I just finished reading the fake eneloops thread, and I noticed that the newer 2300mah energizer rechargables that I had lying around had the slightly squarish (+) button with vents, which people consider to be the defining feature of real eneloops. They are also made in Japan, so could they be rebranded eneloops like what duracell did? There are differences like the capacity (2000 vs 2300) and the top color (white vs green), but just thought I'd ask.
Newer Energizer Rechargables?
- Thread starter 5370H55V
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Conan
Newly Enlightened
Very unlikely. Energizer don't even have LSD's on offer.
jhellwig
Newly Enlightened
Energizer rechargeable have a following for some reason. They probably don't even need to specifically mention lsd. They mention that they hold charge longer than the 2450's. They might very well be a speced battery made by sanyo. Little bit of lsd little bit of higher capacity. The cases are probably not even made by the company making the batteries. Different companies might be buying the same case.
Hitthespot
Flashlight Enthusiast
If you look at the Energizer web site they claim these "new" longer lasting Rechargables will hold their charge for 6 months. Eneloops have been reported to still retain 75% of their charge after 3 years. So NO, they are not rebranded Eneloops. They are not LSD cells.
Now having said the above, if they do end up holding their charge for 6 months, that will be a vast improvement over the 1 week or less the Energizer rechargables used to perform.
Bill
Last edited:
kramer5150
Flashaholic
x2... even though they technically are not rebranded eneloops, they still could be well worth the investment, depending on how often you care to re-charge them. FWIW, I have some 2450 cells, and I top them off every 5-6 weeks or whenever I remember to do so. AA NIMH is not my primary setup, or I would invest in better cells. I use these cells in my H501 and L1T-V2. They self discharge from 14.5 down to 1.39 Volts in 5-6 weeks.
My AAA setups are used much more frequently, I use duraloops for those lights.
Hooked on Fenix
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,651
I've blown enough money on Energizer NiMH batteries for a lifetime. I've got over 50 2500 mAh AAs. Every single one of them died prematurely, many within 10 charges. While those batteries were dying, I replaced them with Eneloops. While all the Energizers are dead, not one single Eneloop has failed yet, and each Eneloop has been used more than the Energizers already. The Eneloops have also worked down into the teens and twenties F while backpacking. No other rechargeable battery I know can do this. I will probably never buy another Energizer NiMH battery again. I'll stick with my Eneloops. High capacity batteries are worthless in cold weather, for a high number of charges, and for long term storage.
OpenGuy
Newly Enlightened
I picked up a set of these at the local Microcenter. This was the only pack I could find. Apologies for the shadows in the photos.
Out of the pack, all four batteries were 1.292 volts open circuit.
Package front:
http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af90/bmbroom/Energizer2300/front_gimp.jpg
Package rear:
http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af90/bmbroom/Energizer2300/back_gimp.jpg
Battery top:
http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af90/bmbroom/Energizer2300/top_gimp.jpg
Battery bottom:
http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af90/bmbroom/Energizer2300/bottom_gimp.jpg
Date code:
http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af90/bmbroom/Energizer2300/datecode.jpg
Comparison to eneloop:
http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af90/bmbroom/Energizer2300/cfeneloop.jpg
Initial 500 mA discharge out of the pack yielded capacities of 298, 303, 305, and 306 mAh.
Resistance check voltages at start of charge on Maha C9000 were 1.46, 1.44, 1.45, and 1.46 volts.
Initial charge accepted at 1000 mA: 2441, 2436, 2531, 2553 mAh.
Initial capacities at 500 mA discharge: 2193, 2186, 2191, 2195 mAh.
Out of the pack, all four batteries were 1.292 volts open circuit.
Package front:
http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af90/bmbroom/Energizer2300/front_gimp.jpg
Package rear:
http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af90/bmbroom/Energizer2300/back_gimp.jpg
Battery top:
http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af90/bmbroom/Energizer2300/top_gimp.jpg
Battery bottom:
http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af90/bmbroom/Energizer2300/bottom_gimp.jpg
Date code:
http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af90/bmbroom/Energizer2300/datecode.jpg
Comparison to eneloop:
http://i996.photobucket.com/albums/af90/bmbroom/Energizer2300/cfeneloop.jpg
Initial 500 mA discharge out of the pack yielded capacities of 298, 303, 305, and 306 mAh.
Resistance check voltages at start of charge on Maha C9000 were 1.46, 1.44, 1.45, and 1.46 volts.
Initial charge accepted at 1000 mA: 2441, 2436, 2531, 2553 mAh.
Initial capacities at 500 mA discharge: 2193, 2186, 2191, 2195 mAh.
Last edited:
alfreddajero
Flashlight Enthusiast
I have a couple of packs of them and they hold up way better then the 2500's that i had.....i also gave some packs away to cpf members as well......just had too much of them for me to use.
davidefromitaly
Enlightened
mine have this date code:
C0 6-09 IF
buyed on ebay on 5 november
i will test them early in the shootout in my signature
batvette
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Messages
- 165
What he said, the only worse performers were the duracells I bought at the same time. utter garbage. I've been so impressed by the eneloop performance. I also have some ray-o-vac hybrids that are okay- at least they have not gone bad yet.
I got some of the relabelled duracell aaa's but they were not the eneloops, but they are holding up.
So why aren't eneloops sold at every major retailer?
Light Sabre
Enlightened
I ran across a 4 channel Energizer charger with 4 2300 mAh AA batteries in it for only $3 or $4 more than just the batteries alone. I wasn't expecting much from the charger and it was just an 8 hour timed one. I charged the 4 batteries in it and the batteries got way to hot for my taste. I was hoping to replace 4 resistors in the charger to lower the current to make a top off mod out of it, but the circuit board was more complicated than I was expecting and the main IC had the part number scratched off.
The copyright date was 2009 on the back. There's a similar version with a copyright date of 2007 that has 2 2450 mAh AA's and 2 850 AAA's in it. It's my understanding the 2450's were about as bad as the 2500's. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have a BC-900 charger and ran the 4 2300's thru a test cycle and got 2310 mAh to 2410 mAh. I then ran them thru a refresh cycle and got 2310 mAh to 2420 mAh, so they were pretty consistant. These 2300's were made in Japan where as the old crapy 2500's were made in China. So far it looks like the 2300's are a big improvement, but no idea how they compare on shelf life. With the Duraloops at 2000 it may be too late for Energizer to catch up. Although they are sold at more places and have much bigger displays than the Duraloops.
The copyright date was 2009 on the back. There's a similar version with a copyright date of 2007 that has 2 2450 mAh AA's and 2 850 AAA's in it. It's my understanding the 2450's were about as bad as the 2500's. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have a BC-900 charger and ran the 4 2300's thru a test cycle and got 2310 mAh to 2410 mAh. I then ran them thru a refresh cycle and got 2310 mAh to 2420 mAh, so they were pretty consistant. These 2300's were made in Japan where as the old crapy 2500's were made in China. So far it looks like the 2300's are a big improvement, but no idea how they compare on shelf life. With the Duraloops at 2000 it may be too late for Energizer to catch up. Although they are sold at more places and have much bigger displays than the Duraloops.
Mr Happy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Do you have the model number?
Light Sabre
Enlightened
The model # is CHCC. I just took a voltage reading at the open contacts in a slot. Came up with 12.2 volts. The BC-900 was only 3 volts.
Mr Happy
Flashlight Enthusiast
OK, that is what is known as a manual charger. When you charge the batteries you are supposed to keep a close eye on them and when they start getting warm you must manually stop the charging process. If you wait for the charger to stop automatically the batteries will get cooked.
Light Sabre
Enlightened
The manual did have a charging chart in it giving estimated charging times. It doesn't say to remove the batteries when that time is up per the chart. I didn't know that there was such an animal. I thought you put the batteries in and removed them when the cycle was done. How is anyone supposed to know how much of a charge is still in the battery before you put it in the charger? I attached an indoor/outdoor theromometer wired outdoor sensor on one of the batteries and the temp got up to 134F going the full 8 hours. The cycle terminated with the green LED's turning off. There was no apparent external damage to the batteries. Internal may be another issue, but only going 1 cycle this way probably didn't do much damage. The instruction manual opens Energizer to liability issues IMO.
Mr Happy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Basically the designers have made a compromise between the timer cut-off and charging current so that most batteries will survive fairly well with the amount of overcharging they are likely to get. It means you don't have to remove the batteries when they are cooked (er...I mean charged), but they will have a longer life if you do. They way to tell when they are done is to feel the temperature. Once they start getting very warm the charging is finished and you can remove them.
NiMH cells have a built-in capacity to withstand a significant amount of overcharge and the charger designers are exploiting this.
NiMH cells have a built-in capacity to withstand a significant amount of overcharge and the charger designers are exploiting this.
Light Sabre
Enlightened
Mr Happy;NiMH cells have a built-in capacity to withstand a significant amount of overcharge and the charger designers are exploiting this.[/QUOTE said:
Bones
Enlightened
Besides having capacity cut-offs that are higher than desirable for all but very high capacity cells, the CHCC's trickle charge rates are also overly aggressive, especially for low self-discharge cells:
CHCC Trickle Charge Rates: AA = 50mA | AAA = 25mAh | 9V = 5mA
Still, it does have independent charging channels, and it will certainly impart a full charge, so I would be comfortable utilizing it as both an intermittent and a travel charger.
As well, it doesn't appear to conduct an impedance check, so it could also be useful for charging and treating marginal cells which are rejected by smarter chargers.
I have an Energizer CHM-39 which I've kept specifically for this purpose. Fortunately, its primary charge rates are a bit more suitable for low self-discharge cells:
CHM39 Primary Charge Rates: AA = 170mA x 14 hours = 2380mAH | AAA = 80mA x 14 = 1120mAH | 9V = 23mA x 14 = 322mAh
Even better, it doesn't appear to trickle charge, so there's no concern with occasionally forgetting that it's in use.
The CHCC charger actually works out better for LSD cells due to the charge efficiency being about 66% (at best). This means that you need to put in about 1.5x the charge...in the case of 2000 mAh cells, this amounts to about 3000 mAh.
In a sense, timed chargers are a known evil compared to smart chargers that miss their termination signal. Their liabilities can be dealt with by using inexpensive timers.
Last edited:
Mr Happy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Really? That's not the impression I get. Granted, I only have Eneloops to base my opinion on, but they seem to have a charge efficiency of 90% or better even at low charge rates. If you charge an Eneloop at 360 mA for 6 hours it will be as close to fully charged as makes no difference.
