I`d like some help and feedback on my Eneloop website please......

[magellan]

It looks great. Thank you for all the information and hard work.

The only thing is, the gray text is a little hard to read for aging eyes. Any chance you can just make it plain black?

 

[Viking]

As documented in my previous post, Sanyo Specifically writes that eneloop 1st and 2nd generation is tested under the conditions of IEC61951-2: 2003(7.4.1.1).

I have now also found sanyo and panasonic catalogs for generation 3 and 4 were the two companies just as clearly refer to IEC61951-2: 2003 (7.4.1.1) and IEC61951-2 (7.5.1.3), the latter test is for generation 4.
Be aware that IEC61951-2 (7.5.1.2 ) and IEC61951-2 (7.5.1.3) is the exact same thing, since paragraph (7.5.1.3) doesn't actually have a test of its own, but simply states the test must take place under the conditions mentioned in paragraph 7.5.1.2. That was the main reason I previously recommended also to read paragraph 7.5.1.3.

7.5.1.3 Cylindrical cells dimensionally interchangeable with primary cells


The cell shall be tested in accordance with 7.5.1.2. The total number of cycles obtained when
the test is completed shall be not less than:

• 500 for AAA cells with a rated capacity less than 800 mAh;
• 300 for AAA cells with a rated capacity of 800 mAh or more;
• 500 for AA cells with a rated capacity less than 2100 mAh;
• 300 for AA cells with a rated capacity of 2100 mAh or more;
• 500 for D and C cells.

http://www.ptl-global.com/Upload/036BSEN6195122011-16203028481.pdf

Below are 3 quotes from Sanyo where they mention test conditions for generation 3 and again speciffically
refer to IEC61951-2 : 2003(7.4.1.1) in page 2, 3 and 11

eneloop rechargeable batteries represent renewable energy
and can be charged up to 1,800*1 times! Using eneloop rechargeable
batteries will help in the reduction of disposable waste and thus benefit
the environment. Let's keep batteries out of our landfill.
* 1: A guideline for battery life based on IEC61951-2 : 2003(7.4.1.1)

eneloop:
Rechargeable up to 1,800 times.


A guide-line for battery life based on IEC61951-2:2003(7.4.1.1)

*5 Battery life is based on IEC61951-2(7.4.1.1)

http://alpha-energy.ru/D/0000003752/CH_Sanyo_Eneloop_2012_en.pdf



And below, quotes from a panasonic catalog also for generation 3 taken from first and last page. (The catalog is taken from your website by the way)
Unfortunately this PDF doesn't allow me to copy/paste. But in first section on page 1 is written "the new eneloop batteries are also rechargeable approximately 1,800 times *2"


On the last page (note *2) indicates: "General estimate based on the IEC 61951-2(7.4.1.1) testing conditions (the number of times a battery can be recharged changes according to the use conditions and equipment used)"

http://eneloop101.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Announcement-eneloop-3rd-gen-2011.pdf


And below quotes from a panasonic generation 4 eneloop catalog:
There are more references than those cited below. I recommend enter "IEC" in the search box, that's the easiest way to find and read them.

Recharge *2 up to 2100 times

Cycle life *2

Note *2 indicates the following: "Panasonic internal testing IEC61951-2 (7.5.1.3)"


http://www.panasonic-eneloop.eu/pdf/99152100_ENG_eneloopCat_2015_HR.pdf


Another interesting part I found from the latter PDF was a reference to IEC61951-2(7.3.2), which I suspect is identical to JIS C8708 2013 (7.3.2) the one a EU Panasonic employee had referred to you said.That test however is about capacity/discharge.

So now we have clear documentation that both generation 1,2,3 and 4 from both panasonic and Sanyo are testet under respectively IEC 61951-2:2003(7.4.1.1) and IEC61951-2:2011 (7.5.1.2/7.5.1.3) for the cycle test. That also tell us that JIS 8708 2007 and JIS 8708 2013 are identical to the IEC versions above regarding the cycle test I would say.

 

[kreisl]

I just checked and added the question to the FAQ.

:twothumbs

the new FAQ item is excellent!! Very helpful and clear and eindeutig. Thanks for having added it, appreciated.
( i didn't understand the mit.edu explanation of SOC, too confusing, yeah we don't need that thx )

 

[ChibiM]

Love your devotion
But after a long internet search I just found another site with the original 2003 release from IEC. Thanks a lot.. Downloaded it for reference, thanks a lot!
As you can see the 2003 and 2011 IEC editions are completely identical for the cycle/endurance test. I compared them both, 2003:7.4.1.1 and 2011:7.5.1.2 and can`t find a difference either. The way I asked the employee is: I see that the coding (which I didnt check...my mistake) for testing has changed, would this mean that the testing has changed? And the employee answered: we have tested 10 years old cells to come to this conclusion...so my wrong interpretation was that they changed the Measurement... which I now learned are not. Also the employee didnt refer to any specific JIS pages or anything.. It was just my wrong assumption because of the different codes and the answer of the employee. I will correct that on my website.Thanks a lot for clearing this up!!! that really adds value to my research so much!!

While searching for the old IEC version I also found two old Sanyo Eneloop guide books for 1. and 2. generation eneloop.
It states that also the old tests (7.4.1.1 (2007)) was indeed IEC standards (see page 4 and 11 on the links below the quotes). Now you have documentation for how the old test was done too if you are interested. Yep, that is great. I had the latter one. The only thing that draws my attention is that it refers to the 61951-2 instead of 61951-1.. I assume they are the same thing..


No thank you, only if you find discrepancy between the two versions. Nope, but I found that the 2011 IEC version you linked to is a little more detailed while talking about the Charging procedure, saying within a relative humidity of 65% plusminus 20%. 2011:7.2 and 2003:7.1
After the quotes from the old Sanyo Eneloop guide book above, I think that also the old JIS version was Identical to IEC, although I haven't checked that edition. But everything indicates it.
Yep.. seems to be the case!
Yes exactly

 

[ChibiM]

It looks great. Thank you for all the information and hard work.

The only thing is, the gray text is a little hard to read for aging eyes. Any chance you can just make it plain black?

Thanks! Well, that is probably the Wordpress Theme. Hopefully I will get around figuring out how to change that all in 1 go. I can do it manually, but each page is built up with page builder called Beaver Builder, which makes it very very hard to do it manually... But good to know!. Thanks for the feedback

 

[ChibiM]

Great stuff. Now I am getting a little used to your messages because after reading and comparing the PDF files I can finally follow you

Be aware that IEC61951-2 (7.5.1.2 ) and IEC61951-2 (7.5.1.3) is the exact same thing, since paragraph (7.5.1.3) doesn't actually have a test of its own, but simply states the test must take place under the conditions mentioned in paragraph 7.5.1.2. That was the main reason I previously recommended also to read paragraph 7.5.1.3.
Yep, I followed that!

And below, quotes from a panasonic catalog also for generation 3 taken from first and last page. (The catalog is taken from your website by the way)
Unfortunately this PDF doesn't allow me to copy/paste. But in first section on page 1 is written "the new eneloop batteries are also rechargeable approximately 1,800 times *2" On the last page (note *2) indicates: "General estimate based on the IEC 61951-2(7.4.1.1) testing conditions (the number of times a battery can be recharged changes according to the use conditions and equipment used)"
Yep, I got that!

Another interesting part I found from the latter PDF was a reference to IEC61951-2(7.3.2), which I suspect is identical to JIS C8708 2013 (7.3.2) the one a EU Panasonic employee had referred to you said.(That was my misinterpretation.. see my previous reply)That test however is about capacity/discharge.

So now we have clear documentation that both generation 1,2,3 and 4 from both panasonic and Sanyo are testet under respectively IEC 61951-2:2003(7.4.1.1) and IEC61951-2:2011 (7.5.1.2/7.5.1.3) for the cycle test. That also tell us that JIS 8708 2007 and JIS 8708 2013 are identical to the IEC versions above regarding the cycle test I would say.
I agree, and thank you SO much for helping out.. It helped me tremendously. Now I can read your posts without getting a headache

 

[ChibiM]

:twothumbs

the new FAQ item is excellent!! Very helpful and clear and eindeutig. Thanks for having added it, appreciated.
( i didn't understand the mit.edu explanation of SOC, too confusing, yeah we don't need that thx )

The more terminology the more confusing sometimes. Well, the MIT doc is just another way of explaining what the 70% would mean. Just in different wording (terminology). So charge and capacity are sometimes used interchangeably so that might be a bit confusing. I hope to not confuse too many people on my website

 

[ChibiM]

It looks great. Thank you for all the information and hard work.

The only thing is, the gray text is a little hard to read for aging eyes. Any chance you can just make it plain black?

Magellan, I edited it, and should be black now.. Just hope it will stay. Black definitely reads easier. I actually would have preferred a different lettertype altogether, but maybe I can do that in the future.

 

[Viking]

While searching for the old IEC version I also found two old Sanyo Eneloop guide books for 1. and 2. generation eneloop. [/COLOR]
It states that also the old tests (7.4.1.1 (2007)) was indeed IEC standards (see page 4 and 11 on the links below the quotes). Now you have documentation for how the old test was done too if you are interested. Yep, that is great. I had the latter one. The only thing that draws my attention is that it refers to the 61951-2 instead of 61951-1.. I assume they are the same thing..

Interesting, I haven't seen 61951-1 before. But when I search for 61951-1 and 61951-2 respectively, The first refers to Nickel-Cadmium, while the latter refers to nickel-metal hydride two very similar chemistries. Are you sure your version is refering to NiMH (nickel-metal hydride), and not Nickel-Cadmium (NiCd or NiCad) ?

 

[ChibiM]

Viking: it's the one that you linked to in post #20. After downloading it I noticed the title of the document, which says -1.

 

[Viking]

Oh you mean, the official edition from IEC. I didn't notice that at all, Thanks for telling me.
I now realize I have made a mistake. The edition is separated into two parts. Part one is about Nickel-Cadmium while part two is about nickel-metal hydride. Unfortunately part two seems to be missing, the part about nimh, the part we are interesing in. I had totally missed that.

I have now tried to find part 2 without any luck. But I'm convinced the condition for the cycle test is the same never the less. My first link to IEC61951-2(2003)7.4.1.1 from batteryspace in post 14 shows the condition specified in the tables are the same. And also, it is exactly the same as the new IEC61951-2:2011 edition all the way. And those two documents we know is about Nimh. I find it highly unlikely that the 2003 test conditions for NiCd are exactly the same as the 2011 test conditions for NiMH, without the 2003 test conditions for NiMH also was it. I'm also pretty sure that my old bookmarked link that unfortunately no longer works was to the right IEC 61951-2 edition.

I guess the cycle test conditions for NiCd and Nimh are the same.

 

[ChibiM]

I didnt notice the one was for nicd. Also I just came across the 2017 which is probably impossible to get without buying the actual PDF file.
They look pretty much the same to me.

 

[Viking]

I didnt notice the one was for nicd. Also I just came across the 2017 which is probably impossible to get without buying the actual PDF file.
They look pretty much the same to me.

Yes I came across that edition too.

You will surely laugh at me, but I just bought the expired IEC 61951-2: 2003 from IEC webshop, the right edition.

As expected it is identical to the Nickel-cadmium version written in part 1 (IEC 61951-1: 2003), except for some insignificant small details. The test also includes button cells where as IEC 61951-1:2003 seems not to. And the table of test conditions is called Table 9, where as in IEC 61951-1: 2003 the table is called Table 11, But the specifications within the table are exactly the same. Paragraph 7.4.1, the section just before 7.4.1.1 is also exactly the same in the NiMH version, including foot notes. And the final text that deals with how the test is completed is also the same.

Only the last part after the test is ended, about the requirements of how many cycles the cell types must be able to handle is not precise the same as can be seen in the last quote, although almost. That doesn't make any difference however, since we are solely talking about test conditions, neither form factor included for the test, or requirements of how many cycles different cell types must be able to handle. It seems like the cycle test conditions for NiMH and NiCD are the same.

7.4 Endurance

7.4.1 Endurance in cycles

Prior to the endurance in cycles test, the cell shall be discharged at a constant
current of 0,2 It A to a final voltage of 1,0 V.

The following endurance test shall then be carried out, irrespective of cell designation, in an
ambient temperature of 20 °C ± 5 °C. Charge and discharge shall be carried out at constant
current throughout, in accordance with the conditions specified in Tables 9,10, 11 and 12.
Precautions shall be taken to prevent the cell-case temperature from rising above 35 °C
during the test, by providing a forced air draught if necessary.

NOTE The actual cell temperature, not the ambient temperature, determines cell performance.

I can't copy/paste table 9 paragraph 7.4.1.1 since it would look odd, but the specifications are the same. The notes inside the table I can copy/paste without it looks too funny though, they are identical too.

a If the cell voltage drops below 1,0 V, discharge may be discontinued.
b It is permissible to allow sufficient open-circuit rest time after the completion of discharge at cycle 50, so as to
start cycle 51 at a convenient time. A similar procedure may be adopted at cycles 100, 150, 200, 250, 300,
350, 400 and 450.

Cycles 1 to 50 shall be repeated until the discharge duration on any 50th cycle becomes less
than 3 h. At this stage, a repeat capacity measurement as specified for cycle 50 shall be
carried out.
The endurance test is considered complete when two such successive capacity cycles give a
discharge duration of less than 3 h. The total number of cycles obtained when the test is
completed shall be not less than:

• 500 for L/LR, M/MR, H/HR or X/XR cells;
• 50 for LT, MT or HT cells;
• 500 for button cell

@ChibiM You got a PM

 

[ChibiM]

Replied your PM.

I changed some settings on my website to use PHP7.0 so if anybody is running into problems, please let me know asap.

 

[Gauss163]

I hope you have better luck finding it than I had. I have spent about an hour or so surfing the net for the graph or a similar one.
Actually I initially thought I could help you, because I had bookmarked the site with that graph, and haved linked to it a couple of times on CPF. unfortunately, the site seems to be gone now. It was this link below, if it was the same site you remembered having seen.

http://csknowledge.panasonic.co.jp/app/answers/detail/a_id/18109/~/%E5%85%85%E9%9B%BB%E6%B1%A0%E3%81%AE%E3%80%8C%E3%81%8F%E3%82%8A%E8%BF%94%E3%81%97%E4%BD%BF%E3%81%88%E3%82%8B%E5%9B%9E%E6%95%B0%E3%80%8D%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AF%EF%BC%9F-pz18109

Seaching on "panasonic pz18109" immediately locates current versions of the page (Google translation excerpted below)

 

[Viking]

Thanks a lot :thumbsup:
That is the page I remember. But how the hell did you know the search parameter was "panasonic pz18109"

 

[Gauss163]

^^^ Looking at the URL, the final "pz18109" seemed to be a good keyword for a search. When web content is moved or reorganized the pages often retain the same final portions of their URL pathname, so as a first step in finding its new location, we can try searching on (relatively) unique parts of the tail of the pathname This often yields a quick way to fix link rot.

 

[Viking]

Ahh... I didn't thought about that.

 

[Groundhog]

Wow. Very thorough! Even have the hand warmers.

Anybody tried the handwarmers yet? I was tempted to buy one last winter but held off.

 

[ChibiM]

Hey Gauss163, that is pretty smart of you. I tried to copy the first part and google it, but with no luck. That pz18109 was a smart idea! Thanks a lot.
I will add that to my FAQ soon.

@groundhog: Well, I havent, but Chloe, member at BLF has them. My wife has some knockoffs that will work but not for long. If you can get your hands on some you should get them.. They are not in production anymore.