Sanyo MQH02 4AA/2AAA charger

[Egsise]

I just bought 3 of these chargers, bundled with 2500mAh rechargeables.
Price was 10€/charger, these were sold with discount because the cells were ~3 years old.
Model number was MQH02-E-4-2500.
Batteries have manufacturing date 05 06 1G, 2005 june.
Cell voltages were 0.908 - 0.917.
Charger manufacturing date J H 0, 2005 august 30.

Quotes from other threads....

Had the time for some more testing on the MQH02. Overall, its a good unit. With healthy cells temperatures at the end of charge stay below what I'd consider harmful for cycle life. The charger is well constructed in a way that there is more space between cells for better airflow around them and the contacts have a nice click when cells are inserted. Charge completeness is also good, equal to what C9000 + 2 hours top-off does at 1 amp.
IMO, the charger does not terminate on -dV. Sanyo talks about "peak-cut control" with -dV and absolute temperature as a bacup. I think this peak cut is not a real 0dv (or peak voltage detection) but rather max V. In other words it works similarly to Maha C9000. Most probably however, the value is set higher than on the C9000 and top-off is not necessary. After fast charge the charger shuts completely, i.e. there is no trickle charge (not bad thing with LSD cells).
What I don't like is the single charge indicator. What if you don't seat one of the cells properly and it is not charging...?

I decided to test the temperature profiles of two Sanyo chargers.

I used four 'normal' AA eneloops (HR-3UTG) discharged to around 1.20V resting voltage (even though some had climbed up to 1.22-1.24 after a day).

Sanyo MQH02 Super Quick Charger: Will charge two AA eneloops in around 60 minutes according to the datasheet (charge current is 2 x 2140 mA).

Sanyo NC-TGR02: Will charge two AA eneloops in around 230 minutes according to the datasheet (charge current is 2 x 550 mA). It is part of the eneloop charger line released together with the new 1500-cycle eneloops (HR-3UTGA). It just says 'eneloop' on the front.

Here is the testing in progress:

(the HR-3UTGA cells in the center are not tested, maybe another time)

and here are the results:

These are maximal temperatures (one cell is cooler, and one of them terminates earlier than the other).

The MQH02 terminates after 53 minutes and the cell voltages are (after one minute or such): 1.48 and 1.46 (terminated earlier).

The NC-TGR02 terminates after 254 minutes(!!) and the cell voltages are 1,45 (terminated after 216 minutes) and 1.49. Maybe it took longer because it is a wall-wart type and it was laying down, but I will just write that up as another negative with wall-wart type chargers.

Another diagram with only the MQH02:

I think the MQH02 termination is quite impressive, it terminates just after delta-T exceeds 1 degree C/minute, which is the ideal termination condition according to the Duracell datasheet and others.

It would have been more interesting to try the NC-TGR03 (Two AA eneloops in 100 minutes, also part of the new line) instead of the NC-TGR02, but it is quite expensive and another dreaded wall-wart. I also don't collect nor need more chargers. It seems that neither charger have any trickle charge (I know that the MQH02 doesn't)

MQH02 is clearly the winner in my book.

Specs and pics:

 

[bretti_kivi]

I was debating a couple of these; one for AAs and another to gut for contacts for larger cells (like 17670s..). Good to hear the info.

Bret

 

[Egsise]

Charge completeness of the slower 1090mA charge rate is ~85% compared to ~0.1C charge.
I noticed that when I made some runtime charts, so...
That ~85% is what I got when I compared runtimes between cells that were charged with MQH02 1090mA, and with 260mA dumb overnight charger.

 

[Mr Happy]

Charge completeness of the slower 1090mA charge rate is ~85% compared to ~0.1C charge.
I noticed that when I made some runtime charts, so...
That ~85% is what I got when I compared runtimes between cells that were charged with MQH02 1090mA, and with 260mA dumb overnight charger.

I'd say this is reasonable. To get that last 15% crammed into the cell you have to charge it slowly or risk overheating it or otherwise damaging it. Fast chargers are necessarily going to have this limitation of slightly lower charge completeness unless they switch to a top-off mode after they end the fast charge period.

 

[Egsise]

Because BC-900 and C-9000 chargers are so expensive, i guess i'm stuck with these MQH02 chargers.
So i made a test, discharged 4 eneloops in my flashlight, then charged them in MQH02, took 2 of them out and left the other 2 in the charger.

4 days/~100 hours later i tested the runtimes in my Fenix TK20, those cells that were in the charger had 90sec longer runtime.
Possibly variation in the cells or charge completeness.

0.5C-1C charge rate
85% charge completeness
No trickle charge
No parasitic drain after charge
110-240V compatible

Perfect charger for normal user, i'm so happy that i sold only one, i still have two of these.

Why oh why this is not sold with Eneloops?

*edit: i added the manual to post 1

 

[mfm]

Because BC-900 and C-9000 chargers are so expensive, i guess i'm stuck with these MQH02 chargers.

I would buy a good quality Sanyo 1C charger instead of a low quality fire hazard (BC-900), well I already did.

I bought mine with eneloops, but it was not an official pack. Also imported one MQH02 + eneloops for a friend, to replace a Uniross charger and batteries.

 

[TakeTheActive]

BC-900 / BC-9009 MOSFET LOCKUP / Meltdown...

I would buy a good quality Sanyo 1C charger instead of a low quality fire hazard (BC-900)...

Just from my (extensive?) reading of the CPF 'Batteries Included' Archives, I tend to feel that *EVERY* current La Crosse BC-900 / BC-9009 has the potential to experience a MOSFET LOCKUP and thus reach a 'Meltdown' condition.

IMHO, it has NOTHING to do with the:

1. Charge Rate selected
   .
2. Cells being CHARGED

...but more on microprocessor 'noise' and/or (LACK OF) MOSFET headroom... :thinking: