First off, I made a mistake. I write down every result on a notepad, and then do data entry into excel when I hit a milestone and am ready to report an update. Well, for some reason, I wrote Cycle 1528 twice (...1527, 1528, 1528, 1529...). What I decided to do is average the results of the 2 cycles and use that number as the entry for Cycle 1528. To make up the test cycle, I will skip over Cycle 1666, assuming I get to that point, because I don't like that number :angel: .
Second, I kind of discovered something that I wanted to run by the community. I never really paid attention to the THLD cell's "INR18650" designation, as I understand that INR/ICR/IMR/NCR don't actually signify chemistry and are just naming conventions, but it got me thinking. If the THLD cell is labeled as an INR cell, and it actually is an INR (Lithium Manganese Nickel) vs. being an ICR (Lithium Cobalt Oxide), then the results of my degradation testing don't signify quality, but rather chemistry. It's not that the CJ and THLD cells are Chinese junk, but rather, they are low-cobalt-content INR cells that typically have a shorter life than their cobalt-rich ICR cousins. That also got me thinking again. If the CJ and THLD cells were truly INR cells, why did their PTC protection kick in to limit their short-circuit discharge to just 2 amps and why did the cells still heat up at that low of a discharge rate? My theory is that, since much of the cost of INR cells comes from having thicker copper and aluminum collectors, the Chinese manufacturers used thinner current collectors, while also using the low-cobalt INR chemistry. Thatwould explain how they got their cost down. So high discharge chemistry without the ability to do high discharge. What do you all think about that theory?
