18350 Ultrafire

[VegasF6]

Hmm, first I have seen of these batteries, must be pretty new. I learned about them in this post:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2629273&postcount=52
So, they aren't my discovery or anything. I would have to assume they are only good for dual power lights that take 18650 or 16340. Might also make for some interesting mag lights.
I will be excited to see someone test them. Are they protected? Is the capacity near claim? And how much current will the protection circuit, if it has one, allow to pass. Also I don't imagine you will be able to charge them with most dedicated rcr123 chargers, but for those with sliding contacts at that capacity they should handle most budget chargers. The preferred charging rate for li-on would be .5C, but up to 1C is ok, right?

 

[lctorana]

I have been fascinated and excited with these since I saw them at KD a few days ago.

1) QCG says they are Unprotected.

2) I just asked AW a couple of hours ago about whether we can see some AW-quality cells in this size. He has been looking into it, but the 800mAh capacity (versus 750mAh for his R123) isn't really worth the difference.

That said, I have uses for these cells, and may buy some anyway.

 

[Fallingwater]

I was under the impression that, despite the sticker claiming 750mAh, RCR123s never reach that capacity, stopping at 600 or thereabouts. 2mm more for 200mah more would be nice.

 

[kramer5150]

Nice... nearly identical form factor as 16340, with a little extra capacity. It'd be nice to get a legit ~750 mah from this volume.

 

[lctorana]

Let's be clear about what we're talking about.

750mAh is AW's figure for his current R123.

Ultrafire claim 880mAH, IRC.

AW is talking 800mAh-ish for the proof-of-concept 18350s he has been in discussions about, whereas the Ultrafire ones claim 1200mAh.

So whether even 750mAh is optimistic for the R123 at the punishing drain rates we subject them to, the real point is whether, in percentage terms, there is enough to be gained by the fatter form factor in this length.

As I've said, I'm excited anyway - these are a perfect size replacement for the long-redundant BF-sized Eveready 927. Higher voltage, of course, but that's just a bulb swap. To an antique torch junkie, that's one of the most exciting things I've ever seen on CPF.

 

[Fallingwater]

What is claimed is practically irrelevant. I seem to remember AW 16340s testing around 550mAh, but I'm willing to believe they've improved since then. With a 2mm larger size, 18340s might get to 800mAh. They sure as hell don't get to 1200.

 

[divine]

What is nice about this cell is that it wouldn't rattle as much in a light designed to take 18650's, primaries, and rcr's.

AW's with 1000mAh would be nice.

 

[lctorana]

I say again - AW is finding no more than 800mAh in this size at this stage

 

[Bullzeyebill]

The increased size compared to the standard 16350's, should allow more mA storage. If they could deliver 750mA's at 1 amp draw I would be very pleased. So far the Powerizer 3.6-4.2 volt 16450 is the king of mA's at the higher current draws. Need someone to buy some of these Ultrafire cells, and let SilverFox test them out.

Bill

 

[lctorana]

I say again, AW is finding 750mAh from 16340 and 800mAh from the 18350.

 

[Thujone]

You can repeat yourself as much as you want but there is no such thing as a 750mah 16340. At 500ma draw they get ~500mah, whereas the 14500 cells he sells are also advertised at 750mah, and they actually get it. So if the 18350 cells could actually see 800mah then that is over 50% more energy than his 16340 cells have. WELL worth it IMO.

EDIT: Just looked at my test and saw I was testing at 750ma

 

[monkeyboy]

Silverfox did some tests here

The AW RCR123 tested gave 602mAh @ 500mA but capacity drops off rapidly above this current.

If these 18350 hold up better under loads, this would be a huge advantage.