Feedback discussion thread... AKA "It's all data, and a negative result is still a result."

[leaford]

Hi everyone, and Happy New Year!!

As Bloog heads into the year ahead one of my two main goals is going to be expanding our MaxxFusion product line, to bring you options like manual batteries and large batteries, with the same unmatched quality design, testing and componants we began the line with.

But my most important goal, the one that makes the other possible, is to continually check the quality, and challenge our manufacturer to ask the question, "how can we make it better?"

In that spirit, I absolutely LOVE the amount and quality of data and feedback all of you are giving me about MaxxFusion. The early reviews and user comments, the detailed testing, the burnt carto thread, all of it is giving me a lot of ideas about things I can look more closely at, things that still need improving, and I already have an idea or two about how to do some things better.

I want to assure everyone that it's all being noted, it all matters, and it all helps. Good data and bad. No matter how good my friend's team and procedures are, the defect rate will never be zero. But we will examine every bit of feedback and any returned units for anything that will help us improve the design, manufacturing, or testing of the MaxxFusion.

It's a little frustrating, though, that so much of the feedback is so spread around, not to mention that some of the best information is happening in threads and subforums where I Dare Not Post! (thunder crashes and a wolf howls)

So, at the suggestion of BR5495 on the burnt carto thread, I'm starting this thread for discussing, sharing, and collecting independant user results.

I invite reviewers and commenters who have posted elsewhere about the MaxxFusion, both to help me gather the data together, and also just if you would like to hear my responses or replies to cross post here. I also might crosspost something myself from another thread in order to comment on it or just to gather it.

And I invite posters with new detailed feedback to post it here, so we can keep collecting more information.

This thread is all about learning how the MaxxFusion holds up to real world testing, and what I am most hoping for are the details. Details are what will help others decide whether to try MaxxFusion, and details are what will help me identify problems or areas for improvement. Whether it's multimeter readings, puff counts, number of refills or amount of liquid, defects or failures, or just how long cartos and batts last in your use. I need your data!

 

[Peeps]

I've had my Maxx Fusion for only 2 weeks and the only problem I've had is that the caps pop off of the cartos too easily...it'd be great if they were a bit tighter. Other than that, I love love love it!

 

[Rhody]

I've had my Maxx Fusion for only 2 weeks and the only problem I've had is that the caps pop off of the cartos too easily...it'd be great if they were a bit tighter. Other than that, I love love love it!

I have to agree with the caps....almost lost 2 of them, too easy, and needs to be a little bit tighter.
Love the Maxxfusion, no real complaints.
When I got my kit, I ordered the "555" cartomizers, and I really love them.......I wish you had to eliquid to match that....would love to have more

 

[trichman]

I ordered 50 blanks. I refilled some MF prefilled and they held 25 drops which is way more than wow held when I refilled them. I rarely got more than 15 drops Ina wow refill. Do the MF hold more? How many drops do you get in a blank & refill? I will report my experience when I get them. Thanks

 

[br5495]

I received my samples of this cartomizer on December 27th. The first one I tried was pre-filled with 555, which had a stronger nicotine content than I normally use. Therefore, my wife was the first one who actually used it. She vapes like a robot and it was completely dry when she gave it back to me. All I got out of it was a burned taste and a tiny wisp of vapor. However, before she gave it back to me, I posted a preliminary report about it on another thread. The contents of that thread are copied as follows:

"Thanks to Katya, I will also be testing the Bloog cartomizer. However, a fair evaluation will have to wait until the 555 flavor is replaced with one that I am familiar with.

As is, a quick toot or two from it tells me that it is too hot for my liking. Katya was right with her resistance measurements. Mine measure in the 2.5Ω range and less. Therefore, my testing will be done with an adapter to the lessor voltage of a 510 battery. This is not a compromise for me and the cartomizer supplies plenty of vapor at this power. The TH is a bit too much for me because it contains 11mg nicotine and I am accustomed to 6mg.

I have some other tests going on right now, so I will not give this one a serious workout until one of the others are out of the way."

Perhaps the word "hot" was the wrong one to use in that post. The temperature of the vape was not too hot, but it was too hot for my juice and gave it a harsh taste.

I will also add that my wife did not burn the filler in the cartomizer. All I tasted was the burned remainder of the 555. What this really amounts to is that she proved the burn resistance of the cartomizer.

If you want to read the original thread, it is located here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...1-etc-filler-type-cartos-341.html#post2377162
Additional posts from that thread will also be copied over to here.

 

[br5495]

The following copy was posted later on the same day as the above thread, and on the same page:

"I let my wife vape off the 555 in this one. She requires more nicotine than me, so it didn't go to waste.

The filler quickly absorbed 35 drops of my sissy juice, which is probably about the right amount. I added 3 more and flooded the atty.

The vapor at 3.1 volts is very good and the taste is acceptable, even though traces of the 555 remain. Naturally, the hit is more to my liking and I expect to enjoy it for the remainder of this test.

One thing that I failed to mention in my previous post. The mouthpiece is made from the silicone looking stuff and the hole is larger than normal. The hole is recessed sort of like a drip tip, so it can be used for that, which seems to be a fad for some users now. However, the hole is a bit smaller than the usual drip tip. Personally, I prefer a cooler vape and using this cartomizer with a conventional drip tip."

 

[br5495]

The following is a post I made December 30th in response to this one.

Thanks Katya! Been waiting for this. Once br posts his take, I'll decide whether or not to buy the cartos (and maybe a starter kit for the better half).

Nicely done.

"Don't hold off because of me, Scott. I've been running one of mine almost full time and have no complaints. I vape it until a dry taste occurs, then top it off with 25 drops and go right back at it. Unlike some filler type cartos that take a while to soak properly, this one has a loose wrap and absorbs the juice almost immediately. Therefore, I have run an untold amount of juice through this thing without any kind of rotation. If I had a complaint, it would be that it keeps me too busy topping it off. But then, the CE2 XL's have spoiled me on that account, and I have almost forgotten what it was like to vape a smaller device.

For the most part, I have been using this one at 3.2 volts on an eGo pass through battery. That is not a fair test for this cartomizer, so I have also been using another one to a lessor extent on a 380 mAh Mega KR808-D battery. As previously stated, this 2.5Ω device is a bit too much for me at 3.7 volts. However, I believe there are a lot of people who will like this combination. So far I have not had a burned taste at this voltage and the vapor should be enough to please anyone in their right mind. Therefore, it seems to me that both a 2.5Ω version and 3.0Ω version should be made available.

Of course, my opinions are based on the juice that I use. I have not tried anything else yet and can't say for certain that I will.

I expect to say more about this product in the near future, and believe that it will be favorable. I doubt if I will buy any with a 2.5Ω resistance, but I'll certainly think seriously about buying a 3.0Ω version. Who knows what I will do once I take one of these things apart to see what makes it tick, heheh."

The original post for the above can be seen on this thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...1-etc-filler-type-cartos-342.html#post2387467

 

[br5495]

This one was posted December 31st on "the other thread" and copied as follows:

"The taste is going bad on my Bloog Cartomizer today. It's probably had about 20ml of juice run through it. The vapor and TH is still good, but it is no longer a pleasure to use it. The draw is tightening up and not wide open like it was. I noticed this morning that the filler is slower soaking in while topping off.

Looks like it is about time to put it to sleep. An autopsy will be performed and I will probably have more to say about this device in a day or two.

Happy Vaping New Year to all you good folks near and far."

 

[br5495]

This one was posted January 1, 2011 and can also be seen here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...1-etc-filler-type-cartos-344.html#post2398078

The construction of this cartomizer is not like one I have seen before. Of course, there are a good number that I have not seen, so it may not be anything new for some of you.

The base fitting is the first thing I see that is unusual to me. It does not fit quite as tight inside the tube as most fittings, and has a silicone looking sealer ring somewhat like an "O" ring. The horizontal atty is installed in the base fitting instead of midway in the filler like most other cartomizers. This means that the atty must draw part of the liquid from a greater distance, which may be the reason why it begins to dry out before it is empty.

The atty has a short wick through the center and a high temperature woven tube with a slit end is fitted over it. The short stubs of the wick are exposed to the filler through the slits, so nothing that will burn can come in contact with the atty. This arrangement is a truly a burn proof cartomizer.

The woven tube that protects the filler from the atty is the air intake supply. No air is drawn through the filler. If the gunk buildup on the atty is great enough, the air tube will be restricted and the draw will be tighter.

The filler stayed neatly in place inside the tube when this cartridge was pulled apart. As you can see, the filler is the type that wraps around the center tube. Not shown is another thin sheet inside at the center that actually wraps around the tube.

This is what the atty looks like when the woven tube is removed:

The coil had a solid buildup of crud on it, but it is shown here after it was burned off and the ash brushed away. These parts had not been washed when this shot was taken. The camera flash caused a hot spot on the base fitting and some of the details cannot be seen.

There was no burn damage to anything, so I put it back together. I put it in a longer XL tube because I wanted a bit more empty space for a cooler smoke. Now I can use it with the original mouthpiece instead increasing the distance with a drip tip. The additional space inside makes it a bit easier to drip juice down the inside of the barrel without getting it in the center tube. However, most of my top offs where done with a syringe.

I don't think it is practical to rebuild one of these things, but I had to try it to find out. I've been taking things apart all my life just to see if I could put them back together, so I guess I still have a little bit of a kid still buried inside me. I doubt if I will rebuild another one. But then, I may accidentally think of something that will make it work better, so who can tell what I may do in the future.

 

[leaford]

I had a VERY productive and enlightening discussion with my friend, the Chief Engineer at our factory. You see, a lot of our discussions are limited by our language barrier. Our usual translator has great conversational and business english, but her knowledge of electrical and engineering terms is limited even in her own language. until recently we had to use a lot of gestures, diagrams, numbers and so one. But with our shared knowledge base, we got by. Mostly. A few important details slipped through, and the Ohms of resistance issue was apparently one of them.

She's been studying up though, and I have always been impressed by how quickly she learns, so it's good that some of these things have come up again now from your feedback. And today she was able to do a marvelous job translating some very detailed questions and answers I haven't been able to get a clear understanding of before.

First of all, it turns out my friend has never been able to understood why I was so hung up on keeping the ohms within a certain range to begin with. He's been trying to explain to me that it's better to attack the other side of the equation, and go by the amperage under load, because it's more precise and controllable. Plus, less affected by the resistance of the testing equipment.

So the nifty testing rig for the multimeter Ohm test? Just so I could see what Ohm they were, because he couldn't figure out how to tell me to do my own damn math.

The ACTUAL testing rig, that they give the carto a pass/fail test on is the one right next to it. It reads the amperage under load. (I assumed it was a temperature test, since the coils heat up, but I couldn't figure out what units it was using, and was wondering if it was some sort of thermal unit. But I hadn't gotten around to asking because of the afore mentioned translation problems.)

Anyway, from the amp range they allow, the cartos are predicted to fall on a bell curve distribution. 80-90% will be 2.6 to 2.4 ohms, with decreasing numbers of outliers up to 2.9 and down to 2.1. Exactly what your testing has shown. So it's a case of us assigning too much importance to the outliers. They are just to be expected, and within the expected range and frequency.

That said, I did ask him to tighten the amp range, which will squeeze the bell curve, decreasing the number of outliers overall. He agreed, but only if he can do it on the manufacturing side, by increasing consistency in coil construction. Doing it on the QC side by rejecting expected outliers would be wasteful and not cost effective. Again, sensible, and I will be looking forward to what he comes up with.

 

[leaford]

We also discussed the new Mini PCC's LCD displays. As some of you have noted, it seems to almost always read two bars, and hardly ever three, and apparently never just one. Well, he once again busted out da math on my ... Seriously, he pulled a whiteboard into the conference room and starting writing equations like a scientist with a hot ember in his labcoat over the ohms issue, and it was right back to the board for this one, too!

It turns out this isn't a design flaw, it's a limitation of the nature of the batteries themselves and how the PCC reads them at all.

The PCC reads the voltage level of the battery and determines it's charge level from that. The lipo battery's voltage profile is that it drops quickly from a peak of 4.2v at full charge to about 3.7v, then decreases much more slowly until 3.5v where it more quickly drops to 3.3. But there's a little catch at the end, it doesn't stay at 3.3v for long, it rebounds back up to 3.5v within a minute or two if left at rest.

So, even if you had more bars, the number of bars will stay in the middle position for most of the charging cycle, and will very seldom read just one bar. If you tighten up the middle range, then the first and last bars will come on too early and stay on too long, just the opposite problem.

I hate to say it, but once again it's not a case of them not living up to expectations in terms of performance. It's a matter of our expectations being wrong, because we didn't understand how the science applies here. We can't read the display as a graph. It doesn't go by even thirds of the charging cycle. It can't because the voltage doesn't behave that way. It's more like lowest voltage state, middle voltage state, highest voltage state, with the middle state the longest, and the lowest the shortest. And that's how the PCC reads the battery, so that's all the bars CAN indicate.

I'm going to have to spread this around.

 

[Quick1]

Anyway, from the amp range they allow, the cartos are predicted to fall on a bell curve distribution. 80-90% will be 2.6 to 2.4 ohms, with decreasing numbers of outliers up to 2.9 and down to 2.1. Exactly what your testing has shown. So it's a case of us assigning too much importance to the outliers.

Ohm's law: current = voltage / resistance
For a given voltage, current will be directly proportional to resistance so they're measuring the same amount of variation.
3.7v @ 2.1Ω = 1.76A = 6.5W
3.7v @ 2.9Ω = 1.23A = 4.7W

Many devices are now being advertised as being within a certain resistance range. often this is a +/- 0.1Ω spread. For example 2.4Ω - 2.6Ω. Variance outiside of that range is user noticeable in our application.

They are just to be expected, and within the expected range and frequency.

"expected" is wherever they set their bar... for example, a year go I was doing Joye 510 atomizers. They consistently fell in the 2.2-2.4Ω range. Maybe only 10% fell 0.1Ω outside of that. It's a cost vs. sales profit decision right? It might be worth putting effort into a market survey. I wonder if you could differentiate yourself with a more consistent product? Chinese QC is a prevalent joke on ECF. It's possible you could increase profits by selling (and advertising) a higher quality/more consistent product at a higher price point. Many consumers are capable of factoring into the price that 1/5 of their purchase will be subpar or unacceptable.

That said, I did ask him to tighten the amp range, which will squeeze the bell curve, decreasing the number of outliers overall. He agreed, but only if he can do it on the manufacturing side, by increasing consistency in coil construction. Doing it on the QC side by rejecting expected outliers would be wasteful and not cost effective. Again, sensible, and I will be looking forward to what he comes up with.

As a consumer I only care what I get when I open the box.

 

[kodos96]

Doing it on the QC side by rejecting expected outliers would be wasteful and not cost effective. Again, sensible, and I will be looking forward to what he comes up with.

Just out of curiosity, what is the actual manufacturing cost of a cartomizer? Or is that a trade secret?

 

[Katya]

Many devices are now being advertised as being within a certain resistance range. often this is a +/- 0.1Ω spread. For example 2.4Ω - 2.6Ω. Variance outiside of that range is user noticeable in our application.

As a consumer I only care what I get when I open the box.

If I may... I got those very readings in my sample batch--from 2.1 to 2.9Ω, and reported my findings. Quick is right. The difference between a 2.1Ω and a 2.9Ω carto is not only noticeable, but may also be the difference between a carto that will burn and a carto that will not. 2.1Ω cartomizer on a 4.2v battery (freshly charged kr808) will result in 8.4 Watts.

Variance greater than 0.2-0.3Ω is, IMHO, not a good thing. 0.8Ω variance (2.1-2.9Ω) is not acceptable. 0.8Ω is the difference between a standard and a LR cartomizer, roughly.

EDIT TO ADD: A LR carto will also stress a small battery and shorten its life substantially.

 

[br5495]

I began testing my 2nd MaxxFusion Bloog cartomizer a couple days ago. It was pre-filled with menthol and the resistance measures about 2.3Ω or less. I was expecting it to be a wee bit stronger than the first one, but I can't tell the difference. I arrived at this conclusion using my familiar tobacco flavor after all of the menthol was worked out of it.

There is something different about the filler. It looks the same as the first one, but is slower to absorb my juice. Not only that, but it takes more juice to top it off. This one tops off at about 30 drops or more instead of about 25 drops. It has not been run completely dry, so I can't say how much it would have held when empty. Although it is a bit slower to fill than the first one, it still absorbed the juice fast enough to put it back into use immediately afterward.

I used this one a good bit more on 3.7 volts than I did with the previous one. I don't know why. Maybe it was because I thought I ought to. It worked just like the previous one, so most of the time it was vaped on an eGo battery because my juice tastes better at that voltage.

A short while ago, it was on its 8th filling. The taste, vapor, and TH was still good. Then I got a slight dry taste, indicating that it was time for a top off. I thought it was a bit soon and took another draw. I got an immediate hot and burned taste in my mouth. Really HOT! Just like the old days when the filler burned due to my ignorance. I knew that these could not burn, so I filled it up again. Wrong. The taste is ruined and the cartomizer is useless.

During an autopsy, I found that the base of this one was much tighter in the tube than the other one. Upon inspection, I did not see anything that has burned. Everything looks the same inside as the other one, so I don't know why it went longer between top offs. Most of all, I don't know what burned to make the vape so hot. I suppose I could overhaul it and find out if it is reusable, but I don't feel like messing with it.

I still have one more that I will test. I am curious to find out how much juice it will use between top offs.

 

[leaford]

Ohm's law: current = voltage / resistance
For a given voltage, current will be directly proportional to resistance so they're measuring the same amount of variation.

Exactly, different side of the equation is all. And once he did the math for me, it made sense. As did the solution, tighten the range.

3.7v @ 2.1Ω = 1.76A = 6.5W
3.7v @ 2.9Ω = 1.23A = 4.7W
Many devices are now being advertised as being within a certain resistance range. often this is a +/- 0.1Ω spread. For example 2.4Ω - 2.6Ω. Variance outiside of that range is user noticeable in our application.

And I agree. Which is why we're tightening the range. But it only makes sense to do it by making the manufacturing better and more consistent than it already is, not just by culling more cartos.

"expected" is wherever they set their bar...

Again agreed, which is why I asked them to tighten the range. He set it at what he considered an acceptable point of balance between consistency and cost effectiveness, a bell curve he sketched out for me. I aksed him to tighten his range wich will make the curve steeper, with higher percentage within the peak range, and a smaller range of outliers. Ie, more cartos in the 2.4 to 2.6 range, and much fewer outside of it and those only .1 outside, not .3.

for example, a year go I was doing Joye 510 atomizers. They consistently fell in the 2.2-2.4Ω range. Maybe only 10% fell 0.1Ω outside of that. It's a cost vs. sales profit decision right?

It's business, so at the heart, yes, always. But not the only thing to balance, and in this case the key differences are size, quantity, and manpower. A cartomizer atomizer is much smaller than a 3-piece, and the tolerances for variables in things like total length of the coil are smaller, making the typical resistance harder to control. And the greater volumes mean more manpower needed to run any testing effort let alone to test all of them. Which is why only one other cartomizer manufacturer I know of tests every single cartomizer for resistance at all. And their results vary too, within their own bell curve, I'm sure.

It might be worth putting effort into a market survey. I wonder if you could differentiate yourself with a more consistent product? Chinese QC is a prevalent joke on ECF. It's possible you could increase profits by selling (and advertising) a higher quality/more consistent product at a higher price point. Many consumers are capable of factoring into the price that 1/5 of their purchase will be subpar or unacceptable.

Again, agreed, and it IS our philosophy, as well as my personal one. The best way to sell more, the only honest way really, is to have a better product. And the way to do that is with real science and testing, and the highest quality practices and design.

Hi, Quick, welcome to MaxxFusion. Our manufacturer has more quality control and testing procedures, backed up by more testing equipment, than any other manufacturer in the industry bar none. Chinese quality is a joke, because hardware manufacturers are clowns whose factories don't mesure up to the standards of toy manufacturers. But my guy is different. His factory is different. His standards and practices are so much higher than the rest that the second best isn't half as good. Best Factory, bar none, and I stake my reputation on that.

I won't say it's the best e-cig, because that's down to too many personal factors. But MaxxFusion is hands down the best KR8, because we do things the scientific way.

As a consumer I only care what I get when I open the box.

As it should be.

 

[leaford]

Just out of curiosity, what is the actual manufacturing cost of a cartomizer? Or is that a trade secret?

Even from me, Kodos. I'm their customer, they don't want me to know their cost. Disadvantage in bargaining.

 

[leaford]

If I may... I got those very readings in my sample batch--from 2.1 to 2.9Ω, and reported my findings. Quick is right. The difference between a 2.1Ω and a 2.9Ω carto is not only noticeable, but may also be the difference between a carto that will burn and a carto that will not. 2.1Ω cartomizer on a 4.2v battery (freshly charged kr808) will result in 8.4 Watts.

Variance greater than 0.2-0.3Ω is, IMHO, not a good thing. 0.8Ω variance (2.1-2.9Ω) is not acceptable. 0.8Ω is the difference between a standard and a LR cartomizer, roughly.

Agreed, Katya. I'm not sure where anyone got the idea I thought the range of outliers was acceptable. But I was able to establish why the range is so great, that it is exactly what we would expect from the established range of the controled and tested variable, amperage, it doesn't result from a failure on their part to reject cartos outside their testing parameters, and that it's a variable we can control to reduce the variation to within an acceptable range.

Basically, they didn't screw up the consistency I was going for, they were just keeping consistent to a different variable and wider range than I was aiming for. Now that I know what they're testing it by, I know what testing parameters to tighten. And now that he knows why the Ohm reading was so important to us and therefore me, he's working to make that happen in the manufacturing procedures so we have fewer rejects at the testing stage.

Makes sense to me, and should be implementable by the next batch.

EDIT TO ADD: A LR carto will also stress a small battery and shorten its life substantially.

I asked him about that, but it was already the end of the evening and he said he wanted to get some old data ready to show me anyway. I take it he's already looked at the issue, and I look forward to seeing what he has on it. It might be part of how he determined the optimal amperage range and hence the Ohm range.

I still haven't had a chance to read that primer thread you refered me to, though, and it's not an issue I've followed, so I should prep for it too. Does that thread have a good concise explanation somewhere easily found inside it? If not could you guys give me one? Is it the percentage of the total charge being drawn at each puff that damages the cell? Is there any other variable in the equation that would change the affect?

 

[Mmc]

Leford, I just receive my maxx fusion battery and menthol carts today. 1st automatic that was not a lot of work. Easy!!! No primer puff, great vapor, but no taste in the menthol. I usually vape smilin menthol or wow peppermint from v4life in an 11 or 18 , I ordered the med in bloog. If I up the nick, will the flavor come out better? The v4life carts do not work as well on your battery- more work. Any suggestions?

 

[leaford]

I began testing my 2nd MaxxFusion Bloog cartomizer a couple days ago. It was pre-filled with menthol and the resistance measures about 2.3Ω or less. I was expecting it to be a wee bit stronger than the first one, but I can't tell the difference. I arrived at this conclusion using my familiar tobacco flavor after all of the menthol was worked out of it.

There is something different about the filler. It looks the same as the first one, but is slower to absorb my juice. Not only that, but it takes more juice to top it off. This one tops off at about 30 drops or more instead of about 25 drops. It has not been run completely dry, so I can't say how much it would have held when empty. Although it is a bit slower to fill than the first one, it still absorbed the juice fast enough to put it back into use immediately afterward.

This is an excellent observation, and thank you. It could also be a difference in how thick the rectangle of filler is causing a different absorption rate. One thing I've learned is that the wrap method, the size and shape of the filler, and the thickness of the material are all more variable than you would expect, or I am comfortable with, at most factories.

Again, they do things different here, and spend more effort to get a more consistent size and shape, and don't just use any old leftover bit they can make hold together long enough, at least. But thickness is still variable, even for them, just because the material is itself of uneven thickness. It can be compressed, but that's all.

Anyway, I digress. I don't know of any change to the filler material. Last I tested it it appeared the same, but all I really know is that it is the same regular polyfill, with nothing special about it, and I never heard of any change, let alone during production.

But I will ask about it, and find out. And improving the filler material is on my list of things to suggest, as a BTW, I just haven't prioritized it since the design does such a good job protecting it anyway.

A short while ago, it was on its 8th filling. The taste, vapor, and TH was still good. Then I got a slight dry taste, indicating that it was time for a top off. I thought it was a bit soon and took another draw. I got an immediate hot and burned taste in my mouth. Really HOT! Just like the old days when the filler burned due to my ignorance. I knew that these could not burn, so I filled it up again. Wrong. The taste is ruined and the cartomizer is useless.

You might have overheated the coil and "burnt" it out. When I was driving them to the point of deliberate burning that was the exact thing I got at the point just before the coil stopped functioning, which was when I opened them to check. About a third of them hadn't burnt at all that I could see, but obviously something had "burnt" out.

I still have one more that I will test. I am curious to find out how much juice it will use between top offs.

Me, too! Great data!