GarageBoy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Any one use these? How bad is the self discharge rate? Thanks
9V 300mAh PowerEx?
- Thread starter GarageBoy
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
I've a couple of those, don't have equipment to measure discharge rate, so I can't tell you anything about the actual discharge rate. But I ran a uncontrolled (didn't keep track of exact time) test using the ZTS meter and 9v PAK-Lite (on high overnight). It seem to have more juice then the Powerex 230 mAh and the Tysonic 200 mAh 9v batteries.
Result from the ZTS:
Powerex 300 mAh 9v - 80 % remain
Powerex 230 mAh 9.6v - 60% remain
Tysonic 200 mAh 9v - 0 remain
Those number are from the ZTS MBT-1 which I think measure 9V Alkaline & Carbon Zinc only, so take the result with a grain of salt. Also the batteries have less then 3 cycles of charge, so it might not be at their max capability.
I'm getting the ZTS MBT9R any day now that will measure NiMh 9V, I might repeat the test with a little more control. So far the 300 mAh 9v look pretty good to me, then again I might be full of it, hope this helped.
Result from the ZTS:
Powerex 300 mAh 9v - 80 % remain
Powerex 230 mAh 9.6v - 60% remain
Tysonic 200 mAh 9v - 0 remain
Those number are from the ZTS MBT-1 which I think measure 9V Alkaline & Carbon Zinc only, so take the result with a grain of salt. Also the batteries have less then 3 cycles of charge, so it might not be at their max capability.
I'm getting the ZTS MBT9R any day now that will measure NiMh 9V, I might repeat the test with a little more control. So far the 300 mAh 9v look pretty good to me, then again I might be full of it, hope this helped.
Got my new ZTS Mini-MTB9R and tested the performance of rechargable 9V Battery, use 4 different batteries but only tested three. I charge all the battery at the same time, let it sit a few days. The Tysonic 200Mah battery was showing 0% on the ZTS, it completely discharged in just a few day, this is the one that I didn't test ( I will recharge and test with the ZTS every few day to see if it does it again).
Result from running the PAK-Lite 10 hours on Hi, all started at 100% on the ZTS:
Powerex 300mAh 9V -ZTS 20%, DMM 8.67V
Powerex 230 mAh 9.6V - ZTS 0%, DMM 8.32V
Tenergy 250 mAh 9V - ZTS 0%, DMM 8.04V
All the batteries still can power the LED lights, visually the 230 mAh Powerex seem dimmer then the other two this morning. Looks like the 300 mAh holds up the best so far, need to have Silverfox test 9V cells.
Result from running the PAK-Lite 10 hours on Hi, all started at 100% on the ZTS:
Powerex 300mAh 9V -ZTS 20%, DMM 8.67V
Powerex 230 mAh 9.6V - ZTS 0%, DMM 8.32V
Tenergy 250 mAh 9V - ZTS 0%, DMM 8.04V
All the batteries still can power the LED lights, visually the 230 mAh Powerex seem dimmer then the other two this morning. Looks like the 300 mAh holds up the best so far, need to have Silverfox test 9V cells.
Last edited:
SilverFox
Flashaholic
Hello Gopurple,
Keep in mind that the testing algorithm used by ZTS for 9V batteries is based on alkaline chemistry. I don't believe you will get accurate results when testing NiMh chemistry with it.
Tom
Keep in mind that the testing algorithm used by ZTS for 9V batteries is based on alkaline chemistry. I don't believe you will get accurate results when testing NiMh chemistry with it.
Tom
SilverFox
Flashaholic
Hello Steve,
Oops... I didn't realize they had that unit... I take back what I said.
Tom
Oops... I didn't realize they had that unit... I take back what I said.
Tom
I had the three batteries on high for 24 hours, here's the final reading:
Powerex 9V 300 mAh- ZTS 0%, DMM 6.18V
Powerex 9.6V 230 mAh - ZTS 0%, DMM 7.14V
Tenergy 9V 250 mAh - ZTS 0%, DMM 5.92V
Even through the 300 mAh has a lower voltage then the 230 mAh battery, the LED still the brightest , the other two battery still drive the LEDs, visually like at the low setting.
Based on this single sample test (don't any of you math geeks say anything about statistics sampling of this test), I'll say the 300 mAh looks real good, the bad news is the price. If enough CPFers bug Tom, maybe we can get Silverfox to do his usually detail test on 9V batteries.
Powerex 9V 300 mAh- ZTS 0%, DMM 6.18V
Powerex 9.6V 230 mAh - ZTS 0%, DMM 7.14V
Tenergy 9V 250 mAh - ZTS 0%, DMM 5.92V
Even through the 300 mAh has a lower voltage then the 230 mAh battery, the LED still the brightest , the other two battery still drive the LEDs, visually like at the low setting.
Based on this single sample test (don't any of you math geeks say anything about statistics sampling of this test), I'll say the 300 mAh looks real good, the bad news is the price. If enough CPFers bug Tom, maybe we can get Silverfox to do his usually detail test on 9V batteries.
SilverFox
Flashaholic
Hello Gopurple,
I must confess that one of my immediate goals is to learn how to read, and to comprehend what I have read...
For some reason I was convinced that the voltages and ZTS readings you were giving were for fully charged batteries. I was wondering, in your last post, what charger offered a high setting...
I am not sure post #2 even registered with me...
Sorry for my confusion...
Now, having taken the proper time to read and understand your tests, let me see if I can make a helpful contribution to this thread...
I believe the PAK-Lite is direct drive, so the highest voltage under load would yield the brightest beam. Even though your 230 mAh battery rebounded to a higher voltage, the 300 mAh battery probably had a higher voltage under load.
Is there a way for you to measure the voltage of the battery while the light is running?
The 9 volt batteries are made up of 7 cells in series. The 9.6 volt batteries have 8 cells. In order to get the package the same size, the 9.6 cells are smaller and have less capacity. The trade off is that the 9.6 volt battery is suppose to offer a higher voltage.
Another factor with the performance of these batteries has to do with charging. A charger designed for the 9 volt (7 cells in series) battery, may not be able to fully charge the 9.6 volt (8 cells in series) battery. You can check your charger by measuring the voltage at the end of the charge. The 9 volt battery should end up at around 9.8 volts, while the 9.6 volt battery should be at around 11.2 volts.
I don't know which was used for the ZTS tester, but I may venture a guess that its calculations are based on a 9 volt NiMh battery.
At any rate, 10 hours of run time on high seems good.
My limited experience with these batteries has found that the 9.6 volt battery tends to have a slight larger size, and these batteries don't always fit. The 9 volt battery packaging seems to be more robust, and the size seems to fit most applications.
I have been checking on the self discharge rate of 9 volt batteries. So far, it does not seem to be all that high, but it is still early in the testing. I have been "playing" with Titanium 9 and 9.6 volt batteries, but I am not sure you can directly compare them to the Powerex batteries.
Tom
I must confess that one of my immediate goals is to learn how to read, and to comprehend what I have read...
For some reason I was convinced that the voltages and ZTS readings you were giving were for fully charged batteries. I was wondering, in your last post, what charger offered a high setting...
I am not sure post #2 even registered with me...
Sorry for my confusion...
Now, having taken the proper time to read and understand your tests, let me see if I can make a helpful contribution to this thread...
I believe the PAK-Lite is direct drive, so the highest voltage under load would yield the brightest beam. Even though your 230 mAh battery rebounded to a higher voltage, the 300 mAh battery probably had a higher voltage under load.
Is there a way for you to measure the voltage of the battery while the light is running?
The 9 volt batteries are made up of 7 cells in series. The 9.6 volt batteries have 8 cells. In order to get the package the same size, the 9.6 cells are smaller and have less capacity. The trade off is that the 9.6 volt battery is suppose to offer a higher voltage.
Another factor with the performance of these batteries has to do with charging. A charger designed for the 9 volt (7 cells in series) battery, may not be able to fully charge the 9.6 volt (8 cells in series) battery. You can check your charger by measuring the voltage at the end of the charge. The 9 volt battery should end up at around 9.8 volts, while the 9.6 volt battery should be at around 11.2 volts.
I don't know which was used for the ZTS tester, but I may venture a guess that its calculations are based on a 9 volt NiMh battery.
At any rate, 10 hours of run time on high seems good.
My limited experience with these batteries has found that the 9.6 volt battery tends to have a slight larger size, and these batteries don't always fit. The 9 volt battery packaging seems to be more robust, and the size seems to fit most applications.
I have been checking on the self discharge rate of 9 volt batteries. So far, it does not seem to be all that high, but it is still early in the testing. I have been "playing" with Titanium 9 and 9.6 volt batteries, but I am not sure you can directly compare them to the Powerex batteries.
Tom
Hi Tom,
I should have made my post clearer, the second post is a continuation of the test of my first post (without recharging), sorry for the confusion.
I've use the MAHA/PowerEx MH-C490F 4 Bank charger to charge all the batteries, per their specs, they can charge 7.2V, 8.4V or 9.6V.
I cut out two thin strip of Aluminum Foil and put it between the battery terminal and the light with a tail hanging out to connect my Digital Multimeter, turn on the light and the voltage measure close to the battery (Fully recharged) voltage without any load (I think that's what I needed to measure voltage under load, if I wrong, let me know). I couldn't give an actual measurement for the test since I've already recharged the batteries, in any case, your explanation seems logical to me.
Doug has a posted on Flashlightreviews.com on the Pak-Lite and said its not regulated. I guess I should have also noted that I used 3 different PAK-Lites to do the test at the same time (my bad), could the efficiency of the three different light cause a difference?
I tried measuring the resistance of the lights with the DMM but I'm not getting any reading at all, like the circuit are opened.
Again, all the 9V cells are pretty new, so it might not be conditioned to their full capability. Plus this is a low drain application only, some one else has to check a high drain application to get a full picture. Here's the Voltage reading of the batteries coming off the charger:
PowerEx 300mAh 9V-10.08V (not a typo)
PowerEx 230 mAh 9.6V- 11.64V
Tenergy 250 mAh 9V- 9.84V
Tysonic 200 mAh 9V- 9.34V (sitting out 2 days after recharge)
Duracell Copper Top Alkaline - 9.51V
I guess the conclusion of this exercise is that the PowerEx 300 mAh 9V cell is pretty good on run time but it's at twice the price of the Tenergy.
PowerEx 300mAh 9V ($11.97) Thomas Distrubuting
PowerEx 230 mAh 9.6V ($9.97) Thomas Distrubuting
Tenergy 250 mAh 9V ($4.95) Battery Junction
Tysonic 200 mAh 9V ($7.97) Thomas Distrubuting
So which is the best buy? I think the answer is in two other questions: what's the life of those battery? Anyone like to take up that question? (Tom?)
and the original posted by GarageBoy, what's the discharge rate?
More questions then answers, this thread can go on for years!
Steve
I should have made my post clearer, the second post is a continuation of the test of my first post (without recharging), sorry for the confusion.
I've use the MAHA/PowerEx MH-C490F 4 Bank charger to charge all the batteries, per their specs, they can charge 7.2V, 8.4V or 9.6V.
I cut out two thin strip of Aluminum Foil and put it between the battery terminal and the light with a tail hanging out to connect my Digital Multimeter, turn on the light and the voltage measure close to the battery (Fully recharged) voltage without any load (I think that's what I needed to measure voltage under load, if I wrong, let me know). I couldn't give an actual measurement for the test since I've already recharged the batteries, in any case, your explanation seems logical to me.
Doug has a posted on Flashlightreviews.com on the Pak-Lite and said its not regulated. I guess I should have also noted that I used 3 different PAK-Lites to do the test at the same time (my bad), could the efficiency of the three different light cause a difference?
I tried measuring the resistance of the lights with the DMM but I'm not getting any reading at all, like the circuit are opened.
Again, all the 9V cells are pretty new, so it might not be conditioned to their full capability. Plus this is a low drain application only, some one else has to check a high drain application to get a full picture. Here's the Voltage reading of the batteries coming off the charger:
PowerEx 300mAh 9V-10.08V (not a typo)
PowerEx 230 mAh 9.6V- 11.64V
Tenergy 250 mAh 9V- 9.84V
Tysonic 200 mAh 9V- 9.34V (sitting out 2 days after recharge)
Duracell Copper Top Alkaline - 9.51V
I guess the conclusion of this exercise is that the PowerEx 300 mAh 9V cell is pretty good on run time but it's at twice the price of the Tenergy.
PowerEx 300mAh 9V ($11.97) Thomas Distrubuting
PowerEx 230 mAh 9.6V ($9.97) Thomas Distrubuting
Tenergy 250 mAh 9V ($4.95) Battery Junction
Tysonic 200 mAh 9V ($7.97) Thomas Distrubuting
So which is the best buy? I think the answer is in two other questions: what's the life of those battery? Anyone like to take up that question? (Tom?)
and the original posted by GarageBoy, what's the discharge rate?
More questions then answers, this thread can go on for years!
Steve
Last edited:
