InHisName
Enlightened
I got mine last week and are slowly full discharge /charge on each cell with my C9000 then test with the IRM-004.
I have just finished up pulling all of my EnergyON NexCells and after the 40 hour dis / charge cycle, I ran the IRM-004 tests. The results are in another post, "EnergyON NexCell AAA" or something like that.
Now I am testing older more used AAA cells.
I see contrasts: where the EnergyONs have narrow range 140 to 200 for all three method tests, older batts come out much different.
Ones that fail to charge in my C9000 with a "HIGH" error test like this pattern. It is more like 65 65 and 1250 or 40% 40% and 800% of nominal.
I CAN charge them up in my MH-C204F charger. They seem to have some capacity that is usable. From what I know about the tests, running a discharge at One Amp or more may loose efficiency big time. BUT low to medium discharges may be alright.???
What other observations, ideas, or proofs can other owners of IRM-004 provide ?
I have just finished up pulling all of my EnergyON NexCells and after the 40 hour dis / charge cycle, I ran the IRM-004 tests. The results are in another post, "EnergyON NexCell AAA" or something like that.
Now I am testing older more used AAA cells.
I see contrasts: where the EnergyONs have narrow range 140 to 200 for all three method tests, older batts come out much different.
Ones that fail to charge in my C9000 with a "HIGH" error test like this pattern. It is more like 65 65 and 1250 or 40% 40% and 800% of nominal.
I CAN charge them up in my MH-C204F charger. They seem to have some capacity that is usable. From what I know about the tests, running a discharge at One Amp or more may loose efficiency big time. BUT low to medium discharges may be alright.???
What other observations, ideas, or proofs can other owners of IRM-004 provide ?
