Category: Battery Mooch

I don’t know. I received a pile of them from several awesome vapers willing to send them to me. They’ve been using these batteries for up to months and purchased them from several vendors.

These fakes are often created in one quick batch and dumped on the market. The counterfeiters then disappear before anyone finds out that the batteries are fake.

Identifying the vendors, even if I knew who they were, would be problematic because some will not have the fakes in stock anymore. Any vendors who do will hopefully remove them.

Just as additional info…
I purchased a pair of Samsung 25R’s from three vendors recently for my performance testing of the 25R (checking if there has been a performance drop over time…there hasn’t). All six batteries were genuine and performed as well or better than previous 25R’s I have tested.

These vendors were Illumn, IMRBatteries, and Liion Wholesale (in alphabetical order).

There are a large number of other vendors who stock genuine 25R’s though! Check my pinned post for a list of my trusted vendors or speak to your vendor of choice about this issue if you have any concerns.

There have been some very good fake 25R’s popping up lately. Thanks to some fantastic members of this community who sent their fakes to me for testing I have some idea of what’s going on.

Most of the fakes are identical in appearance and performance to the 10A 2050mAh Samsung 22P battery. This battery is a terrible performer compared to the 25R. One fake was much worse than all the others. It might have been a lower grade 22P or damaged during use before I received it.

But I have one fake that is different from the others. It has the metal can code for, I believe, a Samsung 29E. But the top contact structure seems wrong for the 29E. I don’t know for sure what this fake actually is. It’s performance is lousy compared to the 25R though.

One HUGE problem with these fake 25R’s is that the top insulating rings are free-floating and not self-adhesive and glued down to the battery! This is the first time I have ever seen this. We can no longer say that a battery with a free-floating ring is genuine.

But here’s how to spot these fake 25R’s:
– If there are any lines radiating out from the center of the venting disk under the top contact then the battery cannot be a 25R. There are four of these lines in the fakes, spaced at 90° intervals. If you see even one though, as they are hard to spot, the battery cannot be a 25R.

– You can see the venting disk without unwrapping the battery but you’ll need a bright light source and a magnifier is very helpful.

– If you do not see any of these radial lines in the venting disk that does NOT mean that the battery is a genuine 25R. Other fakes might not have the lines.

– If there is anything other than a “5” as the second character in the uppermost four character code on the metal can, near the top, then the battery CANNOT be a genuine 25R. If it is a “2” then it’s most likely a rewrapped Samsung 22P. You can see this code through the wrap.

– If there are no codes on the metal can then it’s a fake 25R. It might still be a Samsung but someone has washed off the codes.

– The batch codes on the wrap CANNOT be used alone to detect these fakes as they might be genuine batch codes. The codes for the fakes I have are 2G22 and 2F34, located at the end of the second line of printing on the wrap.

– I want to say this again…these batch codes might be genuine and cannot be used as the only method to check for authenticity.

– There might be other batch codes being used for these fakes. Do not assume that having a batch code other than 2G22 and 2F34 means you have a genuine 25R. Check the venting disk for radial lines.

That’s all I have for now.

If you do have any fakes I recommend not using them at all. Contact the vendor you purchased them from to see what can be done.

Please do not send me pictures of your 25R’s to authenticate them. I am unable to do so via photographs.

Hoping your 25R’s are genuine!

Detecting the fakes: https://imgur.com/a/F2SzC

Discharge graphs: https://imgur.com/a/xnihF

But it might not be what you’re thinking, i.e., are they using chemicals to achieve the improved burn resistance they claim? I feel we won’t be able to say much about that until this cotton is analyzed by a trusted lab.

My concerns are about the regulatory compliance they claim on the packaging.

Why is that important? If those claims aren’t true then what else might not be true? How much else of what they say can we trust if they won’t even comply with the standards and regulations for such a product or they make exaggerated claims?

Over several days I tried contacting the makers of, and reps for, Angorabbit cotton via pm and email. All ignored. I then replied publicly to one of the numerous posts Tina Wang has made seeking distributors and vendors for Angorabbit cotton. She responded but after a few replies she deleted our conversation and said it should be private.

Here’s our public conversation before she deleted it: https://imgur.com/a/O8Tc3

Angorabbit cotton claims ISO, FDA, FCC, CE, and RoHS regulatory compliance by putting those marks on the package. Photos of the packaging: https://imgur.com/a/DpXdP

Tina Wang, of Lion Eco-Technology Co., Ltd. (“Lion”), the maker of Angorabbit cotton, told me that the FDA mark was put there because they also sell medical cotton that is registered/approved by the FDA.

A different reason was told to Phil Busardo though (http://www.tasteyourjuice.com/wordpress/archives/15909). Lion said to Phil…”The FDA logo is just a certification by USA government, nothing special, we just want vapers to know we are certified, not just a unauthentic brand comes out from some unauthentic somewhere.”

Angorabbit cotton does not comply with anything associated the FDA unless they filed paperwork for this particular product. They cannot use any FDA registration/review/approval for another product for this product. In a message to me Lion claimed they have this FDA paperwork but refused to send it to me citing trade secrecy concerns.

Regarding the other marks on Angorabbit packaging…
Lion told me that they put the FCC mark on the package because they previously sold electronic cigarettes. Umm…huh? That’s preposterous. The FCC’s regulations/standards are for electronic devices and I feel that cotton doesn’t quite meet that requirement. This mark is useless.

The ISO mark (International Organization for Standardization) can refer to any of over 20,000 different standards. Some are cotton-related, like cotton bale density, but most would mean nothing to us and the way we would use this cotton. Which standards do they claim compliance with? Lion refused to tell me.

The CE mark claims compliance with the standards and regulations for selling this cotton in the EU. Lion is allowed to write the compliance document themselves, i.e., they can self-certify. This is not a secret document and is made readily available by companies to show that their products are ready for sale in the EU. Lion refused to send it to me.

The RoHS mark claims that this cotton complies with the Reduction of Hazardous Substances directive to reduce the use of certain dangerous substances in products. Lion refused to send me this short document. Why would saying this cotton doesn’t have any of these dangerous substances need to stay a secret? Any company I have ever requested this document from has gladly provided it. Could it be because this also only applies to electronics?

This all bothers me….a lot.
If this is a genuine step up in cotton for vaping then why the fake compliance marks? Why the secrecy? Why not just be honest on the package, market the product well (addressing all our health concerns), and let it sell itself? We can genuinely use a burn-resistant cotton.

I don’t know if this Angorabbit cotton is safe to use or not. But I guess that’s no different from any cotton we use. I do know that Lion claims they comply with regulations and standards that can’t possibly apply to this cotton, or to cotton at all.

Lion, you said I could get a lab to test your cotton and that you are confident that the results would show your cotton is safe. I’m not the one trying to market it to this community though. 🙂

I ask you to test your own cotton. To use a well known US or EU testing company and to post the results for our community to see. This is something I am stunned you haven’t already done considering your claims and our community’s understandable concerns.

This still wouldn’t address the problems with your packaging but it would go a long way towards allaying any worries we had regarding the safety of your cotton.

Current and future vendors and distributors for this cotton…
Lion said they would share the compliance/regulatory documentation with customers. I would ask that you request the documentation for their claimed FDA, CE, and ISO regulatory compliance. Any FCC or RoHS documentation will be useless, not even applying to this product. There’s no need to ask for it.

I don’t ask for me, they don’t want me to see it claiming trade secrecy. I ask you to do this to ensure that this documentation exists and that Lion complies with the regulations and standards they claim and that do really apply to this cotton.

If Lion won’t send the documentation then what do we believe or not believe?
Can we be sure it is safe to use?

Just frustrated and sharing some thoughts.
Comment and let me know yours.

Thanks,
Mooch

My sincere thanks to Danny Carrillo for sending me these fake HE2’s for examination and testing!

Luckily they are terrible fakes and are easily identified, having a three “leg” top contact rather than the correct “four” leg top contact that all LG batteries have.

I want to restate that before all the questions come in…
– This fake HE2 has three “legs” coming down from the top contact.
– The genuine HE2, and all LG batteries we use, have four “legs” coming down from the top contact.

Photos and discharge graphs: https://imgur.com/a/nhPSC

The fakes also have a faint laser etched Greek phi symbol on the bottom. There is nothing on the bottom of the genuine HE2.

The genuine HE2 is a 20A 2500mAh battery. This fake is a lousy performing 2100-2200mAh battery with a 10A-15A rating. But, there might be more than one type of battery being rewrapped for these fakes. I can only talk about the ones I have.

I don’t know what battery is being used for these fakes.

If you have any of these fakes then contact the vendor you purchased them from to see if you can get a refund. If you insist on using them then carefully treat them as crappy 10A batteries. I recommend just returning or recycling them though.

PLEASE READ:
– The date/batch code on the wrap of the fake might be a genuine code. This alert is NOT saying that all HE2’s with that code are fake!

– LET ME REPEAT THAT: THIS POST IS NOT SAYING ALL HE2’s WITH THAT CODE ARE FAKES! Only that these fakes are using that code.

– This alert is NOT saying that all HE2’s with a four “leg” top contact are genuine! There might be other fakes out there using genuine LG batteries with lower current ratings.

– I am NOT saying anything other what I am saying directly in this post.

– Please do not send me pictures of your HE2’s. I am unable to authenticate your batteries via photos. Use the pictures here to determine if yours are fakes or not. If you are still unsure then CAREFULLY compare the performance of the suspect batteries against known genuine HE2’s, HE4’s, or 25R’s (their performances are all about the same). If you are still unsure, return or recycle them.

Thanks!
Mooch

Bottom Line: For the GeekVape Aegis mods that ship with a battery, this is it. This a great performing cell, easily one of the top three 26650’s. It is equal to the Aspire 4300mAh (test results soon) and almost equal to the iJoy 4200mAh. The Golisi is identical in appearance to the Aspire and only the surface finish of the top contact metal differentiates it from the iJoy.

I will be retesting the iJoy again soon to see if these three might all be the same cell.

This cell runs a couple of degrees cooler than the iJoy so it earns a 31A continuous rating versus the 30A rating of the iJoy. You will not notice a difference this small in use though. The iJoys I tested in September, 2016 hit a little bit harder though.

I am rating this Golisi cell at 31A and 4300mAh.  I’m not bothered too much by Golisi’s 35A rating because it’s so close to mine.

The two cells that were tested were donated for testing by Geekvape (www.geekvape.com). Thank you!

Test results, discharge graph, photos: https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/threads/bench-test-results-golisi-35a-4300mah-26650-a-great-31a-battery-close-to-the-ijoy.819859/#post-19864007

All my test results to date: https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/blog-entry/list-of-battery-tests.7436/

This cell is accurately rated at 20A continuous and 2500mAh. I am delighted to report that while it features a useless “pulse” rating on the wrap it displays the continuous and pulse ratings equally.

This cell’s physical appearance and performance are essentially identical to the Samsung 25R2 but all of the 25R variations are so close in appearance and performance I cannot say for sure that the SubOhm is a 25R2 rewrap. There’s a chance it could be a 25R5, 25R6, or 25R6M.

It has a wrap that is thicker and tougher than the stock 25R wrap and should hold up to abuse better. As with any thicker wrap though be aware that it might affect how this cell fits in mods that are already a tight fit with 25R’s.

I am rating this SubOhm SE cell at 20A and 2500mAh.

The two cells that were tested were purchased by me from SubOhm (www.subohm.com).

Test results, discharge graph, photos: https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/threads/bench-test-results-subohm-se-20a-2500mah-18650-accurately-rated-probably-a-25r.818697/

All my test results to date: https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/blog-entry/list-of-battery-tests.7436/

Bottom Line: Considering the other great cells we can choose from with much higher capacity ratings at 18A continuous this Samsung just isn’t very useful for us.

I am rating this Samsung 15L at 18A and 1500mAh.

The two cells that were tested were purchased by me from IMRBatteries.

Test results, discharge graph, photos: https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/threads/bench-test-results-samsung-15l-18a-1500mah-18650-underrated-but-not-a-great-performer.818519/

All my test results to date: https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/blog-entry/list-of-battery-tests.7436/

Married battery testing is done but there is over 60 pages of data to go back through and summarize. I hope to post the results and my recommendations in 2-3 weeks. I won’t be saying anything about it before then.

As you may have noticed the pace of my testing has slowed down significantly recently . My day job is taking up a lot more time lately and this prevents me from doing as much testing as I would like to.

I’ve been agonizing over this for months but I have finally decided…I would like to do this, and other, testing for our community full time.

I have found the work I have done these past two years really satisfying and there is so much more I can do. But, there are a lot of bills to pay and testing doesn’t generate any income. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I have some ideas, including the dreaded “P” word, but will be spending a lot of time these upcoming days trying to work out ways to generate enough income to be able farm out my day job work to others.

This would free me up to do testing full time. Things like cycle life testing, expanding which cells I test, charger testing, and getting my YouTube channel up and running could be added to what I’m doing now. I have about 70 YouTube topics already written down…a good start. 🙂

I’ll have an update on all this in a few days.

In the mean time…
The next test report to be posted is the 23A 1500mAh Samsung 15M. With Samsung’s typically being underrated could this cell be a competitor for the LG HB6? We’ll find out tomorrow.

Thanks!
Mooch

This has been a persistent rumor but it’s not true. The Sanyo’s are completely different batteries, having a three “leg” top contact versus the five “leg” top contact for the others.

I don’t know for sure what the Ampking, EBAT, Efest, and iJoy 20700 batteries are.

Comparison of the top contacts: https://imgur.com/a/I0y6v

While this cell lists the true 30A continuous current rating on the wrap it also has a useless “Max Pulse Discharge” rating of 40A on the other side of the wrap. Without knowing the length of the pulses, the time between them, and the criteria used to set the rating (voltage sag? vaping time? temperature?) the rating is useless.

This is a shame as it appears to be the same cell as the iJoy, Ampking, and Efest 20700’s. The EBAT uses a plastic top ring insulator though versus the paper insulator on the iJoy and Ampking. This might make a difference to those who often get e-liquid on the battery.

Three of the six EBAT’s I tested didn’t perform quite as well as the others though. This same performance variation seems to exist for the cells from all the companies wrapping this 20700. I don’t think these variations would be noticeable while vaping though as they are small at 3.2V and higher.

I am very happy to report that this cell doesn’t say “IMR” anywhere on the wrap. Since these 20700’s do not use the battery chemistry often associated with the “IMR” model number prefix there is no reason to have “IMR” on the wrap like the Efest cell does.

I am rating this EBAT at 30A and 3000mAh.

Six cells were donated by EBAT for the purpose of testing (www.ebatpower.com). Thank you!

Test results, discharge graph, photos: https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/threads/bench-test-results-ebat-30a-3000mah-20700-a-genuine-30a-battery-same-as-ijoy-efest-ampking.815501/

All my test results to date: https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/blog-entry/list-of-battery-tests.7436/