This has gone on long enough. These companies should know better.
I will no longer be accepting a battery with "IMR" on the wrap as being accurately labeled unless it actually uses the battery chemistry that "IMR" is used for (by the big manufacturers).
The use of "IMR" on the batteries marketed to vapers is a big problem. The chemistry for that model number prefix is one of the safest available in Li-Ion batteries. There are a lot of older online articles for vapers saying that only IMR batteries should be used for vaping. This makes batteries with "IMR" on the wrap seem to be a safe choice.
One big problem though...I don't think we use any batteries with that chemistry anymore.
Almost all the cylindrical batteries we use are "hybrid" chemistry batteries, i.e., the batteries that are using the "INR" model number prefix (or its equivalent) by the big manufacturers.
That makes me wonder if...
1) These Chinese battery manufacturers and rewrappers just use "IMR" as a way to make us think the battery is a safe chemistry to get us to buy the battery.
2) It's just become a generic tag that means "non-LiPo".
3) These Chinese battery manufacturers and rewrappers don't know the difference between the different chemistries and actually think they are selling batteries that use the same chemistry as in batteries using the "IMR" model number prefix.
Whichever might be true, all of these scenarios are completely unacceptable. Especially in this environment of increased regulations and government scrutiny.
The use of "IMR" by the Chinese battery manufacturers and rewrappers is confusing and unnecessary. There is absolutely no reason to have "IMR" on any battery unless it uses the correct matching chemistry. I will be calling out the batteries from these Chinese companies that do not use "IMR" correctly. There was no good reason to ever use it and it's time to stop.
My test reports from now on will reflect this.
Our community deserves accurate ratings and labeling. These companies have had years to get it right. Lets speak with our wallets and see what we can do.
Additional notes:
If a company wants to indicate on the wrap which chemistry is used in their battery then I feel they should use the standard industry acronyms for that chemistry, e.g., LMO, NCA, LCA, NMC, LCO, etc. They should not use a battery model number prefix from Samsung/Sony/LG/Panasonic/Sanyo to try to indicate anything.
I'll be addressing all of this stuff about IMR/INR/ICR being model number prefixes and not batteries chemistries soon. There's a lot to cover though.
I will no longer be accepting a battery with "IMR" on the wrap as being accurately labeled unless it actually uses the battery chemistry that "IMR" is used for (by the big manufacturers).
The use of "IMR" on the batteries marketed to vapers is a big problem. The chemistry for that model number prefix is one of the safest available in Li-Ion batteries. There are a lot of older online articles for vapers saying that only IMR batteries should be used for vaping. This makes batteries with "IMR" on the wrap seem to be a safe choice.
One big problem though...I don't think we use any batteries with that chemistry anymore.
Almost all the cylindrical batteries we use are "hybrid" chemistry batteries, i.e., the batteries that are using the "INR" model number prefix (or its equivalent) by the big manufacturers.
That makes me wonder if...
1) These Chinese battery manufacturers and rewrappers just use "IMR" as a way to make us think the battery is a safe chemistry to get us to buy the battery.
2) It's just become a generic tag that means "non-LiPo".
3) These Chinese battery manufacturers and rewrappers don't know the difference between the different chemistries and actually think they are selling batteries that use the same chemistry as in batteries using the "IMR" model number prefix.
Whichever might be true, all of these scenarios are completely unacceptable. Especially in this environment of increased regulations and government scrutiny.
The use of "IMR" by the Chinese battery manufacturers and rewrappers is confusing and unnecessary. There is absolutely no reason to have "IMR" on any battery unless it uses the correct matching chemistry. I will be calling out the batteries from these Chinese companies that do not use "IMR" correctly. There was no good reason to ever use it and it's time to stop.
My test reports from now on will reflect this.
Our community deserves accurate ratings and labeling. These companies have had years to get it right. Lets speak with our wallets and see what we can do.
If a company wants to indicate on the wrap which chemistry is used in their battery then I feel they should use the standard industry acronyms for that chemistry, e.g., LMO, NCA, LCA, NMC, LCO, etc. They should not use a battery model number prefix from Samsung/Sony/LG/Panasonic/Sanyo to try to indicate anything.
I'll be addressing all of this stuff about IMR/INR/ICR being model number prefixes and not batteries chemistries soon. There's a lot to cover though.
Last edited:
That is insane, I was prepared to wait a couple of weeks at least. I don't think I will actually get it today, probably Monday, but still that is insanely fast.
