Differnce between AW's RCR123 and LiMN 16340?

fenix-store
S

Sabre

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Aug 8, 2006
Messages
67
What's the difference between the AW RCR123 protected, and the AW IMR 16340 LiMN? I see that the capacity is different, (750mAH vs. 500mAH), and it doesn't say that the 16340 is protected. With a larger capacity and a protection circuit, why would anybody want the 16340?

Asking because I just got two of the RCR123s from Lighthound and will probably buy at least two more, unless there is some kind of advantage to the 16340.

AW RCR123 protected: http://www.lighthound.com/AW-RCR123a-Protected-750-mAh-Battery_p_0-114.html

AW IMR16340 LiMN: http://www.lighthound.com/AW-IMR163...N-lithium-rechargeable-battery_p_20-2626.html
 
I have that same question. I looked in the batteries section, but the difference wasn't really clear to me.
 
LiMN have a MUCH safer high draw rate.

In P7, MC-E, and strong incans this cell ends up being about the same capacity as the AW's because they don't suffer the voltage sag that the AW's do.

So what you need depends on what you want to do with them.
 
Last edited:
The difference is in the discharge current, the RCR123 are fine with load of up to 1.2 ampere, the IMR16340 can take higher loads (up to 4 or 5 ampere).
 
They're labeled as different capacities, but in real use they're just about identical. For example, I tested a Dereelight C2H, which pulls about 1.4 amps on turbo mode. Both gave me approximately 25 minutes runtime. With really high loads, the IMR 16340 should have a little more capacity than the RCR.
The advantage is that the IMR is a safe chemistry, in that it won't explode or catch fire if overcharged or short-circuited. Now granted, a protected RCR123 will stop itself from being overcharged and will not deliver current if short-circuited as long as the circuit is working. But, the circuit could fail, especially with the abuse of tailcaps with stiff springs pressing on the circuit's pcb (usually at the bottom of the battery).

The disadvatntage is that you have to be careful about discharging them too low (under 2.5V), because it can ruin the cell. RCR123's will also get ruined if discharged too low, but the low-voltage shutoff portion of the circuit will prevent it from happening in a regulated light. It won't always prevent it in an unregulated light however... they battery's low-voltage cutoff won't kick in if the current draw becomes really low.
 
Last edited:
I see. So for my Fenix T1 I should stick with the RCR123s, I gather?
 
brighterisbetter said:
LiMn 16340's have max discharge rate of 8C. See HERE This will allow you to power some of the upcoming extreme output LF LA's designed for a mini-hotwire without danger of explosion.
Click to expand...

Not to divert this off path, but what kind of new lamps:D? Any links:D? I was just thinking in math class how they could put 6X 16340's and run a 18.5 volt 74 watt bulb from it:faint:! I'd probably go for like 50 watts since you at least get a 12 minuet run time:eek:! PM me or something as not to jack the thread:mecry:.

[Edit:Never mind found stuff on it;).]
 
Last edited:
At the top of every CPF page is a google, cpf only link. Write in IMR16340 and you will find a lot of stuff there.

Juggernaut, good for you for finding info on your own.

Bill
 
Sabre, over the last few years I have found the protected cells do very well at constant current draws of up to about 1.1 amps...perfect for many led applications but pushing them beyond that results in a considerable decline in the number of charge/discharge cycles you will get. This is not a fault of the battery, just the nature of the beast. They are good cells. I'll continue to buy them.

I use several single and dual AWRCR123 protected cell fed flashlights on a daily basis at work for extended periods and have burned through enough of them to come to this conclusion.
 
AW's black label 16340 will give you longer runtimes with medium and lower output lights than the IMR type or LiMn. At least according to some runtimes I've looked at here by some of our regular reviewers who prepare runtime charts on new lights with different battery types. Under heavy current draw the IMR actually got just a little better runtime but at average and low current draws the regular rechargeable 16340's did better on runtime.
 
Please post in the correct place - this obviously belongs in the Batteries section. Moving it there now.
 
FlashCrazy said:
They're labeled as different capacities, but in real use they're just about identical. For example, I tested a Dereelight C2H, which pulls about 1.4 amps on turbo mode. Both gave me approximately 25 minutes runtime. With really high loads, the IMR 16340 should have a little more capacity than the RCR.
The advantage is that the IMR is a safe chemistry, in that it won't explode or catch fire if overcharged or short-circuited. Now granted, a protected RCR123 will stop itself from being overcharged and will not deliver current if short-circuited as long as the circuit is working. But, the circuit could fail, especially with the abuse of tailcaps with stiff springs pressing on the circuit's pcb (usually at the bottom of the battery).

The disadvatntage is that you have to be careful about discharging them too low (under 2.5V), because it can ruin the cell. RCR123's will also get ruined if discharged too low, but the low-voltage shutoff portion of the circuit will prevent it from happening in a regulated light. It won't always prevent it in an unregulated light however... they battery's low-voltage cutoff won't kick in if the current draw becomes really low.
Click to expand...

just the answer that I needed:twothumbs
 
The IMR16340 seems to have the capacity advantage over the RCR123a at any current draw 1 amp and above. And the cells have less internal resistance which make lights brighter. Sometimes the RCR123a cells won't fit in lights that the IMR16340 cells will because of the RCR's protection circuit, which also tends to drain some off of the battery and make it a little less reliable in extreme conditions. Plus of course, it's a safe chemistry. For my uses, I don't have any reason bother with RCR123a sized cells anymore.
 
I've seen a couple statements about LiMn being a safe chemistry.

What should actually be said is that it is a safeR chemistry, i.e. safeR than LiCo. LiMn still has the potential to turn nasty (they can still burst, but probably not as bad as LiCo, and they have higher tolerances, but still potentially dangerous), as shown by the TK Monster Explosion.

If you want a safe chemistry, try out the LiFePO4 chemistry. But of course, LiMn voltages are higher, which makes them more popular sometimes.

I do use LiMns myself (for my hotwires) but do be aware of their dangers which can still exist. Just because they are safer doesn't mean they're completely safe :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Robocop
16340 information please
Replies
9
Views
393
Buff
Buff
M
16340 recommendation?
Replies
5
Views
2K
tech25
tech25
vicv
Lfp 16340
Replies
18
Views
1K
vicv
vicv
T
14500 VS 16340 Advice Please
Replies
7
Views
1K
aznsx
A
S
Are the 16340 batteries from Nextorch TA20 and acebeam TK16 interchangeable?
Replies
4
Views
981
Sonnenhell123
S

Latest posts

Top