Bushwalk Australia

Hi

Being rather a gear freak and particularly interested in the lights I acquired a charger that has a pretty good testing ability to determine actually capacity as it discharged the cell in test mode to get the actual capacity. Now capacity is dependent on discharge rate as a slow discharge rate means ultimately more energy can be extracted from a cell. To give you an idea an Alkaline can match it very closely with a Lithium providing that the discharge rate is reasonable and the temperature is within sensible ranges. By discharge rate, around 10 hours and greater would be a good guide and temperature say 15 to 35 degrees. Faster discharge rates and especially colder temperature then the Lithium pulls ahead by increasing amounts. So if you have a high lumen light that can kill a battery in under an hour then Alkalines are going to perform badly compared to Lithium chemistry. But if the device is say a GPS with ten plus hour drain rates then the extra that Lithium costs is not really worth it. But even then a GPS like my Garmin 62S complains bitterly about Alkaline batteries despite the low discharge rate. The much simpler Extrex is rather unfazed and happy with Alkaline batteries.

A NiMH is generally what I use so that is what I will be testing. It has proven to be very useful in explaining why some batteries work well and others do not. Also helps to sort your batteries by similar mAH as a weak cell can bring down it siblings very quickly in some devices. Also what I have noticed is reputable brands like Sanyo have been dropping the claimed capacity as they have been found out over stating capacity. Our Ebay Chinese friends can claim fantastic mAH capacity. Some is straight out lies while others might be supported by a test that draws very little current so get the absolute maximum out of a battery but with such low end voltage that practically it would have stopped working in most devices.

Anyway to start the ball rolling lets have a look at the highest claimed mAH for a AAA battery that I have. It is a NiMH cell chemistry and claims 1100 mAH. As you can see the claimed mAH is not supported by measured capacity but at least all the cells are consistent. The cells are in good condition and new apart from limited break in use.

Battery type Number Date Capacity mAH Pecentage of highest Pecentage of lowest Rank
Ansmann 1100 mAH 1 28/08/2011 911 100% 101% 1
Ansmann 1100 mAH 2 5/10/2011 902 99% 100% 3
Ansmann 1100 mAH 3 5/10/2011 907 100% 101% 2
Ansmann 1100 mAH 4 5/10/2011 901 99% 100% 4

Cheers

PS
And speaking of things that do not work lets start with how this website display tables. I even spaced then out by space characters and it still mucked up what I see on view but looks ok on edit

"Also what I have noticed is reputable brands like Sanyo have been dropping the claimed capacity "
Really?
The Sanyo Eneloop came out in 2005 rated at 2000mAh for the AA and 800mAh for AAA, they still have the same rating now althogh some other caracteristics have improved.
(slower discharge rate and lower temps, re-charging rates and better lower temps performance)
BTW, yes the AA state for example "min 1900 mAh" but that there is a variation between batches has always been the same.
(IE the figure is an average )

Franco
http://www.eneloop.info/fileadmin/EDITO ... _sheet.pdf

This is what I now use, and they're very good.
http://www.mahaenergy.com/store/Index.asp

The only device I have that requires Lithiums is my Spot2. It will barely run at all on fresh Alkalines.

The interesting thing about this is that when the Spot2 Lithiums are near dead according to the Spot2, those batteries have oodles of power still in them for running LED Headlights etc. No idea what that is all about, but offer it as a bit of info that may help someone.

Also worth thinking about weight. On my scales a single AAA Lithium is 8g and an Alkaline is 13g (both Energiser brand) I don't have a comparable NiMH to weigh. For a weeks worth of Spot batteries and a spare set the weight of lithiums is 48g and alkalines would be 78g (if they worked in the device) I imagine the difference would be similar for AA size?

I don't really understand it but voltage and amperage are linked.
So when your Spot stops working, you may still have a lot of amperage for devices that can operate at a lower voltage than your Spot.
That was a common problem with AA powered cameras , most requiring over 1 volt to operate.
Incidentally the Eneloop keep the voltage above that 1v till almost exhausted.
(Sanyo or now Panasonic should pay me...)
(BTW, that is also why you get a different amperage under different loads, I think...)
Franco

Franco wrote:"Also what I have noticed is reputable brands like Sanyo have been dropping the claimed capacity "
Really?

Um? "Really" can have more than a few meanings. Based on real with the opposite meaning not real. A form of agreeance but in a rather cryptic style. Not quite sure what meaning you are ascribing Franco but lets assume the first.

Duracell released the 2650 mAH AA but if you check their website and supermarket shelves you will see 2450 mAH is now the biggest AA in their range. You will still find on fleabay the 2650 mAH rating, so if true then the power mad amongst us best snap them up. Oh yes, you will need a bit of maths arrive at the 2450 mAH rating on their website.

Energiser released the 2500 mAH AA which is now 2450 mAH being the largest capacity. Curiously both Duracell and Energiser with the 2650/2500/2450 AA size claimed made in Japan. Both now have the biggest mAH in AA at 2450 mAH. A most curious fact

Even Sanyo Eneloop ones came out with 2000 mAH emblazoned on them which is now 1900 mAH on the never ones with the 2000 mAH removed. I suppose what is 10% so lets short pay people by that amount and they should be happy I think I am now through justifying this and future comments I make so Franco forgive me it I refrain from justifying any future comments

Franco wrote:The Sanyo Eneloop came out in 2005 rated at 2000mAh for the AA and 800mAh for AAA, they still have the same rating now althogh some other caracteristics have improved.
(slower discharge rate and lower temps, re-charging rates and better lower temps performance)
BTW, yes the AA state for example "min 1900 mAh" but that there is a variation between batches has always been the same.
(IE the figure is an average )

What average are you referring to Franco? Mean, Mode or Medium? I would assume that min means minimum or else we could have twenty batteries with nineteen giving 2000 mAH and one giving zero and we would have a mean of 1900 mAH. Such logic would make for fun buying climbing rope

I have never been impressed by puffery but it sadly appears to be a stock in trade of some sections of the retail trade. Sanyo uses a lovely phrase, "type 2000". Um? let me see my car is a type "911 turbo" which could mean a 1946 WV Beatle diesel fitted with a radio called "turbo". Might sell a tent as "type 4" and hope to confuse people into thinking that it is a four season tent Batteries manufacturers appear to be cleaning up their act but you can still find older stock with claimed mAH greater than current stock.

O'well at least Harvey Norman found out recently that misleading the public is not on with the ACCC and I can only hope that the ACCC's new found vigour continues.

Now back to what I intended. I found rather frustrating variability in battery performance. You can use one set with better claimed mAH capacity and they perform much worse than another set. Even, within brands you get considerable variability. More than a few devices are voltage sensitive. My Garmin 62S is a classic case that claims that alkalines are nearly dead a few hour in when they have heaps of life. My mobile phone charger requires most NiNH to come straight off the charger to work. I used an ANSMANN battery tester and it revealed a little but as it is based on battery voltage a suspect cell can read 100% when it is dead flat a short time later in the device. Early NiMH would lose charge a great rate with 5% of total capacity a day was one figure I saw bandied about many years back.

So I brought a you-beaut battery charger and tester that takes around two days before it punches out a result. Also I used the ANSMANN tester and found often a rather rapid drop off in measured charged left for some cells as well. This means you leave home with fully charged cells that a few days later can have lost over 30%-80% of their charge.

Now to Duracell. They are terrible for actual capacity to claimed capacity and a few failed to test. To add insult a few simply can not hold a charge for a couple of days. I would say 50% failure rate. Here is the results.

Battery type Number Date Capacity mAH Pecentage of highest Pecentage of lowest Rank
Duracell (AA) 2650 mAH 8 20/07/2011 2,515 100% 124% 1
Duracell (AA) 2650 mAH 6 20/07/2011 2,485 99% 122% 2
Duracell (AA) 2650 mAH 4 20/07/2011 2,401 95% 118% 3
Duracell (AA) 2650 mAH 3 20/07/2011 2,310 92% 114% 4
Duracell (AA) 2650 mAH 2 20/07/2011 2,277 91% 112% 5
Duracell (AA) 2650 mAH 7 20/07/2011 2,113 84% 104% 7
Duracell (AA) 2650 mAH 1 20/07/2011 2,102 84% 103% 8
Duracell (AA) 2650 mAH 11 22/07/2011 2,031 81% 100% 9
Duracell (AA) 2650 mAH 12 11/09/2011 2,114 84% 104% 6

Cheers

recently I bought an old Pentax DSLR and I had some Eneloop NIMH AA's I had bought about 5 months previously. I put them in expecting them to support the camera for a few shots or perhaps snuff it at the first try.
Those batteries lasted about 6 weeks at an average use of 20 images/ week.
I then recharged them and they went with my daughter on a 2 week holiday and back and she took over 400 images on the same set.
I was amazed - its as simple as that.
They were recharged and are still in the Pentax several months later, albeit with little use but ready for action.

On the other hand I have my survey gear that have custom made battery packs of AA's and those things between AA & C cells. They are I am assured (I have them made here in Oz) from Sanyo batteries, not 'some cheap copy'.
When new the instruments would last all day in constant use.
Those recelled packs would be lucky if they lasted 1/2 a day in similar useage. That was after only a short time of use - a few months.

I was told devices with high drain need a different battery to those with not such a high drain. I can't get technical on that and it was explained to me in more detail and it did make sense but its now gone from the grey matter that surrounded the message.

I am skeptical of claims of high capacity and heavy drain capacity and have gone through countless brands in an effort to find some that support the type of use I need them for.

I'm not plugging Eneloop, but from my experience, and for my applications I will be using them in future for my cameras and my survey gear where possible.
Those Maha batteries sound good and I have a lot of respect for Taiwanese made gear. Edit - I see they are available here in Oz and reasonably priced. (might be worth a review of my previous sentence)

My good chargers come with a discharge cycle and the crowd who recell my packs say I should use this every so often.

thats my 2 bobs worth on far more than 2 bobs worth of battery use, in mostly demanding conditions.

Even Sanyo Eneloop ones came out with 2000 mAH emblazoned on them which is now 1900 mAH on the never ones with the 2000 mAH removed. I suppose what is 10% so lets short pay people by that amount and they should be happy
Not exactly.
The old one had 2000mAh min 1900mAh printed on the label, the new just the min 1900mAh printed , however Sanyo still calls them 2000mAh in their spec sheets.
Besides, from 2000 to 1900 the difference is 5% not 10%...


This paper from Energizer
http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/lithiuml91l92_appman.pdf
may give you a better idea of the relationship between voltage and amperage and how it is in effect difficult to accurately state both.

Here is a brief explanation from :

http://www.greenbatteries.com/batterymy ... l#Capacity
"Assigning capacities to batteries can be very tricky, that's probably why you don't see capacity ratings marked on most alkaline batteries. When powering high drain electronic devices like digital cameras, computer peripherals, or portable music players, an alkaline battery will only deliver a small fraction of its rated capacity. A NiMH or NiCd battery is likely to deliver much closer to its rated capacity when it's powering high drain devices. This means that a NiMH battery with a rated capacity of 1800 mAh can take many more photos than an alkaline battery with a rated capacity of 2,800 mAh."


Did you know that the 240v delivered to your home can be as low as 220v ?
Doesn't that "sloppiness" drive you crazy ?

Franco

Just have to love marketing puffery. Type 2000 has no real meaning apart from leading the gullible into believing that is their capacity. A "standard" measurement means I think is draw at 10% of the batteries capacity. This probably is driving the claimed capacities down as Energiser or Duracell, nor Sanyo are likely to be deliberately making lower capacity batteries, just having them test out lower. Similar thing has happened with claimed Lumens from lights.

Batteries have a few issues.

1. Overstated capacity - Factor of how you measure capacity as well as fleabay's typical hype. The lower the discharge rate generally the higher the capacity. Fine if your device's power draw is low but not so good for high drawing devices. The trend to mega powerful single AA headlamps puts a strain on batteries.

2. Ability to hold a charge. Chook's lottery with many brands.

3. Life expectancy of a cell before it starts performing badly. Can be remarkably short. Nicads while much maligned can have some truly impressive service life. I have a Nicad equipped shaver and the the much younger NiMh one. The Nicad is still going strong while the NiMh batteries have failed.

4. How fussy is the battery requiring maintenance. Some just do not respond well unless regularly cycled and in summer time my battery usage drops and then picks up in winter with a number of causalities.

5. Measuring battery health. A voltage tester is a start but unless your device measures actual capacity then you will not be able to identify the seemingly strong cells without a lot of mucking around.

I have found that higher capacity AA and AAA just do not measure up and while having initially higher capacity suffer a drop in performance that means a lower capacity battery in real use situations can better after a few months. Problem with multiple battery devices is a weak cell is the Achilles heel. Hence, testing batteries to group like with like. As a general "number" capacities should be within 5% of each other else the poor cell get poorer at a fast rate.

Sanyo has a good reputation with the "standard" capacity Eneloop batteries so I use them as a guide. It is worthwhile noting that the standard 1900 mAH cell now has a claimed 1500 recharge life and very impressive storage life. The same firm makes a 2500 mAH version that has a claimed 500 recharge life and much worst storage life. This fact confirms that higher capacity batteries have a dark side so buying the highest capacity is not always a sensible thing. Sanyo also make a 2700 mAH battery not branded Eneloop along with a few other capacities.

Now lets look at the 2500mAH Energisers which are now being sold as 2450 mAH ones. Again I apologies the column line up issue but nothing seams to work. Much better than the Duracell though it would not surprise me if they came from the same production line. Might be Energiser has higher specifications. Notice though still the actual capacity is significantly under the claimed capacity and variation in capacity between the cells. All cells tested out unlike the failures experienced with Duracell. In fact a bit of digging around the web suggests my experience with Duracells is not unique.

Battery type Number Date Capacity mAH Pecentage of highest Pecentage of lowest Rank
Energizer 2500 mAH 10 19/07/2011 2,247 100% 111% 1
Energizer 2500 mAH 11 19/07/2011 2,229 99% 110% 2
Energizer 2500 mAH 12 19/07/2011 2,221 99% 110% 3
Energizer 2500 mAH 2 10/07/2011 2,212 98% 110% 4
Energizer 2500 mAH 3 10/07/2011 2,175 97% 108% 5
Energizer 2500 mAH 7 10/07/2011 2,130 95% 105% 6
Energizer 2500 mAH 1 10/07/2011 2,059 92% 102% 7
Energizer 2500 mAH 5 10/07/2011 2,055 91% 102% 8
Energizer 2500 mAH 4 10/07/2011 2,044 91% 101% 9
Energizer 2500 mAH 6 10/07/2011 2,036 91% 101% 10
Energizer 2500 mAH 8 10/07/2011 2,028 90% 100% 11
Energizer 2500 mAH 9 19/07/2011 2,020 90% 100% 12

Cheers

Franco wrote:Did you know that the 240v delivered to your home can be as low as 220v ?
Doesn't that "sloppiness" drive you crazy ?
Franco

Um? Yes it does especially when a "brown out" is much more damaging than a power surge to a sizeable chunk of equipment. I can say from first hand experience that hospital systems do not respond well to "brown outs". It was interesting that the power company's sales consultant denied this, claimed lower voltage was not damaging, but their engineer eventually had enough of this rubbish and confessed that low voltage is a bad thing and something needed to be done to improve their system. Classic case that their marketing department had "oversold" the network and we could afford to spend many thousands of dollars in monitoring equipment to prove this. The average punter did not have this luxury. A few million dollars later and life became good for us and the surrounding houses.

All I ask is honesty, not spin from retailers. The best marketing spin this year went to "negative good outcome" for a teeth whitening system that seriously damaged teeth

Cheers

From Energiser :
"To comply with new guidelines released by the IEC and ANSI regarding how battery capacity is measured, Energizer have now re-labelled their AA NiMH 2500mAh rechargeable batteries and packaging to show a capacity rating of 2450mAh. This is purely a labelling change and the actual performance of the battery has not changed in any way.
The IEC and ANSI are the two bodies responsible for setting the standards for measuring battery capacity. Previously, battery manufacturers were allowed to show an average capacity rating for their batteries but following the new guidelines, manufacturers should show a minimum battery capacity on their products. "

http://buy.energizer.co.uk/detail_ENAAN ... -of-4.html

ANSI standard :

see point 24 here :

http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/Rechargeable_FAQ.pdf

.

Franco

Franco wrote:From Energiser :
Previously, battery manufacturers were allowed to show an average capacity rating for their batteries but following the new guidelines, manufacturers should show a minimum battery capacity on their products.
Franco

Pretty well sums my original statement that stated battery capacity has come down

Curiously Energiser's change is rather small at 50 mAH while their competitor, Duracell dropped from 2650 to 2450 mAH. I did buy Duracell over Energiser due to the higher stated capacity Appears "spin" can have short term benefits. As shown in the previous post Duracells are not a great rechargeable battery and I will never buy that brand again.

Now lets look at the Sanyo non Eneloop series in high capacity.

Battery type Number Date Capacity mAH Pecentage of highest Pecentage of lowest
Sanyo 2500 mAH 1 25/08/2011 1,955 96% 100%
Sanyo 2500 mAH 2 25/08/2011 2,044 100% 105%

Ok the sample size is small but not brilliant and no where near the claimed 2500mAH. Me thinks that maybe they are the same cells sold by Energiser and Duracell as all three claim made in Japan. All three failed to live up to their claimed performance.

Now lets look at the 2700 mAH Sanyo non Eneloop batteries.

Sanyo 2700 mAH 1 14/07/2011 2,577 100% 104%
Sanyo 2700 mAH 4 14/07/2011 2,576 100% 104%
Sanyo 2700 mAH 2 14/07/2011 2,559 99% 103%
Sanyo 2700 mAH 3 14/07/2011 2,559 99% 103%
Sanyo 2700 mAH 5 15/07/2011 2,512 97% 101%
Sanyo 2700 mAH 8 15/07/2011 2,504 97% 101%
Sanyo 2700 mAH 7 15/07/2011 2,481 96% 100%
Sanyo 2700 mAH 6 15/07/2011 2,479 96% 100%

Much closer to the claim but still under by a decent margin. At least the variability is within the suggest target of 5% so less chance of a bad cell dragging the team down.

Lets look at the Sanyo Eneloop 2500 mAH batteries. This are a recent addition to the range so should better reflect actual capacity and Sanyo makes no bones about the reduced recharge cycles and lower long term charge holding compared to the "classic" Eneloop. Does demonstrate once you get past a certain point in seeking capacity the trade-offs start becoming greater.

Battery type Number Date Capacity mAH Pecentage of highest Pecentage of lowest Rank
Sanyo 2500 (AA) mAH 4 26/09/2011 2,492 100% 101% 1
Sanyo 2500 (AA) mAH 1 26/09/2011 2,487 100% 101% 2
Sanyo 2500 (AA) mAH 2 26/09/2011 2,474 99% 101% 3
Sanyo 2500 (AA) mAH 3 26/09/2011 2,459 99% 100% 4

Well none made the hyped 2500 rating, admittedly closer than any other battery discussed to-date. But all exceeded the stated minimum 2400 mAH rating which is the way it should be. Congratulations Sanyo on finally producing a battery that does what it claims. But please drop the type 2500 business. The variability control is excellent so you will not be at the mercy of a weak cell.

Now for the bargain hunters amongst us lets look at a Chinese made battery, the Pro 2.

Battery type Number Date Capacity mAH Pecentage of highest Pecentage of lowest Rank
Pro.2 2600 mAH 3 03/10/2011 1,537 100% 233% 1
Pro.2 2600 mAH 1 29/08/2011 1,242 81% 188% 2
Pro.2 2600 mAH 4 03/10/2011 1,044 68% 158% 3
Pro.2 2600 mAH 2 29/08/2011 661 43% 100% 4

Junk (or similar spelling) used to refer to a very well designed Chinese sailing craft but a European meaning can be applied to these batteries. No where near the claimed capacity and variability in capacity that could best be described as random.

Cheers

Maybe Sanyo heard you'd bought a battery tester lol

Nuts wrote:Maybe Sanyo heard you'd bought a battery tester lol

Maybe not me alone but a significant number of people found out that they were been conned, hence push for testing standards. Bit like when affordable dyno car testers came out various car manufacturers were found out to be fibbing. Ford found out big time that claiming false KW numbers got you a big fine and a chance that customers could take their car back for a refund. Of course the USA based companies then tried a range of tricks like claiming power was measured before the fly wheel hoping that nobody would drag a motor out of a car, remove the flywheel and prove that they were fibbing. Ford is still smarting that when it quotes a "realistic" power figure then Holden comes in higher number due to such tricks. A serious large amount of money is been spent on heat pumps and a model sold under many brands was found to be lying massively on efficiency.

More and more of us are buying on specification and paying a premium for it so it is unfair to an honest manufacturer that a crook can quote unrealistic specifications and get away with it. Sure test standards do not reflect real world but I did get irked when I read Jetboil uses 27 degrees as a starting point for boiling water. Come on as then have models using them with snow around as a selling tool

Cheers

a significant number of people found out that they were been conned

No, again you fail to read or understand the info I posted.
The ANSI standards have changed, so now manufacturers have to state the MINIMUM not the average power.
Yet again I will mention that even if your A battery is rated at 500mAh or so more than the B it still does not mean that it will last in you gadget any longer, it may in fact last less.
It depends on the load on the battery and the minimum voltage your gadget can operate at.
Again put into a camera (or the Spot if you like) that uses AA batteries 2 1900/2000 Eneloop (fully charged) and two Energizer 2450mAh and see which set will take more shots ...
And, no Energizer are not cheating, the two just have different characteristics.
Franco
BTW, you are supporting your argument with a fallacy.
The Jetboil and Ford examples have nothing to do with the way battery power is measured.

Franco wrote:BTW, you are supporting your argument with a fallacy.
The Jetboil and Ford examples have nothing to do with the way battery power is measured.

Franco, that is correct, but you should know that Jetboil, Ford and the battery manufacturers are part of a worldwide conspiracy to cheat consumers by overstating their product capabilities.

(Just Joking)

Ent, are these batteries you are testing all brand new? You don't seem to be including details like the age, number and extent of discharges, and number and extent of charge cycles. I'm not a battery expert, but I have picked up that these things can have a bearing on battery performance.

Cheers,

Franco wrote:a significant number of people found out that they were been conned

No, again you fail to read or understand the info I posted.
The ANSI standards have changed, so now manufacturers have to state the MINIMUM not the average power.
Yet again I will mention that even if your A battery is rated at 500mAh or so more than the B it still does not mean that it will last in you gadget any longer, it may in fact last less.
It depends on the load on the battery and the minimum voltage your gadget can operate at.
Again put into a camera (or the Spot if you like) that uses AA batteries 2 1900/2000 Eneloop (fully charged) and two Energizer 2450mAh and see which set will take more shots ...
And, no Energizer are not cheating, the two just have different characteristics.
Franco
BTW, you are supporting your argument with a fallacy.
The Jetboil and Ford examples have nothing to do with the way battery power is measured.

\\

Hi Franco

I simply mentioned that battery capacities as been reported have dropped. This is clear that have even based on your own posts The catalyst have been standards. Rather simple concept but one that you chose not to accept then ok. As for your last sentence I just do not understand what you do not understand. All I saying is some marketing types are prone to make claims that are either based on unreal tests or simple "hope". So with Jetboil if I produce a competing unit that claims 100 litres of water boiled per gas canister and I start my water temperature off at 99 degrees for the testing and bury that fact deep in fine print this is ok? Basically all a want is honesty, not puffery.

A classic example to do with batteries is L-ion capacity. I have a few rechargable CR123. A reputable brand, AW, lists mAH at 500 mAH and 750 mAH and a larger rival claims 900mAH while fleabay sellers are claiming 2100 mAH. Using a Zebralight H31 the 500 last 30 minutes chucking out 220 lumens, the 750 mAH 45 minutes and the 900 mAH 30 minutes. The standard lithium last around 90 minutes and the average capacity I believe is 1500 mAH. So AW's claims in a real world test are consistent. The competitor, well lets say they must be a marketer loving puffery. How does fleabay do it? Well it is believed, as they do not say, that the extreme 2100 mAH is measured with a very low current draw and the battery voltage is taken below the point of no recovery. L-ion generally have protection circuits that stop them been drawn down too far as you simply can not recharge them once the point of no return is reached. Ok, I am a gear freak and read a lot so I am aware of the hogwash but is the great unwashed? I love the defence of scoundrel being, "buyer beware". Ghee I am glad that nearly all professionals bound by ethics do not pull such tricks else would make for an interesting trip to the doctor

The standard I believe draws down as a percentage of capacity. It is fair to say that within sensible bounds the lower the current draw the more potential energy that can be extracted from a battery. As the device's power drain is likely to be a constant then all things been equal a larger battery should perform better that the raw stated capacity would indicate compared to a smaller battery. Um? I have not tested that as I have no devices that cut off cleanly in AA format like the H31 headlamp does. But even that aside, the standard Eneloop's 1500 recharge cycles and long storage life means in the real would they probably outperform a much higher claimed capacity battery. To Sanyo's credit they market the 1900 and 2400 to serve different needs. I like that approach.

Hi Photohiker

Yes you are correct. Battery life is affected by age, use and most importantly recharging. It has been said that rechargeables do not die but they are slowly tortured to death. The worse chargers series up the cells and whacks in a fixed recharge rate with a timer or user instructions to remove the cells after a period of time. The better chargers treat each cell as an individual. The top have monitoring for the sign of charging nearing completion along with heat protection. The very best have this plus the ability to set the charging rate. I used an ANNSMANN that did all but the last, or claims to. The new battery charger you set the cells claimed capacity and it takes it from there.

None of the cells used have been abused nor anywhere near the claimed charging cycles. In fact most would be flat-out to be recharged over twenty times. I am not that retentive to keep such records and was more interested why sometimes my GPS is happy for a weekend and other times barely makes it past an hour. I have now sorted my batteries (already done by type and brand from day one) into similar capacity aiming for 5% variance. Result has been reliability but I still do get caught out with a Duracell that losses capacity suddenly. Even with Lithium cells I struck two that were flat from the packet

We do live in the real world, or some of us do, so it is near impossible to follow perfect battery maintenance protocols and testing. Having said that the Energisers and Sanyo 2500 are older than the Duracells 2650. The Duracells are very bad with low capacity, great variability, failure to test and to not hold a charge. For a brand with such a high profile I find this unsettling. I chuckled when I spotted a Duracell charger in Dick Smith with 2450 mAH on board. It had the charging time and a note that the 2650 mAH cells will take longer to charge. Sort of suggests that they are different yet their website does not list them. What ever the truth is I will not be buying Duracell again.

I am happy if you or anyone else undertakes a detailed study and publishes. I do now find sympathy with people that do such things given the feedback they sometimes get on this site Really, I really do, really.

Ok now for another example.

Battery type Number Date Capacity mAH Pecentage of highest Pecentage of lowest Rank
Camelion 2500 mAH 2 25/08/2011 1,782 100% 89100% 1
Camelion 2500 mAH 3 25/08/2011 1,754 98% 87700% 2
Camelion 2500 mAH 5 11/09/2011 1,715 96% 85750% 3
Camelion 2500 mAH 4 25/08/2011 1,204 68% 60200% 4
Camelion 2500 mAH 1 25/08/2011 2 0% 100% 5

These were from memory sold by Supercheap and made in China. Three did not make it past the time I brought them and the tester, probably six months. I did not expect much from them but brought them as they came with conversion bodies to turn AAs into Cs and Ds.

A good example of you get what you pay for

Cheers

Hey Ent, I'll have to pass, I'm not likely to do a rechargeable battery review, I have so little gear (Currently, just a Vista HCx) that takes rechargeables it would take an age to recoup the investment. (I currently don't have any at all). Anything else I have uses custom black box lithiums (phone etc)

I have done a couple of other reviews though, and I'm pleased to say that there is a healthy scepticism on this site towards opinions I and others might have revealed in the resulting discussion. There is no 'right' when it comes down to personal opinion so its fair enough to expect a bit of argy-bargy along the way.

As far as the battery capacity reviews you have done, they're interesting enough. I guess you might have had a lot easier ride if you had not flavoured your reviews from the start with your opinion that the manufacturers were somehow dudding you. The facts of their performance in your charger should be enough information for others to form their own opinion and you can always finish the series off with a conclusion where you explain what you think of the filthy capitalist manufacturers. Be a lot more powerful that way too.

As for the tables, you could enter all your data into a page on the wiki - it supports tables, and if you read the help, you can even do sortable tables, so that might be a great idea for laying out your data.

Cheers.

Hi Photohiker

I suppose I like the Top Gear reviews compared to the normally benign ones that are becoming so increasingly common with cars. Consumers are buying on specifications more and more so fair to say that the specifications should be correct, not marketing hype.

The catalyst for my interest in batteries was when doing the OLT in style I decided to use lithium batteries instead of alkaline or rechargeables as they "last up to three times as long". Err, twenty batteries for a cost of $100 and they performed hardly much better. Why? Bit of digging revealed that a good quality alkaline AA had a capacity from memory of around 2900 mAH while a lithium have 3100 mAH. Hardly enough to get excited about. Sure in extreme cold or very high draw devices they are the way to go so by all means use them in PLBs but for your average conditions and use the performance difference is negligible. Sure the claimed power density by weight might be better but by AA size form the answer is not really. I fell yet again for hype

Many years back Telstra double loaded the tape for STD calls so everyone in the exchange area was double charged. As work was paying for my phone I would go through it to identify non work related calls and pay for them myself. I stumbled across this error. Telstra when approached, apologised, refunded the money and claimed that a credit was gong to be put through for all affected users. Um? three months later it did not appear on my parent's bill so I approached Telstra and got the same action. Three months later a friend that was looking for the credit had not noticed it so rang and got the same story. Yes in all three cases the refund was processed but only after a consumer requested it. An old store-man that I once worked with recounted a story that in his youth he made a mistake of putting an extra bag of wheat on a delivery that day but could not remember which one. The older hand training him simply charged everyone an extra bag. Everyone paid for the extra bag without issue figuring that they must have mucked up. Now what do you call this in polite language? Sorry but I use the word theft. Mistakes happen so fix them but not fixing them when you know about them? Um not so forgiving.

You call it as spade I call it a shovel.

I read a USA forum and flame wars start when someone posts that battery B is cheaper than A and has more capacity. The a "tester" might examine this and find out that brand B is lying through their teeth. But the first poster is determined that they have got a bargain and the tester is just jealous or wrong or working for a rival firm. General result is the tester leaves the forum and in the information vacuum any post can be made on any claim. Post that on fleabay a 3000 mAH L-ion RCR123 is available and you will be greeted with stony silence by the long term testers.

Sadly marketing spin is still considered acceptable by some but we live in a different world than our grand fathers so we can not be the experts on everything so are much more dependent on accurate and truthful advice. We have cigarette companies that would like nothing better than compulsory warning be removed on a product that causes death to many and are taking our health authorities to court at this very minute so they can keep a marketing edge.

You may call be naive but have not lost faith in the things that I believe in

Cheers

photohiker wrote:As far as the battery capacity reviews you have done, they're interesting enough. I guess you might have had a lot easier ride if you had not flavoured your reviews from the start with your opinion that the manufacturers were somehow dudding you. The facts of their performance in your charger should be enough information for others to form their own opinion and you can always finish the series off with a conclusion where you explain what you think of the filthy capitalist manufacturers. Be a lot more powerful that way too.

Thank you Photohiker, this is an accurate and concise summary of this thread. It is caused by a lack of Critical Thinking.
For those interested in Rational Discourse, check out this site - http://www.criticalthinking.org. Start with the interactive online model of the elements of thought and universal standards, found at the bottom of the "Begin Here" tab.
Then work your way through the articles found, appropriately, under the 'Articles" tab . I discovered that site about 18 months ago, my life will forever be better because of it. When/if you get into it, the most challenging part of the process of improving ones thinking, is recognizing and then confronting ones natural egocentric thinking. I find it fascinating.
Cheers,
Mark

Um? Avoiding the armature of the metaphysical juxtaposition debate of internalised naval gazing lets now look at the performance of the lower capacity AA It is my view that they appear to be more reliable and longer lasting than their bigger brothers as well as cheaper. In all a better all round battery for many applications.

The "classic" in the range is the Sanyo Eneloop batteries. Arguably they are the first rechargeables that you could rely on to have a reasonable amount of charge after a few months. Reading around the web they appear to be the "standard" battery for measuring run times of headlamps. They started off life claiming 1000 recharge cycles and 2000 mAH. They now claim 1500 recharge cycles with longer storage life for holding charge and dropped to 1900 mAH. This on paper puts them at disadvantage to the higher capacity claimed by Duracell and Energiser but their reliability and long term storage life means that in the real world they are a better battery, at least in my not so humble opinion.

Here are the so called type 2000 versions

Battery type Number Date Capacity mAH Percentage of highest Percentage of lowest Rank
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 12 15/08/2011 1,981 100% 108% 1
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 16 15/08/2011 1,975 100% 108% 2
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 19 08/10/2011 1,970 99% 108% 3
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 1 15/08/2011 1,963 99% 107% 4
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 2 15/08/2011 1,962 99% 107% 5
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 8 15/08/2011 1,948 98% 106% 6
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 13 15/08/2011 1,948 98% 106% 6
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 4 15/08/2011 1,947 98% 106% 8
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 17 15/08/2011 1,934 98% 106% 9
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 11 15/08/2011 1,930 97% 105% 10
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 18 05/10/2011 1,929 97% 105% 11
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 5 15/08/2011 1,923 97% 105% 12
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 15 15/08/2011 1,919 97% 105% 13
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 3 15/08/2011 1,910 96% 104% 14
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 7 15/08/2011 1,910 96% 104% 14
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 10 15/08/2011 1,904 96% 104% 16
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 14 15/08/2011 1,884 95% 103% 17
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 9 15/08/2011 1,876 95% 102% 18
Sanyo 2000 (AA) mAH 6 15/08/2011 1,832 92% 100% 19

As demonstrated, none made the claimed (suggested?) 2000 mAh rating but given their varying ages and usage the spread of mAH is extremely good with only one falling outside the "acceptable" 5% tolerance. This means your multi-battery device is less likely to be brought undone by a poor cell. I personally never have had one lose charge in short term storage. Given my tendency to call a spade a shovel I like them but again bring attention to marketing puffery on claimed capacity.

Now lets look at the newer version with a claimed 1900 mAH life.

Battery type Number Date Capacity mAH Percentage of highest Percentage of lowest Rank
Sanyo 1900 (AA) mAH 1 20/09/2011 1,955 100% 100% 2
Sanyo 1900 (AA) mAH 2 20/09/2011 1,960 100% 100% 1

Yeap there are only two as I have not got around to breaking out the rather dramatically styled special edition packs that I have. Their "improved" capacity is probably more a function that they are newer than their older brothers. Congratulations again to Sanyo for biting the bullet and labelling them 1900 mAH. Just wish that the type 2000 hogwash would die a natural death.

Time to look at the competitor, Varta batteries. This is a German company but most of the batteries I have seen from them are made in China. They do what they claimed the highest AAA primary battery and that is made in Germany. Reasonable chance if you were a merchant seaman you might have been sunk by a torpedo powered by a Varta battery. Sadly it appears that Varta is now becoming a marketing brand with the operating divisions been liquidated in 2006. A case probably once again where a technically driven company name simply becomes a marketing label to be stuck on anything that a marketing "guru" decides will bring in the highest cash. Anyway back to the batteries at hand.

Battery type Number Date Capacity mAH Percentage of highest Percentage of lowest Rank
Varta (AA) 2100 mAH 4 14/09/2011 1,843 93% 100% 6
Varta (AA) 2100 mAH 3 14/09/2011 1,884 95% 102% 5
Varta (AA) 2100 mAH 6 14/09/2011 1,951 99% 106% 4
Varta (AA) 2100 mAH 5 14/09/2011 1,955 99% 106% 3
Varta (AA) 2100 mAH 2 06/08/2011 1,963 99% 107% 2
Varta (AA) 2100 mAH 1 06/08/2011 1,973 100% 107% 1

Yet again the claimed 2100 mAH is not obtained by any cell with a noticeable variation in the capacity for the small sample size. These are reasonably new batteries (much younger than the Sanyo Eneloops). Given that they are flogged for around the same price as Sanyo Eneloops they offer no great value for money.

So that brings to an end the AA that I have in my collection. A few things have come out.

1. "Brand name" batteries made in China are rather overstated and highly variable in capacity.
2. Duracell fails to measure up to marketing hype and I am curious why as they are claimed to be made in Japan so suggests maybe made in the same factory as Sanyo but I have nothing to say one way or other on this.
3. Energisers fair better but as still over inflated in claimed capacity.
4. Sanyo Eneloop name is the most "trust worthy" in capacity and reliability.
5. Sanyo non Eneloop batteries are better than their competition but still have over inflated claims.
6. I have strong doubt over any AA NiMh battery that claims more than 2500 mAH, but happy to test them, but will not buy them to do, as I expect I will be disappointed and not prepared to be "ripped off" yet again by marketing puffery.

Now the above is what I have found. For those that disagree please post your test results Or failing that numerous links to manufacturer sites

Cheers

Thanks Ent.

My takehome would be that if I wanted the best hi capacity rechargeable AA battery from your tested samples (do you really have over 70 rechargeables?) then I should buy some 2700 mAH Sanyo non Eneloop batteries. Perhaps if they are cheaper, I could opt for the Eneloop 2500's for a small decrease in capacity.

If I were a user of rechargeable batteries, my interest would be in how much power a set of cells will give me. Assuming your tester tells us that, who cares what the label on the battery says? Isn't the advantage of the tester to remove the marketing and fancy packaging leaving us with just the actual merits of the product?

Missing is relative pricing. I'm assuming that weight is pretty close between all cells.

On the basis of your results, I reckon you should test cells claiming above 2500, but only from known good brands. Maybe Sanyo can make a 3000 that will give us 2700 in real life?

Personally I have found it much more useful to use the low self discharge batteries as they keep a useful level of charge for much longer. I expect (after reading various sources) that the high self discharge batteries would drop enough charge over a week to bring them inline with charge level of the low self discharge batteries. Further time between charging would make them less energy efficient. It means that I do not have to recharge the batteries just before a trip even if they have not been used for a while. For weekend trips I only charge the AAA's in my Garmin when the battery charge display drops to 2 or 3 bars as I only use the gps occasionally. For longer trips or in new areas I do put in a freshly charged set.

The only time I use the high self discharge versions are in cordless phones which are connected to a charger when not in use.

photohiker wrote:Thanks Ent.

My takehome would be that if I wanted the best hi capacity rechargeable AA battery from your tested samples (do you really have over 70 rechargeables?) then I should buy some 2700 mAH Sanyo non Eneloop batteries. Perhaps if they are cheaper, I could opt for the Eneloop 2500's for a small decrease in capacity.

If I were a user of rechargeable batteries, my interest would be in how much power a set of cells will give me. Assuming your tester tells us that, who cares what the label on the battery says? Isn't the advantage of the tester to remove the marketing and fancy packaging leaving us with just the actual merits of the product?

Missing is relative pricing. I'm assuming that weight is pretty close between all cells.

On the basis of your results, I reckon you should test cells claiming above 2500, but only from known good brands. Maybe Sanyo can make a 3000 that will give us 2700 in real life?

Actually more that seventy as I have the AAA as well and a few packets of AA Sanyo Eneloops that I have not commissioned yet. Yeap, Uncle Ent is the place to visit at Christmas time Large part of the reason was the poor reliability of cells that can take down a complete set in real life use. Without the ability to test actual capacity they show up ok on voltage test but fail quickly afterwards under real load but without load show healthy again. At least now I can find the suspect cells and use them for close at home purposes such as in mouses and keyboards.

As for price, the question is what price? Recommended retail does not have much meaning with Duracells ranging from $26.50 to $19.99 (packs of four) depending on specials at Coles or Woolworths. However, Sanyo 2700 are the most expensive at around thirty plus for a four cell set. You do, or did, get a neat plastic storage box thrown in which is handy. Basically you pay what people are prepared to charge with camera shops being the dearest, and some could argue selling the less well known brands.

The biggest issue with rechargeables is the extremely poor chargers that most come with. UniRoss used to sell a 15 minute charger that I not sure if that was how long it took to charge a battery or kill it. It quickly destroyed nearly all my UniRoss batteries.

Testing is immediate capacity not long term capacity. It is great having 2700 mAH capacity day one but not so impressive if that drops to 1900 mAH on day seven. The 1900 mAH Eneloops are in reality the only battery that can replace a normal AA for low draw or infrequently used items.

Actually worthwhile having a basic understanding of maximum capacity of a battery chemistry. Alkalines according to Energiser's web site run at around 2900 mAH while lithium batteries come in at 3100 mAH. Lithium batteries have long storage life, high peak power capacity and lighter weight but in this country we are price gouged badly on them. In the USA they make good sense to use. NiMh fair better on peak power draw and temperature extremes so are worthwhile if not mandatory in some devices. As mentioned my Garmin 62S just complains too much for me to use alkaline batteries. For most other devices alkaline batteries probably offer the best price / reliability trade-off unless you are a heavy user of batteries and can afford a decent charger.

As for claims. Sorry, but in this day and age there is no excuse for shonky specifications and inflated claims. I think most would see the advertisement where a single AA powers a city as marketing hype but more than a few would get caught out in the "three" time claim for lithium batteries.

Yes with the tester I now can sift through the chaff but still means when I buy more cells that I am not familiar with I could be paying for a stated capacity that just does not exist and be better off with a lower capacity battery with long storage life. That is were I ask for honesty from manufacturers. Sadly too many marketers fail to understand honesty using "tricks" to oversell their products. The wonderful thing with the internet is people can identify such practices providing site and forums allow a name and shame approach. I much prefer technically orientated companies that research and improve technology rather than ones that on sell using an old familiar name. Worthwhile comparing manufacturer website with Duracell versus Energiser being a good example.

Cheers

PS, A guide for getting the longest life from rechargeables is staying at 10% stated capacity in amps for charging and discharging. Say a twenty-four hour charge/discharge cycle. This means to "test" a 1500 life-cycle claim you would need over four years. This does give a lot of wriggle room to the unscrupulous and this could disadvantage an honest technologically superior company's sales.

Ent wrote:The biggest issue with rechargeables is the extremely poor chargers that most come with.

Exactly why I bought one of these - http://www.mahaenergy.com/store/viewIte ... roduct=423
A very affordable charger considering what it can do. Each battery is monitored and charged / discharged individually, and you can recondition and test the capacity of batteries.

When I go on a walk I always recharge my batteries, and if I have any doubt about their capacity, I will give them a cycle to check they're doing something close to spec.
But I don't rely on battery power for walks, so it wouldn't be a catastrophe if they all died. Tow head torches with 3 x AA in each, and one set of batteries lasted a 2 week walk. Also two AA batteries in the GPS, so if I was desperate for some nav aid I can pull batteries from a head torch.

Hi Tasadam

Excellent piece of kit and I agree well worth the price. I have it and its older simpler brother that can do eight cells up to size D. Curious how do your "you beaut" high capacity batteries test out in actual capacity?

It is a challenge to get all kit to run on one type of battery. I used to use the Princeton-tec Corona as it was AA as is my Gamin 62S for the same reasons. Now using a Zebralight but a single AA is rather low capacity so waiting on a twin AA Spark to see how that goes. I tried AA chargers to USB with varying success and failure. The best is a cheap four cell AA USB one from Jaycar but still not ideal as it will drain a device unless the batteries in it are up to charge.

Cheers

great thread.

i bought an energizer set of 4 with charger. they were pretty good, but i was given a set of duracells and they seem to last longer for me. i can get 600 photos from one charge from the duracells, and only 400 or so with the Energisers. the energisers dont seem to 'hold' a charge either. this i found out when changing batteries in the middle of a shoot. both types are 2000 mah versions.

I just finished a cycle of 3 x charge / discharge on an Eneloop 2000mAh AA battery that would be a good couple of years old, it reports a capacity of 1887mAh. I figure that's quite acceptable.
Can't put my hands on any of the Imedion ones at the moment.

Hi Tasadam

Given that an Eneloop capacity is nearer 1900 than "type 2000" the result is excellent. There is a very strong argument that the Sanyo Eneloop is the best all-round AA rechargeable cell. Not one has let me down which more than I can say for many other brands and capacities. Basically, you are losing 1/3 capacity of a quality alkaline or lithium battery so not a bad trade-off especially given that alkalines do not enjoy cold weather as much.

Be very interested how the high capacity batteries test out.

Cheers

Time to follow up. Interesting to note that in the local Woolworths Duracells have been dropped from their range, a very good thing IMHO. Also Energizers are rated at 2300 mAH. It appears that I was not the only one critical of the over claims made on battery ratings.

Nice to see honesty rather than spin is taking root. No more 2650 mAH Duracell extravagant claims from the marketing spin doctors.