Trying to understand the date code system for Samsung:
Anyone care to better explain this mishmash? Why a capacity value in the date code; what’s with a letter for the year?? And can I presume the initial date of production to be 2010 (“A”)?
Samsung isn’t helping people distinguish fakes with such disparities. Should be straight forward. Just look at the can marking system - totally heterogeneous.
I’ve steered away from the 30Q. Prefer the VTC6 for lesser counterfeits.
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
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)