js's USL reanimation and revivification thread

[Codeman]

Weekly Eneloop 0.5C (1A) discharge test results:

11/15 - 1863 mAh
11/22 - 1863 mAh
11/29 - 1858 mAh (one long 6 minute run)
12/06 - 1850 mAh (1.1A?)
12/13 - 1846 mAh (1.1A)
12/13 - 1858 mAh (1.0A)
12/20 - 1873 mAh

...
js - it just occurred to me that the reason why my capacities are lower than what you saw might be because I'm taking them right when the top-off charge has completed without allowing any time for the trickle charge. If you did allow trickle charging, then that could account for most of the differences between our discharge tests. This is one area that the Triton manual doesn't make very clear. If I understand the manual correctly, the top-off charge runs at the user-specified top-off rate for a fixed 20 minutes after the termination, after which a trickle charge is applied at a non-configurable rate based on the initial charge rate.

Assuming that you did allow time for a trickle charge, how long did you give it?

 

[js]

Ray,

The manual confuses the terms "top off" and "trickle"--as I understand it, the trickle happens at the very end of the standard charge, unbeknownst to you, and is not configurable at all, and the top off happens only if you set it in the options, and only after the peak charge/trickle phase is done--, but however that may be, I was doing exactly the same thing you are doing. So, that won't explain it. It's OK, though! As long as the pack isn't losing capacity, we're good.

 

[Codeman]

Weekly Eneloop 0.5C (1A) discharge test results:

11/15 - 1863 mAh
11/22 - 1863 mAh
11/29 - 1858 mAh (one long 6 minute run)
12/06 - 1850 mAh (1.1A?)
12/13 - 1846 mAh (1.1A)
12/13 - 1858 mAh (1.0A)
12/20 - 1873 mAh
12/27 - 1866 mAh

After 6 weeks and no more than 15mAh variance with the 0.5C discharges, I'm convinced we're not seeing any drop off using the Eneloops in the USL.

 

[milkyspit]

Weekly Eneloop 0.5C (1A) discharge test results:

11/15 - 1863 mAh
11/22 - 1863 mAh
11/29 - 1858 mAh (one long 6 minute run)
12/06 - 1850 mAh (1.1A?)
12/13 - 1846 mAh (1.1A)
12/13 - 1858 mAh (1.0A)
12/20 - 1873 mAh
12/27 - 1866 mAh

After 6 weeks and no more than 15mAh variance with the 0.5C discharges, I'm convinced we're not seeing any drop off using the Eneloops in the USL.

I must say, that is an impressive performance from a set of mild-mannered consumer grade batteries. Very impressive.

 

[js]

Ray,

How about performance during the high current discharges? (i.e. the actual usage runs)? How are they? Do they all seem to be holding the same brightness? No visible deterioration of performance in the field? If so, I'd say that's enough field testing and that we've proven the eneloops are indeed viable for use in a 100 watt incan.

 

[milkyspit]

Ray,

How about performance during the high current discharges? (i.e. the actual usage runs)? How are they? Do they all seem to be holding the same brightness? No visible deterioration of performance in the field? If so, I'd say that's enough field testing and that we've proven the eneloops are indeed viable for use in a 100 watt incan.

Jim, quick question for you... if the Eneloops were being overtaxed in this application, would you expect that we would see some evidence in declining measured capacity by now?

 

[Codeman]

Ray,

How about performance during the high current discharges? (i.e. the actual usage runs)? How are they? Do they all seem to be holding the same brightness? No visible deterioration of performance in the field? If so, I'd say that's enough field testing and that we've proven the eneloops are indeed viable for use in a 100 watt incan.

I haven't noticed any drop off using my Mk1 eyeballs. It's too bad that I didn't think about this when I started, though. :shakehead I've got a light meter and could have set aside a new bulb just for testing the actual output.

 

[js]

Jim, quick question for you... if the Eneloops were being overtaxed in this application, would you expect that we would see some evidence in declining measured capacity by now?

Absolutely, yes. But, I have a habit of getting multiple streams of evidence and data, and it's hard to break. I can't imagine a scenario where the cells would keep C/2 discharge capacity but lose ability to drive the 100W lamp, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I just figured it would be good to get a negative response here as just one more check that everything is as we suspect it is.

Codeman,

No worries. Ye Olde Mk 1 eyeball is acceptable. And besides, as milkyspit's question implies, we would definitely expect to see the effects of the abuse in the C/2 discharge numbers well before the Mk 1 eyeball. I just asked 'cause it was data that was ready and available, so why not have it on record?

 

[Bullzeyebill]

Noted something interesting to me re unloaded vs loaded voltage of my USL cells, checking voltage with DMM fitting prongs into charger jack. I have been letting my USL sit around without using so thought I would turn it on for awhile to drop voltage and then recharge. I checked voltage ever so often unloaded then decided to check loaded voltage and compare. So at time of test unloaded voltage of pack was 13.44 and loaded voltage, light turned on, was under 9 volts. Isn't that quite a drop, and is that normal. Unloaded pack shows about 1.22 volts per cell and loaded dropped to 0.8 volts per cell. I stopped running the light. Unloaded (resting) pack voltage is now 13.40.

Bill

 

[js]

Noted something interesting to me re unloaded vs loaded voltage of my USL cells, checking voltage with DMM fitting prongs into charger jack. I have been letting my USL sit around without using so thought I would turn it on for awhile to drop voltage and then recharge. I checked voltage ever so often unloaded then decided to check loaded voltage and compare. So at time of test unloaded voltage of pack was 13.44 and loaded voltage, light turned on, was under 9 volts. Isn't that quite a drop, and is that normal. Unloaded pack shows about 1.22 volts per cell and loaded dropped to 0.8 volts per cell. I stopped running the light. Unloaded (resting) pack voltage is now 13.40.

Bill

No, that's a low loaded voltage. Try recharging and check again. Could be your cells just need some exercise or are actually on the low side of state of charge (resting voltage is notorious inaccurate for determine SOC for NiMH or NiCd cells). Or it could be more serious. Recharge, do a 6 minute burn, recharge again, then test voltage under load.

By the way, when you say you "fit DMM prongs into the charger jack" I hope you mean that you plugged the charging cable plugs into your DMM, and then attached the charging cable to the pigtail on the USL via the molex micro connectors. Because you should NEVER jam your DMM probe tips into the molex micro connector terminals in the pigtail molex shell. They are very fragile and small.

 

[Bullzeyebill]

Ok, will follow your instructions. Oh, ugh, yes I did carefully connect the prongs of DMM to the pigtails and it won't happen again.

Bill

 

[Bullzeyebill]

Ok, charged pack up and let rest for awhile, connected pigtail to DMM (correct way). Resting voltage of 15.63:

Start 12.90 then each 15 seconds:

12.90
12.22
11.97
11.80
11.68
11.61
11.58
11.57
11.58
11.60 (huh?)
11.62
11.63
11.63 and I stopped, and let rest for awhile then started again:

starting 12.52, then each 15 seconds
12.12
11.96
11.87
11.80
11.76
11.73
11.70
11.68
11.66
11.65 then stopped Total runtime 5 1/2 minutes

First part of run that I stopped was looking strange, and I did not want to continue at that point as voltage was tending up, not down. Continued run showed expected drop off.

I am letting pack cool down and I will discharge with Triton down to about 1 volt X11, and charge back up slowly. What caused anomaly during first 1/2 of run?

Pack is not well at this point, or my DMM is tricking me. No problems noted with my DMM so far. DMM battery reads 8.68 volts.

 

[js]

Bullzeyebill,

Your pack is fine! That's in the ballpark. No worries. The pack going UP in voltage is due to the high draw rate heating up the internals, thus increasing charge mobility, decreasing internal resistance, and as a result, increasing voltage delivered even despite the falling state of charge. Perfectly normal when you're pushing cells to their limits (which is what we're doing here, make no mistake).

You can run these packs down to 10 volts, no problem, and the 62138 is still quite bright at that voltage.

If your pack sits around unused for a while, and you just ask it to up and handle the full load of a 62138 100 watt filament, it will be unhappy about it and will fail to hold much voltage under load. But, all you need to do is charge it up and try again, and that should bring it back. If you turn on and you get very little light out of the filament, THEN there's a problem. Even a pack that's been sitting around should give decent light--unless it's been sitting for so long it's nearly totally self-discharged.

Anyway, keep on using 'er. Things will be fine, I suspect.

 

[Bullzeyebill]

Phew, thanks for responding.

Bill

 

[bwaites]

After many months of confusion, I am finally back on track to get this project completed.

I have emailed all of the people on JS's list who received lights, at least those that I have proper emails for. Some messages were returned, showing that email no longer active.

I have tried to PM those poeple here.

If you are on the list, but haven't received an email or PM, please PM me. I have power supplies and refund checks for chargers ready to mail, but as we now know, at least 4 addresses I had did not receive lights, I want to confirm mailing addresses.

From what I have read in the thread, there are also at least 2 people who will receive lights left, and I suspect a few more. I would ask them to PM me as well, I have sent PM's to them trying to contact them.

I do have additional parts to complete a few more lights for people who got lost in this horrendous shuffle I created. I will do my best to make sure that everyone is finally satisfied.

Bill

 

[Bullzeyebill]

Bill, nice hearing from you.

Bill

 

[bwaites]

Thank you.

The first refund checks/Paypals went out today. If you have replied to my emails/PM's, you should have received some acknowledgement or a refund.

If not, please contact me again.

Bill

 

[Trashman]

Bill, I just emailed you back. Thanks for the refund, but it was too much. I don't believe I ever paid for the Triton upgrade, only for the standard charger and power supply, so let me know cost of the standard charger and power supply, and I'll return you the difference (using the return money function, so Paypal doesn't take a cut.)

 

[Trashman]

Got your email, Bill, and returned you the difference. I'm amazed that Paypal now has that "Personal" option where you can send and receive money, without there being a fee taken. I wonder what made them do that? Somebody on the top must be so rich that he/she is now feeling somewhat generous!

 

[paulr]

Triton and PS refund received, thanks Bill!!! :thumbsup: