A local discount store sells Panasonic zinc carbon dirt cheap. What is the real difference between these and Energizer or Duracell (which are both alkaline, right?).
What makes me ask is that I just bought a Coleman lantern that takes 8 D’s for use during power outages, and I want to know of the cheap batteries are good enough. And either way, the plan is to keep the batteries in a bag or something duck taped to the lantern. I have had too many batteries leak and mess up flashlights in the past.
I read some sites that said alkaline tends to leak more often, and others saying alkaline doesn’t really leak (and I know for a fact that is not true) and that zinc carbon tends to leak more. Others say zinc carbon doesn’t really leak.
So, whats the straight dope. Is one better, or is a battery just a battery?
carbon-zinc (“Dry cells”) have longer shelf life, but higher internal resistance so they can’t deliver as much current as alkalines. Dry cells also consume their cases as normal operation, so they’re a lot more likely to leak as they are used up. dry cells shouldn’t leak if they’re sitting there unused.
Nope. “Standard” or “Heavy Duty” batts are substandard these days. Their shelf life is ony a few months and their capacity is low compared to alkaline. Alkaline shelf life is measured in years and can handle a sustained drain better.
My advice is to never use anything less than alkalines. Most people I know who buy heavy-duty models put them in the closet, and 6 months later when they want to use them, there’s no juice left.
Consumer’s Union claims there is no difference between brands (or non-brands) of alkalines, and that has been my experience. So you can buy in bulk and get generics.
It does go into load vs run time like under certain conditions a ZC D cell will last 1.5 hrs and a Alkaline D would last 30, at another load the ZC D will last 40 and the Alkaline would last 300 hrs.
So you are talking about a 10x run factor difference, so unless the ZC batteries are 1/10 the cost I think it’s good to pass them up.
Because I’ve had a lot of off-brand batteries that were really bad (both alkalines and various types of rechargeables). The major brands all seem alike to me.
My reference to CU goes back many years, so may not be current. However, I use a ton of AA alkalines now (for microphones and other portable audio/video equipment) and I haven’t noticed a drastic difference between brands. I usually buy them in bulk at whatever discounts I can find, as they are often heavily discounted, and since their shelf life is good, I don’t need to worry much about them going bad.
My husband would dispute that. He’s certain that Kirkland (Costco house brand) alkalines don’t hold up as well as Energizer/Duracell/Rayovac (we normally wind up buying Rayovac for lower price and comparable performance to the other two). The ones you can get at Fry’s in bricks seem good, but we no longer live within a reasonable convenient distance from a Fry’s.
You could be right; you could be wrong. Unfortunately, I don’t have the resources of CU to do a fair test. However, it occurs to me that there are many factors that could influence either of our perceptions of battery longevity or power:
[ul][]The batteries your husband bought (Kirkland) might be poorer quality, or they might have been on the shelf way too long, or your husband’s perception might be colored by other biases such as a preference for name brands[]The tests CU ran might not have included ALL brands, but an unrepresentative sample[]Battery manufacture may have changed, deliberately or not, since the CU tests were ran[]My own observations were not carefully timed and the loads not carefully analyzed[]Sample to sample variations may have altered tests or perceptions independent of brands[]Maybe not all generic or house brands are the same and claiming they are is an unwarranted generalization[*]etc., etc…[/ul]
I have used them many years ago. What I have noticed is while they may not run as long as name brand they were close, and price wise much better. Some of this would depend on the load. In a Garmin 111+ GPS which times battery usage the name brands would give 19+ hrs of power, Kirkland would give 17-18 hrs+ pretty consistently. Considering they were typically 1/2 the price the Kirkland were a bargin. Perhaps that has changed over the years.
Another difference is in how the voltage declines with use. The voltage of a carbon-zinc cell will decline in almost a straight line to zero until the cell is discharged, while that of an alkaline cell will be much flatter until it is near the end, at which point it will decline rapidly. So, for example, a conventional flashlight powered by carbon-zinc cells would be noticeably dimmer after only a little bit of use, but with alkaline cells it would maintain its brightness until the cells were nearly dead.
In a study done many years ago it was determined that alkalines were generally noticeably superior to carbon-zinc in shelf life and load capacity over time , however *within * alkaline and CZ battery classes the most important factor outweighing all others by far was how fresh the batteries were.
In this context Radio Shack batteries beat all others as they tend to cycle off the peg very quickly and because they did not have huge inventories in the store fresh units were ordered and delivered regularly. The bottom line is if you are going to buy batteries it’s best to buy where they sell a ton of them and have moderate inventories that get replenished regularly.
