Batteries for radio stations Uniden, BP-38 BP-40

They asked me not so long ago to buy somethe number of batteries for radio stations. In general, the matter is simple, a suitable lot was found on Ali, an order was made, and in time received by mail. But is everything really good?
Today I have a review from the category of “micro”, I will try to briefly and with the facts.

Accumulators are intended for quite popular Uniden radio stations, such as these.

List of compatible models of radio stations:
GMR3689, GMR3699,
GMR1838, GMR1038, GMR1048, GMR1438, GMR1448, GMR1558, GMR1595
GMR2238, GMR2838, GMR2240, GMR2872, GMR2875, GMR2059, GMR2089, GMR2099, GMR2889
GMR635, GMR638,
GMR645, GMR648, GMR680,
GMR855, GMR885, GMR895, GMRS380, GMRS680, TR640
I did not hold it in my hands, I ordered it simply by name, but as far as I can tell, the original batteries look something like that.

In general, the people are modernizing them a little, typing adapter under the battery compartment and connecting to the bank, but in my case it was necessary to buy batteries.

And here begins the story itself. Initially, I needed 10 batteries, but they were sold in lots of 12, well, as if all right, two will be in stock, no big deal.
But at the time of the order, I received an overlay, whether the payment did not go through at first, or something else I don’t remember, but in the end I accidentally made two orders.
In general, this has happened to me, the decision heresimple, cancel an order with a description of "other reasons" or "I no longer need this order" and that's it. Sometimes along the way I write to the seller, saying that one lot was ordered by chance, cancel the order and always the seller cancels the specified order.
In this case, I kind of did the same, but goingthe next day in the list of orders I saw that he was in the waiting status of sending. I am canceling, and in order to be sure, I’m writing to the seller, saying I ordered 12345789 by chance, please cancel.
And in response to silence and two days later, both orders change the status to - Sent. I am writing to the seller again - why I sent, I asked you to cancel, I only need one order
As a result, I receive two parcels in the mail. Of course, it was packed better than in the photo, wrapped in a bubble, each battery in a separate bag, but anyway, I ordered one ...

Now I am a “happy” owner of 24 batteries instead of 12, provided that I had 10. By the way, all 24 of them were paid, for a total of about 80 dollars.

The batteries look, but rather assemblies from the batteries are pretty good, I already ordered these, but it was relatively long ago.

On the store page and on the battery labelThe type is indicated, the voltage is 4.8 Volts and the capacity is 700 mAh. Each battery has four terminals, two for supplying power to the radio station and two for connecting to a charger, they are different.

I was more pleased with the characteristics indicated on the page:
1.100% compatible with original battery manufacturer.
2. Microprocessor charge control.
3. Protection against tipping.
4. Chemistry: Ni-MH
5. Voltage: 4.8 V
6. Capacity: 700 mAh
7. Weight: 100 g
I highlighted the most interesting ones in bold type.

About half of the batteries have a “pip” in the middle of the back, and the battery shown above also has it.

“Roll Over Protection” isa diode connected between the side and end positive terminals. It is necessary in order not to get short-circuit between the terminals sticking out to connect to the charger, that's all protection.

Well, what about one of the main characteristics of the battery capacity (I can not check the durability).
I take the first battery out of the box, connect it to the electronic load, set up the test program and run it.

The test program was as follows:
1. Green - Predrazryad current 150mA to 0.9 Volts per bank.
2. Blue - A charge of 150 mA to a voltage of 5.72 Volts (1.43 per jar) with a cut-off due to a current drop of up to 100 mA (less, it does not expose the load).
3. Red - Discharge current 150 mA to 0.9 Volts per bank.
4. Blue - A charge of 200 mA to a voltage of 5.72 Volts in order to compare the results of a capacitance change after a single pass.
As a result, before reaching p4, I received 230 mAh from the battery, while the pre-discharge removed only 1 mAh.

I stopped the test and started it again, because the battery was charged a little, the first discharge came out 19 mAh, in this case it is normal.
The second time the test started to check, it is possible that the battery will “swing”, unlike lithium, nickel has such an effect.
But alas, I received 246 instead of 230 mAh and judging by the capacity of the charge that left it, it will not be better, since with the first and second charge it went the same way, at 280 mAh.

In a frustrated sense, it’s a joke, pay $ 80 and end up with 24 batteries with a capacity of three times lower, take a second battery out of the box and run the same test.
Here the picture is radically better for pre-dischargeIt took 204 mAh (what was from the factory), the capacity for "return" was 458 mAh. Actually, I think it would be closer to 500 mAh, since the disconnection should be done clearly not at 100 mA, but less.

I take a couple of batteries from another box,The results are approximately identical to the second battery from the previous test, the same 456-469 mAh. As far as I know, for “non-branded” such a result is quite normal and as I wrote above, the actual capacity is closer to 500 mAh.

After the tests, it was decided to check the internal resistance, the first four batteries were signed according to the tests conducted above, the last two were taken from the box at random.
Surprisingly, the first battery has the mostlow internal resistance, 148 mΩ, while three normal ones showed 157-170 mΩ. A pair of "untrained" batteries showed even higher, up to 190 mΩ, but here everything is just fine, a pair of full charge / discharge cycles will slightly improve this characteristic.

According to the test results, an argument was opened. Frankly, I rarely open disputes for such reasons, knowing full well that real capacity in such cases will not be with a chance of about 99.9%. Most often limited to the fact that in the response to the order indicate the actual capacity warning other buyers.
But in this case I decided to retreat from myhabits and opened a dispute on the return of the money. Perhaps I did this in part because the seller did not respond to my request to cancel the random order.
At first, I wrote to the seller as it should be, saying that there is such a problem, one battery is completely dead, the other 23 have a capacity of about 450-470 mAh instead of 700, and attached screenshots of the test.
In response, I’m completely ignored again, I honestly waited two days, you never know, and only then opened the argument.
In the dispute, he indicated the reason, writing in passing that althoughThe batteries have a capacity of 450-470 mAh, I considered the amount of return on the basis of 500 mAh, i.e. rounded toward the seller. According to the damaged battery declared a full refund. In my personal opinion, everything is more than correct.
After the time the first message came from the seller - Please use 0.2C discharge test.
Well, yes, there is such a thing, in the test, instead of 140 mA, I discharged with a current of 150 mA, this is a challenge on my part. but I reply to the seller, saying there is no big difference, the current is 0.2C or 0.215C. incidentally recalled that:
1. Indicates 500 mAh, i.e. in fact, all the measurement errors are already laid here.
2. If its batteries are too critical to reduce the capacity by increasing the current from 140 to 150 mA, then they generally are not good at all because the current in the radio station is much more.
After almost five days, literally three hours beforethe expiry of the dispute time, he refuses to accept my conditions - there is no return, there is no refund with a comment (the seller wrote the second one) - The detected discharge current is incorrect.
I refuse to accept his offer, then the timer has already started to count down for three days (if not confusing).
In principle, it would be possible to score on all of this, but I already went on the principle, not for the sake of returning $ 25 in total on both disputes, but simply to prove my point.
As a result, I take the same four batteries and chargetest with a current of 140 mA (0.2C), for understanding the process, each run takes about 10-12 hours, the test of four pieces is almost two days of continuous operation of the electronic load and software on the computer.
I get the following results:
The results of the second part of the tests.

As a result, the dispute went to aliexpress for consideration, and I'm waiting for the result, well, or when the seller offers new nuances when testing, as an option, check all batteries. :)
Moderator Aliexpress responded - Please click here.
The comment also states -
Please provide evidence of proof guide requested. (If you bought over 1 piece of products, please illustrate all the defective pieces).
Roughly speaking, test all 12 batteries.from each batch, remove the entire process on video and show us as evidence. Moreover, you can use only professional equipment for the test.
I am certainly a principled person, but I think that is not so much.

With tests, everything from myself I can say that forrelatively small money we have a clone, but who would doubt. The actual capacity is about 500 mAh with the stated 700. For a company one, this is not enough, for a clone it is quite tolerable. But there is a chance to get a marriage. In my case, 1 to 24, I checked the rest of the batteries by loading them with a current of 0.5 Amps and watching the voltage drop, everything was just like a 2-3-4 battery.
That's all, I hope that the review was useful, as usual I am waiting for questions.