Lacrosse BC-9009 versus BC-900: What differences, if any?

[Light Sabre]

Thanks Tubrbo DV8. I was going to reply to his message, but have been working lots of OT and wasn't going to respond to it until tonight but you beat me to it. You also said things better than I ever could. :thumbsup:

 

[Notsobright]

I used to work in engineering change control in plastic injection molding shops that make similar parts such as the case of LaCrosse charger. FWIW: Changing colors with molded parts is the simplest thing to do. The only difficulty is then tracking what you make and where you use it. I'm not familiar with SKU's, but if LaCrosse specified a new color from their vendor then they are probably going to want to identify the different colored parts with unique p/n's. And then they would probably want to identify which final product has which color parts. I would guess this would be either a suffix change (BC-900 and BC-900b) or a minor rolling of the item number (BC-900 and BC-901). Now if they aren't going to roll the end item number but just track the firmware version number (BC-900 v32, BC-900 v33, etc.), then I doubt they are going to change the case color and roll it to BC-9009. To me this would be odd. To add a bit more confusion, the Pdf manual for the BC-9009 refers to the unit in some specification boxes as a
BC-9009U. I'm not really sure what LaCrosse is doing. They seem to make a pretty good product but everyone there seems to be vague about what the thing really is. Until someone can make contact with a design engineer there, the mystery may continue. Generally those guys are real happy to talk about their product if you can communicate directly with them. Most people could care less about what engineers know or do so they are tickled pink to find someone interested in talking about their work.

I have a BC-900, V32 and always use 200ma charge and never have had any problems. I always use 200ma. thinking it is less stressful on my NiMH batteries. Am I doing it wrong by not using 500ma? I am unfamiliar with "end-of-charge voltage drop" and any associated problems. My first post here so thanks!

 

[TakeTheActive]

TTA, when you point your finger at someone, remember there are three fingers pointing back at yourself. I think your comment above indicates you are becoming too strict a disciple of your own "rules." I think you go a little off the dogmatic deep end when you state to use "the highest current that terminates properly and doesn't overheat the cells."...

Per your reply below, we agree on the above GREEN statement.

...And the BC-900 does run hot at higher rates since it does not have nice, wide cell spacing like the C9000. How hot the cells run during charge also depends on ambient temperature. If I try to charge four tightly-packed Eneloops at 1000 mA on my BC-900, in my laundry room in the middle of summer when it is 90 degrees F in the room, the cells will try to blast past 127 degree F and the BC-900 will halt charging until it cools down...

Which, again, is what I've been stating all along.

An example:

• If CHARGING 4 AAs @ 1000mA gets TOO HOT, try:
  • 4 AAs @ 700mA *OR*
  • 2 AAs @ 1000mA (in Slots 1 & 4)

AS LONG AS THEY TERMINATE PROPERLY!

...The spacing of AAA is wider than AA, so heat does not become an issue as it can with four AA at 1000 mA. Maybe you charge in a nice cool room, and heat never becomes an issue at 1000 mA...

Thus (including my FULL QUOTE):

...Charge your cells at the HIGHEST CURRENT that TERMINATES PROPERLY and DOESN'T OVERHEAT the cells. Plain-and-simple... If you want a slightly FULLER CHARGE, lower the Charge Rate a notch. *IF* they then don't terminate properly, too bad. Either raise it back up a notch, or use a timer, or *TOSS* / RECYCLE those cells.

*IF* 700mA OR 500mA OR 200mA *ALL* TERMINATE PROPERLY, by all means, use whichever one you prefer, keeping in mind:

• HIGH CHARGE Current -> SMALLER Crystals -> HIGHER MAX CURRENT available
  .
• LOW CHARGE Current -> LARGER Crystals -> LOWER MAX CURRENT available *AND* FULLER CHARGE

All choices involve trade-offs. KNOWLEDGE vs RULES.

...I also have a few ROV AAA Hybrids that failed to terminate at 200 mA, so now I just charge all the ROV AAA at 500 mA...

...Light Sabre states that he has been using two BC-900's to charge his batteries at his stated rates for four years with "no problems whatsoever." If his cells are terminating properly at 700 mA or even 500 mA on the BC-900, why should he use 1000 mA?

...But Light Sabre's cells are in good enough shape to trigger end-of-charge signal at 700 mA for AA or 200 mA for AAA, to imply he is somehow ignorant and demonstrating near-abuse to his cells by not charging at a higher rate is simply ludicrous.

BUT, has he, or *ANY* of the other "200mA Slow Charge Aficionados" *EVER*:

• CONFIRMED that their charger is TERMINATING PROPERLY at that current?
  .
• Posted their results from 'THE EXPERIMENT'?

Recall the recent member who INSISTED that he was getting 3.1Ah CAPACITY from his Duraloops:

I have a bunch of Duraloops that I've been measuring on my BC900 - I ran them all through one charge-discharge-charge cycle, and then started measuring capacity. Most are in the 2.4 - 3 amp hour range...

Thanks Tubrbo DV8. I was going to reply to his message, but have been working lots of OT and wasn't going to respond to it until tonight but you beat me to it. You also said things better than I ever could. :thumbsup:

So, Light Sabre,

• Have you run 'THE EXPERIMENT'?
  .
• Are you also getting GT 2000mAh CAPACITIES from your Eneloops / Duraloops by CHARGING them @ 200mA?

Turbo DV8,

My goal here on the CPF Forums is to share the knowledge that I've learned. If I post something that's WRONG, *PLEASE* bring it to my attention. But, *IF* I post something that differs from your OPINION, well... :shrug:

 

[MarioJP]

I have version 35 of this charger and i charge 4AA at 1amp. the charger does get quite warm to almost hot.

From what I seen is that good cells i can charge all 4 at 1amp. Crappy cells i am forced to charge at 500mA otherwise cells would overheat and trip the sensor.

But I am using version 35 and have 2 of these chargers. I also did a experiment of charging the cells at 200mA. I set it for the night and woke up the next day and the display all 4 cells says full.

So I am guessing version 35 might of fix the 200mA termination problem.

 

[TakeTheActive]

...I also did a experiment of charging the cells at 200mA. I set it for the night and woke up the next day and the display all 4 cells says full...

So what?

Was that FULL at:

• 2000mAh?
• 2100mAh?
• 2500mAh?
• 3000mAh?
• 3100mAh?

Run 'THE EXPERIMENT' and post your results.

...So I am guessing version 35 might of fix the 200mA termination problem.

1. How?
   .
2. Why?
   .
3. IMHO, you don't UNDERSTAND the BC-900 / BC-9009 'MOSFET Runaway Problem'

Have you read my GREEN Sig Line LINK w/Keyword: Theory?

If not, IMHO, you should INVEST a few hours, because you would benefit GREATLY! :thumbsup:

P.S. IMHO, if cells don't TERMINATE PROPERLY on a BC-900 / BC-9009 @ 200mA w/v34 or less, v35 or greater isn't going to make any difference (unless they RADICALLY change some parameters and *SCREW* something else up).

 

[MarioJP]

I am not talking about the mosfet problem. All I was saying about the firmware. Sure the MOSFET in theory could be a problem I don't know, all i know when i charge partially charged cells it does terminate and sometimes terminates between 200-700mah has been put into the cells, depending how much the discharge of the cells.

Now I haven't tested fully discharged cells because that would take quite awhile.

I only use 200mA when the cells are partially discharged.

So far I haven't had the MOSFET problem to the point it starts melting.

Only thing I notice with this charger is that the display flickers. Does that on both chargers too.

 

[Turbo DV8]

BUT, has he, or *ANY* of the other "200mA Slow Charge Aficionados" *EVER*:

• Posted their results from 'THE EXPERIMENT'?
• So, Light Sabre,
  • Have you run 'THE EXPERIMENT'?

All I'm saying is that sometimes reading your posts is sort of like reading a can of PB Blaster. But hey, the stuff does work, so who am I to argue with it?

 

[PeAK]

.
.
. all i know when i charge partially charged cells it does terminate and sometimes terminates between 200-700mah has been put into the cells, depending how much cells were discharged.
.
.
.

Mario, you be a perfect candidate to perform a short test lasting about 20 minutes to confirm the validity of a battery/charger test that I'm running on this forum. In your case, you have known termination issues with your charger and thus you should find that ratio of charge put in is much higher than the charge taken out. The test illustrates how to calculate the partial discharge in mA-Hr.


PeAK

 

[jayflash]

Might a variation in some aspect of overall QC or MOSFET specs cause the widely different charger experiences?

My old v32 has consistently, correctly and "coolly" charged new and marginal cells, even running four bays @ 1A. The cells and BC-900 never got more then warm.

Line voltage is a consistent 117 - 123 vac, 65F ambient room temp & 30 - 70% humidity. Hopefully, my luck doesn't run out.

 

[MarioJP]

Mario, you be a perfect candidate to perform a short test lasting about 20 minutes to confirm the validity of a battery/charger test that I'm running on this forum. In your case, you have known termination issues with your charger and thus you should find that ratio of charge put in is much higher than the charge taken out. The test illustrates how to calculate the partial discharge in mA-Hr.


PeAK

Think I got a better idea. I have 4 Crappy blacktop duracells that I am going to leave overnight charging. Since the internal resistance on these cells are high I have no choice but to charge them at 200mA for 10 hours. At 500ma they get quite warm and almost hot in 2 hours.

At 1amp it trips the thermal sensor. These cells gets too hot.

 

[Notsobright]

For those as skeptical as myself, I emailed LaCrosse for my own peace of mind. Here is what I got back:

LA CROSSE TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT INFORMATION
Dear Patrick,
Model Number: BC900 Charger
Please see the Knowledge Base Article that follows for assistance with your product.
Regards,
Brian
Technical Support Representative
LaCrosse Technology
2817 Losey Boulevard S
LaCrosse, WI 54601
Ph. (608) 782-1610
Toll Free (888) 211-1923

Compare BC900 & BC9009 KBA-01148-5H87DG Question What is the difference between the BC900 and the BC9009? Answer
Many people are asking the difference between the BC900 and the BC9009. If you look at the features list you will see they have the same features. The model number change is due to the change in the color of the case. The BC900 is blue and the BC9009 is dark blue.
You can compare these units at http://www.lacrossetechnology.com/9009/http://www.lacrossetechnology.com/9009/ and http://www.lacrossetechnology.com/900/
No exchanges are offered for a previously purchased model for a different version as the only difference is date of production. There is no benefit to a more recent version as opposed to a previous version.

I still think the actual numbers are odd unless they are going to start building a series such as 9002, 9003, etc. but that is a non issue at this point. So I accept it is just a case color change.

However the comment that there is no benefit to using a newer version number is puzzling and for my COD's, disturbing. There has to be some benefit somewhere or else there would have been no point in revising (improving?) the product. Twice. Because they build the charger with the ability to easily check the version number then it seems important to them to know which charger uses which verion. So there must be some difference in characteristics. Theoretically the versions could be different to allow easier manufacturing/assembly/testing with the firmware and truly be insignicant to end users. Did I mention my COD's?

 

[Turbo DV8]

Let's assume the older units had a higher rate of failure, and it was coming back to bite them. Maybe they changed the color and gave it a different model number to preclude people from returning older failed units outside of the warranty period with newer purchase receipts. Now the receipts would say BC9009 and they could tell instantly from the receipt and the color, without even powering up the unit, if it was a shady return.

 

[Notsobright]

They could have changed the item number to 9009 and left the color the same. The p/n on the bottom of the case clearly indicates what it is. This would prevent any shady returns. They could have decided it would be less confusing to start selling a new color with a new p/n. But this only caused confusion for some of us. They rolled the firmware version number twice with little fanfare and unbeknown to most consumers. Now if they really wanted to upgrade to a better built unit with a lower fail rate then they still haven't done it right. They are selling both units side by side rather than exhaust all inventories of the old model number before introducing the new version. There will always be some overlap. But if it goes on for some period of time then it would be odder still. Who knows what they are doing or intended to do.

My only disappoint is my v32 model won't burst into flame and melt down into a gooey mess forcing me to have to buy a new blue 9009 v35 model for Christmas.

 

[Turbo DV8]

They could have changed the item number to 9009 and left the color the same. The p/n on the bottom of the case clearly indicates what it is. This would prevent any shady returns.

If someone wanted to be shady, four tiny screws and 60 seconds to swap out the bottom cover isn't going to phase him in the least. La Crosse's official explanation notwithstanding, I assure you the color is not the only difference between the old and new units. An extra tiny tab molded inside here, an offset protrusion there, all of which - surprise, surprise - puts a real damper on swapping the guts. Or so I've heard ...

 

[Notsobright]

I have no knowledge about anyone being shady or LaCrosse attempting to circumvent this. Are you implying you know of other differences then the previously discussed color of the unit's lower case half? Can we assume all BC-9009 units are v.35?

 

[Turbo DV8]

Are you implying you know of other differences then the previously discussed color of the unit's lower case half?

I wasn't implying it. See my last post again.

 

[RaVeN38571]

could it be possible that the different color plastic is cheaper to manufacture or easier to source? Even if it just saved them a penny a unit it would add up after a while.

 

[MarioJP]

Despite of this charger having flaws. I do like it over the maha charger though. I am guessing the difference between 900 and 9009 is better thermal sensor??.

When the batteries gets hot the charger stops charging.

 

[Notsobright]

could it be possible that the different color plastic is cheaper to manufacture or easier to source? Even if it just saved them a penny a unit it would add up after a while.

I opened my BC-900 case to examine it. The parts are very well made. Plastic is relatively cheap and the choice of color should be insignificant. Raw plastic is available world wide. And in China they probably make a lot of the raw plastic consumed there. They'll mold 4 or 5 thousand parts per batch to keep the set ups costs down. The material cost is low compared to the labor. The molding machine has to be set up, and later torn down and then the mold gets cleaned and inspected. The parts have to sent to be pad printed with nomenclature and then packaged for shipment. The surface of the mold is stipled which gives the case a nice grainy pebble finish. Quality work indeed.

 

[smoeke]

hi,i have been reading a bunch of info on here, now i have decided to join and ask a question...

i just bought a 9009, on the bottom it says bc-9009 and v 32?

from reading i thought v32 was for the old bc-900's?

anyone know what i got exactly?

thanks
Mike