Radio Shack Leads the Pack! Warning: Unbelievable !

[MrAl]

Hell again,


I have been doing some lengthly tests over the years with some
batteries, mostly alkalines. I've tested three brands:

Rayovac
Energizer
RS Enercell

These were tested in a low drain application to see how long they would
last, and the same application was used for each brand, exactly the
same product.

The amazing results were:

Code: Select all

Rayovac     3 months
Energizer   4 months
RS Enercell 9 months

To my amazement the Radio Shack cells beat the pack by a long
shot.

Funny too, because i picked up the Enercell batteries on a whim
when i bought something else and wanted to try it out in the
parking lot before i drove back home, just in case i had to bring
it back.

I've also tested their NiCds and found them to be very good (the
sub C size that cost about 10 dollars for two cells). They were
actually rated higher than they were stamped.

To contrast, i didnt like their NiMH cells at all and found them to
be extremely under rated (significantly lower than stamped).
I dont buy them anymore for that reason.

[rolerbe]

These results are simply incredible.

Not the RS I know (and "love"). They must really be slipping!

[Janitor Tzap]

Interesting........

Some of the local TV stations did some similar research on Alkaline Batteries.
But they included Duracell, and several other brands.

12/08/2006
#1 Duracell
#2 Sony
#3 Energizer
#4 Rayovac
#5 Radio Shack
#6 Panasonic
#7 Kodac
#8 Home Value

Duracell topped the list for lasting the longest.
But it was also the most expensive.
Except for Energizer batteries, the price range of the other batteries were
nearly the same.

Thou....
I've gotten 4 packs of AA Panasonic Alkaline Batteries for a buck at the Dollar Store.


Signed: Janitor tzap

[Robert Reed]

When it comes down to MrAl or some jackass TV test, my vote goes to MrAl. However I have had mixed results with different brands life. Of the ones that have had incredible lifespan (and I am looking at these from two perspectives- 1)Shelf life and 2) the amount of power consumed) , they don't seem to be consistent with brand name. Could this be due to a changing Manu's prodution process or maybe they had been shelved far longer than noted before I purchased them. On the whole I would say Duracell and Panasonic gave me good service.

[Janitor Tzap]

Yeah Robert, I hear you.

That test I showed that was done in 2006.
The battery manufacturers are constantly making changes to they're product.
So even thou MrAl's test was done in the last year.
The results may be far different in the next test that is done.

I remember reading a report from Consumer Reports on Alkaline Batteries,
some years back.
It basically said that with the exception of Duracell Alkaline Batteries.
Most Alkaline Batteries performed the same.

I'll see if I can't find that article.


Signed: Janitor Tzap

[Janitor Tzap]

Ok,
I found this video from Consumer Reports.
It from November 2007.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/reso ... eries.html


Signed: Janitor Tzap

[Bigglez]

I found this video from Consumer Reports.

They rigged the cells with two wires at each end
(Kelvin connection) using aligator clips.

Looks like the previous test(s) melted some of those
rubber boots...

Spoiler Alert! (I watched the video, so you don't have to):
e-squared from energizer at $2.29 per cell for heavy loads (camera flash).
Kirkland from Costco at $0.29 per cell (in box of 48) for light loads
(TV remotes and toys).

"Most alkaline batteries gave us very good performance".

QED

[haklesup]

Not too suprizing really. RS has always sold itself as the place to get any kind of battery. I recall ad campains aimed at just that. Stands to reason they have a good relationship with a manufacturer and did some testing somewhere along the way.

Also not suprized that Rayovac is worst as these are usually the lowest priced just above Ultralast and store brands.

Energizer, Duracell etc make several (at least) lines of alkaline batteries with different performance. For any comparison to be meaningful, you would also need to note the exact product name. I'll assume the main product lines were used (as opposed to Photo/digital or industrial/OEM types)

[MrAl]

Hi again,


I have to say that like Robert i have to believe this test over any
others i see because i did it myself so and i know that everything
was done the same for each battery brand and i have no reason
to use any gimmicks or tricks because i have no bias toward
any manufacturer and no point to push other than what the
test results show. I also recognize that the cells are not priced
all the same, in that the Radio Shacks were the highest priced,
Energizer next, and Rayovac the cheapest. This is mostly because
i get almost all of my batteries on sale but when i bought the
Radio Shacks it was a different case and i ended up paying the
full retail price.

As haklesup pointed out to make the test a bit more concise i should
have given a little more information about the brands and the time
span. To this end i'll submit the following additional information:

The cells were AAA type, not AA, and the application was a wireless
digital thermometer.
My earliest record of a battery change was on 02/26/2006, and that
was after 4 months after the new Energizers that i bought new with the
meter went dead, so that means the test started near the end of
October 2005, so i'll estimate 10/26/2005 as the start of the test.
This means the test ran from 10/26/2005 to 12/02/2008, but it is
still ongoing as i will test other brands also.
Also, several sets of the Energizers and the Rayovacs were tested
over this time, but only one set of Radio Shack Enercells, and the
Enercells were bought fairly recently, within the last year,
because i got them with a new battery operated alarm clock that
i purchased back in February 2008. I only used two of the four
purchased because i tested the new alarm clock and found that
two of the batteries run the audio and two run the clock, and the
clock didnt take much power so i used two older cells for that
and kept the two new Enercells for use for something else.
Temperature swing is about 70 to 85 degrees approximately.

This test ended up being very well documented because when
the batteries first went dead i thought that was kinda fast for
presumably good cells to go dead, so i started recording every
date that i changed the cells starting at that time. I didnt expect
to see that much difference in run time between brands so
i was surprised when i saw even the smaller difference between
Rayovacs and Energizers. I had not even thought about it that
much in the last 9 months until i saw that the thing stopped
working again and opening up i remembered the Enercells,
then after looking at my records i saw that it was 9 months
ago, and i am sure there were no changes in between because
when i do a cell change i write down the name of the cells
as well as the date, and those were the only two Enercells
i had in my possession.

BTW these tests are for the receiver. The transmitter uses less
power as it only transmits about once every minute.

My other experiences include:
Rayovacs leak the most.
Rayovacs rechargeable alkalines were very good for their time
because other cells (mainly NiCds) did not hold much charge at
all.
I havent seen much of a change between the old Rayovacs and
the new Rayovacs. They still leak the same and the new ones
dont have any more power than the old ones. As far as i can
see, they simply changed the label.
The older Radio Shack NiCd cells were not very good (yellow
case). The new ones (silver gold) are very good. I never
tried their 'higher power' NiCds, which i think were blue colored.

I did a careful test of Kodac LSD (low self discharge) NiMH cells
and found them to work pretty much as advertised. They lost
very little charge over a 6 month test period. This was when
they were brand new, and i dont have any data yet for after
they are used for several cycles because i simply havent had
them that long yet. I hope to do another test after they are
a couple years old and in service for all that time.


I'll try to pick up a pack of Duracells as soon as possible and
start testing that brand too.

[Dean Huster]

Chemical leakage is another important test for the various manufacturers, although that's a tough one to conjure up without having to wait decades in some cases. I make the point because I had some Kodak brand "D" alkalines installed in a Maglite. After a few months, the flashlight wasn't working (so much for shelf life or self-discharge of the batteries) and they nearly ruined the aluminum flashlight because of chemical leakage. "Fool me once ...", so needless to say, I never bought that brand again regardless of the price!

Over the years, I've always preferred Energizers over Duracells because it seemed to me that they lasted longer in use and just with shelf life. Of course, that's strictly subjective observation and has nothing to do with objective testing. Energizers used to be Eveready batteries (I think the Eveready tradename has been hijacked by the Chinese for batteries sold prominently at the dollar stores) and Duracells used to be a Mallory product. Don't know why the brands spun off as they did.

Dean