Gear Review: ZTS MBT-1 Pulse Load Battery Tester

[vadimax]

I guess this thread should be joined with G700 super-puper-blackops-stellar flashlight The items are worth each other. More of that, they should be sold as a kit!

Russians call that "lokhotron" -- an easy way to take money from ignorant people.

Just funny: that "jewel" is being sold for $100. Opus BT-C100, that can charge, discharge, revive, check capacity, check internal impedance of a battery is being sold for $10 and several cents... You can even check primaries with it as it starts charging only after several seconds to pass. And you know what? -- It even allows to select discharge rate in order to evaluate voltage sag under load. For 10 (ten!) bucks...

Does anyone have one? May you meter the current while testing a battery with the on-topic device? I've got a suspicion that it just meters voltage and compares it to a table of stored values In that case current will be minimal.

 

[seery]

How about the early digital meter patents issued to Ideal Industries?

i.e US4127810A

Bogus? Abusive? Ludicrous?

Since the Chinese do not recognize US patents, I have a hard time following your logic.

 

[Gauss163]

That a patent would not hold up to challenge has nothing at all to do with Chinese recognition of it.

 

[Gauss163]

Btw, worth emphasis is that you won't find any claims of accuracy in the ZTS product literature, only vague remarks like "patented, high accuracy pulse load test". That's because the actual accuracy numbers would look very bad. The crude fuel gauge can probably be off by 50% or more in many cases.

For example, for different chemistry Li-ion cells 3.7V can be 14% SOC for one type, and 54% for another, e.g see HKJ's tables. So not knowing the exact chemistry can lead to huge errors. And such discrepancies can be much worse for chemistries with even flatter discharge curves.

If you enjoy DIY projects then you can attain far better accuracy and, no doubt, better spend that $100 elsewhere.

Update Sure enough, a moment's searching confirms my suspicions about the bogosity of such "high accuracy" claims. For example, in this CPF post a ZBT MBT-1 user got inconsistent readings of 100% and 60% on the same CR123 cell. Not the least bit surprising to anyone who is familiar with battery fuel gauge algorithms. But the snake-oil salesman will be glad to let you think otherwise with their claims of "patented, high accuracy pulse load test". Yeah, right... if you believe that then PM me for some great deals on 10000mAh 18650s.

 

[SilverFox]

Hello Gauss163,

While you are entitled to your opinion, please watch your tone in presenting it.

I object to you referring to those who purchase this device as suckers. Especially since I have and use the ZTS almost on a daily basis.

It seems you don't understand its value so let me see if I can help...

In 2008 there were a lot of CR123 cells available that had issues with their chemistry. Using the ZTS I was able to avoid using unmatched cells. Note that "name brand" CR123 cells didn't have this problem. I believe my safety has value.

The ZTS uses an accurate and repeatable pulse to load the cell, and measures the voltage response of the cell. This allows a measurement with minimal drain. The voltage is compared to a look up table developed by comparing the actual discharge curves of a variety of name brand cells at ZTS.

The Ansmann tester is reasonable good with new cells powering it, but its pulse is not regulated and it drops off as the batteries wear down. I have one of these too but prefer the ZTS because it is more consistent.

If you happened to read through the post you linked to you will see that I ran some tests on in. I found that with NiMh chemistry 60% is not an accurate indication of capacity remaining but cells that show 60% have roughly the same capacity left in them. Not precise but close enough for general use and the information is available almost instantly.

I have had very good results using the ZTS to match primary cells. My wife uses coin cells in Christmas ornaments. At the beginning of the season it just takes a few minutes to sort the cells out and make sure the multi cell applications have reasonably matched cells.

I would not consider using the ZTS to match Li-Ion cells and agree that a voltmeter and discharge capacity is a much better way to match that chemistry.

I think there is value with the ZTS. I use it regularly and find it useful. Is the cost worth the value is a question that individuals need to sort out for themselves.

Tom

 

[Gauss163]

Hello Gauss163,

While you are entitled to your opinion, please watch your tone in presenting it.

I object to you referring to those who purchase this device as suckers....

@Tom Please be more careful and read what I wrote (not what someone else claims that I wrote). I never said any such thing about ZTS purchasers (rather, about military purchases of $640 toilet seats and $10000 Cadex battery analyzers).

ZTS's "high accuracy" claims reek of snake-oil (esp. to someone like I who has consulted on design of fuel gauges so has good knowledge of the challenges in attaining high-accuracy). I don't see any hard data that supports ZTS claims of high-accuracy, either from the manufacturer or from trusted users. Until then I will rightfully dismiss this nonsense as snake-oil marketing hype. If you truly believe otherwise then show me some hard numbers that support these claims. Needless to say, I won't be holding my breath....

Behind every Great man there's always a woman rolling her eyes...

Behind every great marketing campaign there is a scientist rolling his eyes....

 

[Timothybil]

I wish people would stop using the toilet seat example as an example of waste. I have worked on government bids, and it is an eye opening experience. Besides all the exacting detail required and the bend over backwards to be fair rules and regulations, all it takes is one well-meaning idiot on the procurement side to create that expense. Many if not all of us have seen products that comply with MIL SPEC xxx at one time or another in our lives. They serve a useful purpose when applied properly. But applying a MIL SPEC to a hammer or a toilet seat is ridiculous, and just points to a person too lazy to specify the real requirements and just slaps a good sounding MIL SPEC on it. The testing cost for compliance with a MIL SPEC is ridiculous, and usually is not needed. As an example, I can see needing a MIL SPEC for the safety labeling used on the fuselage of an F-16, but to require that the labels on a network router comply to the same MIL SPEC is a waste.

Sorry to get up on my soap box, but the RFP response team I worked on had fifty of use working for over six months to generate the response, and ran into examples like this ever day. As an example, take a guess how many laser printers one can find where 'all ROMs, PROMs, EPROMs, and other programmable devices are manufactured and programmed in the United States". Since that information is not available in the publicly available documentation, and this was 1990, that meant the it took most of a day for a person to generate phone calls and/or snail mail requests to all the major laser printer vendors, and waiting n number of days for a response, which for the most point was 'nope'.

 

[Bullzeyebill]

@Tom Please be more careful and read what I wrote (not what someone else claims that I wrote). I never said any such thing about ZTS purchasers (rather, about military purchases of $640 toilet seats and $10000 Cadex battery analyzers).

Gauss163, by innuendo you implied that. I have discussed to you, via PM, your "tone", yet you persist. Take 3 days off to think about it, and consider CPF Rule 8, whining about a moderators actions, SiliverFox's in this case.

Bill

 

[ronniepudding]

I have a ZTS Mini MBT, and I find it very convenient for testing remaining capacity on NiMH, alkaline, L91/92, CR123, and RCR123 cells on a regular basis. I have never been under the impression that the gauge/readout is especially precise... It is, after all, in 20% increments However, it is close enough for jazz when determining if a cell needs to go in the recharge pile, or - for primaries - the recycle bin. And it is very quick and easy to use. I paid $34 for it at Lighthound (RIP) a couple of years ago, and have never regretted the purchase.

 

[ChrisGarrett]

Gauss163, by innuendo you implied that. I have discussed to you, via PM, your "tone", yet you persist. Take 3 days off to think about it, and consider CPF Rule 8, whining about a moderators actions, SiliverFox's in this case.

Bill

Thank you going forward.

Chris

 

[GadgetJim]

I have been using my ZTS Pulse Load Multi-Battery Tester for over two years now (since July 17th, 2014). I use it often, sometimes everyday (we have many devices that use rechargable batteries, and some that use disposable batteries).

I have found the readings are fairly accurate. For people who are not skilled with all the technical garb and experience, this tester is fantastic, simple and quick to use and easy to understand. I check the batteries, can quickly see if my batteries are weak or strong, match, recharge, and I'm back in business.

When my devices are getting weak, this tester correctly shows the batteries as weak. When my batteries are freshly charged, this battery tester shows my batteries as still strong.

The readings match up with my battery chargers that show the state of charge (PowerEX Maha MH-C9000 Wizard One Charger-Analyzer and Opus BT-C3400). So, I would highly recommend the ZTS Pulse Load Multi-Battery Tester.

Regarding price .... It's like anything else ... You want it, pay for it, plain and simple. You don't want to pay for it, then don't buy it. I like gadgets .... especially gadgets that I can put to good use.

 

[Scotcha]

+1000 I have one & find it very useful. My wife can check batteries when I'm away, she couldn't be bothered using a multimeter etc. heck, my 8 year old nephew uses it at times.

 

[Illum]

I think there's an active circuit in there that's probably MCU based and contains a wide array of loads. A CR1616 is 3V 120mAH. I don't know what sort of resistor will be best to test a battery like this as just about any resistor that can impinge a noticeable voltage drop will drain the battery before the readout can take place. A pulsed load followed by a hold and sample circuit is above and beyond what a multimeter can be beneficial even when there's a bleed resistor across the terminals. I think the selling point is primarily the coin/button cell testers. For ordinary batteries [yes, that includes 18650s] it does appear heavily overpriced, but we are not forced to buy it.

 

[snakebite]

accuracy is influenced by things like contact resistance.as cr123 cells passivate sitting and this may not be uniform even with cells from the same batch i can see differences in results.i would clean all contacts and run a load on the cells in question then retest.the the theory of operation is sound.but not infallible.

Btw, worth emphasis is that you won't find any claims of accuracy in the ZTS product literature, only vague remarks like "patented, high accuracy pulse load test". That's because the actual accuracy numbers would look very bad. The crude fuel gauge can probably be off by 50% or more in many cases.

For example, for different chemistry Li-ion cells 3.7V can be 14% SOC for one type, and 54% for another, e.g see HKJ's tables. So not knowing the exact chemistry can lead to huge errors. And such discrepancies can be much worse for chemistries with even flatter discharge curves.

If you enjoy DIY projects then you can attain far better accuracy and, no doubt, better spend that $100 elsewhere.

Update Sure enough, a moment's searching confirms my suspicions about the bogosity of such "high accuracy" claims. For example, in this CPF post a ZBT MBT-1 user got inconsistent readings of 100% and 60% on the same CR123 cell. Not the least bit surprising to anyone who is familiar with battery fuel gauge algorithms. But the snake-oil salesman will be glad to let you think otherwise with their claims of "patented, high accuracy pulse load test". Yeah, right... if you believe that then PM me for some great deals on 10000mAh 18650s.

 

[sidecross]

I just found this thread and I purchased this tester shortly after my sustained interest flashlights and their batteries.

I never consider tools that help to make things clearer to understand 'too expensive'. I would rather have fewer flashlights and batteries if I had a tool or tester that helped make clear the limits of performance.

As mentioned in the review this tool tests the battery under load.

I skipped over the arguments made by the usual suspects.

 

[Crazyeddiethefirst]

I bought the ZTS-MBT-1 new. $42. It added an additional level of accuracy to just the DMM. I have over 100 flashlights that are kept "at the ready". On a few, with Surefire Lithium Primaries, DMM showed over 4 volts, under load testing they came back at 20%-40%. For me. The ZTS kept me from taking a light subject to premature power failure into the field. (I know there are arguments to be made about potential causes & passivation), but instead of using those 2-3 lights in question. I pop in fresh cells, test by DMM & my ZTS and at 100% I am good to go. As a Chief Flight Nurse, I find the value in this tester worth every penny and quite a bit more. I am very glad to have this meter and will highly recommend it.

 

[GulfCoastToad]

It's been 5 years. Is this still the only way to test Energizier L91?

 

[Timothybil]

There are tons of battery testers out there, some better than others, but to my knowledge the MBT line is the only reasonably priced line of testers that actually measure under load to see what the real available capacity (as measured by voltage) is.

If I get really, really bored some day, I'll probably lash together a battery holder, switch, volt meter, and incan load to be able to watch how the surface voltage bleeds off and we get down to the real available voltage. Should be interesting.

 

[Lynx_Arc]

I have a cheap small battery tester that has an LCD readout, 3 load settings and goes up to 20.0Vdc that I took apart and modded it slightly to even test 18650 voltage