wrote:

If a previously reviewed charger is no longer in your possession, then surely you could request another updated version of the charger be submitted for review!?

I do usual not ask manufacturers or dealers for chargers, the contact me with the charger they want tested.

meeshu wrote:

The ISDT C4 charger, for example, has had several revisions of its firmware (now at 1.1.0.6 I believe) since the initial test review. It would be very useful to see improvements (if any) have been made to this charger!

That is the first time I hear about more updates (I do not check around for new versions), but I do not have time to check it now. I have a couple of chargers and some manufactures has told be I can expect more very soon.

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

ActiveAl
ActiveAl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 10 hours ago
Joined: 03/27/2018 - 03:14
Posts: 504
Location: Central Florida

Thank you so much for indicating which chargers can also be used as power banks in this tabulated data! This is a feature I am currently researching and you are making my job much easier.

One small thing that I could suggest is that the provided links to each charger open in a new window versus inside the table space. This provides much more viewing room for the charger data and allows multiple chargers to be compared, each in their own window.

All of this work you are doing for us is incredible! Thank you!

 

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 54 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6807
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
ActiveAl wrote:

One small thing that I could suggest is that the provided links to each charger open in a new window versus inside the table space. This provides much more viewing room for the charger data and allows multiple chargers to be compared, each in their own window.

If you have a wheel try clicking on it.
You can also right-click and select open in a new window.

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

ActiveAl
ActiveAl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 10 hours ago
Joined: 03/27/2018 - 03:14
Posts: 504
Location: Central Florida

HKJ wrote:
ActiveAl wrote:

One small thing that I could suggest is that the provided links to each charger open in a new window versus inside the table space. This provides much more viewing room for the charger data and allows multiple chargers to be compared, each in their own window.

You can also right-click and select open in a new window.

Ah yeah, this works beautifully! Thanks!

d_t_a
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 27 min ago
Joined: 08/04/2017 - 23:58
Posts: 1276
Location: Manila, Philippines

First, allow me to thank you for making those comprehensive charger reviews, despite the fact that sometimes, there may be new revisions that may warrant a re-test of that specific charger (only functions that changed, but may not be easy to identify without a complete test…).

I would like to mention there seems to be an inaccuracy in the table — the Miboxer C4-12 is listed as an “analyzer” — AFAIK, it does not do discharge testing, so it’s not an “analyzer”.

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 54 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6807
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
d_t_a wrote:
I would like to mention there seems to be an inaccuracy in the table — the Miboxer C4-12 is listed as an “analyzer” — AFAIK, it does not do discharge testing, so it’s not an “analyzer”.

Thanks, I have fixed it (Website may update a bit later).

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

STUBBY
STUBBY's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 1 week ago
Joined: 12/04/2018 - 20:42
Posts: 8
Location: Cortez, Colorado
am trying to find a charger for my 18650’s using your “table of tested chargers” but am having a problem using it.

Under the “select index”….. I can NOT remove a search option, once I click on it.

For example, say I click ‘LiIon only’. It (the text) turns red. But then if I want to search ‘NIMH only’ I try to get rid of the ‘LiIon only’ by clicking on it but it just stays red and is still included in search.

The only browser I have is Firefox. Does the page only work on IE?

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 54 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6807
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

STUBBY wrote:
am trying to find a charger for my 18650’s using your “table of tested chargers” but am having a problem using it.

Under the “select index”….. I can NOT remove a search option, once I click on it.

For example, say I click ‘LiIon only’. It (the text) turns red. But then if I want to search ‘NIMH only’ I try to get rid of the ‘LiIon only’ by clicking on it but it just stays red and is still included in search.

The only browser I have is Firefox. Does the page only work on IE?

It works with Firefox (I am am using Firefox).
I do not know why it turns red, each index is a separate page and when you click on it you simple changes to that page. The title shows what page you are on.

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

STUBBY
STUBBY's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 1 week ago
Joined: 12/04/2018 - 20:42
Posts: 8
Location: Cortez, Colorado
HKJ wrote:
It works with Firefox (I am am using Firefox). I do not know why it turns red, each index is a separate page and when you click on it you simple changes to that page. The title shows what page you are on.

I now see how it works , Thanks

OK, so a nice feature would be for it would be:
Able to search multiple features at one time. In other words…. (as in my case on the “search index/options”), I would press the LiION ONLY, DISPLAY V and mAh, 12v Power Imput, 2 slots, (options) and the resulting page would only show chargers that have all of these features…since those are the features I must have in a charger.

That is the way I was trying to use your informative index (my bad) since most search charts work this way. (http://batteries.parametrek.com/index.html)
Just a thought, thanks for all your hard work and info !!!!!

HKJ
HKJ's picture
Offline
Last seen: 29 min 54 sec ago
Joined: 05/24/2011 - 12:23
Posts: 6807
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
STUBBY wrote:
OK, so a nice feature would be for it would be: Able to search multiple features at one time. In other words…. (as in my case on the “search index/options”), I would press the LiION ONLY, DISPLAY V and mAh, 12v Power Imput, 2 slots, (options) and the resulting page would only show chargers that have all of these features…since those are the features I must have in a charger.

You can search on two parameters, the first is select the best table, the next is sorting a column. If you select the right parameters the remaining list will be fairly short.

STUBBY wrote:
That is the way I was trying to use your informative index (my bad) since most search charts work this way. (http://batteries.parametrek.com/index.html) Just a thought, thanks for all your hard work and info !!!!!

Parametrek is something else, is uses a database, my list is just a html page. I have found a script that can filter on each column (tablefilter.js), but it cannot sort. If anybody knows a free javascript library that can do both, please say.

My website with reviews of many chargers and batteries (More than 1000): https://lygte-info.dk/

STUBBY
STUBBY's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 1 week ago
Joined: 12/04/2018 - 20:42
Posts: 8
Location: Cortez, Colorado

[quote=HKJ]
“You can search on two parameters, the first is select the best table, the next is sorting a column. If you select the right parameters the remaining list will be fairly short.”

OK…I am an idiot……How do you “sort a column”?

Pages