Duracell Ion Core AA & AAA

[UnknownVT]

I requested a pack of these AA's for Xmas so if I get them I will post back here.

Ion-Core AAs are 2x 4-pk for $12.50 + free shipping on eBay - that's $6.25/4-pk
(no tax, no gas either)
prob cheaper than a single 4-pack in a local brick & mortar shop....

Just search for "Duracell propay" on fleaBay,
(no affiliation with the listing or vendor)
then do due diligence on photos and description, before parting with money.

I got my Ion-Core AA in post #52

best,

 

[Grijon]

Wow, you guys are awesome! Thank you all so much for sharing all of this.

I have 16 Tenergy 2600mAh AAs that I don't believe are LSD; when I received them they were too discharged to light up my single cell Fenixes at all. I bought them less than 2 months ago and their wrappers are already cracked open. Basically, I've lost faith in them for emergency use.

Thanks to all the information in this thread I'm fully confident that I can go buy these...Duraloop Pros? LOL! But really, I'm going to get four quads from Walmart for $11 each and then KNOW that I've got quality, reliable, LSD Eneloop Pros for a great price - which will please me to no end. Then I can continue to use the Tenergy until they die - and not worry about when that will be since I'll get to put the Eneloops into full service at that time!

You guys rock, and I thank you.

 

[Grijon]

For me, it's worth the extra ~$4/pack to not have to deal with sorting out fakes online - to each their own, and I say Rock On to those who do save the money by doing so!

 

[WalkIntoTheLight]

I have 16 Tenergy 2600mAh AAs that I don't believe are LSD; when I received them they were too discharged to light up my single cell Fenixes at all. I bought them less than 2 months ago and their wrappers are already cracked open. Basically, I've lost faith in them for emergency use.

Well, of course they aren't LSD. Tenergy's LSD batteries are the Tenergy Centura, and they are 2000mAh cells. They also sell "Tenergy Premium" AA cells, which are not LSD, but I thought they were 2500mAh (not 2600).

Maybe you got fakes?

 

[Grijon]

Well, of course they aren't LSD. Tenergy's LSD batteries are the Tenergy Centura, and they are 2000mAh cells. They also sell "Tenergy Premium" AA cells, which are not LSD, but I thought they were 2500mAh (not 2600).

Maybe you got fakes?

Uninformed purchasing on my part; my enthusiasm was greater than my research. At that time in my flashaholic journey I erroneously assumed that these days all NiMH were LSD - I've since learned better thanks to CPF. That's why I'm so happy and grateful for the experts on here and current threads like this one; I'm learning so much!!

I don't think that they're fakes as I bought them from fenix-store.com, which I believe is a CPF-approved vendor (please pardon my forum-speak ignorance, but I hope you know what I'm trying to say) and that vendor has been STELLAR in all other regards (aside from the website's English). Here's the link to what I bought: http://www.fenix-store.com/tenergy-AA4PK/

I am planning on contacting them soon to ask if broken wrappers are a safety concern, or merely cosmetic.

 

[MidnightDistortions]

Wow, you guys are awesome! Thank you all so much for sharing all of this.

I have 16 Tenergy 2600mAh AAs that I don't believe are LSD; when I received them they were too discharged to light up my single cell Fenixes at all. I bought them less than 2 months ago and their wrappers are already cracked open. Basically, I've lost faith in them for emergency use.

Thanks to all the information in this thread I'm fully confident that I can go buy these...Duraloop Pros? LOL! But really, I'm going to get four quads from Walmart for $11 each and then KNOW that I've got quality, reliable, LSD Eneloop Pros for a great price - which will please me to no end. Then I can continue to use the Tenergy until they die - and not worry about when that will be since I'll get to put the Eneloops into full service at that time!

You guys rock, and I thank you.

Yeah i don't have much faith for HSD NiMHs in emergencies either. Those Tenergy 2600mAh are better used for regular usage.

 

[UnknownVT]

I also bought and just received 2x 4-pk of the Ion-Core AAA. (ordered off eBay Dec/1 @ $10.50 ie: $5.25/4-pk AAA)
Please remember only the Ion-Core AA are reputed to be re-badged Eneloop XX
The Ion-Core AAA are "merely" re-badged regular Eneloops 2nd gen or later.

Again they are real -
Initial out of the pack capacity (discharge @ 200mA =~ 0.2C)

# mAh
3 516 }
4 519 } using Maha/PowerEX C9000
5 518 } discharge @ 200mA
6 517 }

7 378 }
8 399 } using Opus BT-C3100 v2.1
9 383 } discharge @ 200mA
10 384}

Note:
#3-6 code: 32858676HF
#7-10 code: 40938676Y4

Notice how much more initial out of pack capacity the first set #3-6 (code: 32858676HF) has over #7-10 (code: 40938676Y4)
In test of my most recent 8x Ion-Core AA in post #52 above - the Maha/PowerEX C9000 gave slightly lower readings, than the Opus BT-C3100 v2.1 for the same code AA's.

Because of possible difference in readings between my two charger/analyzers -
I've sort of mixed it up for these Ion-Core AAA for the full capacity test -
for Maha/PowerEX C9000 refresh & analyze on #3-5 and #9 (different embossed codes).
intend to use the Test cycle of the Opus on #7,8,10 and #6 for the full capacity.

I will return to update the results as they become available.

The first full capacity results are interesting enough to warrant me making a new post
(I will also update my main post #59 for completeness)

First full capacity test:

# mAh (full Capacity)
3 749 }
4 758 } using Maha/PowerEX C9000 R&A charge 400mA, discharge 200mA
5 753 }
6 767 > using Opus BT-C3100 v2.1 Test mode charge 500mA, discharge 500mA (cannot vary Opus settings)

7 836 }
8 902 } using Opus BT-C3100 v2.1 Test mode charge 500mA, discharge 500mA (cannot vary Opus settings)
10 825 }
9* 829 > using Maha/PowerEX C9000 R&A charge 400mA, discharge 200mA

It seems the second set #7-10 (code: 40938676Y4) measures noticeably higher full capacity than the first set #3-6 (code: 32858676HF)

Set #3-6 (code: 32858676HF) results are a bit lower but seems to be in line with my very first 2 Ion-Core AAA (code: 30518676AN) (see post #1)

============================================
SPECULATION: (Please note: this is not anything definitive)

Based on the assumption the embossed codes have some relation with date of production
(best guess: the first digit is the year as in 3=2013, 4=2014;
the next 3 digits may be the day in the year.)

So my first 2 AAA -
#1-2 (code: 30518676AN) were 2013, day 51

these most recent 2x 4-pks:
#3-6 (code: 32858676HF) are 2013, day 285
#7-10 (code: 40938676Y4) are 2014, day 093

It would seem that the later production for Ion-Core AAA marked 4093 come pre-charged with less than 50% of their full capacity
BUT they seem to have noticeably higher full capacity than those marked 3285 under test.

Therefore my speculation is from about the start of code 40... Ion-Core AAA may have changed to a different/later(?) generation of standard Eneloop AAA

Of course all this is based on very limited sample of 10 Ion-Core AAA.

But anyone else with Ion-Core AAA please check the embossed codes and see if codes starting with 40 and later are actually like mine?

Thanks,

 

[ChrisGarrett]

Well, the only comment that I'll make is that you're all over the map with your testing of those cells. Two different chargers, two different discharge rates and two different charge rates.

That being said, within the pairs tested, even at varying rates of discharge and charge, the two batteries are fairly close to one another, except for that one pair which has a 7.3% spread and is not all that unusual.

Pick a charger, do a break-in, or whatever and then see what you see for each batch code. We can always manipulate and cheat the numbers up, or down, by decreasing the discharge/charge currents, or increasing them.

Chris

 

[UnknownVT]

Well, the only comment that I'll make is that you're all over the map with your testing of those cells. Two different chargers, two different discharge rates and two different charge rates.

That being said, within the pairs tested, even at varying rates of discharge and charge, the two batteries are fairly close to one another, except for that one pair which has a 7.3% spread and is not all that unusual.

Pick a charger, do a break-in, or whatever and then see what you see for each batch code. We can always manipulate and cheat the numbers up, or down, by decreasing the discharge/charge currents, or increasing them.

Chris

Thanks.

Sorry, I used both my chargers because of expediency
(I did the same with my most recent Ion-Core AAs - post #52
but because there was no significant difference between the two sets - they were the same code
it needed/generated no further comments.)

My two chargers:
Maha/PowerEX C9000 is more flexible - but more awkward to use.
Opus BT-C3100 v2.1 - is easier to use - but its preset modes are not variable - also mine has a fault with slot #1 (leftmost) where I cannot trust its readings - so I don't use it - in effect a 3-slot charger/analyzer.

I reported/disclosed enough information - so that the conditions were clear.

Those are the readings I got - under those conditions -
as you said yourself they do seem pretty consistent within the codes/batches.

I did this just to give an idea of how those batteries were -

I was not expecting a noticeable difference between the 2 codes/batches
the difference between the two sets were enough to warrant posting the results - as is - with the conditions disclosed.

Others can do their own testing.

However in mitigation:
I did mix one of each code to test in the other charger -
their results showed no significant difference to others in their same batch/code.

Note: Because of these comments -
I have put a pair each from the different batches/codes in for a discharge cycle in the Maha C9000 at 200mA (=~0.2C) (from full checked they said "done" on the Maha.)
#3-4 (code: 32858676HF) and #7-8 (code: 40938676Y4) -
will report back when they're done.

Thanks

 

[ChrisGarrett]

I've run into the same problem, at least in the beginning, with my BC-700 and C-9000. Being kind of new to documenting things, I originally used both chargers and got differing numbers, mostly because 'we think' that the LaCrosse chargers (at least the BC-700) yields roughly a 10% higher number than the Maha.

We know this because the BC-700 terminates at a slightly higher voltage than the Maha's 1.47v, so it's presumably pumping more electrons into a given battery.

Anyhow, going back to some of my initial notes/test readings, where I used the BC on this set and the Maha on that quad, it can be somewhat confusing.

Since I started doing my '1 year discharge tests' I'm using only the Maha and I'm using specific rates for charge and discharge, to keep things consistent.

Chris

 

[UnknownVT]

I've run into the same problem, at least in the beginning, with my BC-700 and C-9000. Being kind of new to documenting things, I originally used both chargers and got differing numbers, mostly because 'we think' that the LaCrosse chargers (at least the BC-700) yields roughly a 10% higher number than the Maha.

We know this because the BC-700 terminates at a slightly higher voltage than the Maha's 1.47v, so it's presumably pumping more electrons into a given battery.

Anyhow, going back to some of my initial notes/test readings, where I used the BC on this set and the Maha on that quad, it can be somewhat confusing.

Since I started doing my '1 year discharge tests' I'm using only the Maha and I'm using specific rates for charge and discharge, to keep things consistent.

Chris

Normally this would not be a problem for me - as I usually get just 4 batteries - which would normally mean use of just one charger/analyzer.

The two latest occasions were different as I got 2 quads each and for expediency I used both chargers -
however for AAA the Opus Test mode is significantly different from the R&A mode on the Maha (standard optimal charge at 0.5C discharge at 0.2C, can be set)


However -

However in mitigation:
I did mix one of each code to test in the other charger -
their results showed no significant difference to others in their same batch/code.

Note: Because of these comments -
I have put a pair each from the different batches/codes in for a discharge cycle in the Maha C9000 at 200mA (=~0.2C) (from full checked they said "done" on the Maha.)
#3-4 (code: 32858676HF) and #7-8 (code: 40938676Y4) -
will report back when they're done.

 

[Viking]

It is understandable you are getting quite different readings , when using different chargers for charging as well as discharging. both because of different termination algorithms for the chargers , but also if choosing different rates as well.

The chargers won't fill the cells equally up. But you may already know this.
This test isn't after all about testing the chargers , I get that.

But someone else has previously tested the chargers readings relative to each other for accuracy , maybe it will interest you.

It showed that the readings for the C9000 and Opus BT-C2000 was almost identical. Same goes for the CBA II.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?382780-Discharging-accuracy-testing

 

[UnknownVT]

It is understandable you are getting quite different readings , when using different chargers for charging as well as discharging. both because of different termination algorithms for the chargers , but also if choosing different rates as well.

But someone else has previously tested the chargers readings relative to each other for accuracy , maybe it will interest you.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?382780-Discharging-accuracy-testing

Thank you for the very useful link:

might bear in mind what I have already posted:

However in mitigation:
I did mix one of each code to test in the other charger -
their results showed no significant difference to others in their same batch/code.

Note: Because of these comments -
I have put a pair each from the different batches/codes in for a discharge cycle in the Maha C9000 at 200mA (=~0.2C) (from full checked they said "done" on the Maha.)
#3-4 (code: 32858676HF) and #7-8 (code: 40938676Y4) -
will report back when they're done.

 

[cave dave]

...
Marked on the batteries made in Japan:

...

So one of those batteries is labeled 800mAh and the other is labeled 850mAH. I think that would indicate a generational improvement and not just marketing since testing backs up a capacity improvement. Do the back of the packages say different capacities? You say you ordered these at the exact same time?

Retail buyers might want to look for the higher capacity version (850mAh) unless time and testing shows they have higher self discharge rates.

 

[UnknownVT]

However in mitigation:
I did mix one of each code to test in the other charger -
their results showed no significant difference to others in their same batch/code.

Note: Because of these comments -
I have put a pair each from the different batches/codes in for a discharge cycle in the Maha C9000 at 200mA (=~0.2C) (from full checked they said "done" on the Maha.)
#3-4 (code: 32858676HF) and #7-8 (code: 40938676Y4) -
will report back when they're done.

They're just done

All 4 batteries discharged on Maha/PowerEX C9000 @ 200mA (closest I can get to 0.2C)

# mAh (2nd full capacity)
3 758 }
4 771 } code: 32858676HF

7 836 }
8 845 } code: 40938676Y4

Looking at my previous results it is pretty obvious the Opus gives slightly higher readings than the Maha -
but not as great as the difference between the different batches/codes

BUT these were now discharged under identical conditions all on the Maha at the same time.

Caveat: within the limited sample of two each of the same codes -
it seems consistent that code: 40938676Y4 are noticeably higher in full capacity than code: 32858676HF.


FWIW - I also discharged the remaining two pairs in the Opus BT-C3100 v2.1 @ 200mA -
a pair (one of each code) at a time since I can only use 3-slots.

# mAh (2nd full Capacity)
5 767 }
6 808 } code: 32858676HF

9 861 }
10 906} code: 40938676Y4

As cave dave observed in post #74 just above this -

code: 32858676HF are marked 800mAh
and
code: 40938676Y4 are marked 850mAh
on the batteries.

That obviously explains why I found code: 40938676Y4 with higher capacities despite the fact I used different chargers with different test/analyze charge and discharge currents.

Hopefully these latest discharge results using a pair each in the same chargers using the same discharge current - shows more valid results
and confirms the Ion-Core AAA marked with 850mAh (code: 40938676Y4) do have noticeably higher full capacity than those marked with 800mAh (code: 32858676HF).

Thanks for your patience in all this.

 

[UnknownVT]

So one of those batteries is labeled 800mAh and the other is labeled 850mAH. I think that would indicate a generational improvement and not just marketing since testing backs up a capacity improvement. Do the back of the packages say different capacities? You say you ordered these at the exact same time?

Retail buyers might want to look for the higher capacities unless time and testing shows they have higher self discharge rates.

Good eyes!
Thank you so much for spotting that

I missed that completely!!!

The packs unfortunately (or rather fortunately for my embarrassment! )
say the same 800mAh on the back -


So despite me using different chargers and charge/discharge currents -
the results do seem to reflect the higher capacity.


code: 32858676HF are marked 800mAh
and
code: 40938676Y4 are marked 850mAh
on the batteries.

Thank you!

 

[MidnightDistortions]

Didn't need to refresh these like i did with the Energizers. I did one discharge on them and they all reached 2450mAh up to 2500mAh. Though i used 350mA discharge 700mA charge rate on the La Crosse BC1000.

 

[UnknownVT]

Didn't need to refresh these like i did with the Energizers. I did one discharge on them and they all reached 2450mAh up to 2500mAh. Though i used 350mA discharge 700mA charge rate on the La Crosse BC1000.

Did you mean break-in?

I think the opinion is LSD/pre-charged batteries don't seem to need a break-in.

Thanks for your confirmation.

 

[MidnightDistortions]

Did you mean break-in?

I think the opinion is LSD/pre-charged batteries don't seem to need a break-in.

Thanks for your confirmation.

Well i used the La Crosse charger, i just recharged them to full capacity and then started a refresh. I didn't use the actual break in feature. Either way the the Duracells didn't need a break in and if we are reading the code dates right 3196, would mean that the batteries were manufactured around August of 2013 (i'm guessing here lol). The Energizers are older, manufactured in Jan of 2013 but then they are not using Eneloop technology and those batteries need refreshing/break-in. Either way, it still doesn't hurt to check their capacity from time to time.

 

[SaraAB87]

I like to do the refresh as well on any new pack of batteries I get just because I like to start with a full charge. I know it's not necessary but I just prefer it.