I find their table of advertised vs actual capacity to be misleadingly negative. They only discharged to 3v. 2.7 could be viewed as more standard. 2.5 is not unheard of. For example, the vapvell 4000 they said was around 3000. They even have a note that says that isn't a reasonable capacity estimate. And yet they still put the percentage and the number. As if they've falsely advertised. However, if you go to vapcell's graphs on their website, it all tracks. Feels out of scope for the report and shouldn't have been done
It even says "Conservative discharge that would not
extract maximum performance". A lot of electronics built for li-ion will not work <3V so it's a perfectly reasonable benchmark, especially to show the difference between brands.
To save everyone the hassle of filling out the "get the report" form:
https://7802750.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/7802750...
thank you
I find their table of advertised vs actual capacity to be misleadingly negative. They only discharged to 3v. 2.7 could be viewed as more standard. 2.5 is not unheard of. For example, the vapvell 4000 they said was around 3000. They even have a note that says that isn't a reasonable capacity estimate. And yet they still put the percentage and the number. As if they've falsely advertised. However, if you go to vapcell's graphs on their website, it all tracks. Feels out of scope for the report and shouldn't have been done
It even says "Conservative discharge that would not extract maximum performance". A lot of electronics built for li-ion will not work <3V so it's a perfectly reasonable benchmark, especially to show the difference between brands.