Arc-AAA NiMH battery test chart

Gather App
Candle Power Forums

Help Support Candle Power:

The_LED_Museum

The_LED_Museum

*Retired*
Joined
Aug 12, 2000
Messages
19,414
City & State/Province
Federal Way WA. USA
Again, as promised in another thread...the Arc-AAA battery discharge analysis:

arcaaa.gif


It ran for 2:50 to the 25% intensity point.
That short horizontal line running to the right side of the chart is just my addition to the original .ME1 file, so the plotting software would print hour 3 of the chart, and can be ignored.

Looks like it ran for about 2:15 or 2:20 fully flat, before it started to decline.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The_LED_Museum said:
Again, as promised in another thread...the Arc-AAA battery discharge analysis
<snip>
It ran for 2:50 to the 25% intensity point.
<snip>
Looks like it ran for about 2:15 or 2:20 fully flat, before it started to decline.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks like the NiMH rechargables do really well in step-up "regulated" single battery lights (ref: the Dorcy 1AAA on NiMH) - in giving really flat output of over 90% of initial intensity for just over 1 hour, and maintaining over 80% for significantly over 2 hours.

I'm impressed - I think I'll get some AAA NiMH rechargables just on the evidence of these 2 lights......

Interesting to see how the Ultra-G will do on NiMH rechargables now.......

Thanks again Craig for being so helpful.
 
When I tested an Ultra-G with an NiMH cell it ran about 12 hours.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The_LED_Museum said:
Then I'll start the test as early as I can tomorrow morning. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the problem with a runtime with NiMH rechargables with a long running light
- can't start too late in the day since you have to monitor for the 25% intensity level to stop the test - or risk ruining the NiMH rechargable battery.

Still you ended up doing your NiMH tests in the optimal order - with the shorest runtimes first - that way we got two results yesterday -
now probably have to wait until late today for the one on the Ultra-G.

However, what's the reading on intensity of the Ultra-G on a NiMH now some hours into the runtime test - in terms of % of initial brightness?

Thanks,
 
As of this posting, looks like about 48% (initial reading of 1.298, current reading of 0.634).
I forgot the math needed to get a percentage when you have a peak number and a current number, so this is kind of a guess. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif

For what it's worth, I started this test around 7:30am PDT this morning; it's 12:53pm PDT now.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The_LED_Museum said:
As of this posting, looks like about 48% (initial reading of 1.298, current reading of 0.634).
I forgot the math needed to get a percentage when you have a peak number and a current number, so this is kind of a guess. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif
For what it's worth, I started this test around 7:30am PDT this morning; it's 12:53pm PDT now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks again Craig.

What did you mean about the maths? If the vertical scale is linear - ie: your reading is linearly proportional to the intensity - then it's simply -
current reading/initial reading x 100 %
so -
0.634/1.298 x100 % = 48.8% - close enough.....

So that's about 5 hours to half intensity - is any part of the graph flat like the ArcAAA (hopeful?) or Dorcy 1AAA, and over what period of time?
(I know, I should just wait for your graph -
but it's so much fun getting these progress reports /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif)

Thanks,
 
Probably this question has been asked before in another thread so I apologize for asking again but how is the brightness of the nimh compared to a fresh alkaline in the
Arc AAA?
 
[ QUOTE ]
UnknownVT said:
Thanks again Craig.

What did you mean about the maths? If the vertical scale is linear - ie: your reading is linearly proportional to the intensity - then it's simply -
current reading/initial reading x 100 %
so -
0.634/1.298 x100 % = 48.8% - close enough.....


[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for providing the math. I input the numbers into a calculator, and obtained a result of 0.488 and some additional numbers to the right of the decimal. Multiplying by 100 and not using the "%" function results in a reading of 48.8. Let's see what percentage I have now (using your formula), as of this writing...BRB...looks like 41.06% now.


[ QUOTE ]
UnknownVT said:
So that's about 5 hours to half intensity - is any part of the graph flat like the ArcAAA (hopeful?) or Dorcy 1AAA, and over what period of time?
(I know, I should just wait for your graph -
but it's so much fun getting these progress reports /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif)

Thanks,

[/ QUOTE ]
You're more than welcome. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
From about 0:20 to about 5:00 looks pretty flat to me.
But I won't know that for absolute, positive, 100% certainty until the test ends and I make a graph for it.

Hopefully, this test will be complete by 10:30pm PDT, otherwise I'll have to stop it early to prevent the cell from becoming damaged or destroyed overnight.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The_LED_Museum said:
From about 0:20 to about 5:00 looks pretty flat to me.
But I won't know that for absolute, positive, 100% certainty until the test ends and I make a graph for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

WoW! you serious?

almost constant flat output for nearly 5 hours?
at approx what % of the initial?
is this flat part about the same ballpark intensity as the flat part of the ArcAAA?

so does the intensity start to decay/fall after 5 hours down to the 48.8% over the period of 5:00 - 5:23?
 
I won't really have any more answers until it falls to 25% intensity (when I can then stop the test without ruining it), then I'll make a chart for it and post it in a new thread in this forum.

Sorry I don't have any more answers right now. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

Oh, it's at 36.97% now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top