Talk:Rechargeable alkaline battery

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Recycling?

Information needed about recycling and disposal practices around the world. -69.87.193.60 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC) http://www.rictron.com/en/showProduct.aspx?bid=7&tid=7&id=22 RC998-Alkaline Battery Recharger:[reply]

Types of batteries supported:

Alkaline (previously non-rechargeable) RAM (rechargeable Alkaline Manganese) Ni-CAD (Nickel Cadmium) Ni-MH (Nickel Metal Hydride)

Charecteristic:

RC998 is a friendly charger Able to charge a lot of times so called “non-rechargeable batteries” because they are usually damaged by heat from classical chargers: alkaline and saline batteries.

RC998 is an intelligent charger incorporating a “real-time detector chip” enabling it to adapt to different kinds of alkaline and saline batteries as well as rechargeable cells (NiCad, Ni-MH).When the batteries are full, RC998 stops its charging and blinks.

With RC998, fast charging is possible with many types of batteries: Alkaline, Saline (from 1 to 3 hours), NiCad, Ni-MH (from 3 to 12 hours). Charging speed depends on the type and quality of batteries and on storage conditions at home.

http://www.rictron.com/en/showProduct.aspx?bid=7&tid=7&id=22

http://www.rictron.com

Duplicated Articles

Recharging_alkaline_batteries also has most of the same information covered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasonlouie (talk • contribs) 16:11:37, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Voltages with or without a load?

The Renewal battery I charged and then let rest overnight indicates 1.62v no load vs. 1.44v with a 160mA load

The article states 1.42 volts and 1.32v. Are these numbers WITH a load (my battery tester provides 160mA) or straight voltmeter readings (essentially no load) ?

VgerNeedsTheInfo 14:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.battech.co.uk doesn't have rechargable alkaline batteries

I tried finding some rechargable alkaline batteries on the www.battech.co.uk web site, but came up empty. Pure Energy and Juice had rechargable alkaline, but I didn't really find anything else (or look very hard).

At any rate, I'm thinking about taking out the reference to www.battech.co.uk.

Also, this article has a lot of potential (merging with recharging alkaline batteries; recycling information, etc.), but it just needs some merging or re-sectioning or something, in my opinion. Rhetth 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Updates to Be Made

In addition to the minor updates I did today, I also plan on adding a few images, more information generally about the composition of these batteries as well as more information about the development and history of them.

After that, I'll see how well this and the other similar article could somehow be merged into one. Then I will finalize all quotations and sources.

--Andydewar (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like an advertisement for Pure Energy

I visited the article as I have a couple of drained AAA batteries from a Chinese manufacturer and was curious about the "Do not overcharge batteries" statement that's on the battery though I suspect it's not intended to be recharged as it also says "Caution: Do not connect improperly charge or dispose of in fire. Battery may explode or leak." The Recharging alkaline batteries article says that recharging millage may vary and this article reads like a Pure Energy advertisement and also contains quite a few unsourced statements. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to clean the article up. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could use more clarity in the Recharging Issues section.

The bulleted items, I believe, are capable of multiple interpretations and could be clarified. For example:

"Full chargeable capacity is maintained for hundreds of cycles, only after the battery has been less than 25% discharged, at about 1.42V."

Does this mean: Full capacity is not maintained UNTIL the B. has been discharged by at least 25% (to 75%) of capacity. OR that the battery shouldn't be discharged beyond 25% of capacity. OR ?? AND what is the 1.42 V -- the max voltage? (The word "only" has multiple uses and easily can create ambiguity.)

I'm sure many of the possible interpretations can be easily be dismissed by someone familiar with the topic. But as someone with less familiarity, I found the meaning of the 3 bullets puzzling. Could they be clarified by someone who understands the story, please? Thanks EJR (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC) -[reply]

I agree and had the same problem. I tried to reword it for clarity and then had to correct my rewording. It would be nice if someone can cite a source for the information too.

This article should discuss the "Memory" effect

This article should discuss the Memory effect as it pertains to alkaline batteries. Do rechargeable alkaline batteries suffer from the memory effect, and if so, how do they compare to other types of rechargeable batteries? --Nekiko (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read anything (reliable) about memory effect in RAM cells? That would be a starting point. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Memory effect [1](german) --Itu (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to manufacture these anymore

There should be some mention of this and the reasons why.

Encyclopedant (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Pol098 (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No more talk about Maplin "Hybrids," please

I wish I could find a current manufacturer of rechargeable alkalines. Unfortunately, the Maplin Hybrids aren't relevant to this article because they do not have alkaline chemistry; they have NiMH chemistry. They are probably quite similar to NiMH Eneloop batteries, which are also sometimes referred to as "hybrid" batteries. 75.163.173.37 (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Points missing

In what way are these batteries distinct from disposables from a manufacturing and materials viewpoint (i.e., how are they different inside, not how do you use them)? Do they require a special recharger, and do they have non-standard contact arrangements for this putpose? I have the impression that there were some batteries that had extra contacts and required a special charger, but that later batteries can be recharged in any standard NiCd/NiMH charger (http://www.maplin.co.uk/hybrid-compact-battery-charger-219525). The article needs to cover these points. My knowledge of this subject is from casual reading, not study or experience. At a pure reasonable guess, I'd guess that non-rechargeable alkalines can be recharged a few times in a suitable charger delivering very low pulsed current (so as not to produce gases faster than they can dissipate through seals not designed for the purpose), but batteries designed for recharging are basically the same but designed to handle faster gas production. This isn't even Original Research, just an educated guess. Pol098 (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those maplin batteries are low self-discharge NiMH batteries. Those have become the norm nowadays, no shop seems to sell the "regular" NiMH batteries anymore, at least not where I live. maplin's claim "they combine the benefits of alkaline batteries" simply refers to them being sold pre-charged, unlike the older NiMH and NiCd batteries. Ssscienccce (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs some history

Rechargeable alkalines have been around since 1975. They are mentioned in Electronics Hobbyist 1975 Fall/Winter edition in the SuperCharger design article (p.42) for charging device to recharge NiCd's. The Super Charger could also readily recharge zinc-carbon cells but the author, C.R. Lewart, strongly recommended against alakalines for the leakage and high pressure gases. "You may also run across rechargeable alkaline batteries. They are not as popular as NiCad batteries, but are slightly cheaper and have similar characteristics to NiCad batteries. They are not, however, as long-lived."

Hobbyists (R.A.Butterworth) were working on recharging units for zinc cells in 1974 (p. 36) and he noticed that zinc cells were readily recharged. His design is similar to the Radio Shack Archer 10VDC/45mA universal home battery recharger that I used for 40 years till it died last week. (sorry, I couldn't find an advertisement for it yet). Alatari (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

anon content about NiMH deletion

Because of these shortcomings, rechargeable alkaline batteries have in more recent years been superseded by NiMH batteries. Unlike rechargeable alkaline batteries, NiMH batteries can endure anywhere from a few hundred to a thousand (or more) deep discharge cycles, resulting in a long useful life. Capacity of NiMH batteries is close to that of alkaline batteries. And, unlike all alkaline batteries (rechargeable or otherwise), internal resistance is low. This makes them well suited for high draw applications. Self discharge is still higher than alkaline batteries, but low self discharge cells have reduced this to acceptable levels.

The claim that NiMH has superseded is not being supported by Battery University data as it shows 'others' (where rechargeable alkalines fall) keeping pace with NiMH and Lithium batteries far outpacing either. Although the chart doesn't specifically cover the household AAA/AA market and so verifying this claim (WP:Verify) is unlikely. Some sales data is needed to make the claim and the sales reports I've found so far cost $3995 to look at. The capacity statement has supporting evidence [2] But overall making a quality comparison between rechargable alkaline and NiMH and saying that NiMH is quantifiably better is essentially pure WP:OR and must be sourced to an expert on batteries publications. It can't be a driveby anonymous editor's unsourced opinion. Alatari (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This anonymous, unverified addition could sit for months lingering for sources that will never come but readers will likely consider it truth. If you have the sources of sales rechargable alkaline vs NiMH (and you might want to add Li-ion cells) then add the sources instead of letting this linger. If you have a ratings site that compares the various cells and has overall rated NiMH, as a general class, as better batteries, then that can be use here but the sources need to be added before this content can be returned. Alatari (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find the data from this report[3], for free, then I would accept it's findings to source the comparison phrasing of the sentence. Alatari (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its findings? It doesn't even list rechargeable alkalines any more. They are an ex-batttery, they have ceased to be. Whilst I'm sure one or two are still around, none of my country's major dealers (trade or retail) list them any more.

The onus is upon you to show that these batteries are still an article of trade, let alone that they're a significant player compared to NiMH. Very obviously they are not even a visible fraction of that market. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted unsourced material. You are trying to re-add unsourced material. I never made any claim about the alkalines. If you wish to claim they are a dead battery then you have to SOURCE it when making the claim. Your personal opinion is WP:OR. Alatari (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to your point of rechargable alkaline being dead. "Alkaline rechargeables are seeing increasing sales" as of 2016 in Household Batteries: Consumer Market Trends in the U.S. [4]. So their sales have increased. So much for being a non-battery. Alatari (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Though alkaline batteries are the only category projected to experience a downturn when looking ahead to 2020, sales of alkaline rechargeable batteries will hold steady throughout the forecast period." from a reviewer that read the expensive report [5] Alatari (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Show a retail source for them, today. Quick search shows Amazon and eBay: [6] "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock.", [7] "Lloytron B012 AA 1300mAh Rechargeable Alkaline Batteries" - with "NiMH" clearly visible on the packaging. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a British restriction. I can get these from Amazon [8] or these [9] ~~and these by Rayovac with a comparison chart to NiMH at the bottom~~[10]. eBay has a lot of listings for them.

Lithion-polymer rechargables are now on the market[11] and might surpass both eventually. NiMH looks like it is surpassing Alkaline rechargables but this needs a market analysis source written by someone with expertise in the battery field. It's WP:OR if we make the claims. Alatari (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RAYOVAC Recharge - they're NiMH, not alkaline. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't "Battery University" questioned as to its reliability? Is it a good source? No RAM at Wal-Mart.CA, but about a page full of NiMh batteries, suggests the market has turned. We're not proving a theorem here, nor deciding a capital case. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juice seem to be old stock from pre-2014 and are no longer made. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found out about the reliability issue when trying to link Battery University page so I found the packagefacts study. There is a 2017 study for trends but it costs $4k to access. The packagedfacts said a slight increase in sales and expected to hold for to 2020 but future predictions are all opinion. Not claiming that RAM have a bright future, just not dead and a historic obscurity as Andy tried to claim. Alatari (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The $4000 study has its table of contents posted but nowhere uses the expression "rechargeable alkaline manganese" so it's not clear to me it's talking about a zinc-manganese-dioxide rechargeable system. The "Blue Planet" cells on Amazon are horrifically expensive, you can buy name-brand NiMh for much less per cell. I think their time in the sun has faded. I've got a closet full of cheap LSD Ikea NiMhs which allows me to sneer at the racks of AA's at Costco. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juice web page says they are coming out with a new product line for 2017 and it doesn't mention RAM's [12] so looks like Winner (Juice), Pure Energy, Envirocell and Blue Planet are the ones I can buy from the U.S. Maybe the prediction of the market not going to prove out or they are seeing trends in non-English speaking countries to claim a steady sales. ~~Anyway, the section is sourced and it will eventually need lithium comparison.~~ The page isn't stable. Alatari (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my solution is even cheaper than yours. I have the Maximal FC999 [13] and just recharge the regular alkaline batteries my friends/in-laws throw out and recharge them 10 to 30 times. Haven't bought a AAA or AA in 10 years. Alatari (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that last revert was just plain wrong. Incorrect citation template is not a reason to revert and I just posted links to 2 places to buy these batteries above. Did you not read them? Your not finding them at Wal-mart is WP:OR and doesn't outrank sourced market studies. Also, your failure to find them is not evidence as here they are at Wal-mart: Pure Energy [14] and Winner [15] Here some are at Amazon [16], and some at eBay [17]. Alatari (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]