Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Great AA Alkaline Battery Test (2016)

goughlui.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 195 posts

Re: Great AA Alkaline Battery Test (2016)

#101

Post by dragontamer »

bentcorner wrote: post #79

> This can be implemented basically with a fixed value of resistance, but because of the way resistance interacts with voltage, it’s actually very gentle on the battery. As the battery voltage falls, the current falls accordingly, so the delivered power falls even further. For modern appliances, this type of loading is not common. Dumb question - is it at all possible to design a modern device which operates this way…

Have you ever used an old flashlight in the 80s or 90s?

As AA charge fell, the light got dimmer and dimmer. Today, we have devices that do the exact _OPPOSITE_, pulling the last bits of electricity out of the cells through boost-converters or whatnot (boost converters existed back then, but weren't as efficient or cheap as today).

Consumers demanded consistent and reliable performance no matter if at full-battery charge or nearly empty. People preferred their devices to suddenly "shut off".

Re: Great AA Alkaline Battery Test (2016)

#102

Post by CamperBob2 »

moreati wrote: post #37

Note, this is from 2016.

Indeed, and one major change that's taken place in the last few years is that Energizers are now as leak-prone as Duracells. Likely true of other brands as well. The only way to win the alkaline battery game is not to play.

Re: Great AA Alkaline Battery Test (2016)

#103

Post by jandrese »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #44
iancmceachern wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what phenomenon is driving this. A spent battery weighs more?

IIRC alkaline batteries produce some kind of gas while being discharged. When the battery is dead it is probably inflated like an unopened soda can, assuming it hasn't leaked.

Isn't that what the vents holes are for?

Re: Great AA Alkaline Battery Test (2016)

#104

Post by jacobolus »

zh3 wrote: post #2

Let me leap in here to ding Duracell. They used to be my goto battery, but over the past few years (there was a hedge fund takeover, which IME rarely results in improvements to long-standing quality products) they've turned into liabilities - specifically, they are extremely prone to leaking once even a little bit discharged. To this day I open old kit and there can be duracells in there with "use by 2010" or even ea…

Duracell (the Mallory company) was bought by Dart in 1978, then by KKR in 1988, Gillette in 1996, Procter & Gamble bought Gillette in 2005, and Duracell was spun off and bought by Berkshire Hathaway in 2016. (source: Wikipedia)

The company has been under large-scale finance / conglomerate management for more than 4 decades by now. I don’t think there would have been any immediate change in battery quality circa 2016. Seems just as likely that corner cutting (assuming there is corner cutting; I have no insight) started before changes of ownership.

Re: Great AA Alkaline Battery Test (2016)

#105

Post by ztakeo »

iancmceachern wrote: post #35
silisili wrote: post #33

On the subject of AA alkaline batteries - one thing I learned a long time ago somehow I'll share that people seem amazed by is that you can approximate their charge by bouncing them on a hard surface. Drop an AA battery negative/flat side down an inch or two onto a hard surface like a counter or table. A new battery will just land and thud. A dead battery will bounce repeatedly(you'll hear it more than see it).

I wonder what phenomenon is driving this. A spent battery weighs more?

Here's a good reference https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/ta/c5ta0...

Re: Great AA Alkaline Battery Test (2016)

#106

Post by Gigachad »

jandrese wrote: post #99
dragontamer wrote: post #9

I think the main issue with AA Alkaline is the proliferation of cheap low-self-discharge NiMH cells (aka: Eneloop, but also Energizer and other brands have good LSD NiMH available). A huge number of appliances seem to be designed for the 1.35V NiMH chemistry now. Perhaps a random TV-remote still prefers Alkaline but most seem to work fine with NiMH. ----- Buying a pack of 20 NiMH cells and rotating your collection be…

Most of my remotes are still using the batteries they shipped with. It's hard to make the case for replacing batteries when the originals last 15+ years (and counting).

A youtuber I watch recently made the case that NiMH batteries should be used for _all_ uses because alkaline batteries will eventually burst and spew acid over your electronics. Sounds like it could take a very long time to do that, but it makes sense just for the preservation of the device to use NiMH.

Re: Great AA Alkaline Battery Test (2016)

#107

Post by Gigachad »

klodolph wrote: post #18
dragontamer wrote: post #9

I think the main issue with AA Alkaline is the proliferation of cheap low-self-discharge NiMH cells (aka: Eneloop, but also Energizer and other brands have good LSD NiMH available). A huge number of appliances seem to be designed for the 1.35V NiMH chemistry now. Perhaps a random TV-remote still prefers Alkaline but most seem to work fine with NiMH. ----- Buying a pack of 20 NiMH cells and rotating your collection be…

> A huge number of appliances seem to be designed for the 1.35V NiMH chemistry now. Yes, this is my experience too. One of the problems with NiMH is that appliances have helpful low-battery indicators which might light up as soon as you put NiMH cells in them, even though the appliance might continue working for a long time yet. A prime example is the Nintendo Game Boy Advance, which was released in 2001. The thing i…

One interesting solution I saw was batteries which stick a lithium battery + charge controller / voltage adapter inside the AA package so they can be used on any device.

Re: Great AA Alkaline Battery Test (2016)

#108

Post by rytis »

silisili wrote: post #33

On the subject of AA alkaline batteries - one thing I learned a long time ago somehow I'll share that people seem amazed by is that you can approximate their charge by bouncing them on a hard surface. Drop an AA battery negative/flat side down an inch or two onto a hard surface like a counter or table. A new battery will just land and thud. A dead battery will bounce repeatedly(you'll hear it more than see it).

I didn't know that, thanks for sharing! It seems to be a lot more civilised version of what I was doing for years - test by licking it... Can do it almost in one gesture: hold the battery between thumb and middle finger, lick index finger and touch it on one end of the battery, then lick the other. With some practice can get pretty good accuracy in 0.5-1.5V range. Bit barbaric though :)

Re: Great AA Alkaline Battery Test (2016)

#109

Post by discreditable »

Maarten88 wrote: post #43

As a test I recently bought a pair of Li-ion AA batteries, that are recharged through a micro USB connector in the battery. They are rated 2880 mWh and are advertised to provide a flat 1.5v during the whole discharge cycle (they have internal circuitry to convert from the native 3.7v). I wonder how those compare to my current rotating stock of Ni-MH ones that regularly stop working. Jury is still out, they were consi…

I have some similar Li-ion AA batteries for my Blink cameras. They work very well since the Blinks hate ni-mh batteries. Interestingly, these behave oddly in my camera speedlite. They can't seem to charge the flash, and the LCD flickers while on. My best guess is the charging the flash capacitor pulls more juice than the lithium batteries can handle. Thankfully, ni-mh work great.

For your Ni-mh that stop working, if they won't charge you can sort of jump start them using a good battery and they'll charge again. Use some aluminum foil strips and touch the contacts between the batteries together for a few seconds. Positive to positive, negative to negative if I remember correctly.

Re: Great AA Alkaline Battery Test (2016)

#110

Post by adenner »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #10
zh3 wrote: post #2

Let me leap in here to ding Duracell. They used to be my goto battery, but over the past few years (there was a hedge fund takeover, which IME rarely results in improvements to long-standing quality products) they've turned into liabilities - specifically, they are extremely prone to leaking once even a little bit discharged. To this day I open old kit and there can be duracells in there with "use by 2010" or even ea…

Anecdata, I recently had to replace batteries in several smoke alarms. 3 were Duracells and 2 were Rayovacs. All Duracells were from 2016/2017, i.e. assuming they were installed right away they lasted around 5 years. Rayovacs were from 2010 and 2011, despite both brands being rated for 5 years. It is possible that old Rayovacs were installed around same time as new Duracells and both lasted around same time, still ma…

Just as a bit of feedback, for safety equipment like smoke and CO detectors, standard guidance is to replace the battery at least once a year. (Unless you have an integrated 10 year battery that will last the life of the detector)

If you live in an area that follows Daylight Savings time, doing it then is best so that you remember. Otherwise doing it during the Operation Edith drill for Fire Prevention Week is the next best.

Post reply on HN