Is Maxamps any better now?

[sikeston34m]

Originally Posted by asheck

http://www.nitrokillers.com/showthread.php?t=1527 Here is there own graph of there 35c 4200.It's still weaker then they are claiming.It's rated at 147amps for 4200.It took 120 amps for 3500.Thats just a single cell,with cooling.In pack form it's probably a 4000mah 25c .Way better then the old ones,but still not accurately rated.

It was holding 3.1 volts for about 25% of the discharge cycle?

A 35C rating? This graph isn't even a 30C discharge.

This graph shows an overworked cell trying to keep up IMO.

Companies that over-rate their cells say, "OK here's what it will do" falsely. Then the consumer believing it will perform as stated, puts the pack in the high discharge device and runs it as such.

Then puffing occurs.

There should be a standard for the "C" rating for a given pack. Controlled conditions and a rule that says "For a given C rating the pack must hold at least "X" volts per cell for 75% of the discharge cycle and come out no hotter than "X"


I'm looking at a different brand discharge graph here for a 3500mah rated at 30C.

At a 33C load (115.5 amps), it maintains a cell voltage of 3.3 volts for 75% of the discharge cycle. It still dumps 90% of its capacity before hitting 3.0 volts per cell.

A little under rating can be a good thing.

[BrianG]

Originally Posted by sikeston34m

...There should be a standard for the "C" rating for a given pack. Controlled conditions and a rule that says "For a given C rating the pack must hold at least "X" volts per cell for 75% of the discharge cycle and come out no hotter than "X"....

I TOTALLY agree! There was a thread about this very subject a while back. There is no standard so makers are free to say whatever they want as long as they can justify it later on in some fine print.

And, to lend credibility to any claims, all testing/rating should be done by a thrid party.