Looking for R CR123 3V with peak voltage < 3.7-3.8v

[symbiot]

Hello, i still can't find some rechargeable CR123 3V with peak voltage less than 3.7-3.8v.

Any reviews says once different brands of R CR123 are fully charged the output voltage can vary between 3.95 and 4.2 volts.

I think it can harm some electronic devices if you use R CR123 with even small over-voltage at long term ?

Am i right ?

Any suggestions for protected R CR123 3V with MAX peak voltage < 3.7v ????

THX in advance!!!

 

[Mr Happy]

Hi,

Welcome to CPF :welcome:

There are various different options for rechargeable 123 batteries, but unfortunately none of them is a universal replacement for primary CR123A cells. As you observe, the fully charged voltage of a "normal" RCR123 is 4.2 V, which means these are not suitable for some devices like incandescent lights. There are other options though that do charge up to about 3 V and are more compatible.

Your choice of battery depends a little on exactly what device you want to put them in. If you can let us know that I am sure some other members will be along to give you good suggestions.

 

[asfaltpiloot]

Member AW sells LiFePO4 cells @ CPFMarketplace.
http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=125353

"Off the 3.6V charger, it reads 3.6V and will settle down to 3.37V ( fully charged ). Nominal voltage is 3.2V under load".

Robert.

 

[symbiot]

Hi,

Welcome to CPF :welcome:

THX lovecpf

Your choice of battery depends a little on exactly what device you want to put them in. If you can let us know that I am sure some other members will be along to give you good suggestions.

I would like to use it with my Nikon flash kit - 2 flashes and 1 commander unit.

I have bought Ultrafire charger + 4x RCR123 recently, but because of their protection i can't use them cause they are 1-2mm longer :sick2:

So i need some RCR123s fully compatible, of exact size like original ones, and if it possible with max voltage of 3.7-3.8 volts, because i'm afraid of damaging 800 euros kit because of 0.7-1.2v over-volt.

 

[45/70]

Hi symbiot,

AW's LiFePO4 cells, asfaltpiloot suggested, or similar LiFePO4 cells are probably your best bet. They come off the charger at about 3.6 Volts and maintain around 3.2 Volts under most current loads. Make sure you get a proper charger for this type of cell. There are three versions of RCR123 chargers, all have different actual charging voltages.

The only other option is 3 Volt LiCo RCR123's. The problem with these, is that they can peak for an instant at 4.0 Volts or over, when first powered up. To be safe, I wouldn't use these unless Nikon says their OK. And again, even though both the 3 Volt LiCo and LiFePO4 chargers are called "3 Volt", they actually use a different charging voltage, due to the different chemistry and additional circuitry in the LiCo version, so you need a specific charger for these cells, as well.

Keep in mind both of these options are 3 Volts +, compared to CR123A primary cells. Also, note that none of the rechargeable 123's have as much capacity as a CR123A primary, most are about half, or less.

Dave

 

[symbiot]

Hi symbiot,

AW's LiFePO4 cells, asfaltpiloot suggested, or similar LiFePO4 cells are probably your best bet. They come off the charger at about 3.6 Volts and maintain around 3.2 Volts under most current loads. Make sure you get a proper charger for this type of cell. There are three versions of RCR123 chargers, all have different actual charging voltages.

The only other option is 3 Volt LiCo RCR123's. The problem with these, is that they can peak for an instant at 4.0 Volts or over, when first powered up. To be safe, I wouldn't use these unless Nikon says their OK. And again, even though both the 3 Volt LiCo and LiFePO4 chargers are called "3 Volt", they actually use a different charging voltage, due to the different chemistry and additional circuitry in the LiCo version, so you need a specific charger for these cells, as well.

Keep in mind both of these options are 3 Volts +, compared to CR123A primary cells. Also, note that none of the rechargeable 123's have as much capacity as a CR123A primary, most are about half, or less.

Dave

BIg Thx for your answer, probably i'll buy AW's LiFePO4, just need to see pro and cons first.

 

[symbiot]

I've found 2 interesting Tenergy batteries

RCR123A 3V 900mAh Rechargeable Li-Ion

&

RCR123A 3.0V 750mAh Rechargeable LiFePO4 Li-Ion

Interesting for me, because it seems to be a normal size cr123a batteries, and in some reviews people used this with Nikon flashes and it works!!!

LiFePO4 seems to be more safer, have a longer cycle and better energy efficient.

But the question is - 750mAh or 900mAh, do you think LiFePO4 will stay longer because of it advantages ?

Have someone a possibility to make a (peak)voltage test of this 2 rechargeables, just to be sure ?

What are other real advantages of LiFePO4s batteries except longer life and safety ?

 

[45/70]

In case you didn't already figure it out, the Tenergy 900mAh are diode, voltage corrected, 3.7 Volt LiCo cells (the ones I mentioned in my last post). Neither of these Tenergy cells come anywhere near their labeled capacity, but are actually somewhere around half that, or maybe a little better. If you search/look around the Forum, you may be able to find some test results. Soshine and Powerizer also offer similar cells. I have Powerizer and, AW's. He used to sell a version of these, years ago. EDIT: AW's version, was also a protected cell. I don't think any of the ones available now offer protection circuits. Delkin is another possibility, but unprotected, as well.

The voltage of the LiCo version, is as I said before, it's possible to get 4.00 Volts out of them for an instant, before the diodes (that are used to lower their voltage from 3.7 to ~3.2 Volts) kick in.

The LiCo 3 Volts will probably, initially have a slightly higher capacity, but the LiFePO4's will last a lot longer (number of cycles/years). In addition, the LiFePO4 cells are a safe chemistry. The LiCo 3 Volt cells have no protection circuit and thus are prone to when charging an overly discharged cell.

I myself used to (and still have some) use the LiCo 3 Volt cells in lights that were voltage sensitive and/or would be damaged by 3.7 Volt cells. Anymore, I'm replacing them with LiFePO4 cells. I just feel more comfortable with them.

Dave

 

[Mr Happy]

I am puzzled that camera manufacturers even make CR123A powered flashes, when the AA cell provides for a high performing and very convenient rechargeable solution. One option you might consider is selling the flash and replacing it with one that takes AA cells? Four AA Eneloops will give you about 2000 mAh, which is far more than the approximately 700 mAh you will get from RCR123 cells. Many photographers use rechargeable AA cells in flashes very successfully.

 

[45/70]

I am puzzled that camera manufacturers even make CR123A powered flashes, when the AA cell provides for a high performing and very convenient rechargeable solution. One option you might consider is selling the flash and replacing it with one that takes AA cells? Four AA Eneloops will give you about 2000 mAh, which is far more than the approximately 700 mAh you will get from RCR123 cells. Many photographers use rechargeable AA cells in flashes very successfully.

I think physical size is the main advantage of 123's.

As for the AA vs. RCR123 power comparison, they are, for all practical purposes, the same Wh, but the RCR123 form factor is smaller than AA. Also keep in mind that most camera manufacturers were probably thinking of primary CR123A cells, not rechargeables. This tilts the volume and weight ratio considerably more in favor of the 123 form factor.

Dave

 

[symbiot]

I think physical size is the main advantage of 123's.

As for the AA vs. RCR123 power comparison, they are, for all practical purposes, the same Wh, but the RCR123 form factor is smaller than AA. Also keep in mind that most camera manufacturers were probably thinking of primary CR123A cells, not rechargeables. This tilts the volume and weight ratio considerably more in favor of the 123 form factor.

Dave

Yep, you are 100% right, the advantage of CR123 cells is their size and weight. SB-R200 flashes are extremely powerful but also extremely small and light-weight. It makes them very useful in various conditions and give a possibility to attach them with a special ring directly at the camera lens !!! It's a great macro stuff.



PS Thx to all for your opinions and your help !!!

 

[Mr Happy]

I think physical size is the main advantage of 123's.

As for the AA vs. RCR123 power comparison, they are, for all practical purposes, the same Wh, but the RCR123 form factor is smaller than AA. Also keep in mind that most camera manufacturers were probably thinking of primary CR123A cells, not rechargeables. This tilts the volume and weight ratio considerably more in favor of the 123 form factor.

Yes, size and weight is undeniable, but I have a very compact flash unit that takes 2 AA cells and is really not that heavy with two eneloops in it. Looking at the economics of a rechargeable solution I can't help thinking this works out better than using an RCR123 cell. If you take a lot of pictures the cost of primary CR123A cells soon adds up.

 

[45/70]

You present a good argument, Mr H.

Still, the bottom line is that RCR123's are a bit smaller, about half the weight of eneloops, and have the same approximate Wh. This may not seem like much to you and me, but to a professional photographer, things like this add up. With all the gear they carry around, they may have 10 or more cells in their equipment at one time and, to them anyway, there may be a substantial weight/volume savings.

That said, I have two digital cameras. A point and shoot, and a DSLR. Both use 4xAA cells. The DSLR is Li-Ion capable (two RCR-V3 "packs", that are 2 paralleled 14500's ea.), but I use eneloops in both cameras.

Dave