How do you know the panny cells are really IMr cells? And the pannys are unprotected as well, same as the Aw cells.
- Status
Furthermore let me say this, if you are counting on a battery to keep you safe, then you most certainly are not safe. A safer battery is only one component in a chain of safety features that begin and end with the user. Its kind of like I tell my friends, a smartphone is only as smart as the person using it, a battery and a mod is only as safe as the person using it. The provari has a cluster of safety features that have proven themselves time and again, unlike the lavatube, if a battery fails in the provari, the provari should still work, sans a new spring, there is a thread on this forum right now about this very thing. The lavatube doesn't even stand up to everyday use, if a cell does fail, it sure as hell won't stand up t that.
And cells do fail, they will no matter who made them.
And cells do fail, they will no matter who made them.
If you think your Provari + AW 18650 IMR is safe then read this :
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/provape/275857-my-provari-went-up-smoke.html
Why it happened ?
Safety:
Shorted Panasonic CG18650CH 185 F (85 c) (meaning - safer if short happens inside your PV)
Shorted AW 1600 IMR 235 F (112.7 C) (in case of short circuit everything around[and cell itself] will burn -look at the wires in test video)
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/276514-safe-18650-battery-alternative-3.html
I hope you know why I like Panasonic, Sanyo, Samsung over any unknown cell (it can be reputable seller- but I want to know what is inside).
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/provape/275857-my-provari-went-up-smoke.html
Why it happened ?
Safety:
Shorted Panasonic CG18650CH 185 F (85 c) (meaning - safer if short happens inside your PV)
Shorted AW 1600 IMR 235 F (112.7 C) (in case of short circuit everything around[and cell itself] will burn -look at the wires in test video)
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/276514-safe-18650-battery-alternative-3.html
I hope you know why I like Panasonic, Sanyo, Samsung over any unknown cell (it can be reputable seller- but I want to know what is inside).
If you actually READ the thread, the provari didn't fire, he chucked the bat, and with the exception of a melted spring, which did what it was designed to do, no harm done. THAT story is certainly not an argument for your side. Btw can you tell me if the panny would have melted the spring at 185 degrees, yes it would have.
Yes, everyone should, the safest battery and the safest PV is nothing more than a pipebomb in the hands.of the uneducated, would a panisonic be the best battery? Sure, but its not logical to tell people to use batteries that they can not use. And its also not helpful to the AW Bart's as unsafe simply because there is a safer option. When you consider the facts of the Provari case, there were all of the makings of a disaster, but an educated user, a safer device, with a safer batt resulted in a memorable drive to work, but no harm to his PV or him. If you think a Lavatube will afford you with the same protection then fine, I have owned both, me personally I feel much more confident in my Provari. But that's just me.
Let me ask a question.
and maybe someone that understands little electrons flowing around in a little flipping circuit can answer.
The Provari in question had an IMR cell (or a look alike IMR).
The battery got really hot.
The Provari only needs a new spring and it works again.
The negative shell of the IMR cell contacts the spring, right?
Where did current flow to make the spring collapse?
How could a bad IMR cell conduct too much current unless asked to do so?
How many of the safety features did the bad cell wipe out, how many are left functional?
and maybe someone that understands little electrons flowing around in a little flipping circuit can answer.
The Provari in question had an IMR cell (or a look alike IMR).
The battery got really hot.
The Provari only needs a new spring and it works again.
The negative shell of the IMR cell contacts the spring, right?
Where did current flow to make the spring collapse?
How could a bad IMR cell conduct too much current unless asked to do so?
How many of the safety features did the bad cell wipe out, how many are left functional?
Love this thread.. This is also what I use "AW IMR 18650" the 1600 mah version for my Volcano Lavatube. I wanna try and buy some of the 2000 mah version batteries, but I heard that some batts fit the Lavatube, and other don't allow the cap to screw in all the way. Variances of the batts supposedly...
That's a good question, I certainly don't have any clue, I assume that's why Provape offered the guy to check it out. My main point was, if this had happened in the Lavatube, given the lack of quality, compared to the Provari, could have been very bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dogging the Lavatube, the Lavatube is a perfectly safe device, and this is not my intent. But, the Lavatubes have a history of not holding up to everyday use, how well do you think it will hold up in a disaster? We have at least one example of the Provaris performance in those circumstances. I say it did quite well.
But again the best safety feature for any device is an educated user.
Btw, I keep forgetting to ask this question, can anyone tell me what the difference is between 185 degrees and 240-250 degrees, I know it seems like a lot, but if a battery heats up to 185 degrees wile in the charger, it will still cause a fire, it will still burn you, and you won't notice much of a difference between a burn from 185 over and against one at 250.
I'm not trying to dog the AW IMR cell but the entire shell is at the same potential, cell negative. With a protected cell the bottom cap and cell shell are both negative (within 40mv per amp of current). Other than the positive sense strip along the side of the cell, a short of the cell shell to mod case defeats the protection circuit but is in itself not an explosion causing failure.
Current has to be drawn from the positive cap on the cell to draw current from the cell.
Current has to be drawn from the positive cap on the cell to draw current from the cell.
I agree with you. 185-240 degrees is way too hot. That is the reason why I purchased the Panasonic NCR18650A. Let me summarize the results of the videos I posted previously.
Panasonic CGR18650CH 2250mah (unprotected): http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-18650-battery-alternative-3.html#post5527483
(video start at the beginning to about 1:49)
-After shorting for approximately 3 minutes, the temperature reached approx 185 degrees
-Battery was no longer usable.
AW IMR 1600mah (unprotected): http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-18650-battery-alternative-3.html#post5527483
(video start at 1:50 to end )
-After shorting for approximately 1 minute 40 seconds, the temperature reached approx 235 degrees
-Battery was no longer usable.
Panasonic NCR18650A 3100mah (unprotected): http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-18650-battery-alternative-2.html#post5527470
-After shorting for approximately 1 hour, the temperature reached approx 130-135 degrees
-Battery was able to be charged and remained usable.
Notes:
-The Unprotected Panasonic CGR18650CH and the AW IMR are rated at 10A
-The Unprotected Panasonic NCR18650A is rated at 8.5A
I am no electrical/electronic engineer but if all these batteries are considered to be reasonably safe, what is the need for 10A of current? An unprotected Panasonic NCR18650A is rated at 8.5A. Most PVs are limited to 2.5-3.5A right? Perhaps I should open another thread for this question.
If I had to draw a conclusion from the evidence of the videos linked above, I would have to say that the unprotected Panasonic NCR18650A is safer. It performed better when shorted, had a lower temperature when shorted and was still usable after the test. To reiterate, this is if I HAD to draw a conclusion from the videos.
But in the case of the NCR18650A 3100 mah battery can we really trust the results? I'm aware according to the video that the battery only reached 130-135 degrees, but what does one test show. This also applies to the other IMR cells. I would like to see at least 4 or 5 more test of the same structure with similar results before drawing any conclusions for myself.
If the same type chemistry and the same sized (actual overall length) is used, I see no reason to be shackled to the same manufacturer or model. If it's a matter of using a r.e. magnet to act as a nipple, and all else is equal, I see no problem with that either, but I would take care that the magnet is not going to shift.
Given a choice of a presumably IMR cell that is made by who-knows-who, graded and wrapped by AW or it's counterfeiter, and a labeled Panasonic that is not techincally an IMR, but a hybrid that performs better under shorting conditions and is almost certainly a genuine Panasonic, I'll take the Panasonic.
Cells do fail. That's not the same as saying ALL cells fail. In the Lavatube, the biggest risk is failure due to shorting or overdischarge. I may be wrong, but I think a battery that is shorted will act worse than if it is overdischarged.
The Panasonics do not get nearly as hot when shorted as do a real AW.
If I buy a Panasonic, I'm pretty sure it's a Panasonic. If I buy an AW, I'm not entirely sure what it is, and the Panny behaves better in any case.
I'm not sure what is you point about the Provari. Yeah, I'd like a Provari. You got one for $60? If not, I'm not overly concerned about my LavaTube being destroyed in the off chance a good battery goes thermal. As for not standing up to everyday use, I don't take it with me to work in the coal mine. Otherwise, it holds up just fine. Maybe I'll buy a 3 year, all hazard warranty on it for $16. Or, maybe I'll just buy 2 more replacements, as needed, in the event they get destroyed.
Technically, they are not IMR cells. They have a chemistry that employs some amount of cobalt in combination with mangnese. Bottom line is that under shorting conditions, they are safer and reach a significantly lower temp. than the AW IMRs, (185 deg. vs. 235 deg.). They don't go into thermal runaway and they don't flame or explode. So, bottom line is that I don't care what you call them, they are safer than AW IMRs. They don't rely on circuits to do it. That tells me that Panasonic has developed a chemistry that is inherently safe, and safer than "traditional" IMR chemistry under recommended loads (max. 10A discharge for both AW and Panny)
It's a significant difference. 185 degrees won't boil water. 185 is the temp of a cup of hot coffee. 185 is cooler than the McDonalds coffee that the old lady dumped in her lap. 185 degree water will cause scalding.
A 185 degree battery in a charger will not start a fire. It won't melt the plastic on a decent charger.
235 degrees will burn you FAR worse than 185 degrees and you will notice one helluva difference. It will probably leave you with at least 1st degree burns and maybe 2nd degree.
Stick your finger in hot coffee. Now stick it in water at a full rolling boil. Notice the difference? You still have another 23 degrees to go. Almost as much as the diff between the 185 and boiling water.
Further, the AW took only 1:40 to get to 235. The Panny took over 3 minutes to reach 185. That could be the difference between feeling the heat and tossing the PV and getting burnt.
The results show that the PTC on the NCR18650A was working. It is a protected battery, only the protection isn't in the form of a PCB. From what I understand, the PTC is not a device that will work repeatedly with any degree of reliability. At some point, it may be rendered non or partially functional and you may or may not suspect that a good deal of your protection is no longer in affect.
IMR cells, relying on the chemistry instead of electro or electro-mech. devices are more apt to be consistent in their characteristics under forced failure conditions. There is no reason to think that one IMR or hybrid IMR cell will act any different from another. Once they are shorted they, unlike the PTC protected cells, are unusable. There is no risk of using a cell with a damaged means of protection. There is also no use in shorting inherently "safe" cells in multiple tests. I agree with you thought, that repeatedly testing the same PTC protected cell would be useful to gauge any deterioration of the protection mechanism.
I'm having trouble following you. Not being sarcastic this is just a tad above my head. So the PTC is the protection used in the NCR18650A batteries, instead of the regular PCB protection we see on most of out Whatever/fire brands and AW batteries correct. And if that is the case then are you saying the PTC is more or less reliable. Furthermore, are you stating IMR cells are inherently safer then the PTC protection, or the other way around?
If you look at the Panasonic Data sheet on their Li-Ions, they have a PTC, (I forgot what the initials stand for) on the top where you would find the PCB of a **Fire protected battery. Somewhere, maybe the Lavatube forum, there is a link to some information explaining what it is. It's a type of current limiting switch. It limits the current dumped from the battery in the event of a short. It doesn't totally cut it off, like a PCB would, but it restricts it.
Now, I'm not 100% sure of this, but I believe that little PTC is not like a PCB in that it can be operated over and over again and perform exactly the same each time. So, if you short the battery out say, 5 or however many times, you won't get the same results each time. Maybe the 1st time the PTC will let the battery get to 135 degrees and the 4th time it will go to 180 and the 5th time it won't work at all. Maybe the first 5 times it will let the battery get to 135 and quit working at all the 6th time. Those results are speculation, but you get my point. That means that the PTC could conceivably have been switched on, even for a moment, without your knowledge. At any given moment, you wouldn't know how many activations it's been subject to. So, how would you know how safe it is to rely on? Maybe it fails entirely after 25 activations. Maybe it's already been subject to 24 brief shorts without you knowing. Remember, all this is hypothetical and based on the assumption that the PTC has a limited number of duty-cycles.
In contrast, safe chemistry batteries work once, every time. Their characteristics are universal. Assuming the same amount of a chemical, it's going to act the same way every single time. You won't have a brief short that doesn't do anything, but makes the consequences worse during the next short.
The point I was making was that batteries with a safe chemistry, like an IMR, act according to their chemistry and they will be consistent from one battery to the next, so it makes no sense to test 10 of them the same way, unless you're engaged in quality control testing.
Personally, I'd rather rely on a batterys chemistry than a device, unless the difference is super-critical. With PV's, I don't think the difference between a 135 degree short and a 185 degree short is critical. I wouldn't trust a PTC after the first short in anything I put near my face. I might re-use it in a flashlight though.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
