So glad to share XTAR NEW USB-C 4100mWh/2450mAh AA Li-ion Battery was released online. It can charge directly via USB-C cable or a XTAR 1.5V charger, offering a lighter, more sustainable solution for users. Website link:
Main features here:
• Charge capacity 2450mAh, energy 4100mWh
• Consistent and reliable 1.5V output
• Super quick charging time 2.7 hours, with smart LED indicator
• Intelligent safety chip, anti-leakage and multiple protections
• Low-voltage detection function
• Cycle life more than 1200 times
This would be unprecedented for Li-Ions AFAIK, all I’ve seen so far are specced at about 600 cycles.
Has this 1200 number been independently verified? Is it for full discharge-recharge cycles (ie 100% SoC both ways) or for partial discharges/recharges?
A reviewer tested the non USB-C version of these, rated at 4150mWh, but only got about 3200mWh at a discharge rate of 500mA. Would these suffer from the same deficiency of almost 20% less than rated capacity?
What is the difference between this battery and what looks to be the equivalent from Allmaybe, which is rated to 2800mAh?
Xtar often enough has explained, that the “4150 mWh” of the blue AA without USB is the nominal energy of the internal 3.6V 14430 Li-Ion cell before losses due to the voltage conversion :
3.6V x 1150 mAh = 4140 mWh
the advertised “2500 mAh” on the other hand is the claimed capacity the user really should get out of the battery …
because of the 80 to 20 % distribution of 2000 mAh at 1.5V + 500 mAh at 1.1V (@ 500 mA current) the energy after the voltage conversion should be :
2000 mAh x 1.5V + 500 mAh x 1.1V = 3550 mWh
both, the capacity of 2500 mAh as well as the energy of 3550 mWh finally were confirmed by measurement with professional equipment as is used in the Xtar laboratory by the german website akkuvergleichstest.de …
the equipment of reviewers usually is not on that (expensive) level, so they got somewhat lower results for capacity (mAh) and energy (mWh) …
the Allmaybe AA with USB, which is a sub-brand of Xtar, indeed appears very interesting, because the claimed capacity of “2800 mAh” is so much higher than that of the blue AA without USB and that of the blue-white AA with USB …
but it is shown how this presumably has been achieved, there no longer is a distribution into an 1.5V part and an 1.1V part of the capacity, but for the first time from Xtar there is a “smooth voltage decline” over the run-time, that “stretches” the energy of the battery, resulting in more countable mAh at a lower average voltage and allowing to go through all stages of a battery level indicator of a device during the run-time :
Typically, aren’t those 3.6/3.7V cells actually 900mAh? That would be more in line with the testing and values, no? I’m not buying into the 20% conversion losses in modern electronics, lol…
So how does a cell suffering from “conversion losses” still end up with a higher mWh rating? I don’t think the xtar ratings are accurate, especially since our member’s test AND the lab test showed around 3200 to 3550 mWh, which is right around the rating of their older white and blue cells…just saying.
Ideally, sure. But I saw a graph where 1.5V @ 500mA was drawn only for about 3.66 hours, then drops the voltage to 1.1v for just under another hour. That gives around 2100mAh, or 3200mWh.
Reverse mathing gives us 2100mAh × 1.5v ÷ 0.9(efficiency loss rectify) = 3508mWh.
I’m not trying to start any trouble here, I’m just as excited as everyone else for this release, but I just want to make sure we(I) all have the facts straight before splurging on apparently underperforming cells…
that was a typical result from reviewers for the total capacity of the blue AA without USB …
as I mentioned, with expensive equipment at the same level that Xtar uses in their own laboratory, the claimed total 2500 mAh and the energy of 3550 mWh had been confirmed …
in order to get a high number of mAh for advertising, the blue AA as well as the white-blue Xtar AAA do not deliver 90 or 95 % of the capacity at 1.5V and the rest as a battery warning stage at 1.1V, but they deliver 80 % of the capacity at 1.5V and 20 % at 1.1V …
so it was possible to break the records at that time of “2500 mAh” for 1.5V Li-Ion AA and “1000 mAh” for 1.5V Li-Ion AAA …
otherwise they would have missed those benchmarks … 90 % at 1.5V would have led to a total capacity of around 2450 mAh of the blue AA, 95 % at 1.5V to about 2400 mAh …
so, in these cases, “hasta la vista” new record …
but I don’t criticize them for that … 2000 mAh at 1.5V is not bad (@ 500 mA = 0.2C = standard current for capacity measurement) … and 800 mAh in case of the AAA (under optimal conditions, and in this case @ 400 mA current) is very good, especially in comparison to the AAA with USB-C, which are around 400 to 500 mAh …
the cell size 14430 3.6V Li-Ion that often is used in 1.5V Li-Ion AA, nowadays has reached the level of 1300 mAh (Keeppower), Vapcell offers one with 1150 mAh … so from that point there is not really a reason to doubt Xtar’s information, that they use a 14430 with 1150 mAh in the blue AA without USB …
Thanks for the correction, but the label on the batteries should be reporting delivered power, not nominal cell capacity.
If you have a 14500 flashlight with an LED which is CAPABLE of 2000 lumens on paper but not in practice, you report the practical (delivered) output of the finished product, not the rated output of the individual components…
It would be quite pointless to use in a 14500 light. Why waste efficiency by putting a stepped down lithium ion cell into a boost driver?
But for multiple AA lights, it would be very nice to have more than 2A current available. Old eneloops can easily support 4-5A of current (not sure when newer non sanyo made ones can do but I’d assume similar). I use eneloops frequently for some modded 2 AA and even a 4x AA light.
