Their 18350’s seem to be one of the best available on the market. They might not be consistent. But they’re probably suitable for most 18350 flashlights that don’t have a >10A current drain.
Reviews by HKJ and Battery Mooch might help in deciding whether to try out a particular cell.
What do you mean by that? Is the construction shoddy or something that would lead to cell to cell variance or failure?
Orbtronic makes no claim of ownership of the cell, they tell you the cell is Panasonic and they provide the protection circuit. How can vapecell take a Samsung battery, put their purple vapcell wrapper on it and call it a vapecell? Sounds illegal no? Can I do the same thing, just rewrap batteries and put my name on it?
Toyota put their badge on cars built by BMW and Mazda. Does that make it illegal? No.
Does Orbtronic make their “18350”: 18350 battery 15A 1200mAh Flat Top Li-ion ORBTRONIC or is it a rewrap from some other company like YDL?
The specifications looks similar to a “KeepPower IMR18350 1200mAh”: https://www.keeppower.com.cn/products_detail.php?id=567 and a “Vapcell M11 18350”: https://www.vapcelltech.com/index.php/Show/index/cid/73/id/82.html
Is KeepPower even a battery manufacturer?
Looks like everyone re-wraps them and puts their name on it.
I think if you are going to outright copy something there should be disclosure. This is why authors use footnotes, to give credit to the original writer.
Selling products produced by others under a different name is a tried and true practice. For example Kenmore appliances, after-market car batteries (there are only 3 manufacturers in the US), etc.
And with respect to these batteries no doubt the original manufacturers are selling them to Vapcell with the understanding that they are going to be sold under the Vapcell name.
The question now is…are the Vapcell, Epoch, Keeppower, etc all the same battery, exactly? For example, FN is a company that makes rifle barrels. What happens, is the company who wants barrels, places an order, and their criteria determines the price. All the barrels are made of the same steel on the same machines…but bore straightness, roughness, chrome lining uniformity, etc. are spec’ed and tolerances given which affects reject rate and ultimately price…so you may buy a $275 FN barrel, or a $375 FN barrel, and while they are visibly the same to the eye, and a spectrometer will determine the steel is the same…they are NOT going to, as a whole, be the “same” barrel, even though a “good” cheap barrel MAY end up being better than a more expensive one that barely met spec. (This leads to “my such and such did better than my buddies such and such that cost $100 more…” type posts and tirades, and while true, this only represents a singular comparison event of extreme nature, not typical performance from either.)
So how is it with these batteries? Literally the same…or does each buyer get to set the bar? Now…if that is the case…who’s bar is set the highest?
well if you get samsung’s permission, then sure, you can wrap it in neon green, and say “zoulas” on it.
Cell manufacturers don’t really like the extra liability from their names appearing in 18650 cells used directly by accident-prone consumers, when they read ‘Samsung 35E for sale’ their lawyers are not happy, for sure they are happier with Zouolas 35E. The exception is Molicel, which is cool with selling to the consumer market.
No, “ZoulasFire”.
That’s of course the same with any rebranded item. Though with li-ion batteries I’d be surprised if re-wrappers were able to specify a special run rather than buying the batteries outright. Perhaps lesser grade batteries but we’ll never know for sure.
My comment was really directed to
“zoulas wrote: I think if you are going to outright copy something there should be disclosure. This is why authors use footnotes, to give credit to the original writer.”
and was intended to point out that rebranding is a very common thing in the market place.
Also the rewrappers do get to set their bar since they are selling the batteries under their name and not under the manufacturers. Same as Kenmore appliances having less features than their Whirlpool equivalent (back in the day when Whirlpool was making Kenmore’s).
It would be nice if some of the lesser known manufacturers were mentioned.
Orbtronic on their 18350:
“Recommended charging current: 0.5A or 1A CC/CV (Battery can be charged at 0.25A, but charging time will take longer)”
KeepPower on their 18350:
“Standard Continuous Charging Current: 220mA”
“Maximum Continuous Charging Current: 1.1A”
Vapcell on their M11 18350:
“Standard Charge: 500mA,CCCV 100mA cut-off”
“Quick Charge Current: 1500mA”
They’ve all made suggestions about how to charge their 18350’s.
If they’re all rewraps of the same YDL 18350D, then should the standard and max continuous charging current be the same?
Sofirn fans strongly recommend！！！
we started selling vapcell S4+ chargers, which are powerful and affordable.
If you are interested, pleas CLICK ME TO BUY ON SOFIRN OFFICIAL WEBSITE
Hi I was wondering if you can tell me who the OEM is for the Vapcell F14 1400mah 18350? also do you know if the F14 has UL 1642 certification?
Make yourself at home, nvukelja!
F14 has stable quality and very few customer complaints
F14 currently has UN38.3, MSDS, CE certificate, but not UL certificate yet
If the market potential is large, UL can be considered
Hi, thank you for responding to my message! To give you the run down, I built a wearable air purifier and chose the F14 because of its compact size and offers more power than other batteries this size. Unfortunately I’ve hit a problem, in order to sell in California I need approval from the California Air Resource Board (CARB) which requires UL 507 for the device. Part of the requirement in UL 507 is that the battery must be UL 1642 certified. At what volume do you think Vapcell would consider getting UL for this battery? If you know who I could contact about this could you possibly share their info with me via message?