Very helpful.
Thank you for the reply, and all your time testing and sharing info
I like the Vapcell 16340 INR because the button top works in all my lights. Even the ones with physical reverse polarity rings around a brass contact button in the head of the light, such as Eagletac and Jetbeam.
The Vapcell 16340 INR even works in my Atom AL, that does not like my Olight and Fenix 16340, that are longer and have flatter button tops.
Im hoping at some point, for a protected version of the Vapcell 16340, since none of those lights have built in Low Voltage Protection.
I use one of these Vapcell 16340 cells in a little Supfire S1 host with BLF-A6 driver and Luxeon V led, all resistances minimised, and get around 1150 lumen at 30 seconds. I think that is close the max that you can get with this little cell and a single led. A XP-L Hi has a considerably higher voltage than the V, and being domeless that makes the XP-L Hi less efficient as well, so I think in direct drive you will end up well under 1000 lumen.
I concur with DavidEF, the 5A discharge curve still looks sort of healthy. However, there is a large difference in internal resistance between the tested specimens. Iffy stuff which speaks bad with regards to product consistency. I also wonder about the button top spot welding quality.
If the code works, it's a pair for $5 shipped - great deal. Let me know if it works. I've bought from the eBay seller before - good as long as you know what you are buying.
Just to add a quick test of a cell that was bought “in the wild” (nkon.nl) a few weeks ago. I think it is genuine. It performs good in my Acebeam TK16, but are not as brilliant as the samples “provided by Vapcell for review”. I added the included battery of the light for a comparision. They were charged in a Graupner Ultramat 14 plus to 4.2 V, 200 mA and discharged with a Keithley Source Meter 2601 at 3 A to 3 V.
How did you obtain the “provided by Vapcell for review” and can you show comparisons? I also bought the Vapcell 800mah and it seems to match up with HKJ’s review. Also did a bunch of output test and I can comfortably say they are the best high capacity 16340 in existence at the moment.
I was referring to the original test, where the cells were provided, and those work better than the ones you might get when buying them. That goes in line with other overservations in this thread, that mention some inconsistencies. And while I would say, they are even some of the best high drain 16340 (this format seems to be quite rare anyway, so in my case they were the only option even), I guess it is fair to criticise the “optimistic” rating and the inconsistencies.
Ok, but I’m not sure how you compared your cells with HKJ’s results. I would like to see the “differences” you are seeing because for me, at least capacity wise, it is not any worst than HKJ’s test. I’m very happy with the cell.
Reality molds to your wishes, your beliefs so, are you believing right?
I am also sure that at least some or many people actually have no black sheeps, i.e. good cells overall.
Yes, fair it is to criticise the inconsistencies and the (to some point) optimistic rating. The former mostly disqualifies the product for in series operation or battery pack assembly, the latter is the shame of an industry who has been living on deceptive, overrated best case numbers for too long. A battery is a lot more than a freakin' number, most people needs to understand this.
Just compared by eye, the voltage in HKJ’s test is a little bit higher (so, the flashlight would light up a little brighter). I don’t have the means to test it at any higher current. I don’t think I would get a comfortable 7 A discharge out of mine. But as I stated, it works good in the light and I thought the comparision with the Acebeam shows that is a very good performer, and certainly a good cell overall. Which means that I’m also happy with mine.
I absolutely agree. And it is still bound to the laws of physics and chemistry