You were plenty clear to me (and I think at least one other Member?) with believing in Ohm's law not what I was saying. I hope you can see how a guy might misunderstand.
I don't believe that's the way it's really treated by Cera. I've said so a time or two. I still don't. I just measured mine again. Starting with a fresh 2250 at 4.17 OC and using the method I've described I measured 3.31 Volts on the cart pins. .32 Volts was lost across the strap, the remainder in the switch, spring and battery itself. A bit over four Amps. By the time the battery reaches nominal value I'd expect to have those numbers even lower, typically about 3.0 Volts on the cart (?) and be at or under four Amps.
So I don't think 3.6 Volts is realistic across the pins, especially at nominal value. This indicates a current higher than the four Amps the cart is designed to pass.
I've asked several times if you've done that test, I have a fair bit, and have found it's not realistic to start with 3.7 Volts and still have 3.6 of it left after the system losses. Perhaps my readings are way off (although they agreed with what we were seeing as Tim worked on the heater changes), what are you reading?
I originally suggested 'you might want to rethink that 5 Amps', and while I still think it's a good idea to stick with the ratings given the call still remains yours. To answer my question I think the cart resistanc was raised to get the current back down again as the system losses were decreased. You can, by adjusting the drive, run most any current you want, at least for a while. I just believe 5 is not the 'right' number. It's not what I see, and not what I was told the design allowed. But I've said all that a few times now. No need to repeat further.
Edit: I just did another test of some interest. I took that same battery (still reading 4.17 OC) and put it on my battery tester kluge. The four Amp load there (four 4 Ohm, 5 Watt resistors in parallel) dropped it to 3.95. So I'd say .2 Volts or so is lost in heating the battery?
Again, please, what values do you read on the pins when in the Cera system? TIA.
Good luck.
OF
OF,
This is very frustrating.
For one what I stated was this
"Just don't understand why you disagree with that. Like you ignore my data or simply think I am full of it. 0.69 ohm carts draw 5A and 3.6V. Seems you don't agree with either the 0.69, or 3.6V or ohms law - which one is it? If its 0.69 of the carts I will post a video on a $5,000 4 point Kelvin resistance cross bridge measuring each EO to 0.69 +/- 0.1. Accurate to 100ppm and traceable to the NBS - National Bureau of Standards to 10ppm plus give the cal certificate of accuracy and NBS (must be posted on the equipment in the cal lab). Once the resistance is proven and understood ohms law wins and the normal operating condition for my carts is 5A min."
Where did I imply what you are saying? What I said its "LIKE" you are ignoring my data or simply think I am full of it. Not ohms law. I then said what which was was it: the resistance measurement, voltage and a all out try ohms law. That was a question, not a statement - "?" was attached. So you are taking offense at my question? I am just try to understand why you are standing by your opinion in leu of data presented by me and not addressing the actual details. That was my point.
You know if people want to take offense where non was intended, people can. Written word is not that precise. I have boldly stated I was trying to be respectful more than once, but you took offense. Not sure why you are going that, but it concerns me.
I have stated I measured the cart voltage using wires on the base at the cart input. I stated what that was and what I measured the resistance to. You ask for the former again... frustrating
Now, look at my prespective here - you asked me to look at yours. I am being respectful, providing data and drawing conclusions from it, not opinions or taste great/less filling stuff. My reaction was in defence to you stating I was over driving my cart aka you are the aggressor. I did investigate and characterize everything before I did this. I presented that. However, you stayed with your opinion and didn't present much data back. Moreover the data you did provide does not add up. That is the POV I saw.
Then you reply I am attacking you or being disrepectful about your understanding of ohms law. Also stating at least 1 other member agreed.. hmmm OK I checked with others also and at least 3 others see what I see - OK. So what!
There is no disrepect intended and I don't think was done between us. If you want to go that route - your choice. OK by me. I will not. This stuff is not opinion based,its science and both of us know this. No reason to have drama where none was intended at from my POV. I mean no disrespect and have no agenda here. I hope we share that.
OK, remeasured my data using a Cera base and a Persei. Thanks, learned something here between the two bases.
Cera, fresh charged AW 18650 2000mAh battery.
No load 4.43V.
Full Cera EO load - 3.41, 35 seconds later 3.37
Persei
Recharged same battery...
No load 4.43V
Full Cera EO load - 3.55V, 35 seconds later 3.48V
First to note, even through the Persei must use an adapter it drops (4.43-3.55) or 0.88v, the Cera drops (4.43-3.41) or 1.02V.
That means under even worse conditions the Persei base dropped 0.14V less initially and after 35 seconds was still 0.11 higher. The Cera is only 86% efficient of the Persei.
Now lets explore the current flowing.
Initial conditions...
Cera 3.41/0.69 = 4.94 Amps
Persei 3.55/0.69 = 5.14 Amps
After 35 seconds...
Cera 3.37/0.69 = 4.88 Amps
Persei 3.48/0.69 = 5.02 Amp.
OK lets reset all history here. We are civil and no intention of disrespect between us - OK?
Now everything I measure says 5 amps is what the operating condition of my carts are which are the latest carts being produced from TET - June delivery. Newer than yours - right?
1. Agree? if not would you please explain why (TIA)
2. If you agree and 4A should be my value, are my carts defective? In not then this is my carts normal operating condition - right?
Please, please, please (did I say please?) don't take any offense about this. I have no agenda here. I simply must understand your point that I am overdriving my carts because my characterization does not agree - the Dilbert in me. At this point I coming to the conclusion that carts are defective, trying to decide how to return them and explain it to them why. At this point, perhaps, I should print this out and put it in the package to TET that you are saying my carts are outside the designed operation of the CERA EO. This is the only explanation I can see because I firmly believe you are right that 4A was the design spec and my carts draw 5A min in use...
EDIT - to be sure I double checked the adapter resistance used on the Persei for the EO cart. Its resistance is so small I need my 4 point kelvin meter so I can really ignore it, besides it was before my measurement point. My wires were on the cart inputs after the adapter. That is what amazes me. Even with the adapter the Persei drops less, over 14% less.
Just goes what my old grandma said, the more you look, the more you find...
Another edit - I have received a couple PM asking me if I am being played to further someone agenda or maybe I had one. I CALL BULLSHIT TO THAT. I am no ones BOY. I am defending myself on my operation which I shared. At no point it I ever put down the Cera or the EO. I was showing my lab supply setup. Then I am told I am outside the operational limits. Well, I am an senior fellow in an electronics firm with 35 years experience. When someone suggests I am operating outside the design specs and I characterized my equipement you are DAMN right I am going to do the following:
1. Recheck my data with an open mind
2. Then present that data once again to defend myself since in effect I am being told I am wrong.
3. In doing so I will present the data, unbiased for all to interrupt.
In suggesting I am incorrect I expect the following in return:
1. Objectively review the data I presented.
2. Be objective and covey the points you disagree with.
3. Get emotion at of it because it pure written word.
4. Use only data generated my yourself, not others. Let other people state there own data or opinion.
5. If you think something is out of line in the interaction - clarify with the presenter their intentions before taking offense.
I believe I followed that methodology as I have done in teams for years. I did not take offense at someone saying my operation was outside spec, I double checked and followed my methodology and kept a thick skin.
THAT IS WHAT I DID. If anybody thinks I am being played my Delta9 or TET, well you are 100% wrong. I am defending myself on my work, no one elses. I can't control anybody but myself and I have no agenda here. I hope the same is true for all because as an user and not a supplier here it serves me no purpose to drive anybody under. Users need competition and improvement. Ignoring data because its bad isn't in my best interest nor any users. Instead it should be used to improve the product.
Once emotion takes over, objectivity is lost. Bottom-line this is impossible to resolve. Emotions are involved I guess. Mine is being attacked so I am upset also. So... last post on this subject. Don't need to win, don't care. I hate drama and will keep and use both products. In fact will continue to support both and purchase from both. Period.
Besides SOA starts next week, enough drama for me
). However, I don't want any heat shrink wrap I use to melt or something, and the stuff rated higher than 135c according to wikipedia (aka not polyolefin) is expensive and apparently only available in bulk. I have no experience with heat shrink- is 135c plenty of margin past temperatures at which one can't touch certain parts of the Cera without significant discomfort? Or do I need to try and find a deal on the expensive stuff?
