[ QUOTE ]
The eye opener for me was the temperature increase of the batteries when testing at 2 amps. I would venture an opinion that if a light draws 2 amps or more, thermal management is going to be difficult during long runs. The lamps and LED’s are producing heat, and at these rates we have the batteries producing heat as well. Lithium cells have a thermal shut down protection system, and this may shed some light on why sudden shutdown occurs with some lights.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're not kidding, Tom. When I first tested my M6 on SF123's with the HOLA (2.5 amp draw for each stack of 3 123's) they got so hot by the end of the run that the shrink wrap was soft and almost gooey. Plus, the speed with which the light died makes me think that they went into thermal shut down. Temperature was on the order of 160F.
With the exception of the Energizer cells, I ran 2 cells of each brand for each test. I am finding rather consistent results between cells, but have not explored variations between batches. You will notice that I included a date in the post so I can come back and see if there are any differences in performance as time goes by.
If cost was no object, it would be ideal to run 5 tests from several different batches of each brand, however this is not possible at this time. If someone wants to donate a dozen cells of a specific brand, I would be happy to test them for consistency from cell to cell.
I need to do another run on the Energizer's. I have heard rumors of inconsistent results with Energizers, but it is hard for me to believe they would be so far behind the other brands. On the other hand, I may have gotten some bad cells. I have more on order and plan to update the data when I finish testing them.
I have also had several requests for a run at 0.5 amps and may gear up to do that as well.
Thanks tom, that was very enlightening! In my short time as a 123 celled light owner, I have wondered about the "inexpensive" 123's surefire, and batt stn. I now feel pretty safe ordering up about 20-40 batt stn cells from them after this. I had ALL my SF's do the dead dance, and will not be buying them again. The duracell ultra's have been great but we all know how much more $$ they are, but they have shown really well in my E2d and E1e, stay bright longer, then a slow nice drift to less and less brightness, no shutting down like a light switch ala, SF and
the ones i got at the local cop store. (command's, says "made by kroll" same Company as the tail switch?)
And I don't see any need in testing any more energizer's. Two I used were noticeably less bright in the SF light's right from the start, and ran down quick. I won't tolate that in a batt the same price as a duracell. so till i find a good R123 rechargeables that will work in my incan SF's and ARC, I will go ahead and get some battery station's and when in a bind, pickup duracells.
I kid you not both energizer's bought in two different state's were equally crappy, and I think there AA alki's are not as long running as duracell either.
This thread helped me a lot. VDG
(at the moment,I am leaving my E1e on to finish up the eni in it. I don't even want that bunny batt to reside in one of my light's!)
> 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.