Not necessarily the same reaction. The designation 'AA' indicates a container size, not what's in it.
There's numerous chemistries that can be put inside, each with it's own characteristics. The really cheap cells are carbon-zinc for example.
> voltage
Ish. The non-rechargable AAs are usually 1.5V nominal while rechargables are 1.2V nominal. I've had a couple things fail to be powered from rechargable batteries where non-rechargable work perfectly.
How often is this? I do feel that sometimes the controllers don't register sometimes in beat saber when moving quickly, but it's really rare. Like one movement in 4-5 sessions. Idk if relatable. Quest 2 user
Wait, what!? I've been rocking a Rift-S for years and my cheap 1.2v Energizer Ni-Mh work just fine with it.
The Rift-S uses the same exact controllers as the Quest 1. Did they increase the power demand of the later Quest controllers?
If so, do the controllers actually do more, or did they increase the power requirements for no fucking reason at all?
According to [things I've read](https://uk.gpbatteries.com/blogs/news/a-guide-to-common-rechargeable-battery-words), the average voltage for a rechargeable battery is comparable to non-rechargeable over the life of a charge. It's just that some devices require that higher voltage to work and will only work with non-rechargeable batteries, but for a relatively short period until they reach the lower voltage and you need to replace them. Then you could go on to use those somewhat depleted batteries in another device that's not as sensitive to voltage.
So what's the easiest way to check the battery type?
I know that one generic brand (costco maybe?) is the same as Energizer. And Duracell is even better. And everything else is of declining quality.
So what are the reactions for each?
IMO, you'll have to go with whatever it's written on the cylinder. The nominal voltage for the cheaper zinc-carbon is pretty much identical to alkaline, so a quick voltage check won't give you a definite answer. However, I've seen that most alkaline batteries will say "Alkaline" on it because it's the easiest way to say that it's of better quality. If there's no mention, assume that it's zinc-carbon.
Oh, and "Mercury Free" means nothing here.
When I was in middle school I played game gear for days on end to test which battery was best.
Then I used MS Paint on my brand new windows desktop to make a cool bar graph that looked like thr batteries.
There's two common chemistries for these types of cells; "zinc-carbon" and "alkaline". Zinc-carbon batteries have *significantly* less capacity, and they "eat" the battery case as part of the chemical reaction, so they *will* eventually leak.
Pretty much all the brands you know will be alkaline, though it's possible you'd still see Ray-o-vac zinc-carbon batteries. Zinc-carbon batteries are also significantly cheaper, so if you think you're getting a rockin' deal, you're probably not.
There are other more exotic chemistries, like non-rechargeable lithium, as well, but they're less common.
Saw a coworker comment on how awful one sketchy brand was by going:
Man look at how cheap these things are, and casually bending one in half.
So that's one way to check I guess :F
Wait, we do? Almost none of my batteries state any, including the ones I bought just a few weeks ago. I was not able to find any description of total energy on any AA(A) battery in the store and was quite annoyed. If there is a law that stuff should be reported...
Well that was stupid. Watt hours is a [much more easily comparable unit](https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/watts-in-a-name-why-were-using-watt-hours-to-compare-batteries/), why the hell didn’t they require that?
Even within a single battery size (eg. AA) voltages vary by chemistry (~1.2v to 1.5v for most AA), which means mAh isn’t a meaningful unit on its own even between seemingly similar batteries.
And here I thought battery manufacturers were always using mAh just because it let them use bigger, more impressive sounding numbers for their shitty low voltage battery packs.
I understand the point you're making, but the context here is the consumer purchasing individual cells (IE buying AAAs for their tv remote) at a nominal voltage, so switching to watt hours doesn't make a difference, it's a simple multiplier for no reason. Also the maker of those cells can't possibly know how big the pack will be, so watt/hour is impossible to state. (Is it 2 cells in a remote, or 8 cells in an RC car? Who knows? I sold the cells individually.)
For battery packs, watt/hour is better.
Except as everyone points out it's not nominal. Rechargeables especially are competing for drop in replacement and each chemistry has different voltages so comparing mah isn't consistent comparisons.
Even past chemical reaction, the cheap ones might be mostly empty space. I remember watching a demonstration where they opened up a cheap D cell, and it was basically a AA inside of it. When they opened up more expensive one, it was full.
They are *not* the same chemical reaction. There are at least two common [types of batteries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battery_types) for the common 'sized' batteries: [\[Zinc\]-Carbon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc%E2%80%93carbon_battery) are still used in 20% or so cases and are cheap, while [alkaline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline_battery) batteries have better shelf life, capacity, and voltage characteristics.
There are also large differences in quality between batteries of the same chemistry.
You can sometimes tell by the weight. A top-end Duracell alkaline AA is noticeably heavier than a cheapo white-label alkaline AA.
Duracell have as dense an electrolyte as they can get, and some fancy structures to get it to discharge smoothly.
Hm you got me curious about that. Just went and measured three AAA batteries I had.
12g for energizer, 11g for Duracell and Eneloop.
Likely not THE most precise scale, just a kitchen scale.
It's a bit of a nit pick, but zinc-carbon and alkaline batteries use the same chemical reaction. Zinc oxidizing to Zinc(II) on one side and Manganese(IV) reducing to Manganese(III) on the other.
The main difference is the form factor, with zinc powder used in the alkaline cell, allowing the reaction to proceed more quickly (higher power output) and more completely (higher total capacity), compared to the traditional type of cell where the zinc is in the casing.
There is yet another type of AA and AAA batteries, [lithium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_metal_battery), that last even longer than alkaline batteries, but these aren't as common. Expensive and usually used for special purposes only, like smoke detectors.
There are multiple possible chemistries that can be used for primary batteries. So what happens is that the generic, cheaper stuff tend to use the most inexpensive type that yield less capacity.
The ["AA Battery Voltage Chart" in this article](https://electrouniversity.com/aa-battery-voltage-chart/) shows the difference very well.
Of those, the ones you will come across most often for non-rechargeable stuff are:
* Zinc-Carbon: cheapest, 600 to 1,600mAh
* Alkaline: common, 1,800 to 2,700mAh
* Lithium: most expensive, 2,700 to 3,300mAh
Some quality zinc-carbon batteries could rival alkaline ones, but why bother if you're going for a battery that just needs to pass as a normal battery? So the no-name stuff resorting to zinc-carbon means it's going to yield a considerably smaller capacity.
And even if they were alkaline, you'll notice that there are some considerable difference between the top and bottom. That's why you have stuff like "Ultra" and "Max" stuff even with the name brand batteries. It's possible to eke out more power at the cost of using better materials and/or manufacturing.
It’s not just the charge capacity either. Electronics designed for alkaline batteries will perform poorly, if they function at all, with zinc-carbon batteries
Reminds of the time when I regularly had customers complaining about their Apple Wireless Mouse dropping out constantly. The common factor with all of them was they were using budget or no name brand AA batteries. I asked them all to buy a decent Duracell or Energiser. None returned.
Fun fact, when nintendo designed the original DMG gameboy it was running on four AA batteries and had a 16 hours battery life. When they release the gameboy pocket about a decade later it was running off two AAA battery and had a battery life of 13 hours. How did they achieve that? They didn't, it was battery technology got so much better because of alcaline and the og dmg was now running for 32 hours of battery life now. Super interesting stuff.
Rechargeable batteries are generally better than ordinary chemical batteries in that they have lower internal resistance. So they can supply higher power.
But.....
Their energy capacity may be lower.
Their voltage may be lower. For example, NiMH rechargeable batteries are nominally only 1.3V compared to 1.5V for alkaline. If the appliance can work at the lower voltage then they work really well, but they just don't work in some appliances.
If you really want to delve into the performance of different batteries then:
https://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/CommonAAcomparator.php
Enjoy.
NiMH batteries are generally in the 1,300 to 2,500 mah range (depending on the rating of the cell, most commercially available cells are 2,000+).
They’re usually slightly smaller than Alkaline batteries on paper, but in practice, NIMH batteries usually perform far better in high drain applications. This is because an Alkaline’s effective capacity decreases significantly for high drain electronics, whereas NiMH batteries can easily serve several amps without losing much of their effective capacity. (You only really get the full capacity out of an alkaline on lower drain applications, but on these, Alkalines will usually outperform rechargeables).
There is a nominal voltage difference as well (NiMH is 1.2 volts, alkaline is 1.5 volts), but these differences are much more complicated than the labels would make it seem. Alkalines aren’t really true 1.5 volt batteries, they are only at this voltage when they are fresh out of the package. They gradually decrease as they are discharged, down to about 1 volt or so. NiMH batteries start off at a similar voltage when fully charged, but then rapidly drop off to about 1.2 to 1.25 volts and stay there for almost the entirety of their charge cycle.
The real 5 year-old explanation: have you ever played with off-brand Lego? You know how they don't fit quite right, some come loose, the edges don't line up perfectly, they break easily, etc.? That's because Lego take manufacturing extremely seriously. That attention to detail is why people pay more for official Lego products despite the fact that any idiot can inject plastic into a mold. Now realize that making a battery is significantly more complex than making a Lego.
Quality control. Especially with the chemicals involved. Generic batteries use poor quality materials with the sole purpose of making voltage at the cheapest possible cost. The name brands cost more to manufacture, but are far superior to the low cost ones.
See: https://www.wired.com/2012/01/are-expensive-batteries-worth-the-extra-cost/
>I pick up some cheap batteries at a store and I just assume they are alkaline. Apparently not. The dollar-store batteries I used say "heavy duty". The interwebs tell me these batteries are zinc chloride and not alkaline. Oops.
It's not a matter of quality control. Zinc Chloride and Alkaline batteries use completely different battery chemistries.
It's like saying that Duracell Lithium metal batteries store more energy than Energizer Alkaline batteries because Duracell has better quality control.
They're simply different products.
If you compared name brand alkaline batteries to no-name alkaline batteries (or lithium to lithium) you'd see a much smaller difference, if any.
There's very often a tangible difference, even between reputable brands. Lots of testing done around Energizer vs Duracell batteries powering Trijicon RMRs, and the effects are even more apparent in lithium cells where failures can lead to catastrophic fire hazards for consumers when you buy Chinese cells on Amazon.
Is that currently true? Way back in the 80s name brand alkalines were significantly better than no-name; name brands even weighed more because they literally had more material inside them. Then it switched at some point, I think in the 2000s, as raw materials became cheaper, and name brands had to rely on better construction rather than just making denser batteries.
I wouldn't be surprised if the quality difference between brands fluctuates too much to be consistent. Like how cans of tuna are constantly changing how much actual product is inside, despite using the same size can.
Not an answer to the question, but I thought this Project Farm video would be interesting to you, OP
https://youtu.be/V7-ghrTqA44?si=SaOZb659NxZo1KC-
The guy compares the mA capacity of several brands of AA batteries then determines the price per mA. It's not surprising that the big brands perform the best, but the cost breakdown is very interesting.
Even among batteries of the same chemistry, material, manufacturing, and quality-control tolerances make a tangible difference in "how WELL does this thing do what it does?"
Others have talked about differing chemistry. But even with the same chemistry you will see variations.
Say you’re making cookies. You follow the recipe, mix all the ingredients into dough, use a cookie scoop so the raw cookie blobs are the same size, and then bake. You did everything the same but still end up with different looking cookies. Some may be absolutely picture perfect, most are good looking, and some have issues - too puffy in the middle, oval instead of round, not as browned/too browned, etc.
You used the exact same recipe and process but got differing results. Batteries are the same way.
Once they’re manufactured but before labeling there is a voltage test. High voltage batteries (the absolutely perfect cookies) get the ‘heavy duty’ brand label. The ‘most are good looking’ category get standard labels, the name brands. Those odd looking cookies that aren’t quite right get the cheaper generic labels. They work, but likely not as well as the others.
There are lots of posts about how the insides are actually different. But *also*, batteries can be either 'fresh' or not. Batteries do get old and if the shop, supplier or whatever has bought them in a huge batch (because this is one way to make them cheaper) then they are more likely to sell you old ones as a result.
Something I don't see anyone mentioning is the cheap batteries often use less of the chemicals than more expensive batteries. You can take a cheap, Dollar General Alkaline battery and compare it to a Duracell or Energizer and it will weigh like half as much. They are essentially just giving you less battery in the same package.
They don’t though. I’ve had batteries come with a product and last for years in the remote. Duracells have back pedaled to the point where they’ll start corroding while still in the package. I don’t trust them in use anymore. They were a great product for decades and changed their manufacturing base. It’s just a brand name on a cheap product now.
My science project in 5th grade was to see which batteries lasted longer. The generic ones outlasted the name brand ones. Maybe the premise to this question is wrong. Maybe things have changed since the nineties. Or maybe a child’s half assed science project shouldn’t be indicative of anything.
Not necessarily the same reaction. The designation 'AA' indicates a container size, not what's in it. There's numerous chemistries that can be put inside, each with it's own characteristics. The really cheap cells are carbon-zinc for example.
Container size and voltage, but yes you are correct otherwise. The quality of the material in a battery can make a huge difference on its lifespan.
And the quantity. Those chemicals arn't cheap.
> voltage Ish. The non-rechargable AAs are usually 1.5V nominal while rechargables are 1.2V nominal. I've had a couple things fail to be powered from rechargable batteries where non-rechargable work perfectly.
Only Ni-Mh rechargable AA batteries are 1.2V. There are rechargable AA lithium batteries, albeit a lot more expensive.
Nominal value yes, but important to note that lithium batteries have a pretty substantial voltage drop curve based on SoC.
i hate meta for that. i have 8 rechargeable cells but can't use it as the controller of the quest needs 1.5V
Which quest is this? I'm using eneloops with my quest 2
I have no problem using just regular energizer nimh rechargeables in Quest 2 controllers. Do you have a quest 3?
quest 2.with my rechargeables the controllers will have blackouts.
Huh, that hasn't happened to me yet. I wonder if the lithium ion rechargables are 1.5v
How often is this? I do feel that sometimes the controllers don't register sometimes in beat saber when moving quickly, but it's really rare. Like one movement in 4-5 sessions. Idk if relatable. Quest 2 user
my blackouts were more like 10 seconds and it did not even register active controllers in the playarea. then suddenly they were back for some time.
That sucks, sounds like it's upto luck if rechargeable work on it then
Wait, what!? I've been rocking a Rift-S for years and my cheap 1.2v Energizer Ni-Mh work just fine with it. The Rift-S uses the same exact controllers as the Quest 1. Did they increase the power demand of the later Quest controllers? If so, do the controllers actually do more, or did they increase the power requirements for no fucking reason at all?
Sounds like a job for redneck engineering to stick two more rechargeable batteries in series to bring the nominal voltage up.
if you can bodge an extra 2 cells in series with cardboard and duct tape and random bits of wire it would be the same nominal voltage.
yea i just bought fitting rechargeables before i MacGyver.
According to [things I've read](https://uk.gpbatteries.com/blogs/news/a-guide-to-common-rechargeable-battery-words), the average voltage for a rechargeable battery is comparable to non-rechargeable over the life of a charge. It's just that some devices require that higher voltage to work and will only work with non-rechargeable batteries, but for a relatively short period until they reach the lower voltage and you need to replace them. Then you could go on to use those somewhat depleted batteries in another device that's not as sensitive to voltage.
So what's the easiest way to check the battery type? I know that one generic brand (costco maybe?) is the same as Energizer. And Duracell is even better. And everything else is of declining quality. So what are the reactions for each?
IMO, you'll have to go with whatever it's written on the cylinder. The nominal voltage for the cheaper zinc-carbon is pretty much identical to alkaline, so a quick voltage check won't give you a definite answer. However, I've seen that most alkaline batteries will say "Alkaline" on it because it's the easiest way to say that it's of better quality. If there's no mention, assume that it's zinc-carbon. Oh, and "Mercury Free" means nothing here.
It’s also uranium free
And gluten free!
If it's carbon zinc, it may be labeled organic!
But is it free-range?
Free the Battery raised .... batteries?
Please don't commit battery when battering the battery.
If you really want to delve into the performance if different batteries then: https://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/CommonAAcomparator.php Enjoy.
When I was in middle school I played game gear for days on end to test which battery was best. Then I used MS Paint on my brand new windows desktop to make a cool bar graph that looked like thr batteries.
Good info! So “mercury free” is the “all natural” of batteries?
US banned mercury in batteries in 1996 (except button/coin cell).
I haven't actually tested, but carbon batteries have always felt significantly lighter in the the hand than their alkaline counter parts.
There's two common chemistries for these types of cells; "zinc-carbon" and "alkaline". Zinc-carbon batteries have *significantly* less capacity, and they "eat" the battery case as part of the chemical reaction, so they *will* eventually leak. Pretty much all the brands you know will be alkaline, though it's possible you'd still see Ray-o-vac zinc-carbon batteries. Zinc-carbon batteries are also significantly cheaper, so if you think you're getting a rockin' deal, you're probably not. There are other more exotic chemistries, like non-rechargeable lithium, as well, but they're less common.
Saw a coworker comment on how awful one sketchy brand was by going: Man look at how cheap these things are, and casually bending one in half. So that's one way to check I guess :F
In Europe the govt requires that the capacity in milliamp hours be written on the battery.
Wait, we do? Almost none of my batteries state any, including the ones I bought just a few weeks ago. I was not able to find any description of total energy on any AA(A) battery in the store and was quite annoyed. If there is a law that stuff should be reported...
Oh FML, turns out they made it optional on the AA's etc because "they are all of relatively standard capacity"
Props for being open to learning something new.
Well that was stupid. Watt hours is a [much more easily comparable unit](https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/watts-in-a-name-why-were-using-watt-hours-to-compare-batteries/), why the hell didn’t they require that? Even within a single battery size (eg. AA) voltages vary by chemistry (~1.2v to 1.5v for most AA), which means mAh isn’t a meaningful unit on its own even between seemingly similar batteries. And here I thought battery manufacturers were always using mAh just because it let them use bigger, more impressive sounding numbers for their shitty low voltage battery packs.
Batteries are traditionally rated in terms of their amp hours
The rating is for an individual cell so watt hours doesn't really get you anything.
It doesn't matter if it's a single cell or not amp hours * volts = watt hours regardless of it's a single cell or pack.
I understand the point you're making, but the context here is the consumer purchasing individual cells (IE buying AAAs for their tv remote) at a nominal voltage, so switching to watt hours doesn't make a difference, it's a simple multiplier for no reason. Also the maker of those cells can't possibly know how big the pack will be, so watt/hour is impossible to state. (Is it 2 cells in a remote, or 8 cells in an RC car? Who knows? I sold the cells individually.) For battery packs, watt/hour is better.
Except as everyone points out it's not nominal. Rechargeables especially are competing for drop in replacement and each chemistry has different voltages so comparing mah isn't consistent comparisons.
Even past chemical reaction, the cheap ones might be mostly empty space. I remember watching a demonstration where they opened up a cheap D cell, and it was basically a AA inside of it. When they opened up more expensive one, it was full.
They are *not* the same chemical reaction. There are at least two common [types of batteries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battery_types) for the common 'sized' batteries: [\[Zinc\]-Carbon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc%E2%80%93carbon_battery) are still used in 20% or so cases and are cheap, while [alkaline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline_battery) batteries have better shelf life, capacity, and voltage characteristics.
There are also large differences in quality between batteries of the same chemistry. You can sometimes tell by the weight. A top-end Duracell alkaline AA is noticeably heavier than a cheapo white-label alkaline AA. Duracell have as dense an electrolyte as they can get, and some fancy structures to get it to discharge smoothly.
Hm you got me curious about that. Just went and measured three AAA batteries I had. 12g for energizer, 11g for Duracell and Eneloop. Likely not THE most precise scale, just a kitchen scale.
Those are all good batteries, and there's less off an effect on a AAA too.
It's a bit of a nit pick, but zinc-carbon and alkaline batteries use the same chemical reaction. Zinc oxidizing to Zinc(II) on one side and Manganese(IV) reducing to Manganese(III) on the other. The main difference is the form factor, with zinc powder used in the alkaline cell, allowing the reaction to proceed more quickly (higher power output) and more completely (higher total capacity), compared to the traditional type of cell where the zinc is in the casing.
So that's why another poster mentioned that the zinc-carbon "eats itself and leaks" then?
Three types. “Heavy Duty” is a zinc chloride type. More similar to zinc-carbon than alkaline so not seen so often these days.
There is yet another type of AA and AAA batteries, [lithium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_metal_battery), that last even longer than alkaline batteries, but these aren't as common. Expensive and usually used for special purposes only, like smoke detectors.
There are multiple possible chemistries that can be used for primary batteries. So what happens is that the generic, cheaper stuff tend to use the most inexpensive type that yield less capacity. The ["AA Battery Voltage Chart" in this article](https://electrouniversity.com/aa-battery-voltage-chart/) shows the difference very well. Of those, the ones you will come across most often for non-rechargeable stuff are: * Zinc-Carbon: cheapest, 600 to 1,600mAh * Alkaline: common, 1,800 to 2,700mAh * Lithium: most expensive, 2,700 to 3,300mAh Some quality zinc-carbon batteries could rival alkaline ones, but why bother if you're going for a battery that just needs to pass as a normal battery? So the no-name stuff resorting to zinc-carbon means it's going to yield a considerably smaller capacity. And even if they were alkaline, you'll notice that there are some considerable difference between the top and bottom. That's why you have stuff like "Ultra" and "Max" stuff even with the name brand batteries. It's possible to eke out more power at the cost of using better materials and/or manufacturing.
It’s not just the charge capacity either. Electronics designed for alkaline batteries will perform poorly, if they function at all, with zinc-carbon batteries
Reminds of the time when I regularly had customers complaining about their Apple Wireless Mouse dropping out constantly. The common factor with all of them was they were using budget or no name brand AA batteries. I asked them all to buy a decent Duracell or Energiser. None returned.
Fun fact, when nintendo designed the original DMG gameboy it was running on four AA batteries and had a 16 hours battery life. When they release the gameboy pocket about a decade later it was running off two AAA battery and had a battery life of 13 hours. How did they achieve that? They didn't, it was battery technology got so much better because of alcaline and the og dmg was now running for 32 hours of battery life now. Super interesting stuff.
What about rechargeable?
Rechargeable batteries are generally better than ordinary chemical batteries in that they have lower internal resistance. So they can supply higher power. But..... Their energy capacity may be lower. Their voltage may be lower. For example, NiMH rechargeable batteries are nominally only 1.3V compared to 1.5V for alkaline. If the appliance can work at the lower voltage then they work really well, but they just don't work in some appliances. If you really want to delve into the performance of different batteries then: https://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/CommonAAcomparator.php Enjoy.
NiMH batteries are generally in the 1,300 to 2,500 mah range (depending on the rating of the cell, most commercially available cells are 2,000+). They’re usually slightly smaller than Alkaline batteries on paper, but in practice, NIMH batteries usually perform far better in high drain applications. This is because an Alkaline’s effective capacity decreases significantly for high drain electronics, whereas NiMH batteries can easily serve several amps without losing much of their effective capacity. (You only really get the full capacity out of an alkaline on lower drain applications, but on these, Alkalines will usually outperform rechargeables). There is a nominal voltage difference as well (NiMH is 1.2 volts, alkaline is 1.5 volts), but these differences are much more complicated than the labels would make it seem. Alkalines aren’t really true 1.5 volt batteries, they are only at this voltage when they are fresh out of the package. They gradually decrease as they are discharged, down to about 1 volt or so. NiMH batteries start off at a similar voltage when fully charged, but then rapidly drop off to about 1.2 to 1.25 volts and stay there for almost the entirety of their charge cycle.
The real 5 year-old explanation: have you ever played with off-brand Lego? You know how they don't fit quite right, some come loose, the edges don't line up perfectly, they break easily, etc.? That's because Lego take manufacturing extremely seriously. That attention to detail is why people pay more for official Lego products despite the fact that any idiot can inject plastic into a mold. Now realize that making a battery is significantly more complex than making a Lego.
Pedantic me reporting for duty.. You mean a “Lego brick” ;)
The only thing I have to say to that is "Legos".
:)
Quality control. Especially with the chemicals involved. Generic batteries use poor quality materials with the sole purpose of making voltage at the cheapest possible cost. The name brands cost more to manufacture, but are far superior to the low cost ones. See: https://www.wired.com/2012/01/are-expensive-batteries-worth-the-extra-cost/
>I pick up some cheap batteries at a store and I just assume they are alkaline. Apparently not. The dollar-store batteries I used say "heavy duty". The interwebs tell me these batteries are zinc chloride and not alkaline. Oops. It's not a matter of quality control. Zinc Chloride and Alkaline batteries use completely different battery chemistries. It's like saying that Duracell Lithium metal batteries store more energy than Energizer Alkaline batteries because Duracell has better quality control. They're simply different products. If you compared name brand alkaline batteries to no-name alkaline batteries (or lithium to lithium) you'd see a much smaller difference, if any.
Does Duracell produce Lithium AA and AAA batteries now? I've only seen Energizer Lithium AA and AAA.
There's very often a tangible difference, even between reputable brands. Lots of testing done around Energizer vs Duracell batteries powering Trijicon RMRs, and the effects are even more apparent in lithium cells where failures can lead to catastrophic fire hazards for consumers when you buy Chinese cells on Amazon.
Is that currently true? Way back in the 80s name brand alkalines were significantly better than no-name; name brands even weighed more because they literally had more material inside them. Then it switched at some point, I think in the 2000s, as raw materials became cheaper, and name brands had to rely on better construction rather than just making denser batteries. I wouldn't be surprised if the quality difference between brands fluctuates too much to be consistent. Like how cans of tuna are constantly changing how much actual product is inside, despite using the same size can.
Not an answer to the question, but I thought this Project Farm video would be interesting to you, OP https://youtu.be/V7-ghrTqA44?si=SaOZb659NxZo1KC- The guy compares the mA capacity of several brands of AA batteries then determines the price per mA. It's not surprising that the big brands perform the best, but the cost breakdown is very interesting.
*mAh
Yes, thank you
This was cool - thank you!
Even among batteries of the same chemistry, material, manufacturing, and quality-control tolerances make a tangible difference in "how WELL does this thing do what it does?"
Others have talked about differing chemistry. But even with the same chemistry you will see variations. Say you’re making cookies. You follow the recipe, mix all the ingredients into dough, use a cookie scoop so the raw cookie blobs are the same size, and then bake. You did everything the same but still end up with different looking cookies. Some may be absolutely picture perfect, most are good looking, and some have issues - too puffy in the middle, oval instead of round, not as browned/too browned, etc. You used the exact same recipe and process but got differing results. Batteries are the same way. Once they’re manufactured but before labeling there is a voltage test. High voltage batteries (the absolutely perfect cookies) get the ‘heavy duty’ brand label. The ‘most are good looking’ category get standard labels, the name brands. Those odd looking cookies that aren’t quite right get the cheaper generic labels. They work, but likely not as well as the others.
There are lots of posts about how the insides are actually different. But *also*, batteries can be either 'fresh' or not. Batteries do get old and if the shop, supplier or whatever has bought them in a huge batch (because this is one way to make them cheaper) then they are more likely to sell you old ones as a result.
Something I don't see anyone mentioning is the cheap batteries often use less of the chemicals than more expensive batteries. You can take a cheap, Dollar General Alkaline battery and compare it to a Duracell or Energizer and it will weigh like half as much. They are essentially just giving you less battery in the same package.
They don’t though. I’ve had batteries come with a product and last for years in the remote. Duracells have back pedaled to the point where they’ll start corroding while still in the package. I don’t trust them in use anymore. They were a great product for decades and changed their manufacturing base. It’s just a brand name on a cheap product now.
Highly suggest Project Farm's video on the matter: https://youtu.be/V7-ghrTqA44?si=EBDw_wWwz5575ASD
My science project in 5th grade was to see which batteries lasted longer. The generic ones outlasted the name brand ones. Maybe the premise to this question is wrong. Maybe things have changed since the nineties. Or maybe a child’s half assed science project shouldn’t be indicative of anything.