Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it PME Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1 AllOrNothingS1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Profile for NLee the Engineer > Reviews

Browse

NLee the Engineer's Profile

Customer Reviews: 892
Top Reviewer Ranking: 9
Helpful Votes: 72064


Community Features
Review Discussion Boards
Top Reviewers

Guidelines: Learn more about the ins and outs of Your Profile.

Reviews Written by
NLee the Engineer RSS Feed (Nashua, NH)
(TOP 10 REVIEWER)    (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)   

Show:  
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11-20
pixel
Odec 2450mAh High Performance AA Rechargeable Batteries, 4 Pack
Odec 2450mAh High Performance AA Rechargeable Batteries, 4 Pack
Offered by OdecDirect
Price: $29.99

5.0 out of 5 stars Measured capacity higher than advertised, June 29, 2016
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I purchased a set of those Odec 2450mAh High Performance AA Rechargeable Batteries just to check them out, because the capacity rating of '2450mAh' is unusually high for low self discharge batteries. To my surprise, the measured average capacity is actually higher than advertised.

The batteries arrived in a plastic battery holder, without retail package. Here is what I observed using my La Crosse BC1000 battery charger/analyzer:
- Initial voltages are 1.28-1.29V, which is a good sign.
- Average remaining charge is 942mAh. The spread is small between 928 and 952mAh, which is another good sign.
- After just one recharge cycle, the average capacity jumps to 2582mAh.
- After another two more cycles, the average moved very little to 2590mAh. Again, the spread is very tight between 2520 and 2630mAh. That mean every cell is above the rated '2450mAh'

Internal resistance of each cell is around 50 mOhm, according to the Quick Test function of my Opus BT-C2000.

The behaviors I observed so far for those Odec batteries are very similar to that of Panasonic Eneloop Pro and AmazonBasics High-Capacity Pre-Charged Rechargeable Batteries. However, those Odec cells are NOT rebranded eneloop, because they are made in China and have differently shaped positive and negative terminals compared to eneloop.

The Odec batteries are advertised as 'Low Self Discharge' and will retain 70% juice after one year (similar to that for eneloop Pro). So far I have no evidence to prove the contrary, except that I have learned not to take any Amazon product description at face value. For examples: both the EBL High Capacity 2800mAh AA Ni-MH Pre-charged Rechargeable Batteries and KASTAR AA Ni-MH Rechargeable Batteries are also advertised to be low self discharge, but found to be bogus in my long-term testing.

I will check the remaining charges of those Odec batteries after ~3 months to make sure.


ON THE WAY®4Pcs 14500 2000mAh 3.7V Li-ion Lithium Rechargeable Battery AA Batteries For Cree Led Flashlight Torch(Blue)
ON THE WAY®4Pcs 14500 2000mAh 3.7V Li-ion Lithium Rechargeable Battery AA Batteries For Cree Led Flashlight Torch(Blue)
Offered by flylight
Price: $11.66
3 used & new from $6.66

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars 2000mAh? Only if you connect FOUR in parallel, June 25, 2016
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I purchased a 4-pack of those ON THE WAY 14500 2000mAh 3.7V Li-ion AA batteries, just to check out their incredible capacity rating of '2000mAh'. In comparison, most name-brand manufacturers only rate their 14500 Li-ion batteries around 750mAh.

The four ON THE WAY batteries arrived in various states of discharge. Their initial voltages are 3.87V, 3.66V, 1.09V(!) and 3.88V, respectively. I recharged all batteries overnight, using the Li-ion charger included in the MECO Mini CREE Led Flashlight Torch Zoom Light.

[Capacity Measurement]
For each battery, I connected a 5-ohm power resistor as load, and monitored the battery’s output current and voltage over time. I expect each battery to provide around 700mA for around 3 hours. Instead, all four batteries dropped dead after approximately 40-50 minute. Based on my measurement, their actual capacities are:

Cell#1 = 510mAH
Cell#2 = 470mAh
Cell#3 = 570mAH
Cell#4 = 510mAh

(See the “Output Current vs. Time” chart I uploaded to customer images section)

[Bottom Line]
Those ON THE WAY batteries are advertised as '2000mAh', but my actual measured average capacity is just 515mAh. This is nothing but False Advertisement. They are ON THE WAY back for a refund.
Comment Comment | Permalink


EVGA GeForce 210 Passive 1024 MB DDR3 PCI Express 2.0 DVI/HDMI/VGA Graphics Card, 01G-P3-1313-KR
EVGA GeForce 210 Passive 1024 MB DDR3 PCI Express 2.0 DVI/HDMI/VGA Graphics Card, 01G-P3-1313-KR
Price: $29.99
101 used & new from $24.99

2.0 out of 5 stars Inadequate heatsink design for a Passive-Cooling graphic card, June 22, 2016
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I'm looking for a low cost way to improve the gaming performance of a 6-year-old desktop PC. This product (EVGA GeForce 210 Passive 1024 MB DDR3 Graphic Card) is a very inexpensive entry-level card. The main reason I picked the 'Passive' version is that it relies on just the heatsink for cooling. This eliminates the noise and reliability problem associated with cooling fans. Unfortunately as I found out later, the heatsink design on this card is inadequate and it overheats too easily. Details at 11...

[Initial Observations]
- The card is low-profile and it comes with two low-profile brackets. This proves to be vital since my old computer (Acer Aspire A3910) cannot accept a full-size PCI card.

- Initially the card does not recognize my Samsung B2330HD LCD monitor. The display can only be set to 1280x800 max from HDMI port, nothing from VGA port.

- After running the driver disc, the card is able to recognize my monitor at 1920x1080 from the VGA port, but now there’s nothing from HDMI port. I still haven't figured out why it can't use both ports at the same time.

[Graphic Benchmark]
I ran the 3DMARK 'Cloud Gate' benchmark program on my old computer, both before and after the graphic card update. The gaming performance of my computer improved by 6x according to this benchmark.

BEFORE: Overall score=209 (GPU=168, CPU=1544)
AFTER: Overall score=1346 (GPU=1550, CPU=922)

See my uploaded screenshots for details.

[Power Consumption]
I used the EUM-A1 Power Usage Meter to measure the input power of my computer:
- Before the graphic card upgrade, my computer consumes ~50-55W when idle, ~70-75W when running 3DMARK.
- After the upgrade, it consumes 60-75W when idle, close to 100W when running 3DMARK.

Based on the above, I can estimate this graphic card consumes up to 30W of power. Note that according to the NVIDIA web site, the GeForce 210 consumes 30.5W max.

[Heatsink Design]
In order for a passive heatsink to work efficiently, its fins need to be wide and deep. But this card comes with short and shallow heatsink fins. Furthermore, no matter how big is the heat sink, you still need free-moving air to carry the heat away. Otherwise the boards will overheat eventually.

In my situation, the card sits in the upper corner of my computer (which does not have a case fan). That explains why my card overheats after just ~10-20 minutes of playing XCOM: Enemy Unknown. When that happens, the screen goes dark and the computer freezes. I need to manually shutdown the computer, wait for the card to cool down and then restart.

The only way I can prevent overheating is to leave the case open, and use a fan to blow air at the heatsink. But doing so defeats the whole purpose of buying a 'passive cooling' card.

[Bottom Line]
The EVGA GeForce 210 Passive card gives my old computer a big performance boost. However its thermal limitation is just unacceptable. I'm sending it back for a refund.

For my next step, I will try the MSI GT 710 card (GT 710 2GD3H LP). The GT 710 uses less power than the 210 (19W vs. 30W), and the MSI card comes with a much larger heatsink. So I'm hopeful that it will do a better job.
Comment Comments (2) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jun 23, 2016 9:20 PM PDT


AUKEY Micro USB Cable, 5 Pack (3 x 3.3 ft, 2 x 1 ft) USB 2.0 Quick Charge Cables for LG G4, HTC, Samsung Galaxy S7/S6/Edge and More
AUKEY Micro USB Cable, 5 Pack (3 x 3.3 ft, 2 x 1 ft) USB 2.0 Quick Charge Cables for LG G4, HTC, Samsung Galaxy S7/S6/Edge and More
Offered by Aukey Direct
Price: $12.99

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Cables looked sturdy, but micro-USB connectors failed within a few months, June 18, 2016
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I purchased this Aukey Micro USB Cable (5 Pack) in Nov 2015. Initial impression was very positive. The cables are significantly thicker than the other cables I own, such as those by Cable Matters (see the comparison photo I uploaded). I assumed that must be due to the heavy-gauge wires used inside. In my testing, those cable worked well in charging all my USB devices, including Samsung Galaxy S5 and Amazon Fire tablet.

Fast forward a few months later: most of those cables I used regularly have developed intermittent charging problems. At first I thought maybe the problem could be from the host devices. But after swapping multiple cables between multiple devices, I have to conclude that the problem is with those Aukey USB cables.

I spliced open one bad cable in an attempt to identify the root cause. The wires inside were indeed heavy-gauge, and they were soldered correctly to the plug. The real problem is from the cheaply made micro-USB plugs. The electrical contacts inside appear to have become flattened and hence not making proper contact with the host device.

In contrast, the thinner Cable Matters USB cables I purchased earlier in Sep 2015 are still working correctly.

[Bottom Line]
Looks can be misleading. Those Aukey USB cables appear to be thick and sturdy outside, but one by one they all failed within a few months of light use. I am thoroughly disappoint by this product and cannot recommend it.

[Update on June 20, 2016]
Within a few hours of my review, Aukey Customer Care sent me an email to offer a full refund. I appreciate the company’s customer service, but prefer to see real improvements made to this product.
Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jun 20, 2016 5:28 AM PDT


EBL Advanced LCD Battery Charger for AA & AAA Ni-MH Ni-CD - Blue Color
EBL Advanced LCD Battery Charger for AA & AAA Ni-MH Ni-CD - Blue Color
Price: $7.99
3 used & new from $7.99

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars EBL 920D - an impressive-looking but unreliable charger, June 15, 2016
This product (EBL 920D Advance LCD Battery Charger) is inexpensive and looks very impressive. It has an LCD panel that shows the status of each cell individually, and comes with a Discharge button. In my actual testing, however, it proves to be disappointing.

The charging current of EBL 920D varies depending on the number of batteries being charged. When charging 3 or 4 cells at once, the charging current is just 300mA according to spec sheet (actual current appears to be even lower). That means it will take at least 10 hours to recharge a set of 2800mAh batteries. So it works more like an overnight charger than a Quick charger.

The biggest problem with EBL 920D is that, according to my testing, it does not terminate charging reliably. Here is a summary of what I observed:

- For my first test, I inserted a set of four partially drained batteries (eneloop AA). I expect the EBL 920D to finish charging in 1 or 2 hours. Instead, it missed charge termination signal and continued to over-charge my batteries for the next 12 hours!

- For my second test, I inserted a set of 4 fully drained batteries (Duracell StayCharged AA). I expect the EBL 920D to take 7 hours to recharge those 2000mAh batteries (2000mAh/300mA = ~7h). Instead, it terminated charging prematurely after just 6 hours, when batteries are just around 80% full.

- According to my BT-C2000 Battery Charger Analyzer , those batteries in my second test were charged unevenly, ranging from 1373 and 1799mAh, for an average of 1583mAh. That means the charging currents were not uniform between different channels. So although all 4 batteries were charged for the same 6 hours, they were not charged by the same amount of energy.

[Bottom Line]
On the surface this EBL 920D looks like an advanced charger. But it is so flaky it cannot even perform basic charging task reliably. My advice is to get a less flashy but more reliable charger, such as the BQ-CC17 in Panasonic K-KJ17MCA4BA instead. I have been using the BQ-CC17 for over a year and it always charge up my batteries consistently – even those that were over-discharged and cannot be detected by my BT-C2000.
Comment Comments (2) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jun 18, 2016 10:04 PM PDT


XCOM: Enemy Unknown Complete Edition
XCOM: Enemy Unknown Complete Edition
Offered by PIP GAMING
Price: $16.00
51 used & new from $10.99

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Obsession is back (and it's not by Calvin Klein), June 12, 2016
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I played the original 'XCOM: UFO Defense' game to DEATH back in 1994-95. So I’m really happy to finally be able to play this updated game (XCOM: Enemy Unknown Complete Edition) over 20 years later. Actually I would like to play it sooner, except that my old PC was not powerful enough to run the game.

How is it different from the original UFO Defense game?

As an old-timer, I can tell you the game play of new XCOM game remains faithful to the classic version. At 18.5GB, it is obviously a lot more polished than the old game that came on several floppy discs. The control is more streamlined and simplified for the better. For example, in the old game I have to constantly keep track of each soldier’s AP (action point), so that he/she can knee down and take a snap shot. In the new game there are two zones highlighted during movement. Move within the blue zone means your soldier can reserve enough AP for another shot. Move into the yellow zone and you can’t do anything more. Also your soldiers now take cover automotive depending on the surrounding object.

Just like the old version, this new game is highly addictive. Hours slip by as there is always just one more mission I have to take. Until I finally noticed birds singing outside - because it is already morning.

So far after 4 weeks of intensive gaming, I have completed Enemy Unknown at standard level, followed by Enemy Within, also at standard level. By any measure, I have already got back more than my money’s worth, but this is not even the end. There are two more difficulty levels for me to conquer. After completing each game for the first time, I can access the Advanced Game Play options to make the second wave more challenging, or just add more randomness.

Oh did I mention there is a Multiplayer option? I haven’t even looked into that yet...

[Other Remarks]
The opening menu gives you two selections:
- XCOM: Enemy Within
- XCOM: Enemy Unknown
It is important that you start with the SECOND choice (Enemy Unknown) first. After you have finished it, then you can restart the FIRST one. This is because 'Enemy Within' is not an add-on story arc, just a retold of the same story in 'Enemy Unknown' but with many additional features such as:
- New resource to collect, which forces you to move faster in missions
- New monsters and missions. Some are significantly more difficult.
- New capabilities/enhancements for your soldiers
- New research topics/weapons/facilities, etc.
Therefore it would make no sense to play Enemy Within first.

[Bugs]
There were some infrequent crashing bugs observed. Sometimes at the startup screen, other times in the middle of a battle. Definitively you should save at the beginning of each battle - even if you don’t intend to cheat.


EVGA GeForce GTX 750Ti with G-SYNC Support 2GB GDDR5 128bit, Dual-Link, DVI-I, HDMI, DP Graphics Card (02G-P4-3751-KR)
EVGA GeForce GTX 750Ti with G-SYNC Support 2GB GDDR5 128bit, Dual-Link, DVI-I, HDMI, DP Graphics Card (02G-P4-3751-KR)
Price: $115.72
113 used & new from $96.24

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Inexpensive way to turn my Desktop PC into a Gaming PC, June 9, 2016
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I'm looking for graphic card upgrade to my Asus M32CD desktop computer. I want a card powerful enough to play most of today's video games, without spending hundreds of dollars on it. After much market research, I decided on this EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti graphic card.

There are three versions of the GTX 750 card available on the same Amazon product page: 'Ti FTW', 'Ti SC' and 'Ti'. Here are the differences:
- The 'Ti FTW' version consumes more power than the other two (80W vs. 60W). So instead of getting all its power from PCI bus, it requires extra power connection from the PC power supply box.
- 'Ti' and 'Ti SC' are essentially the same card, expect the latter is over-clocked from 1020MHz base clock to 1176MHz, or 15% higher.

I selected the 'Ti' version because it was a few dollars cheaper, and I don't care for the marginal improvement offered by the other two versions. What I did not realize at that time was that this card has no VGA port. Instead it comes with a 'DVI-I to VGA' adapter that you need to connect between the card and your monitor. It works well as long as you don't expect to use a DVI-I monitor and a VGI-monitor at the same time. Also, the adapter added extra depth to the back of your PC.

[Installation]
Installation is most straightforward… if you know what you are doing. Here are some simple steps to follow:
1. Shutdown the PC and unplug its AC power cord
2. Remove the side panel or entire case to expose the mother board
3. Locate the PCI-Express slot near the back panel (see my uploaded picture for example)
4. Remove the two metal pieces closest to the PCI-Express slot
5. Push the graphic card into the PCI-Express slot until it clicks
6. Close the case, connect monitor to one of the output ports on the card
7. Reconnect AC power cord and power up the PC

[Graphic Benchmark]
I ran the 3DMARK Sky Diver benchmark program to check the performance of my PC, both before and after the graphic card upgrade. See my uploaded screenshots for details

BEFORE:
- Overall rating=3228
- Graphics score=2959
- Physics score=6327
The above suggest that the GPU (Intel HD Graphic 530) is the bottleneck while the CPU (Intel Core i5 6400) is adequate.

AFTER:
- Overall rating=12703 (4x better)
- Graphics score=14775 (5x better)
- Physics score=6974 (almost unchanged)

[Gaming Performance]
Before the upgrade, my PC was able to handle most 3rd-person shooter games (such as League of Legends) smoothly. But it struggles to keep up with newer 1st-person shooter games. For example, I tried the latest Blizzard game Overwatch and found it barely playable. The movement is jerky, with noticeable pixelation and aliasing effects. Good thing I'm ready to upgrade my graphic card.

After the upgrade, the difference is like night and day. Overwatch now runs perfectly smooth on my PC, even with everything turned to maximum resolution and details. But of course, smoother graphic does not help me to stay alive.

[Conclusion]
I’m very happy with my graphic card upgrade. For a relatively small investment, I have improved the gaming performance of my desktop PC by 4-5 times. I consider this approach much better than buying a new low-end Gaming PC.
Comment Comments (3) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jun 29, 2016 4:23 PM PDT


ASUS M32CD Desktop (Core i5, 8GB DDR4, 1TB, Windows 10) with Keyboard and Mouse
ASUS M32CD Desktop (Core i5, 8GB DDR4, 1TB, Windows 10) with Keyboard and Mouse
16 used & new from $332.95

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Great foundation for an inexpensive Gaming PC - just add Graphic Card as needed, June 5, 2016
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
My old desktop PC (Acer Aspire A3910) was manufactured in 2010. It is incapable of playing any modern games that require DirectX 11 support. Finally I decided to bite the bullet and get myself a Gaming PC. But a typical entry-level Gaming PCs in the market is far more expensive than desktop PC, and doesn't offer good overall performance. Finally I determined that it is better for me to choose a decent desktop PC, and then add my own graphic card. That's why I ordered this Asus M32CD desktop computer.

[What’s Outside]
The computer has a mid-tower case approximately 7" wide, 15.5" tall and 16" deep. Note that Amazon description page says "9.25 x 19.52 x 23 inches", which is the size of the box it came in.

On the back there are six USB port: Two USB 3.1 (Green), two USB 3.0 (Blue) and two USB 2.0 (Black). The user manual mentioned that you should NOT use USB 3.0 ports for mouse and keyboard during Windows installation, because the drives are only available AFTER installation.

The computer features WiFi, but I found no antenna on the back. It turns out there is an internal WiFi module, with a hidden antenna behind the plastic front panel. On the front panel there are 2 more USB 3.0 ports, a multi-card reader, earphone and microphone plugs.

[What’s Inside]
Surprisingly, there is a lot of empty space inside (see the photo I uploaded). It seems that everything could be packed in a mini-tower case, and still offers the same room for expansion, namely:
- One free slot for 5.25" drive and one for 3.5" drive
- One free slot for second memory module
- One free PCI Express slot for graphic card

The CPU heatsink and fan assembly is large, which means cooling can be done with lower air flow. The fan noise from CPU and power supply is not loud, but clearly audible in a quiet room. For use as a desktop or gaming PC, this is perfectly acceptable. But if you’re looking for a media PC you'll need one with lower noise.

[Power Supply]
The power supply unit is rated for 300W, with peak power of 350W. According to my EUM-A1 Power Usage Meter:
- Power consumption is 0.5W when the computer is off.
- In Sleep/Standby mode: ~4.3W
- Powered up and idling: ~40W
- Playing game or running benchmark program: ~60-70W

[Gaming Performance]
The integrated Graphics Processing Unit (Intel HD Graphic 530) is decent. I ran 3DMARK Sky Diver benchmark program to check the performance. It reported Graphics score just under 3000 and Physics score over 6000 (see uploaded screenshot). This suggested that the GPU is the bottleneck while the CPU (Intel Core i5 6400) is adequate.

The computer can handle any 3rd-person shooter game I tested with ease. For example, League of Legends runs smoothly at over 60fps! As for XCOM: Enemy Unknown, I can play it at 1920x1080 with all details set to medium. But I did notice some problems: panning is slow and cut scenes appear jerky.

Playing more recent 1st-person shooter games, on the other hand, proves to be challenging. Just as an experiment, I tried the latest Blizzard game Overwatch and found it barely playable. The movement is jerky, with noticeable pixelation and aliasing effects. Good thing I'm ready to upgrade my graphic card.

For my upgrade, I picked the EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti graphic card. This card came out several years ago, so it is available at a great price/performance ratio. Most importantly, it only requires one PCI Express slot for all its power, whereas more powerful cards all require extra supply cable from the power supply.

I will cover my graphic card upgrade experience in a separate review since this one is already too long.

[Conclusion]
I have been playing… I meant working on this Asus M32CD desktop PC for the past three weeks. So far it has met or exceeded my expectation in every aspect. I’m happy with my purchase.

[Update on June 9, 2016]
My review for the GeForce 750 Ti graphic card can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2EGWJKEYI2GNF/
Comment Comments (4) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jun 12, 2016 12:54 PM PDT


Cree 60W Equivalent Soft White (2700K) "2-Pack" A19 Dimmable 11W LED Light Bulb with 4FLOW Filament Design
Cree 60W Equivalent Soft White (2700K) "2-Pack" A19 Dimmable 11W LED Light Bulb with 4FLOW Filament Design
Offered by toolemporium
Price: $9.35
3 used & new from $9.35

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Improved over previous Cree LED bulbs, but still has some issues, June 2, 2016
I have previously tried the Cree 9.5-Watt Soft White LED Light Bulb, but was not exactly impressed. The bulb has an ugly dark spot on top and buzzes loudly when dimmed. Its EMI (electromagnetic interference) is so bad that it jams my garage door opener. Recently I found this new version (Cree 2700K A19 Dimmable 11W LED Light Bulb with 4FLOW Filament Design) at my local HarDware store, and decided to give Cree another chance...

[Physical Design]
From the outside, this Cree 4FLOW bulb is shaped exactly like a traditional A19 incandescent bulb. The only visible difference is that it has several ventilation slits on both top and bottom of the plastic globe.

Unlike most LED bulbs that rely on external heatsinks for cooling, this 4FLOW design has an internal heatsink with 4 thin fins inside the plastic globe. There are 8 LEDs mounted on those fins, and the heat they generated is carried away by air flowing through the globe (hence the name '4FLOW'). This is an ingenious design that cuts down the size and weight of the bulb. Even after hours of operation, both the globe and base of the bulb remain cool.

On the other hand, there are some limitations that come with the 4FLOW design:
- When the LEDs are on, the heatsink fins become noticeable from the outside. So the bulb looks like a peeled orange, instead of a smoothly lit globe.
- The air-cooling effect works best with the bulb mounted vertically in an open-air light fixture. It does not work well if the bulb is mounted horizontally in an enclosed light fixture.
- The LEDs are exposed to dust, bugs and other contaminants circulating in the air. So after a few years of use in open-air, I expect to find dirt accumulated inside the bulb, which will reduce its brightness and lifespan.

[Power Consumption]
I measured the power consumption of this '11W' LED bulb. It shows a steady 10W according to my P4460 Kill A Watt Electricity Usage Monitor. This gives a light efficacy of 815/10 = 81.5 lumens per watt. Interestingly, the previous Cree bulb is rated '9.5W', but consumes the same 10W in my test. So although on paper the previous bulb has a higher efficacy of 84.2 lm/W, in real life the new one is actually better.
The power factor of the new bulb is a perfect PF=1.00, which is usually a sign of good electrical design,

[Dimming Performance]
I compared the dimming performance of 4 different 60W-equivalent A19 LED bulbs, connected to a TRIAC-controlled light fixture.
- Cree 11W LED Light Bulb with 4FLOW (this product)
- Cree 9.5-Watt Warm White (the old 'Black-Eyed Susan')
- FEIT Electric 9.5W A19 LED Light Bulb
- Philips 423491 11-watt 'Funnel' A19 LED bulb

All 4 bulbs are able to operate from full to minimum power. The Philips bulb has the widest dynamic range, dimming down to a faint glow at minimum setting. The Cree 4FLOW actually has the worst dynamic range amount them. See my uploaded picture for their dimming performances.

[Audible Noise]
Sadly, the new Cree 4FLOW bulb still emits a buzzing sound when dimmed. It can be heard in a quiet room from 1-2 feet away. But at least this is a big improvement over the LOUD noise generated by the old Black-Eyed Susan. The FEIT and Philips bulbs also generate faint buzzing sound, but it can only be heard from a few inches away.

[Electromagnetic Interference]
There seems to be no effort made to reduce the radiation from this new bulb. It still causes strong interference when placed close to an AM radio. So I did not bother to test it in my garage door opener.

[Bottom Line]
The new Cree 4FLOW LED bulb is significantly better than the previous offering. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of rooms for improvements. As of right now, I have to recommend either the Philips 11W 'Funnel' or FEIT 9.5W LED bulbs over this product.
Comment Comments (2) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jun 15, 2016 9:32 AM PDT


4pcs High Energy 3500mAh 1.2V Ni-MH AA Rechareable Durable Battery + Battery Box
4pcs High Energy 3500mAh 1.2V Ni-MH AA Rechareable Durable Battery + Battery Box
Offered by chainarong sri
Price: $29.99

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars UltraFire batteries never fail to disappoint, May 30, 2016
During the past three years I have tested several UltraFire brand rechargeable batteries, including:
- AA 3500mAh 1.2V NiMH (this product),
- AAA 1500mAh 1.2V NiMH, and
- 14500 1200mAh 3.7V Lithium-Ion batteries.

One consistent thing I can say about UltraFire batteries: they all have completely bogus capacity ratings!

I tested the UltraFire AA and AAA cells using my La Crosse BC1000 battery charger/analyzer:

- After multiple Discharge/Refresh cycles, the average capacity of four AA cells reached just 512mAh, or less than 15% of the rated '3500mAh'.

- Similarly, average of four AAA cells reached just 259mAh, or 17% of the rated '1500mAh' capacity.

I also manually measured the capacity of two UltraFire 14500 cells (since the BC1000 cannot handle Li-ion batteries). The average capacity was 365mAh, or 30% of the rated '1200mAh' capacity.

[Bottom Line]
All the UltraFire rechargeable batteries I have tested (AA, AAA, 14500) deliver only a tiny fraction of their rated capacities. This manufacturer is simply using false advertisement to prey on unsuspecting customers. Don’t waste your money on this or any other UltraFire products.
Comment Comments (3) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jun 2, 2016 10:59 AM PDT


Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11-20