Interested please add me to the list.
Am I missing something here? This charger supports multiple chemistries, not just AA cells.
Name a battery that has a recommended charge rate of 600ma.
Never mind, I see what your post was about.
It's the geometric progression thing. With the above fixes, the list of default charge currents would become:
1. Adjustable charging current: (0,03A-0,05A-0,08A-0,12A-0,18A-0,25A-0,35A-0,50A-0,70A-1,00A-1,50A-2,00A-2,50A-3,00A)
Concerning the default values above 1 A, I was not going to mess with them but now that I'm here, I think they could also be changed in a similar way: 1.4 instead of 1.5, then 2.0, then 3.0… or then 2.8, and at last a special 4.0 A mode (out of the 12 A total charge current shared among all slots, of course). But this is up for evaluation. 
Hope you get fully fine asap. :-)
Concerning the thermal pads stuff, I hope the idea is to thermal glue the MOSFETs to some heatsinks, isn't it? With a clever case and circuit board design, the MOSFETs could also be attached to the aluminium casing with screws. This way thermal pads would not be required, just a classic “add paste and screw into heatsink” assembly.
Oh! Wellp, sign me up for a piece, I'm sure I'll have some money for it when it arrives. Time to use a piggybank. ;-)
hey, I’m not sure it’s been mentioned but sometimes I test cell phone batteries on my SkyRC charger and many of those charge up at 4.4 volts could that be adjustable from 4.35 up to 4.4? Luckily the MC3000 allows for either of the two.
would be really useful for accurate capacity tests.
I would like to be added to the list as well!
I would be interested in one, also.
In for 1 plz
I’m interested in one.
I appreciate the added adjustable automatic current feature. If that isn’t possible, I think it would be a good idea to have the default charging rate be 500mA, rather than a higher rate.
Thank you, BlueSwordM for all of your work on this project.
@Barkuti, the main reason for using thermal pads is the lack of variability along with consistency and safety.
Putting MOSFETS on thermal pads allows for isolation from the casing in case, while allowing for just placing the MOSFETS on his simple screwing.
Hi! I would be interested in one 
Hi, Im interested in one also. Thanks.
Thanks for the thermal pad explanation thing BlueSwordM, I understand isolation is important because the MOSFETs are going to be affixed to the aluminium casing. I also guess than, from an industrial assembly point of view, a thermal pad also simplifies things (versus thermal paste). If anything, though, please tell the manufacturer to use some decent, slim thermal pads. I've seen some awfully thick thermal pads inside some devices, which certainly is detrimental for effective heat transfer.
By the way, is the casing going to be anodized? Because I like the idea of the thing looking different, like aluminium grey, be it sand blasted or raw (like Sofirn is doing with ours ;-) BLF C01S).
Concerning the default charging currents list, what I said above. pepinfaxera also pinpointed the disproportionate stepping of the still current list. I spoke about this much earlier, and there were complaints concerning the “not round enough numbers” for the below 250 mA current subset of the list (people not wanting to see more than two decimal places).
To my eyes, a very nice geometric progression ratio or multiplier is √2. This means any given current value should be √2 times greater than the previous, and √2 times smaller than the next. It also means that, each 2 steps, the progression ratio or multiplier is (√2)² = 2. Beautifully mathematical. Of course, since some rounding off is due, let's say “around √2” or between 4/3 and 3/2. This way, my list would be, in mA:
30 - 45 - 60 - 85 - 125 - 175 - 250 - 350 - 500 - 700 - 1000 - 1400 - 2000 - 3000 (14 values)
Which, due to the “figures in amps with at most two decimal places” complainers is simplified and becomes, in A:
0.03 - 0.05 - 0.08 - 0.12 - 0.18 - 0.25 - 0.35 - 0.50 - 0.70 - 1.00 - 1.40 - 2.00 - 3.00 (13 values)
In any case, an advanced menu please with at least fully configurable charge currents, voltages… and anything, even if it voids :-D warranty.
Very important is, in my opinion, for the charger to feature a “last used charge current and voltage” memory in each channel. This way people who often use the charger in the same way to charge batteries will be quite pleased.
Thanks. 
Fri, 01/10/2020 - 14:09
I am Interested in one.
I do get all the logic behind that but I wonder if this mathematical logic is important here or if rather thinking about what batteries will actually want to see makes more sense. This being said I think 2500mA is missing in your list. Maybe other values as well - I am not a battery expert. Am I wrong thinking that: NiMh batteries generally can take lower currents, LiIon higher currents and between them there is a gap which in your list has more values than anybody really needs?
2500mA would be totally unnecessary, since the jump between 2000mA and 3000mA is small enough. I’d prefer even less choice, to make clicking through the choices faster. 13 values is too many to be user friendly. I’d prefer something like
0.05 - 0.1 - 0.25 - 0.5 - 1.0 - 2.0
or even
0.1 - 0.5 - 1.0 - 2.0
That’s a good range, and easy to navigate. If a cell takes a max charge of 1.4A, then charging at 1.0A isn’t going to cause too much stress or extra time. Capping the max current at 2 amps might help with heating and keep the circuitry cheaper. On the low end, the cells you’ll be charging have so little capacity, that 0.1A isn’t going to take that long. 14500 and larger can take at least 0.5A.
If this project is ever going to get done, and on budget, simpler is better.
I totally agree with less choices being more user friendly. I know, I know, it needs to work for everyone and every battery… but let’s take a moment to put a typical use case together for discussion sake.
0.2 (ideal for AAA NiMh/NiCd batteries and 18650 “recovery”)
0.5 (ideal for AA NiMh/NiCd batteries, 14500 li-ion, or “heater” 18650)
1.0 (ideal for testing 18650 or charging cheap 18650)
2.0 (a nice fast charge for quality 18650, 21700, or 26650)
In all honesty, I don't think you get the logic of it. The reason behind a geometric progression list of currents is that, given any battery size and capacity the charger could handle, you will always find some adequate charging speeds (and around the same number of suitable charging speeds if we exclude opposite ends, of course) with a minimum amount of selectable steps. You could also see logarithmic scale, and a related scientific application in standard resistor values.
A 2500 figure between 2000 and 3000 has the same logic as setting 250 between 200 and 300, or 125 between 100 and 150, etc. If you find it reasonable I invite you to explain us the logic behind.
If I were to select the list of charging currents regardless of non-power users, this is how it would probably look (all values in mA):
35 - 50 - 70 - 100 - 140 - 200 - 280 - 400 - 560 - 800 - 1120 - 1600 - 2240 - 3200
Which could probably be adjusted into:
35 - 50 - 70 - 100 - 140 - 200 - 275 - 400 - 550 - 800 - 1100 - 1600 - 2200 - 3200
Numbers are numbers, they are just identifiers of a given mathematical set and don't really care about round numbers or whatever.
More on this later if needed. Now I have to go. 
Interested for 1 please