See below, the repeated C9000 tests (steps: s#01-s#06, s#08, s#10, s#13) prove that C9000 is very consistent at showing that the 4 cells have the following properties
- AA#1 and AA#2 have about the same capacity. pretty much equal!
- AA#8 has about the same capacity as AA#1&AA#2 too, or it is slightly higher.
- AA#4 has definitely the highest capacity of all 4 cells.
- All 4 cells are on the same level of capacities. for a chosen test, the average difference between AA#4 and the rest is typically not more than 15mAh
After each test step i left the 4 cells for many hours in the C9000 (in order to get a stationary condition in the cells) and then i put them altogether in a single 1S4P battery holder (in order to get a equalized voltage in the cells). Here again, i left the 4 cells for many hours in the battery holder, so that they would have the identical voltage before starting the next test step. "Many hours" was anything between 4-8hrs, for example over night.
Refresh&Analyze @1000mA/-500mA, Discharge @-500mA| c9000 program | notes | slot1 | slot2 | slot3 | slot4 | more notes ;-) |
my 8 Eneloop Glitter had 2037mAh when brand-new |
i picked the 4 cells with similar capacity |
Eneloop AA#1 | Eneloop AA#2 | Eneloop AA#4 | Eneloop AA#8 | i've been using the other 4 cells (AA#3,#5,#6,#7) for XP4 tests hehe |
| s#01: Refresh&Analyze | did several R&A's before but i am counting this one as "s#01" |
1989mAh | 1989mAh | 1991mAh | 1994mAh | See? they are indeed very similar |
| s#02: Refresh&Analyze | between s#01 and #02 i did several other tests, so i had to do this new R&A |
1954mAh |
1960mAh |
1966mAh |
1961mAh |
cells are still on the same level, just a lower level |
| s#03: Discharge |
after each step, i leave the 4 cells in the C9000 for hours and then equalize them for hours |
1912mAh |
1913mAh |
1918mAh |
1916mAh |
perfect result because they show same level and similar "tendency" |
| s#04: Refresh&Analyze |
another R&A to get the cells back charged! |
1990mAh |
1990mAh |
1997mAh |
1990mAh |
wow, even nicer result! let's note the tendency, it is AA#1 ≈ #2 ≤ #8 < #4 |
| s#05: Discharge |
for data integrity let's discharge them again |
1898mAh |
1881mAh |
1917mAh |
1905mAh |
not bad result. about similar level and tendency. it's okay. |
| s#06: Refresh&Analyze |
before we can start nc2500 discharge tests we must recharge again of course lol |
1960mAh |
1963mAh |
1970mAh |
1961mAh |
not bad result. same level and similar tendency, AA#4 > #8 ≈ #1 ≈ #2 |
| s#07: Discharge from 4×1.4434V |
1st nc2500 test: discharging AA#1,#2,#8! "mAh" is c9000 LCD, "nCh" is nc2500 LCD. |
1990nCh |
1980nCh |
1913mAh |
1970nCh |
wrong tendency, nor have AA#1,#2,#8 a similar level. that's bad! |
| s#08: Refresh&Analyze |
let's reset the 4 cells before we repeat the tests. this way they get charged too lol |
1949mAh |
1954mAh |
1963mAh |
1961mAh |
good result because same level and correct tendency AA#1 ≈ #2 ≤ #8 < #4 |
| s#09: Discharge from 4×1.4467V |
2nd nc2500 test: discharging AA#1,#2! they should be equal, and lower than AA#4 |
1994nCh |
1987nCh |
1904mAh |
1918mAh |
AA#1≈#2 okay, but level is wrong. too high. much higher than AA#4 |
| s#10: Refresh&Analyze |
for the next test we must charge first lol |
1953mAh |
1956mAh |
1966mAh |
1965mAh |
tendency perfect, level the same. great result! |
| s#11: Discharge from 4×1.4600V |
3rd nc2500 test: discharging AA#1,#8! |
2018nCh |
1898mAh |
1929mAh |
2000nCh |
AA#1 is ~118mAh higher than what c9000 would have measured. tendency wrong too! |
| s#12: Charge in xp4 to stationary voltage |
4th nc2500 test: discharging AA#2,#4! |
1.4855V 1955mAh |
1.4866V 2047nCh |
1.4856V 2025nCh |
1.4885V 1956mAh |
AA#1 ≈ #8 as expected but AA#2,#4 are on too high level and wrong tendency |
| s#13: Refresh&Analyze |
checking cells before declaring this test series as finished |
1969mAh |
1966mAh |
1976mAh |
1965mAh |
perfect result. same level, correct tendency! |
Summary:
See above, the four NC2500 discharge tests leave no room for data interpretation other than this: The NC2500 shows too high discharge capacities compared to the C9000. On average, for a particular cell (Eneloop AA, nominal 2000mAh) the NC2500 would measure a ~80-120mAh higher discharge capacity than the C9000 would display as final result in the LCD. In addition, NC2500 doesn't get the tendency right either!
C9000 discharge capacity measurements seem very consistent and accurate.
NC2500 discharge capacity measurements seem inconsistent and inaccurate and certainly do not match the C9000 results.