One of the most interesting technical bloggers undertook to examine over 50 models of various AA batteries, i.e. the most popular "finger". Mostly popular batteries, available both in media stores, but also in stores such as Biedronka or Lidl. Alkaline batteries, but there is also a reference in the film to tantalizingly cheap zinc batteries and much more expensive lithium batteries. The discharge test was performed on an advanced device, the discharge parameters were supposed to be identical for each set. The test results are at least interesting...
There is no way to test batteries for different applications in the same way. the alkaline energizer in the mouse lasted 8-10 months for me. duracell over two years. the same with TV remote controls or other devices that consume small current but for a long period of time. other applications different cell chemistry and here everything is thrown into one bag. It's like testing each car in terms of how many kilometers we can drive on one tank of fuel. no matter how much you can carry with this car and how fast.
It is also a pity that the test was not repeated many times for different copies (preferably from different batches) of the same battery model.
For example, Auchan did very well in the test - but the question is whether such good results are repeatable, or is it just an accident at work and another copy will be much less capacious than such a Duracell or Energizer.
However, for now, the test shows that branded batteries are not worth buying, and it is probably best to go for a higher-class product of the store's own brand (or simply private label - it will have a similar capacity, but will be cheaper).
You can buy different TYPES of batteries, types meaning with different construction and chemistry. Each of them is manufactured for different applications. Others are needed for a child's car, and quite different for a remote control or a watch.
Do you know any better test? In my opinion, this test is absolutely ok - it is the basis for determining the parameters you are interested in, such as self-discharge time or capacitance measurement at high load.
Interesting test, the results will be good for flashlight/toy applications etc. the conclusion is that typical alkaline AA is ~2Ah, while the lithium is ~3Ah and the starting voltage is 1.6V.
The problem of the battery is that there is no unified designation defining the purpose, i.e. a dedicated load level. Each manufacturer should have at most 3 types of a given size, and not, as is currently the case, they invented strange names to completely bewilder the buyer.
It is worth considering why batteries are not described as rechargeable batteries, in which we have a given capacity, discharge curves for different loads, etc. Or maybe you know the answer?
It is worth considering why batteries are not described as rechargeable batteries, in which we have a given capacity, discharge curves for different loads, etc. Or maybe you know the answer?
Maybe so as not to mislead the customer that he is dealing with a rechargeable battery and so that he does not accidentally try to charge such a cell.
This test is, in my opinion, too much current. However, these 0.3A in the case of AA cells is quite a load, rarely seen in practice, or at least not in continuous mode. The method of drawing current from the cell (continuous or intermittent) also has some influence on the capacity. Some batteries exhibit a slight "regeneration" effect during a power outage.
I made a tester like this link and there is also a test of different batteries (load with a light bulb 0.2A, discharge to 0.8V): https://fundamentjezus.blogspot.com/2019/11/tester-capacity-life-battery.html Recently I tested PROPACK AA Ultra Alkaline batteries, rather weak, comparable to EVERACTIVE Industrial. So the tester works. I made a spider, but it worked, so I'll probably do it on a plate.
The best cheap ones I've ever tested (340mA current source) were Varta Industrial. Almost identical to any non-industrial and like GP Inustrial, but cheaper.
I was waiting for this test as soon as there was an announcement on yutube. Respect for taking the time. Every year I wait for this type of tests and every year batteries from Lidl lead the way and I know it perfectly well, despite this, the devil tempts me more than once to buy these Panasonics because they are cheap.
Of all the ones I used in action, the ones branded and bought at IKEA worked best. It was not a test, just repeated use of different companies in the same devices. At the beginning of this year, out of the desire to be "eco", they withdrew from batteries, they only have rechargeable batteries. I managed to buy a pair of x10 aa and aaa packs. Enough for a bit. I do not know what quality these batteries are, moreover, batteries are better suited to remote controls, power supply or window temperature sensors (i.e. all low-current).
Of all the ones I used in action, the ones branded and bought at IKEA worked best.
I confirm. Once, I bought 10 pieces from the year of production 2011 and the expiration date until 2016. The last one works in the calculator so far, unfortunately I don't remember when I put it on. The Toshiba batteries, which I bought with the blood pressure monitor (they were included with it), also worked for a long time, unfortunately I did not find them in stores. Then I replaced them with Panasonic - they didn't last half a year.
Every year I wait for this type of tests and every year batteries from Lidl lead the way and I know it perfectly well, despite this, the devil tempts me more than once to buy these Panasonics because they are cheap.
Depends on what's prime. They are nice and available. But as someone already mentioned, try to change the load and the result will be different. Even change the voltage at the end of the test and the result will be different - after all, most batteries are thrown out with 20-30% of the charge inside, because the voltage under load is already too low. I buy mainly Varta Industrial and everActive for toys. They are cheaper than Lidl's, and slightly weaker. Varta maybe even better. Anyway, I buy them in packages of 10, 12 or 40 pieces (then the price is PLN 1.00). You can only buy Lidl in packs of 8? It's a pity that Varty Industrial is not on the list, but there are several other types from them, so maybe that's why. They have parameters practically the same as Varta LongLife.
What would be useful is if for the top 10 they did tests under a different load, such as: 2A (for cameras and the most demanding toys) and 10mA (for the least demanding, but the test does not last as long as if you gave 0.1mA).
Some batteries exhibit a slight "regeneration" effect during a power outage.
Virtually all. This is called electrode depolarization.
Well, that's what I meant. So if the test was to be closer to reality, it should be carried out intermittently or with a periodically changing load, e.g. 300mA alternating with 50mA. This would allow to check the cells' ability to "self-regenerate". In practice, I do not know any devices that draw 300mA non-stop from AA batteries. Even typical LED flashlights don't seem to charge that much. I just checked one of my LED flashlights for three AA batteries and it draws less than 100mA at maximum brightness.
The famous Duracell Turbo Max "bunnies" actually "run" the longest. The most expensive batteries in the Energizer Maximum and Varta Long Life tests (I bought them for 3.50 each) are not worth the price. Varta Industrial batteries fared better, for a zloty per piece (on Allegro), although the "industrial" versions have so far been associated with rather large packaging and worse quality. The above statement is also confirmed by the high position of Duracell Industrial and the average position of Energizer Industrial. The "ordinary" Duracells sold in Biedronka turned out to be very good (packages of 5 pieces), but they are expensive - PLN 2.40 per piece. In turn, GP Super batteries, also sold in Biedronka, are extremely weak. I was positively surprised by the high quality of EverActive Pro Alkaline (bought on Allegro for PLN 1 each) and Aerocell from Lidl (PLN 1.25 each).
This test is from four years ago, the production quality of some batteries may have changed a bit in the meantime. But in my opinion, it is better carried out because for two different loads, and the author wrote that these 100mA is still a fairly quick discharge of the battery. The downside is that a single cell was tested, not two or even three in series. Firstly, such a test of several cells in a series would allow for a one-time and quick average of the result, take into account the production scatter and make the result more dependent on the weakest link, and secondly, it would be more similar to the way the battery is used in real devices.
In my opinion, 300mA is way too much current. It is best to conduct such a test with a current of 150-200 mA. However, in spite of everything, the results obtained in the ranking order will probably be similar, while the capacity will probably increase significantly.
It is best to conduct such a test with a current of 150-200 mA
I prefer the results for a higher load because I know that with a smaller one they will always be better, although I do not know by how much. The fact is that only a few devices powered by AA batteries current consumption exceeds 200mA and at the other pole we have a consumption below 20mA. I checked my LED illuminator on 24 small diodes, 3 batteries AA. Consumption 150-160mA. In turn, the headlamp with one (?) diode for 3 batteries AAA draws 190-200mA.
You can buy different TYPES of batteries, types meaning with different construction and chemistry. Each of them is manufactured for different applications. Others are needed for a child's car, and quite different for a remote control or a watch.
Well, it's the manufacturer's business that it produces batteries for a watch or a remote control and in such tests it is the worst and the most expensive at the same time. There is supposed to be a battery for the watch, let it be written clearly and clearly. The test is very good, each of us would probably do it in our own way and find gaps, but some limits must be set. If the test was done with lower currents, much more time would have to be spent. And the second important thing, what Vodiczka mentioned, I definitely prefer batteries tested for high current, because they will also be good for low load, maybe like others, but not vice versa. A thin battery for low current loads will only be worse for high currents. The test is great, although giving the final voltage of 0.8V is quite an extreme case that something at this voltage would still want to work. I will add that good batteries were also those branded by Cerfur. And if something uses a current of 300mA, batteries make little sense.
ps I wanted to go to the manufacturer's website and download some DS and look, I did not find it. However, I found: https://www.duracell.pl/product/ladowarka-do-baterii-45-minutowa-duracell/ Battery charger. "Kowalska/i" will understand it differently than I probably will. A massacre if that's how a manufacturer who employs an engineer in addition to a marktoid or an accountant? Though I'm starting to have doubts.
Hmm, maybe the test in other working conditions that you propose should be repeated on elektroda.pl?
Whatever the conditions, there will be people who will have better ideas But the idea is cool, we don't have many such tests at the "engineering" level. I will not do the tests, but I will volunteer as a supplier of some product for testing, battery / batteries.
Yesterday, for the first time in one of the supermarkets, I saw Tesla Gold batteries. The packaging is nice, tempting to buy, the price is almost PLN 2 each, I was about to buy them. I'm lucky I didn't take it because looking through the test results they were almost at the end.
Cheap and quite roomy.
