4.3V 18650 cells.

[edyle]

I don't think Samsung was doing that but, I agree, it is done a lot nowadays. Displaying only the "pulse" rating (whatever that is), arbitrarily increasing the capacity rating...it's getting ridiculous.

"Samsung" is not a person.
Any respectable Samsung battery engineer would wide-eye-open raise two eyebrows to see "Samsung ICR18650-28A 2800mAh"
28A printed on the labelling of a 5 amp battery. The influence that puts or keeps that labelling there is from the marketing side, on the grounds that "It's not a lie" and if the customer misunderstands it's the customer's fault.
A reputable company would fix the labelling so that the customer does not misread the thing.
Plus it is more critical because there are Safety issues involved. It's not so hard to forsee lawsuits coming if people start buying those batteries on the presumption that they are 28A batteries, then bad stuff happens routinely.

 

[Mooch]

"Samsung" is not a person.
Any respectable Samsung battery engineer would wide-eye-open raise two eyebrows to see "Samsung ICR18650-28A 2800mAh"
28A printed on the labelling of a 5 amp battery. The influence that puts or keeps that labelling there is from the marketing side, on the grounds that "It's not a lie" and if the customer misunderstands it's the customer's fault.
A reputable company would fix the labelling so that the customer does not misread the thing.
Plus it is more critical because there are Safety issues involved. It's not so hard to forsee lawsuits coming if people start buying those batteries on the presumption that they are 28A batteries, then bad stuff happens routinely.

Good point about possible liability but we may have to agree to disagree on the other stuff. I feel that if Samsung was trying to mislead their customers into thinking that this was a 28A cell that they would have done this kind of mislabeling with a larger portion of their product line. They do have a -30A and -32A but that's it from what I can tell. And they're certainly not marketing those other two as 30A and 32A cells.

As far as I've seen, the only thing on a Samsung label would be the "ICR18650-28A", and the usual corporate name and batch/identification numbers. No capacity or separate number that could possibly indicate a current rating.

These cells are for their large industrial, power tool, etc. customers, not us. None of the engineers spec'ing cells to be used in their company's products would think that "ICR18650-28A" would mean that it's a 28A rated cell. And these cells weren't being sold directly to the public, only to corporate customers. Samsung would know that their customers check datasheets before buying the thousands of cells they use.

I've seen too many part number coincidences over the years (of a wide variety of parts, not cells) to think that several years ago that Samsung bumped up a 5.6A cell to 28A to possibly gain more sales from their corporate industrial/power tool customers. It's too high a number to even think could be a pulse rating and no engineer would spec it for use in a product without checking the datasheet. Just my personal opinion though...

 

[ian-field]

What?
I don't think your thinking is right.

I guess it depends on how often you were dropped on your head when you were little.

But if you want to stick a 4.2V cell on a 4.3V charger - I'll go get a deckchair and popcorn.................

 

[ian-field]

"Samsung" is not a person.
Any respectable Samsung battery engineer would wide-eye-open raise two eyebrows to see "Samsung ICR18650-28A 2800mAh"
28A printed on the labelling of a 5 amp battery. The influence that puts or keeps that labelling there is from the marketing side, on the grounds that "It's not a lie" and if the customer misunderstands it's the customer's fault.
A reputable company would fix the labelling so that the customer does not misread the thing.
Plus it is more critical because there are Safety issues involved. It's not so hard to forsee lawsuits coming if people start buying those batteries on the presumption that they are 28A batteries, then bad stuff happens routinely.

Still reading forums like this one to get a better idea what peak current ratings actually mean - but I do know that a 2.8Ah rating doesn't mean you can draw 2.8A for an hour. For most of the battery chemistries I'm familiar with its measured over a longer period - say 20h at 1/20 of the Ah rating.

 

[crxess]

I guess it depends on how often you were dropped on your head when you were little.

But if you want to stick a 4.2V cell on a 4.3V charger - I'll go get a deckchair and popcorn.................

Never dropped and no, I'm not only a little smarter than that but likely have/have had chargers most never laid eyes on.
45yrs in DC electronics

 

[ian-field]

Never dropped and no, I'm not only a little smarter than that but likely have/have had chargers most never laid eyes on.
45yrs in DC electronics

You probably haven't seen any of the chargers I designed and built myself.

Its been impressed upon me that you don't exceed the specified voltage under *ANY* circumstances as these cells vent with flaming gas when overcharged.

That thought is always foremost in my mind every time I design a charger.

 

[MikeyConti]

Deleted

 

[ian-field]

Is this an ICR chemistry battery?

In my original post I mentioned the type number: ICR18650-28A - there could well be a clue in there somewhere.

 

[MikeyConti]

In my original post I mentioned the type number: ICR18650-28A - there could well be a clue in there somewhere.

Yes, I noticed that and I have seen before batteries being miss-labeled..

 

[MikeyConti]

Yes, I noticed that and I have seen before batteries being miss-labeled..

Was going to mention something about this, but just read back so nevermind!

 

[ian-field]

Yes, I noticed that and I have seen before batteries being miss-labeled..

It had the Samsung brand on it, so there's a reasonable expectation of reliable markings...........unless its counterfeit of course!

 

[edyle]

In my original post I mentioned the type number: ICR18650-28A - there could well be a clue in there somewhere.

at first I thought it was INR.

ICR's aren't even recommended for vaping.

 

[Mooch]

at first I thought it was INR.

ICR's aren't even recommended for vaping.

Agreed, there are just too many other great choices using safer chemistries like INR, IMR, etc.

 

[ian-field]

at first I thought it was INR.

ICR's aren't even recommended for vaping.

That was mentioned a while ago - I'd rather avoid 2 voltage standards on my E-cigs, so these batteries will gather dust until I think of another application for them. Obviously that future application won't now be a drain on my stock of E-cig batteries.

Something involving power LEDs is a strong possibility.

 

[crxess]

You probably haven't seen any of the chargers I designed and built myself.

Its been impressed upon me that you don't exceed the specified voltage under *ANY* circumstances as these cells vent with flaming gas when overcharged.

That thought is always foremost in my mind every time I design a charger.

Then it seems we are in agreement on safety.
My original post was to the open comment. I do not see how charging a battery to 4.2v, capable of a 4.3v charge will be merely disappointing if it is a 3.7v nominal voltage battery. Performance should still be very good, with diminished Mah.

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[ian-field]

Then it seems we are in agreement on safety.
My original post was to the open comment. I do not see how charging a battery to 4.2v, capable of a 4.3v charge will be merely disappointing if it is a 3.7v nominal voltage battery. Performance should still be very good, with diminished Mah.

Sorry for any confusion.

Someone else found the test report I mentioned, and obviously delved into it a lot deeper than I did - they quoted a 75% loss of capacity at 4.2V instead of 4.3V. "diminished" is somewhat an understatement if that quote is accurate.

 

[edyle]

Someone else found the test report I mentioned, and obviously delved into it a lot deeper than I did - they quoted a 75% loss of capacity at 4.2V instead of 4.3V. "diminished" is somewhat an understatement if that quote is accurate.

maybe you misread 7.5% at 75%

 

[ian-field]

maybe you misread 7.5% at 75%

They quoted one of the graphs as giving a loss of 2200mAh out of 2800mAh - but I'll search back for that post to make sure.

 

[crxess]

Someone else found the test report I mentioned, and obviously delved into it a lot deeper than I did - they quoted a 75% loss of capacity at 4.2V instead of 4.3V. "diminished" is somewhat an understatement if that quote is accurate.

Makes sense someone would come to that conclusion with the available information, but the main capacity is always available at the nominal working point (3.7v), so more likely a typographical error or missed translation of data.
75%

 

[Mooch]

They quoted one of the graphs as giving a loss of 2200mAh out of 2800mAh - but I'll search back for that post to make sure.

220mAh.

Test of Samsung ICR18650-28A 2800mAh (Purple)