Do you have a source for this? Specifically, one that confirms in no uncertain terms that Panasonic did not inherit any technical specifications related to the same sort of NiMH technology that went into the Eneloop branded batteries that we’ve all known and loved for so many years now.
You can interpret it either way. A 5% difference over 5 years may indeed point to different underlying technology, but the strong similarities also suggest the opposite conclusion.
In any case, I’m still reserving judgment until I see some performance numbers, and I’m still coming down on the side of believing that Panasonic wouldn’t be silly enough to sully the Eneloop name by associating it with inferior battery technology.
But there are a few points that need to be considered.
First of all, eneloop already changed to Panasonic 1 year ago (see this thread), and since then eneloops sold in Japan are under Panasonic brand.. And I do not believe they would go back to rebrand them again to Eneloop.. although I would love to see that happen. And they are made in Japan.. as far as I can trust their packaging.. It says: made in Japan (in Japanese).
Yes, they are manufactured in the Twicell factory, but a test showed that the Fujitsu performed differentnly from the original eneloop.. (it was only 1 test, so maybe we should send a few batteries to HKJ)
And the Fujitsu are more expensive than eneloop.
So if you were correct, it would mean that Panasonic started manufacturing the current Panasonic eneloops BK-3MCC in 2013 in China? Because they can`t keep the same designation that Twicell used? Why would they still show: Made in Japan?
Where did you buy your batteries from? I`m really curious to see when and where they become available.
At the same time, I do not believe Japan will sell made in China eneloop batteries here.
I didn`t know they would change Eneloop XX to Eneloop PRO in Europe.
Found the new report here: http://www.panasonic-batteries.com/eu/news/panasonic-launches-eneloop-rechargeable
Panasonic do indeed have access to battery technology developed by Sanyo, and I don’t think there’s any reason to expect that the NiMH batteries developed for automotive use would employ anything less than the best battery technology Sanyo had to offer.
This doesn’t mean that Panasonic have necessarily funneled this design/manufacturing expertise into their new consumer battery manufacturing endeavours, but it’s certainly possible and dare I say likely that they have.
Hi Pipifax. No I’m not saying that. The packaging & the cell origin are two different things.
The new labelling applies to the Panasonic branded eneloop for all export markets (so not Japan). So that’s a new packaging standard regardless of cell country of manufacture.
At present the China made cells are just starting to be sold in the ASEAN region with that will extend to all Asia/Oceania territory. Europe apparently rejected the China made cells however one would wonder how long Panasonic headquarters will take to overule regional decisions.
I don’t know on your third point as it’s too early to say without thorough testing however I did see a year or so ago some accelerated cycle tests done on the previous generation of Evolta’s and whilst they were spec’d almost identically to the UTGB 3rd generation eneloop they were quite inferior after a few hundred cycles with capacity dropping markedly in comparison to the UTGB cells. The Evolta’s also exhibited much higher internal resistance so were not so good at delivering higher currents compared to eneloop.
So in saying that you can probably read I’m pretty certain the Wuxi made eneloop are Wuxi made Evolta’s with a different label. Panasonic does owns both brands….
I understand completely your reticence and your hope the outstanding eneloop remains as is. It may, it may not however the now owned by FDK Twicell technology will continue regardless off the brand on the wrapper. I can assure you the technology used by the Panasonic factory is not and cannot be the same for reasons I’ve already pointed out. Whether they’ll spend the billions of dollars & the time that the Toshiba/Sanyo now FDK engineers and chemists did to create an equal or better NiMH technology remains to be seen. It’s unknown at this stage whether Panasonic will completely move to their own production however as was stated in the previous post reply it’s interesting to note that Panasonic Europe and clearly the home market of Japan have remained with the FDK Twicell made cells as the source of eneloop for their markets. FYI the high capacity black cells will continue to be sourced from FDK Twicell.
The source/s are very direct. I can’t say more than that other than it’s from all companies involved.
You are correct. nothing I’ve said contradicts this. For Japan nothing has changed as yet. Maybe there will be no change for the Japan market. Japan was until now the only market to have the BK-3MCC (HR-3UTGC) 2100 cycle cells.
Best you test some more. The HR-xUTGB & Fujitsu HR-xUTA are the same cells. The manufacturer is very clear about this. I’d love to provide you proof but that’s up to them not me. As you certainly know there are 4 standard capacity grades or models per se. The original HR-xUTG 1000 cycles, the UTGA 1500 cycle, the UTGB 1800 cycle and the UTGC 2100 cycle as well as the two high capacity versions of the HR-xUWXA & slightly upgraded capacity UWXB. There are not different grades within these designations. QC is very tight with this. A number of these versions are being sold to other companies as has been speculated elsewhere in these forums.
On price I couldn’t tell you about the retail prices however at price from factory Fujitsu is cheaper as it’s obviously direct from FDK Twicell however Panasonic’s price is good as they’ve been until recently the major customer for the product.
Production of the 2100 cycle cells has been underway in Wuxi for some months. Eneloop labelled product started coming of the Wuxi line in January 2014 to the best of my knowledge. Hence the date code 01-2014 in the photo.
I agree with you. I think it’s misleading to use the BK-3MCC model number for both Japan and China made eneloop but that’s clearly what Panasonic have done! The AAA is of course BK-4MCC form both sources. I expected the Chinese made eneloops to have different model numbers.
I didn’t buy the batteries. I was emailed the photos. They are just going to market now in HK & Singapore and will be sold in all parts of ASEAN/Oceania once UTGB stocks are depleted.
Again I agree with you. It certainly appears Japan as with Europe will continue to source supply from FDK Twicell at least for the time being.
This following statement is pure speculation on my part. However as with most multinational public companies, a small degradation of performance will in reality be barely notice by the general consumer if at all. Only the most ardent enthusiast or engineeering type will really be looking for and find any differences. If capacity has dropped to less than 70% after 1500 cycles instead of 2100 cycles who really will notice? However a significant cost reduction by removing a profit tier and indeed insourcing rather than outsourcing production coupled with a price rise for a published improvement in performance is going to generate a lot more profit for Panasonic. Cynical as this may be. Would you do any different in Panasonic’s shoes?
Who said it wasn`t? the only thing we want to see is proof :)
I provided the test betwen the 2 cells which showed they were different.. (that could be just that 1 test)
But without more proof its still up for debate.
New Eneloops are Evoltas?
apart from that. Toshiba already has a new 2550mAh Min. capacity high end cell on the market.. about 100mAh above the eneloops..but I guess only available in Japan.
[quote=accumulator]
I can assure you the technology used by the Panasonic factory is not and cannot be the same for reasons I’ve already pointed out. Whether they’ll spend the billions of dollars & the time that the Toshiba/Sanyo now FDK engineers and chemists did to create an equal or better NiMH technology remains to be seen.[/QUOTE]
As I pointed out earlier, Panasonic have inherited the NiMH technology that Sanyo was using in the production of battery packs for automotive use (and portable rechargeable packs for power tools and the like as well). Are we to believe that Eneloop-grade design principles and production techniques wouldn’t have made it into that particular Sanyo division before it was absorbed into Panasonic? That technology sharing never occurred? It’s possible I guess, but I would say unlikely. At the very least I think it’s possible that Panasonic are indeed now in a position to improve their existing NiMH product line to match the Eneloop performance levels that everyone has come to expect. And perhaps they’ve done just that.
Earlier you mentioned that a 5% performance difference was evidence of fundamentally different product lines, but I’ve since found places in which Eneloop charge retention is stated to be between 65 and 70% over 5 years anyway: http://panasonic.net/energy/battery/eneloop/lineup/
Further, I find it a little difficult to believe Panasonic was suddenly able to improve their Evolta NiMH batteries to exactly match Eneloop product specifications unless the technology is essentially the same. Unless they’re simply fudging the numbers. Maybe they are, who knows. Or maybe there are some thus far undisclosed caveats. In the end what I’m essentially doing here is critically evaluating your hypothesis to try to get a sense of it’s potential truth value because although you’ve provided a lot of useful information, definitive references are missing and as such there’s considerable room for interpretation.
Because faking it, and then successfully keeping all those involved on several continents quiet about it, is easier than actually going there. Two people can keep a secret, but only if one of them is dead.
Seriously, the number of people directly involved, the number of scientists who studied and paid attention at the time, and subsequently, it would be far harder to fake it, than to actually go there.
