OT: AA Lithium Battery Tests

[Bill (Smithville, NJ)]

Would like to ask an off topic question about AA Lithium batteries.

This morning, I caught a story on the news that Consumer Reports had tested AA batteries, including the Everyready "Advanced" and "Ultimate" AA batteries. They stated that the testing showed the Advanced did 809 photos and the Ultimate only did 470 photos.

This is exactly reveresed from what I would expect. Everyready claims the Ultimate is about twice as powerful as the Advanced.

Did the News Reporter get the two batterys backwrds, or do the Advanced really out perform the Ultimate.

Unfortnuately, I do not have a subcription to CR, so I can't read the original article.

I'd appreciate if anyone here who subscribes could verify the results.

(The reason I bring this up here is I know some of us use these batteries in the HP-200LX)

Thanks

Bill

Edited: 29 Nov 2011, 11:29 a.m.

[Katie Wasserman]

I use scores of both of them (they are in almost all my calculators, flashlights, low-end digital camera, etc.) and find very little difference between them in just about every application. I've even done side-by-side lifetime tests with high current draw and found them to be almost identical. It's possible that the Ultimate have a longer shelf life, the expiration dates indicate this. But they haven't been around long enough for me know if this is true or not.

I buy them on TAS when I can get them cheaply and don't really care if they are the Ultimate or the Advanced.

[Bill (Smithville, NJ)]

Hi Katie,

Your results are about what I had also found. I usually buy either one depending on what the current sale is. Not too long ago, our local food store had the ultimates on sale for about 1/3 price, so I stocked up.

I find it hard to believe that Everyread has found a way to double the Lithium capacity in the same size package. Which is what they claim - Advanced are 4X the Everyready Max batteries and the Ultimate are 8X.

As reported by the TV reporter, the Consumer Reports tests (and we can argue forever on what constitutes a valid test) indicated that the reverse is true. I was hoping someone could verify this with the actual Consumer Reports article or whether the reporter had the story wrong.

I guess I could visit my Library this weekend and see if they have the December issure of CR.

Thanks,

Bill

[Frank Boehm (Germany)]

I think camera usage needs a battery that can supply a lot of peak current. Regular usage mostly has less peaks and depletes the battery slower and better.

So depending on the camera or gadget, one battery might be superior or inferior, even when claiming the same capacity.

That's probably the reason, why there are two types of Eneloop (IMHO the best rechargable battery on the market), one with less charging cycles but stronger peak current, for camera usage.

[Dave Shaffer (Arizona)]

I finally found my December copy of Consumer Reports (buried under all the other stuff on my desk) and can verify that the story as quoted by Bill accurately reported the CR findings.

Their table of results shows that the Energizer "Advanced" provided 809 camera shots, compared to the Energizer "Ultimate" at 470 shots. Alkalines ranged from 260 shots (Duracell Ultra Advanced) to 133 shots (Walgreens Supercell), with most of the others giving around 200 shots.

Their test: "We load batteries into identical digital cameras, then mimic everyday camera use (zoom, flash, shoot) until each camera quits."

They also say "use lithiums in high-drain devices such as cameras and alkalines in low-drain devices such as remote controls"

Depends on how hard you use your calc!?!?!

[Jim Yohe]

Specifically this article I bet:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/december/electronics-computers/batteries/overview/index.htm