Why don’t manufacturers and dealers support 10440 cells in their LED lights.

[Jay R]

Many if not most manufacturers say somewhere in their blurb that they don't support the use of 10440 cells in their AAA lights. I took this to assume that the circuitry can't handle it and, to some extent, they are concerned about our safety. One well known LED light website I just looked at even went so far as to say that they didn't recommend using "explosive 10440 cells". This despite the fact that I can't remember ever seeing a post about a 10440 exploding !! I can't even remember a post about a 10440 venting. Anyway, whatever your thoughts on the safety of 10440 cells I'm wondering this...

On nearly all the websites they warn against using 10440 cells but if you click onto the page for a larger torch, there is no warning whatsoever against using larger unprotected cells. They quite happily recommend using RCR123A cells or 18650 cells and make no mention at all as to whether they should be protected or not. ( I certainly know which size I would rather have short out in my pocket. ) So, it's not because of safety otherwise they would have similar warnings about larger unprotected cells.

So is it about the lights not being able to handle the power. It would seem to be the case except from my experience, they can. I have a whole bunch of AAA lights and every single one of them has run quite happily on a 10440 cell. For example, I've had every single Fenix L series AAA light and they have all run perfectly on a 10440.

You note that most of the cheap Chinese lights are stated to be OK on 10440's.

So, if it's not related to safety and if a $10 Chinese light can run on a 10440. Why do the manufacturers say my $30-$120 lights can't ? ( Even when they can.)

 

[Marduke]

On nearly all the websites they warn against using 10440 cells but if you click onto the page for a larger torch, there is no warning whatsoever against using larger unprotected cells.

Nearly every website I know about explicitly recommends ONLY protected cells.

So besides not being protected, the usually put the LED into direct drive because the circuitry is not designed for them, which often leads to premature death of the light and cell.

The only reason 10440's usually work in multi-mode lights is because they are too small to use CC for all levels, so they use PWM instead, which still works even when the light is in DD. They don't "work just fine", it's more like "they happen to work". Very important distinction there. They were never designed for it.

 

[Jay R]

Nearly every website I know about explicitly recommends ONLY protected cells.

Perhaps I should have said 'many'.

which often leads to premature death of the light and cell.

Not in any I've ever had. Unless you mean that the 'life' of the LED is cut from fifty thousand hours down to 20 thousand or so. They could cover that in the 'blurb'. ( Hardly a deal breaker )

Fact remains that every LED AAA light I ever had ran perfectly on a 10440 with all functions working as they should. The faliure rate of 10440 driven AAA lights reported on CPF seems no more than for any other light.

 

[TooManyGizmos]

.
It creates too much HEAT ...... overdrives the LED.

and they can't warranty that .


Also , if they make it accept 4.2 v - it will be dim on 1.5 v.


It would have to be a dedicated 4 volt light only.
Most users prefer 1.5v batteries for convenience.

.

 

[Jay R]

Ever left a D-Mini EX with a RCR123A on a table producing 400 lumens for 40 mins. That gets pretty hot as well but they approve it.

As for the voltage. Like I said, my LD01 isn't exactly dim on 1.5v but it works perfectly on 4.2. Why would it have to be dedicated to 4v.

Perhaps it's the combination of all of these things. You can't get a protected 10440, it does get quite warm, it's not really built for it, they have to cover their arses, etc…

Still, no 'real' reason why they couldn't approve 10440's after all, the lights can and do run on these cells quite happily.

 

[Marduke]

Perhaps it's the combination of all of these things. You can't get a protected 10440, it does get quite warm, it's not really built for it, they have to cover their arses, etc…

Still, no 'real' reason why they couldn't approve 10440's after all, the lights can and do run on these cells quite happily.

You just list a bunch of "real" reasons right there...

Just because it happens to work doesn't mean it's a good idea. You are really overdriving the whole light when you do so.

 

[TooManyGizmos]

.
It's kinda like taking your family car to the drag strip ......

and driving it on max octane nitro gas in quarter miles races ......

It's not built for it !


You know what the outcome is gonna be.......eventually !

.

 

[MattK]

Simply:

10440 cells are not available as protected cells.

No responsible merchant promotes the use of unprotected Li-Ion cells.

RCR123A cells are protected cells so it is not irreponsible to promote their use. A 16340 would be the 'raw' version of this type of cell and should not be recommended.

 

[Sgt. LED]

Well in a word: BANG!

 

[post tenebras]

There's a new, supposedly protected, 10440 offered by an electronic cigarette company, but I have yet to find anyone's report of trying one in a flashlight.

http://www.vaprlife.com/10prba.html

 

[Jay R]

Well in a word: BANG!

Or not. Ever seen a post of one going bang ? I haven't and I couldn't find one in a quick search.
We know that a 10440 'could' go bang but you missed my point. I think that it's inconsistent for someone to specifically advise against an unprotected 10440 and on the next page not advise against an unprotected 18650. A 10440 cell is just as likely to go bang in their AAA light as an unprotected 18650 in their bigger light.

I think TooManyGizmos is closest. It's putting a bit more strain on the light compared with say, a Cree R2 being overdriven in a 123 size light and there is just that tiny bit more chance of failure that they don't want to cover on their warranty.

There's a new, supposedly protected, 10440 offered by an electronic cigarette company, but I have yet to find anyone's report of trying one in a flashlight.

Nice find. I wonder what the maximum current is set to ?

 

[Marduke]

We know that a 10440 'could' go bang but you missed my point. I think that it's inconsistent for someone to specifically advise against an unprotected 10440 and on the next page not advise against an unprotected 18650. A 10440 cell is just as likely to go bang in their AAA light as an unprotected 18650 in their bigger light.

But the vast majority of dealers and manufacturers DO specifically state to use ONLY protected cells.

 

[Sgt. LED]

Or not. Ever seen a post of one going bang ? I haven't and I couldn't find one in a quick search.
We know that a 10440 'could' go bang but you missed my point.

Not so much as missed your point as ignored it.
I don't use or even hint around that I agree with using unprotected cell because I don't.
If you go around posting that it's ok or might be OK or could maybe be possibly ok and somebody gets hurt then you are in a very tiny way responsible. That's my opinion anyway. Don't use them and don't tell anyone else to.

Almost all people are like this: You have an idea, you want to do something so you go out and ask about it NOT to really see what others think but to get acceptance and validation for doing what you want and plan to do. I want to use this cell, 50 people say it's a bad idea, I found 6 that do it without a problem, GREAT - I'm doing it because it's just fine. Out or those 6 however 1 is lying to be stupid, 1 is lying to be mean, 1 totally misunderstood your question. Then something goes wrong and it's all wow why didn't I listen...........

I have a family here, it isn't just me that might pick up and use a light so I won't have a cell in the house that's even more likley to go BANG. I know how to treat and use the cells but not everyone here does. Not worth the risk to save a few bucks and even if nobody is harmed how much did that burnt up flashlight cost you?

Manufacturers don't support it because of legal liability. For them it all comes down to $$$.

 

[HarveyRich]

I would agree with the last post in that it is ALL about legal liability. Some manufacturers of electrical products state in their manuals that you should not put your fingers in the electrical outlets; what an absurd obvious thing to tell the purchaser. It's all about protecting the company from potential lawsuits, no matter how low the odds.

Having said that, I must admit that I use unprotected 10440s in some edc flashlights. I have never gone below the recommended lower or upper thresholds and am careful to recharge very frequently. There always will be some individuals who will be careless and that increases the danger of venting and explosion.

What I find interesting is that there are a bunch of these "tiny" lights coming on the market with CR2 batteries. I don't think any available ones have protection because they're so small. In fact, I've purchased a Nitecore EZ CR2 which should arrive shortly. I also have a Lummi Wee and Orb on order. The Wee and Orb use only li-ion batteries and they're so small and can't be protected. From what I've seen in the posts, many on this forum are using rechargeable li-ion Cr2s in their EZ CR2 also. It's caveat emptor IMHO. Just be careful to recharge frequently and don't run them down and one should be OK.

 

[Dan FO]

I only use eneloops in them because I have lots of them and they are safe and easy on the light. You would need a proper buck/boost circuit to do it right and that costs more and increases the size circuit. These are pocket keychain lights and don't need to be pocket rockets.

 

[CaNo]

LF2XT...

Too bad it is one of the only lights that encourages 10440 usage...:shakehead

 

[Marduke]

LF2XT...

Too bad it is one of the only lights that encourages 10440 usage...:shakehead

Like I've said elsewhere though, it only gives you partial discharge protection, not storage or charge protection.

 

[baterija]

My take will start with the challenges of putting a buck boost circuit in the smaller diameter. It can be done as we have seen but it probably increases cost more than doing it where space is not at a premium. For the most part they stick with a boost only circuit. That's been mentioned and isn't different than some boost only CR123 or AA lights (although most of those don't recommend Li-ion either.)

So what are the differences between the AAA light being direct driven and the 16340/14500 in direct drive:
- Less effective heat management - smaller surface area to dissipate heat, and less thermal mass. This has the potential to raise temperatures more than using the same emitter with the same power input in a bigger light. Remember that the battery itself doesn't like high levels of heat either. Heat is one of the things that make Li-ion go The max rated junction temp of the XP-E is 150F. AW lists 60C/140F as the max operating temp. Yes, the battery is rated to a lower temp than the LED. That means you can't use the LED health as an indicator.
- The Vf to If curve of the LED doesn't change with the cell. The cells capability to deliver that current safely is reduced though. I've seen 1.5-2C listed in specs. Pretty much every case of direct drive 10440 usage here exceeds the max rated discharge of the cell.

So using a 10440 in direct drive exceeds rated discharge currents. You've also got more risk of exceeding it's max operating heat. Saying a boost only light can take a 10440 is like the light maker saying you can ignore the rated maximums from the cell manufacturer. Maybe with safe practices we can flirt with the edge of danger. They need to assume that the typical customer won't be quite so cautious and leave some margin for user error.

 

[CaNo]

Like I've said elsewhere though, it only gives you partial discharge protection, not storage or charge protection.

That's more than all the other manufacturers are doing for their consumers for this cell type...

 

[Jay R]

What I find interesting is that there are a bunch of these "tiny" lights coming on the market with CR2 batteries. I don't think any available ones have protection because they're so small

You can get protected CR2 cells. The one that comes with your Orb should be. AW makes them but I'm not sure if anyone else does.

But the vast majority of dealers and manufacturers DO specifically state to use ONLY protected cells.

Not clearly. Taking batteryjunction ( 'caus they posted ) as an example. Look at one of their 18650 lights, Lumapower MRV SK as an example. The blurb stated that it can use 18650 cells but does not mention cell protection at all. Most websites are the same.
However, Batteryjunction is way ahead of most other sites. If you click on the 'accessories' tab you get only protected cells recommended and if you look at the page for any of the lithium cells they clearly state that they can be dangerous and advise only to use if you know what you are doing. In my book this puts them way ahead of most other sites when it comes to customer service and responsibility. :thumbsup: Thumbs up for BatteryJunction.

Personally I think that manufacturers and dealers should put a caveat on any flashlight page that 'could' take an unprotected cell recommending that you use protected cells only. Remember that quite a lot of people buying these lights aren't CPF members and don't know what a protected cell is. All they are going to see is the larger capacity and cheaper price of the unprotected cell.

Sorry Sgt. LED, you seem to think that merely posting about 10440 cells means I'm promoting them and makes me responsible if anyone ever gets hurt by one, a view that I can understand though I don't agree with. I think that people should be advised of the danger and left to make their own decisions. Threads like this only help people to make an informed choise.

Anyway, back to my original question about why manufacturers don't say you can use 10440's. I'm going to put it down concern of their lights ability to handle the power without breaking. As Marduke and TooManyGizmos said, though the lights seem to manage it, they weren't designed or tested for it so who knows what may happen and you certainly wouldn't want to warrenty it !
And I guess they don't design them to take 10440's cause the limited market wouldn't make it worthwhile.