ENELOOPS need break-in cycle?
- Thread starter SangYuP
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
In my limited experience so far, I would have to say.....
They don't technically 'need' a break-in cycle, but it sure doesn't hurt.
Here are the numbers from a simple test I just finished today.
The test was done using a Maha MH-C9000 Charger/analyzer. The batteries are from one of the Sanyo Packs with 8 AA's, 4 AAA's, a Charger, 2 C cell adapters, and 2 D cell adapters.
Using the 8 AA Eneloops, I divided them into 2 groups of 4.
This is the first group of 4. First thing was to just discharge them, measuring their Initial existing capacity. Second step was to do a Refresh and Analyze charge. Third step was to do a Break-In charge.
As you can see from below, after the R&A charge, the batteries at least met the stated capacity of the batteries (Okay, one of them is 2 mA low..I'm counting that one as 2000mA anyway). But, the Break-In charge improved them even further.
Compare the first set of numbers to the second set of numbers.
FIRST SET
Batt# - Initial Capacity - R&A Cycle - BreakIn Cycle
---------------------------------------------------
EL1 - 1412 mA - 2014 mA - 2070 mA
EL2 - 1394 mA - 1998 mA - 2044 mA
EL3 - 1414 mA - 2013 mA - 2058 mA
EL4 - 1359 mA - 2014 mA - 2078 mA
SECOND SET
Batt# - Initial Capacity - BreakIn Cycle 1 - BreakIn Cycle 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
EL5 - 1478 mA - 2068 mA - 2150 mA
EL6 - 1477 mA - 2064 mA - 2141 mA
EL7 - 1468 mA - 2057 mA - 2141 mA
EL8 - 1488 mA - 2074 mA - 2169 mA
With the 2nd group of 4. I performed the Initial discharge test. But then I performed a Break-in charge, followed by another Break-In charge.
As you can see the 2nd set has better overall numbers using the 2 Break-In charges versus the first set using the R&A and Break-In charge.
So....at least from this simple test....it appears that a couple Break-In charges puts them at their 'maximum' capacity, a little bit better than a drain and recharge (basically what R&A does) or two does.
Although I would expect that a few more R&A charges would probably also get them up near their 'maximum' capacites as well.
They don't technically 'need' a break-in cycle, but it sure doesn't hurt.
Here are the numbers from a simple test I just finished today.
The test was done using a Maha MH-C9000 Charger/analyzer. The batteries are from one of the Sanyo Packs with 8 AA's, 4 AAA's, a Charger, 2 C cell adapters, and 2 D cell adapters.
Using the 8 AA Eneloops, I divided them into 2 groups of 4.
This is the first group of 4. First thing was to just discharge them, measuring their Initial existing capacity. Second step was to do a Refresh and Analyze charge. Third step was to do a Break-In charge.
As you can see from below, after the R&A charge, the batteries at least met the stated capacity of the batteries (Okay, one of them is 2 mA low..I'm counting that one as 2000mA anyway). But, the Break-In charge improved them even further.
Compare the first set of numbers to the second set of numbers.
FIRST SET
Batt# - Initial Capacity - R&A Cycle - BreakIn Cycle
---------------------------------------------------
EL1 - 1412 mA - 2014 mA - 2070 mA
EL2 - 1394 mA - 1998 mA - 2044 mA
EL3 - 1414 mA - 2013 mA - 2058 mA
EL4 - 1359 mA - 2014 mA - 2078 mA
SECOND SET
Batt# - Initial Capacity - BreakIn Cycle 1 - BreakIn Cycle 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
EL5 - 1478 mA - 2068 mA - 2150 mA
EL6 - 1477 mA - 2064 mA - 2141 mA
EL7 - 1468 mA - 2057 mA - 2141 mA
EL8 - 1488 mA - 2074 mA - 2169 mA
With the 2nd group of 4. I performed the Initial discharge test. But then I performed a Break-in charge, followed by another Break-In charge.
As you can see the 2nd set has better overall numbers using the 2 Break-In charges versus the first set using the R&A and Break-In charge.
So....at least from this simple test....it appears that a couple Break-In charges puts them at their 'maximum' capacity, a little bit better than a drain and recharge (basically what R&A does) or two does.
Although I would expect that a few more R&A charges would probably also get them up near their 'maximum' capacites as well.
Last edited:
SilverFox
Flashaholic
Hello Turak,
Welcome to CPF.
Interesting results. At higher current draws I have not noticed much difference between simply using the cells or running break in cycles on them. I may have to go back and re-visit this...
Tom
Welcome to CPF.
Interesting results. At higher current draws I have not noticed much difference between simply using the cells or running break in cycles on them. I may have to go back and re-visit this...
Tom
Turak,
Wow, thank you for the indepth analysis. I was too excited about getting the ENELOOPS so I just topped them off and started using them right away. I guess I'll just have to use them and charge them several times to get the capacity high like yours...
Wow, thank you for the indepth analysis. I was too excited about getting the ENELOOPS so I just topped them off and started using them right away. I guess I'll just have to use them and charge them several times to get the capacity high like yours...
oldvultureface
Newly Enlightened
Turak:
What version of the C9000 are you using? Mine is a 0G0D01 and the best numbers I got for break-in were in the high 1800's to low 1900's.
What version of the C9000 are you using? Mine is a 0G0D01 and the best numbers I got for break-in were in the high 1800's to low 1900's.
oldvultureface
Newly Enlightened
Thanks.
VidPro
Flashlight Enthusiast
Turak
what was the method for the testing in each situation?
the reason i ask is because a slower discharge rate would be different, and using something like a 900 or 9000 thing would show differerent results, on different rates, cutoffs are reached slower etc.
what was the method for the testing in each situation?
the reason i ask is because a slower discharge rate would be different, and using something like a 900 or 9000 thing would show differerent results, on different rates, cutoffs are reached slower etc.
Yes, please post the charge and discharge currents used in your tests.
I just finished a R&A cycle on a brand new pair of AAA Eneloops, charging them at 300 mA and discharging at 200 mA on my 0G0E01-batched c9000
I got:
803 mAh
814 mAh
The cells were first discharged at 200 mA
I just finished a R&A cycle on a brand new pair of AAA Eneloops, charging them at 300 mA and discharging at 200 mA on my 0G0E01-batched c9000
I got:
803 mAh
814 mAh
The cells were first discharged at 200 mA
I used the Maha MH-C9000 charger/analyzer.
I first discharged the batteries using the Discharge mode set at 500mA discharge rate.
Note - In the 'First Set' above....the one where I used the R&A mode one time...the rates were .5A charge and .5A discharge. For both sets the Break-In mode rates were as follows.
I then let them rest 1 hour.
I then charged them using the Break-In mode.
When you select the Break-In mode, the charger asks you for the batteries capacity, which in the case of the Eneloops was 2000mA.
The charger then uses the IEC industry standard method to compute the charge and discharge rates....based on the capacity that you entered.
The charge rate is .1C for 16 hours, so in the case of the Eneloops it used 200mA for 16 hours.
The discharge rate is .2C, so in the case of the Eneloops it was 400mA.
The exact IEC regiment is;
Charge for 16 hours at .1C.
Rest the battery for 1 hour.
Discharge at .2C.
Rest for 1 hour.
Recharge battery at .1C.
A final note.....If you are determining the capacity of a battery, you should ALWAYS use the .2C discharge rate if you are going to be comparing it to other batteries or any of the manufacturers published rates. Otherwise, your results will be skewed and you will not really be comparing apples to apples.
I first discharged the batteries using the Discharge mode set at 500mA discharge rate.
Note - In the 'First Set' above....the one where I used the R&A mode one time...the rates were .5A charge and .5A discharge. For both sets the Break-In mode rates were as follows.
I then let them rest 1 hour.
I then charged them using the Break-In mode.
When you select the Break-In mode, the charger asks you for the batteries capacity, which in the case of the Eneloops was 2000mA.
The charger then uses the IEC industry standard method to compute the charge and discharge rates....based on the capacity that you entered.
The charge rate is .1C for 16 hours, so in the case of the Eneloops it used 200mA for 16 hours.
The discharge rate is .2C, so in the case of the Eneloops it was 400mA.
The exact IEC regiment is;
Charge for 16 hours at .1C.
Rest the battery for 1 hour.
Discharge at .2C.
Rest for 1 hour.
Recharge battery at .1C.
A final note.....If you are determining the capacity of a battery, you should ALWAYS use the .2C discharge rate if you are going to be comparing it to other batteries or any of the manufacturers published rates. Otherwise, your results will be skewed and you will not really be comparing apples to apples.
Last edited:
tino_ale
Flashlight Enthusiast
Interesting test, but according to your last post it seems that discharge current was 0.5A for the first set (during R&A) as opposed to 0.4A for the second set (during forming cycle).
Can't this difference of discharge current be the real reason for different capacity readings?
Even if the discharging current was identical, it wouldn't tell us if it is just a slow charge that is more efficient in charging the cells, or if the cells that went under forming have really become better performers.
To know that for sure, I believe it would have been more telling to run :
set 1 :
discharge (read initial charge)
run R&A
discharge
run R&A to read actual max capacity
set 2 :
discharge (read initial charge)
run Forming
discharge
run R&A to read actual max capacity
by doing this
you would know if forming has any added value compared to a more "standard" R&A, which is much faster. If set 2 has better capacity readings it would mean that forming has really improved their performances and it might be worth taking the time to run it.
Can't this difference of discharge current be the real reason for different capacity readings?
Even if the discharging current was identical, it wouldn't tell us if it is just a slow charge that is more efficient in charging the cells, or if the cells that went under forming have really become better performers.
To know that for sure, I believe it would have been more telling to run :
set 1 :
discharge (read initial charge)
run R&A
discharge
run R&A to read actual max capacity
set 2 :
discharge (read initial charge)
run Forming
discharge
run R&A to read actual max capacity
by doing this
you would know if forming has any added value compared to a more "standard" R&A, which is much faster. If set 2 has better capacity readings it would mean that forming has really improved their performances and it might be worth taking the time to run it.
Last edited:
In the tests above;
The first set was a R&A at .5 charge and .5 discharge, followed by a break-in charge. So the last discharge cycle was at .2C (400mA).
The second set was a break-in cycle, followed by another break-in cycle.
I did run a 3rd test (4 batteries - 2 at 1A charge, .5A discharge and 2 at .5A charge, .5A discharge), trying to see whether several R&A cycles would give me the slightly higher capacities (like the break-in test did). After 5 R&A cycles the capacity leveled off around the 2050-2075 mA range. I then proceeded to run a break-in cycle on them, ended up getting another 25-50 mA of capacity (2100-2150 range)....even after the 5 R&A cycles. Surprised me.
So far.....
My experience has been that on ALL 'NEW' NiMh batteries that I have tested.....the 'forming' charges have brought them to thier maximum capacities better than multiple R & A charges.
Also it seems that it almost always takes a least 2, sometimes 3 break-in charges to get the batteries to their absolute maximums. Even the newer 'pre-charged' batteries (i.e. Eneloops, Hybrio's, etc.)
I have tested;
2500mA Energizers
2300mA Energizers
2300mA Ray-o-Vac
1800mA Ray-o-Vac
2000mA Eneloops
2100mA Uniross Hybrio
2100mA Ansman Max-e
LenMar 2500mA NoMem
That's all I had that were new. I had others, but they all had been cycled a few times already and the results would not have been accurate.
I have also tried a variety of charging/discharging currents for the R&A cycles....
charging = 300mA, 500mA, 1000 mA, 1500mA, and 2000 mA.
discharging = 100mA, 200mA, 400mA, 500mA, 700mA, and 1000mA.
With the final discharge cycle ALWAYS being done at .2C (400mA for the Eneloops) or as close as possible.
On ALL of them, the slower charging/discharging resulted in better capacites, although sometimes only marginally.
I am now doing some cycle testing to try and determine how much the charging current affects the overall number of cycles the battery will go through. The cutoff point will be when the battery will no longer deliver 60% of its initially determined capacity.
Specifically, I am currently testing 500mA, 1A, and 2A charge rates on the Eneloops. I am pretty sure I already know what the outcome will be, but want to prove it AGAIN with the newer LSD batteries
I had previously tested (using BC900) the .5A and 1A rates against some of the regular 2500 mA Energizers and the 2300ma Duracells.......the .5A rate was better (more overall cycles) by almost 20% on the Energizers and 14% on the Duracells.
The first set was a R&A at .5 charge and .5 discharge, followed by a break-in charge. So the last discharge cycle was at .2C (400mA).
The second set was a break-in cycle, followed by another break-in cycle.
I did run a 3rd test (4 batteries - 2 at 1A charge, .5A discharge and 2 at .5A charge, .5A discharge), trying to see whether several R&A cycles would give me the slightly higher capacities (like the break-in test did). After 5 R&A cycles the capacity leveled off around the 2050-2075 mA range. I then proceeded to run a break-in cycle on them, ended up getting another 25-50 mA of capacity (2100-2150 range)....even after the 5 R&A cycles. Surprised me.
So far.....
My experience has been that on ALL 'NEW' NiMh batteries that I have tested.....the 'forming' charges have brought them to thier maximum capacities better than multiple R & A charges.
Also it seems that it almost always takes a least 2, sometimes 3 break-in charges to get the batteries to their absolute maximums. Even the newer 'pre-charged' batteries (i.e. Eneloops, Hybrio's, etc.)
I have tested;
2500mA Energizers
2300mA Energizers
2300mA Ray-o-Vac
1800mA Ray-o-Vac
2000mA Eneloops
2100mA Uniross Hybrio
2100mA Ansman Max-e
LenMar 2500mA NoMem
That's all I had that were new. I had others, but they all had been cycled a few times already and the results would not have been accurate.
I have also tried a variety of charging/discharging currents for the R&A cycles....
charging = 300mA, 500mA, 1000 mA, 1500mA, and 2000 mA.
discharging = 100mA, 200mA, 400mA, 500mA, 700mA, and 1000mA.
With the final discharge cycle ALWAYS being done at .2C (400mA for the Eneloops) or as close as possible.
On ALL of them, the slower charging/discharging resulted in better capacites, although sometimes only marginally.
I am now doing some cycle testing to try and determine how much the charging current affects the overall number of cycles the battery will go through. The cutoff point will be when the battery will no longer deliver 60% of its initially determined capacity.
Specifically, I am currently testing 500mA, 1A, and 2A charge rates on the Eneloops. I am pretty sure I already know what the outcome will be, but want to prove it AGAIN with the newer LSD batteries
I had previously tested (using BC900) the .5A and 1A rates against some of the regular 2500 mA Energizers and the 2300ma Duracells.......the .5A rate was better (more overall cycles) by almost 20% on the Energizers and 14% on the Duracells.
Last edited:
tino_ale
Flashlight Enthusiast
Ok, I didn't get that. So break-in really has some advantage over faster cycle.
I guess it's good to do it from time to time, but honestly, 45 hours is kind of long so there's no way I use that method more than eractically... :ironic:
But it's good to know, thanks for all the info
I guess it's good to do it from time to time, but honestly, 45 hours is kind of long so there's no way I use that method more than eractically... :ironic:
But it's good to know, thanks for all the info
SilverFox
Flashaholic
HelloTurak,
Let me see if I understand what you are observing...
You are using the C-9000. You previously ran tests on Duracell and Energizer cells and found that charging at 500 mA gave higher cycle counts than charging at 1000 mA. I would assume that you were discharging at 500 mA for the Energizer 2500 mAh cells and probably the same rate for the Duracell 2300 mAh cells.
I gather that your test procedure involves charging the cell, waiting 2 hours after the C-9000 indicates "Done" so the charger can complete its top off charge, then removing the cell from the charger to rest for an hour. Then you insert the cell and do the discharge and log the capacity and cycle number. You then let the cell rest for another hour and repeat.
Did you happen to use the "standard" 16 hour 0.1C charge followed by the 0.2C standard discharge to 1.0 volts to form the cells before starting your cycle testing?
Your target for the end of the test is when the capacity of the 2500 mAh cells drops below 1500 mAh, and the capacity of the 2300 mAh cell drops below 1380 mAh. Traditional cycle testing involves re-forming the cells with a "standard" charge/discharge cycle every 50 cycles. Did you happen to do that as well?
I hope I understand your procedure properly...
Using this procedure, you discovered that you could get a 14% increase in cycle life with the Duracell cells and a 20% increase in cycle life with the Energizer cells by charging at 500 mA compared to what you observed when charging at 1000 mA. So, if you got 500 cycles from the Duracell battery when charging at 1000 mA, you were able to get about 570 cycles when charging at 500 mA. Likewise, if you got 500 cycles from the Energizer battery when charging at 1000 mA, you were able to get around 600 cycles when charging at 500 mA.
How many cycles did you actually get?
This is very interesting. Cycle testing is involved and it is difficult to control all of the variables. I have done some, but it is very time consuming, and I often have other things that need to be done.
A couple of side notes...
Sanyo did some testing and observed a slight increase in the capacity of cells that were cycled. This increase happened during the first roughly 150 cycles, then the capacity began to fade. Usually, a "standard" charge/discharge cycle does most of what can be accomplished through extended cycling.
Also, when the Eneloop cells first were introduced, there was very little increase in capacity observed through forming or cycling. I just ran a test on some cells that were from the first batch that were produced, and they did show a slight improvement with cycling. It would appear that the aging process on these cells is now starting to show up. Brand new cells show little capacity increase after forming, but aged cells do. The Eneloop cells appear to cross the line from new to aged in 8 - 12 months. This is a very general observation and more testing will need to be done to confirm this.
Tom
Let me see if I understand what you are observing...
You are using the C-9000. You previously ran tests on Duracell and Energizer cells and found that charging at 500 mA gave higher cycle counts than charging at 1000 mA. I would assume that you were discharging at 500 mA for the Energizer 2500 mAh cells and probably the same rate for the Duracell 2300 mAh cells.
I gather that your test procedure involves charging the cell, waiting 2 hours after the C-9000 indicates "Done" so the charger can complete its top off charge, then removing the cell from the charger to rest for an hour. Then you insert the cell and do the discharge and log the capacity and cycle number. You then let the cell rest for another hour and repeat.
Did you happen to use the "standard" 16 hour 0.1C charge followed by the 0.2C standard discharge to 1.0 volts to form the cells before starting your cycle testing?
Your target for the end of the test is when the capacity of the 2500 mAh cells drops below 1500 mAh, and the capacity of the 2300 mAh cell drops below 1380 mAh. Traditional cycle testing involves re-forming the cells with a "standard" charge/discharge cycle every 50 cycles. Did you happen to do that as well?
I hope I understand your procedure properly...
Using this procedure, you discovered that you could get a 14% increase in cycle life with the Duracell cells and a 20% increase in cycle life with the Energizer cells by charging at 500 mA compared to what you observed when charging at 1000 mA. So, if you got 500 cycles from the Duracell battery when charging at 1000 mA, you were able to get about 570 cycles when charging at 500 mA. Likewise, if you got 500 cycles from the Energizer battery when charging at 1000 mA, you were able to get around 600 cycles when charging at 500 mA.
How many cycles did you actually get?
This is very interesting. Cycle testing is involved and it is difficult to control all of the variables. I have done some, but it is very time consuming, and I often have other things that need to be done.
A couple of side notes...
Sanyo did some testing and observed a slight increase in the capacity of cells that were cycled. This increase happened during the first roughly 150 cycles, then the capacity began to fade. Usually, a "standard" charge/discharge cycle does most of what can be accomplished through extended cycling.
Also, when the Eneloop cells first were introduced, there was very little increase in capacity observed through forming or cycling. I just ran a test on some cells that were from the first batch that were produced, and they did show a slight improvement with cycling. It would appear that the aging process on these cells is now starting to show up. Brand new cells show little capacity increase after forming, but aged cells do. The Eneloop cells appear to cross the line from new to aged in 8 - 12 months. This is a very general observation and more testing will need to be done to confirm this.
Tom
Hi Silverfox.....
I went back and reread my post....boy did I jump all over. No wonder I am confusing sometimes.
The 8 batteries I listed above were tested on a MH-C9000 using the break-in cycle mode from 2-4 times just to see if the break-in mode, especially repeated break-in mode cycles would increase the capacity. Most of the batteries reached their maximums in 2 break-in cycles, while a couple actually went 3 times....no more increase on 4th attempt.
Started by discharging cell. Then ran break-in cycle. Noted discharge capacity. Ran break-in again. Noted discharge capacity. If necessary repeated. They always finished their top off cycles and in all cases trickle charged for anywhere from 2-6 hours. I know...not exactly lab conditions..but good enough to get the idea.
As for the R&A testing at different rates. Started with new battery, no forming. Ran discharge, just to make sure it was discharged. Ran R&A at various charging rates, keeping the discharge rate the same. After finished, discharged at .2C noting capacity. The slower rates almost every time brought the batteries to a higher overall capacity.
Now here is where i really threw a wrench into the mix....
The previous tests that I had done at .5 and 1 A......were made using a BC900 (model 33 firmware). I didn't have the MH-C9000 yet. So they are not good for comparing their results against the results from a MH-C9000. I referenced them just pointing out that the only difference was the .5A versus 1A rate, which in my opinion was notable.
The totals for Energizers 2500's (chinese made) were; 282 & 302 at 1A and 360 & 340 .5A. The cutoff point was 80% of initial capacity which averaged 2400mA. No forming charges after a certain number of cycles. I also used a very low speed fan blowing across the cells to keep everything a bit cooler. Sorry I can't locate my notes with the totals on the Duracells.
Definitely NOT the most rigidly controlled test environment.
I went back and reread my post....boy did I jump all over. No wonder I am confusing sometimes.
The 8 batteries I listed above were tested on a MH-C9000 using the break-in cycle mode from 2-4 times just to see if the break-in mode, especially repeated break-in mode cycles would increase the capacity. Most of the batteries reached their maximums in 2 break-in cycles, while a couple actually went 3 times....no more increase on 4th attempt.
Started by discharging cell. Then ran break-in cycle. Noted discharge capacity. Ran break-in again. Noted discharge capacity. If necessary repeated. They always finished their top off cycles and in all cases trickle charged for anywhere from 2-6 hours. I know...not exactly lab conditions..but good enough to get the idea.
As for the R&A testing at different rates. Started with new battery, no forming. Ran discharge, just to make sure it was discharged. Ran R&A at various charging rates, keeping the discharge rate the same. After finished, discharged at .2C noting capacity. The slower rates almost every time brought the batteries to a higher overall capacity.
Now here is where i really threw a wrench into the mix....
The previous tests that I had done at .5 and 1 A......were made using a BC900 (model 33 firmware). I didn't have the MH-C9000 yet. So they are not good for comparing their results against the results from a MH-C9000. I referenced them just pointing out that the only difference was the .5A versus 1A rate, which in my opinion was notable.
The totals for Energizers 2500's (chinese made) were; 282 & 302 at 1A and 360 & 340 .5A. The cutoff point was 80% of initial capacity which averaged 2400mA. No forming charges after a certain number of cycles. I also used a very low speed fan blowing across the cells to keep everything a bit cooler. Sorry I can't locate my notes with the totals on the Duracells.
Definitely NOT the most rigidly controlled test environment.
Last edited:
N162E
Enlightened
Take them out of the package and use them. Run them a few cycles in actual use and they will be as good as they are going to get. Each test cycle is using up some of the cell's life. We can test them to extinction or use them productively.
SilverFox
Flashaholic
Hello Turak,
Thanks for the additional information.
I have been going to take a look at this for some time now, perhaps I will make it a winter project...
Tom
Thanks for the additional information.
I have been going to take a look at this for some time now, perhaps I will make it a winter project...
Tom
SilverFox
Flashaholic
Hello Fred,
:devil: My vote is to test them half way to extinction, then use them...
Tom
:devil: My vote is to test them half way to extinction, then use them...
Tom
Bones
Enlightened
All else aside, these are still NiMH dry cells, which infers that they are still subject to chrystal growth and electrolyte settling over time, albiet at a much slower rate.
Accordingly, a break-in cycle or two would seem to be in order, especially if they're going into a high drain device.
Sorta like a good stretch in the morning...
Similar threads
