Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 84

Thread: Battery Test Data, Contributed by one of our Members

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Battery Test Data, Contributed by one of our Members

    HEARING AID BATTERY TEST
    Comparison of milliampere hours (mAh) life in eight different brands of batteries.
    All batteries tested were size 312. End of life for tests was 1.0 volts. Battery load was 820 ohms giving a current drain of a nominal 1.5 mA. Batteries tested had “Use By” dates ranging from 3/2010 to 10/2012. Current decrease during test life was compensated for in calculations. Tests were conducted at 70°F ±2°. .
    Batteries tested were as follows:
    Power One 8/11-5328 and 10/11-3428
    iCell Tech 8/11 10A8 2011 and 06 A4 2011
    Rayovac Extra Advanced Jun 2012 IPTPA 22:13
    Rayovac OCT 2012 HP2PA 13:29
    Renata maratone 03-2011 2000391/AO1
    Renata 04-2011 5310253/A05
    Panasonic 08-11 PR-312HEP/6C
    Toshiba 06/2012 0 43297 02666 7
    Energizer 10/2011
    Duracell MAR 2012 8G15J2
    Duracell 09-2012 8228
    Test batteries were purchased at Wal-Mart, Localbattery, and Microbattery.

    TEST DATA SUMMARY
    Power One 8/11-5328 158 mAh
    PowerOne 10/11-3428 144 mAh
    iCellTech 10A8 2011 141 mAh
    iCellTech 06 A4 2011 146 mAh
    Rayovac Extra Adv.PPTPA22:13 134 mAh
    Rayovac Oct 2012 HP2PA 13:29 170 mAh
    Renata maratone 03-2011 5310253A05 <20mAh for each of two samples from lot
    Renata 4/11 lot 85618-41299 131 mAh
    Panasonic 08-11 PR-312HEP/6C 151 mAh
    Panasonic 08-11 PR-312HEP6C 149 mAh 2nd sample
    Toshiba 06/2012 0 43297 02666 7 137 mAh
    Toshiba, 2nd sample same lot 129 mAh
    Energizer 10/2011 149 mAh
    Energizer 2nd sample same lot 132 mAh
    Duracell MAR 2012 8G1512 149 mAh
    Duracell 09-2012 8228 138 mAh

    Test discharge times ranged from 85 to 111 hours.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    TX, United States
    Posts
    625

    Default

    Rayovac Oct 2012 HP2PA 13:29 170 mAh
    So...are you saying Rayovac came out on top?
    ljjehl

    Current hearing aids: Phonak Naida V UP
    Current ALS: Smartlink SX transmitter, Phonak ML10i receiver, Clearsounds Quattro Neckloop

    Current Audiogram
    Hidden Content

    Hidden Content

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ljjehl
    So...are you saying Rayovac came out on top?
    that is not a surprise

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xbulder
    that is not a surprise
    However a complete analysis would be to include the cost at street price and getting a cost per milliamp hour.

    If changing the batteries is a hassle for you though, you'd want ones that last longest.

  5. Default

    I'd say Rayovac came out high and low with 170 and 134 mAH, so you'd probably get variable results depending on the batch. What impresses me more is the general similarity across brands making price a more important factor. Good news to me since I had just ordered a year's supply (150) of iCellTech size 10 from Localbattery.com at a cost of 27 cents each, tax-included, using the save10percent discount code posted on this site. With free shipping and the test results in this string, I'd recommend a quick click on the "Hearing Aid Batteries" ad at the top right of the screen, order a zillion of whatever is cheapest, forget the hassle of trying to prolong battery life by replacing tabs or whatever else doesn't do much, and support our forum sponsor, localbattery.
    Davidb 250-500 20, 1k 30, 2k 40,
    4k 50, 8k 60-80

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Davidb
    I'd say Rayovac came out high and low with 170 and 134 mAH, so you'd probably get variable results depending on the batch. What impresses me more is the general similarity across brands making price a more important factor. Good news to me since I had just ordered a year's supply (150) of iCellTech size 10 from Localbattery.com at a cost of 27 cents each, tax-included, using the save10percent discount code posted on this site. With free shipping and the test results in this string, I'd recommend a quick click on the "Hearing Aid Batteries" ad at the top right of the screen, order a zillion of whatever is cheapest, forget the hassle of trying to prolong battery life by replacing tabs or whatever else doesn't do much, and support our forum sponsor, localbattery.
    Thanks for the hint! Being new, I'm just getting oriented.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    4

    Post Another Hearing Aid Battery Life Study

    This is my first post on this forum; I hope you find it useful.

    I recently ran a real life study of hearing aid battery life. I've put the results on my company's website blog, Blamey & Saunders Hearing. It can be found on Google.

    For the record, Rayovac came out the winner, particularly for the bigger size 312 and size 13 batteries.
    Last edited by DrDanielTaft; 12-28-2011 at 12:29 AM. Reason: URL was changed

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    854

    Default

    I would have to say that your tests are flawed. You rate the Mercury Free batteries as the best ... yet they do not supply full power for hearing aids that are full featured and require such. In my Phonak YES IX's, the Rayovac Mercury Free batteries (312's) resulted in noise similar to interference ... or a low battery state, right from the get-go. And that was before powering on the iCom. The noise was like static. Fresh, new Rayovac Mercury Free is what I used ... and when I switched to Power One batteries the aids worked beautifully. In fact, I had even sent the aids in for repair and couldn't understand why Phonak did nothing to them as they were the same on return. I was getting a bit pissed off at Phonak when the blame lay in the Rayovac batteries. Rayovac's regualr Zinc air batteries do work just fine in the aids, though I do find the Power Ones lasting longer overall.

    I suggest that you take your tests back to the drawing board and try again.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Wow, flamed on my first forum post! Back to the drawing board is a bit harsh.

    To be fair, the study didn't actually say Mercury-Free was the better than standard. It was a brand comparison, and the test says that Rayovac was the best. The fact that the Rayovacs were Mercury Free (and the other brands were not) is simply a bonus. The regular Rayovac zinc-airs might be even better!

    Does anyone know when/if Mercury containing batteries will be phased out?
    Last edited by DrDanielTaft; 09-13-2010 at 02:53 AM. Reason: Clarified.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDanielTaft View Post
    Wow, flamed on my first forum post! Back to the drawing board is a bit harsh.

    To be fair, the study didn't actually say Mercury-Free was the better than standard. It was a brand comparison, and the test says that Rayovac was the best. The fact that the Rayovacs were Mercury Free (and the other brands were not) is simply a bonus. The regular Rayovac zinc-airs might be even better!

    Does anyone know when/if Mercury containing batteries will be phased out?
    Wait a minute now .. that wasn't a "flame" But the test does have to go back to the drawing board. There was an article about the Mercury free batteries not putting out the same power as regular Zinc air and having an adverse affect on todays more powerful aids. I can verify that the article is correct. That's why I say back to the drawing board. You need to include some power-aids in the testing.

    On your web site though, it does state that Mercury free came out on top. That cannot be true as they cannot do the more powerful aids.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •