> Though at 1.5A loads I tested at, through ten tests,
> showed the Energizer [E^2] slightly on top...
Huh? Where? the graphs you posted showed energizers consistantly on the bottom, with 'everyone else' rather closely clustered. Or were those the regular energizers rather than E^2 versions? Unless something was mislabled...
Sorry to be late posting. We just moved and things have been hectic. It would appear that the cobolt issue did in fact help with the voltage under heavy loads with our battery. I owe some of that push to Mr.Bulk as it was the VIP that really forced the issue with such heavy current requirements. We continue to strive to improve our battery and not just slap a label on a battery though it started out that way. A lot has changed. Thanks again.
I am just finishing up beta testing the new CBA software that allows testing below 0.5 amps. There are a couple of minor issues, but I think it will be ready for "prime time" shortly.
Now that I can test at lower rates, is there any interest?
I have a personal interest in checking the published rating of the various cells. It is interesting how different manufacturers test at different rates to get a published capacity. I am aware of some that are rated at 0.010 amps. I am wondering what device that uses 123's has such a low current draw... At least Duracell and Energizer publish higher current curves along with their official capacity rating.
I am trying to figure out what the current draws of the various lights we use are. Do we have any 123 lights that draw under 0.5 amps?
A number of the LED lights on the market are running at 350ma since they are mostly Lux I brightness (even if they use a Lux III). Also, there is increasing use of multi brightness settings in LED lights.
Perhaps for simplicity, (and if you are really bored) a check in the 100 ish and 200 - 250 ish range would be nice.
BTW - I am still working to get those other cells to you for testing.
The data for the Golston tests had been added to the first post.
Interesting... The Golston cells tested better at 1.0 amps then they did at 0.5 amps. Also note that they heated up during both tests to over 80 degrees F. The 1.0 amp graph looks like there is some additional internal resistance in the cells. The 0.5 amp graph could suggest some consistency issues.
Thanks Chevrofreak for sending those cells to me for testing.
How many Golstons did you test? Could it be a batch issue? It's weird that they do horribly at 0.5A but are similar to the Titanium and the Marathons at greater A. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif[/img]
I understand the cost involved. Hopefully more people can provide you with more cells so you can increase your sample size. Testing with just one cell may lead to erroneous results due to chance alone.
Golstons still seem bottom of the back, but the inconsistency between 0.5 and 1 A is puzzling. Unless there's an electronics explanation (I'm ignorant in that respect)...
In any case, it's awesome that you're doing this for us. It seems like a lot of work and is an important contribution. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
Ed: Do you need specific brands, or are people just sending you whatever they have? Maybe if we knew how many cells you've tested of each brand people can send you more (or less) of each kind to increase sample size.
I'd love to see a rechargable 123 shootout as well, the JSBurly R123s vs. the BatteryStation R123s really interests me. Although I was looking at rechargable 123s previously, but it looks like the low-cost and greater energy capacities of the BatteryStation CR123A seem like the best fit for high current uses.