You are only about 200 & 140 ma respectively off the claimed 4500 ma for the cell & as the Lii 500 only discharges the cells to about 3.0v I think the capacity is probably right as if they were discharged down to 2.5v you would see a few hundred more ma.
The Liitokala discharges down to 2.85V. Because of the steepness of the voltage drop once the batteries hit the 3.0V threshhold, I don’t believe there would be more than 50mAh gained by discharging down to 2.50V (from 2.85V).
2nd test results:
Running the Fast Test option, 1A charge rate, 500mA discharge rate, the results of my Liitokala Lii-500 was 4479mAh and 4497mAh. This was a significant improvement over the previous NOR Test results.
Note: The Fast Test option records the capacity of the cells based on charging cycle. The NOR Test option records the capacity of the cells based on the discharge cycle.
I’m running the NOR Test again, to check for consistency. If this third test matches the first test, then the differing results (between the first and second tests) may be attributed to the two different test methods. If the third test matches the second test, then the differing results might be caused by the new batteries breaking in.
What about the other aspect such as discharge current measured? How much better or worse if you compare to Keeppower, KK or other high drain 18650?
Good results then & pretty much as the manufacturer claims.
I’d like to, but it takes f … o … r … e … v … e … r to run these tests, given the relatively low charge/discharge rates and the relatively high capacity 26650 cells. Once I get done with the Basen cells, I can try measuring a few 18650’s. At least with the 18650’s, I can test 4 cells simultaneously.
EDIT: I wanted to test my Samsung 30Q’s anyway. Seems like there’s some controversy on the group buy thread about what the latest batch’s capacity is.
i got 4 cells in white boxes. then later got 2 cells in colored “basen” boxes.
the 2 kinds have different tops.
is one better than the other.?
i guess i’m tired of the rewrap lottery.
Do you have a letter scale or kitchen scale? If so, weigh the batteries. The heavier ones seem to have a bit more capacity.
And, if you don’t mind, please report the results here
Otherwise, could you post pictures of your batteries (especially the positive terminal) for us to compare? Thanks!
Third test results and recap:
….Capacity Test No. …. Basen #1 Basen #2
….1. Normal …………… 4292mAh 4362mAh.
….2. Fast Test ……… … 4479mAh 4497mAh.
….3. Normal …………… 4318mAh 4397mAh
Liitokala Lii-500 charger, 1A charge rate, 500mA discharge rate, ambient temperature 68F to 82F.
The Normal Test is more consistent with the procedure that I am familiar with testing battery capacity: charge the battery until it is full, then measure the amount of current that it takes to fully discharge the battery. I am not familiar with the Fast Test methodology: discharge the battery until it is empty, then measure the amount of current that it takes to recharge the battery. HKJ’s review of the Liitokala Lii-500 also showed lower test results for the Normal Test, when compared with the Fast Test; but he didn’t seem concerned about the difference for li-ion cells. (This might have been due to the relatively small sampling. The variation might have been within the statistical deviation of test results.) However, he did comment on the difference being substantial when testing NiMH cells, and said that the Normal Test “looks more correct”. [Link to HKJ review]
The difference between charge and discharge capacity on LiIon will be small if done to exactly the same charge/discharge state, with NiMH it can be 50%.
Here is from my test log for a cell:
25/11-2015 21:44:28 Test: 0.2 Discharge (Ah, Wh):2,560, 9,632 rest v: 2.793
26/11-2015 01:53:05 After test: 0.2 Charged (Ah, Wh):2,575, 10,193 rest v: 4.169
26/11-2015 06:58:15 Test: 0.5 Discharge (Ah, Wh):2,543, 9,459 rest v: 2.794
26/11-2015 11:05:04 After test: 0.5 Charged (Ah, Wh):2,555, 10,107 rest v: 4.169
26/11-2015 13:36:02 Test: 1.0 Discharge (Ah, Wh):2,513, 9,190 rest v: 2.791
26/11-2015 17:40:55 After test: 1.0 Charged (Ah, Wh):2,525, 9,990 rest v: 4.169
26/11-2015 18:55:48 Test: 2.0 Discharge (Ah, Wh):2,496, 8,837 rest v: 2.794
26/11-2015 22:58:44 After test: 2.0 Charged (Ah, Wh):2,505, 9,915 rest v: 4.169
26/11-2015 23:48:42 Test: 3.0 Discharge (Ah, Wh):2,497, 8,574 rest v: 2.796
27/11-2015 03:51:35 After test: 3.0 Charged (Ah, Wh):2,506, 9,922 rest v: 4.169
27/11-2015 04:21:00 Test: 5.0 Discharge (Ah, Wh):2,451, 7,899 rest v: 2.794
27/11-2015 08:21:36 After test: 5.0 Charged (Ah, Wh):2,461, 9,770 rest v: 4.169
The largest difference is 15mA or 0.6% (I would not expect a “cheap” charger to be that precise).
yes they weigh different amounts.
photos are nearly impossible for me
HKJ,
If I understand your test log correctly, 0.5 and 1.0 represent the charge rate in amps for the second and third tests. I don’t understand the 0.2, 2.0, 3.0, and 5.0 results. The Liitokala Lii-500 has no options for testing at 200mA, 2.0A, 3.0A and 5.0A. Or am I misinterpreting your numbering system, the 0.2 is simply the first test, the 0.5 is the second test, etc., having nothing to do with the charging amperage. If so, then what was the charging amperage for each test?
And how would you explain my different results, between the Fast Test and the Normal Test?
I’m in the process of testing some of my other batteries for comparison purposes. Perhaps that information will shed some light on this issue.
It has nothing to do with the LiitoKala, as I wrote it was from my test station (battery test station). The purpose of the table was to show that charge and discharge (Same as fast/normal test) basically gives the same capacity with LiIon. LiitoKala cannot match the precision of my test equipment and will have more difference between the tests.
Thanks for the clarification. I thought the information was from your test results from your review of the Liitokala.
BTW, has all the test equipment that was burnt out been replaced? It looks like you’re back up to speed, churning out a lot of reviews lately.
Guys, while I can see there is a difference in the top cap and that there is a difference in weight, you should see what I got in the way of blue Imren 32650 cells the other day… I ordered 3 5000mAh 32650’s. 2 have one design and the third, while it’s the same wrapper, is drastically different with a longer length as well as top cap. That oddball one almost looks like a protected cell it’s so much longer. I was going for 2 for one MagLite and 1 for a chopped D cell MagLite, but this longer one won’t fit in the chopped light and I won’t pair it with one of the other’s in a 2 cell light. Ugh.
I also ordered a $24.78 Feilong 32650 off Amazon, only to have them claim a week later that it’d been damaged in shipping and was being returned to them. Sorry, no can do, says them. Sunny Sunday or some such name fullfilling the Amazon order. Again, Ugh.
So with the Basen cells coming in with differences, and Imren making changes, what are we to do?
There was noting “burnt out”, but a pile of melted battery holders. A friend of me made a new part for the holders in something that do not melt, when testing the fixed holders I was above 100C on a cell without any problems (Except for the cell).
Oh, I’m not complaining. O:-)
Just testing the batteries (and the charger) to try to get a handle on what it is that I bought.
- So far, it looks like the Basen 26650’s that I received are a little light on delivering their rated storage capacity, but well within the “acceptable” range. Not that it would matter to me, I didn’t buy them for their capacity, I bought them for their high drain properties. I haven’t tested them for that yet (via tail-amp measurements). However, based on other people’s comments, there’s no reason to believe that these batteries will underperform in that particular area.
- And as for the Liitokala charger, it seems that there is a difference between Fast Test results and Normal Test results. While the jury is still out on which one is more accurate, my guess is that the Normal Test will prevail.
Apparently, there is more than one spec’s sheet.
I found this one that states 86.9g + 1g: “[link]”:http://www.basengroup.com/product_view.asp?id=50
You seem to be right, dash.
These are the new specifications of the Basen 26650.
Two days ago I got the same information from Banggood that Basen “upgraded” their product, among other things, the weight.
It seem they upgraded to less weight —> less material —> less capacity. 
So the second lot I got was the “old” cell and the first lot was the “upgraded” cell.
Things come clear to me now. They wrap different cells now.
Generally speaking this is called profiteering. 
they might have done it in response to this group buy. they lowered the price, planning to buy cheaper cells to sell us. you get what you pay for, i guess.