This is an archive of past discussions about List of battery sizes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I believe that the "L" e.g. in "LR6" etc is the chemistry type definition within the IEC standard, and not part of the cell size definition. That is, the IEC size code for an "AA" battery (for example) is "R6" rather than "LR6" - the "L" meaning manganese-alkaline. I do not have a copy of IEC60086 to hand, I hope that somebody who does can confirm or refute this.
Yes, that appears to be the case.
That 60086 standard seems to have evolved though several differently dated ones (and through more than one standards body), the more recent ones requiring that you pay money in order to obtain a copy.
Not having the various versions of that standard to confirm this, it appears that an earlier version of that standard defined a one or two digit number that corresponded to set dimensions. For instance, R44 is an 11.6 mm diameter and 5.4 mm length. A subsequent version of that standard defined a three to four digit number that "correlate with the cell dimensions, being the diameter in millimetres (except for the extra half millimetre in some cases) followed by the height in tenths of a millimetre" making R44 now a R1154. It may be that part one (General) or part two (Physical and electrical specifications) of that standard defines the one to two digit code, and part 3 (Watch batteries) defines the three to four digit code. If that's the case, "SR and LR button cells where the code contains only 2 numeric digits conform to an older international standard" should be amended in the main article accordingly.
The current version of that standard, where it applies to battery names, is summarized in more depth in the Type designation section of the Button Cell article. Because that part of that article applies to more than just Button Cells, it may be appropriate to move that part of that article to this article or make that part of that article its own article. The three to four digit number that correlate with the cell dimensions may only apply to Button Cells.
Does anyone have more information of the source and standard (if there is one) of the AG# (and SG#) designations that appear to be widely used to label and identify those sized (and chemistry) Button Cells? - SKisby 28 March 2009
Typical Thevenin Equivalent(fresh)
This would probably be better as 'approximate output resistance', because the voltage is already in the voltage column. PeterGrecian13:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Primary vs. Secondary Batteries (was: Antiquity)
The article mentions in the notes 6V etc batteries are commonly real batteries with multiple cells. Should we mention how these batteries are usually made? For example, I believe 6V lattern batteries are usually 4 F type cells. 60.234.141.7614:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Would the 6V 2CR5/DL245 battery or the rechargeable EN-EL1 li-ion battery fit anywhere on this list?
Because
a "primary battery" is (intended to refer to only) a battery that contains a single chemical cell,
secondary batteries are single or multiple cells repackaged into a single battery, and as such
secondary batteries come in many sizes and repackages that are to numerous to practically list in any table or include all those sizes in this article,
I suggest that it is better that this article be primary for primary batteries (no pun intended) and that another article focus on secondary batteries (where some more popular secondary batteries types, such as the 2CR5, can be listed there). I say "primary for" as I agree it is appropriate for secondary batteries be be mentioned at appropriate places in this article and also think it useful to list very popular secondary batteries, such as the 9-Volt PP3, in this article as they are "common battery types and sizes in household and light industrial use". That would mean that powerpacks (as used in portable power tools) and notebook computer battery packs, where they internally consist of one or more standard sized cells, would be more appropriately dealt with in that Secondary battery article whereas standard sized bare Li-ion cylindrical cells and Lead Acid batteries where they are a single cell would be more appropriate to deal with in this article.
The 2CR5 article is a good example of a secondary battery where two primary battery cells have been simply repackaged. Rather than merge that article with this one, it may be better to convert that 2CR5 article into an article on secondary batteries and all the issues that go along with that style of battery -- which are numerous in their own right.
Yes, I agree with your main point that it's a good idea to put "single cells" vs "multiple cells repackaged into a single battery" into separate articles.
Was really irked by every battery maker using a different name for the exact same battery, so I decided to clean this up a little.
Summary:
Focused in on the 'common' battery types, all those obscure types (like AAAA or 2/4 C) would be better in a separate table, or even a separate article. It's almost impossible to get any data on those obscure sizes as well.
Someone killed all my pics before I even finished the article. Perhaps telling me why in my talk page would help me not do it again :P
Need to add the IEC/ANSI names and mAh for NiCD, NiMH versions of the common sizes.
Need to re-add some the contents from original article with complete data supplied.
I still haven't found CR927, AG3, or AG4 size batteries which I use all the time. :( (I'm tired and need to go to class) Tiki God18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added tonnes more stuff and polished it up to the point that it's easy to add data too. It's still a little obscure the difference between 'battery size', 'battery type' and 'battery configuration' but that reflects the ambiguity in common usage and language for batteries.
Someone added 'and CMOS settings' to CR2032 battery. It is the most commonly used battery to keep the time current in a computer, and in the past it did keep the CMOS settings, but I think most newer computers use EEPROMs for the settings and the battery is only for the date. In the past I've worked on computers that lose everything when you take the battery out (which is really annoying), and those that only lose thier dates when the battery is removed. Still it was true, and I bet still true for cheaper boards or boards designed to be replaced before the battery wears out (The battery only depletes when the computer is off AND disconnected from all power). The boards that don't lose thier settings typically take a few seconds to 'save' new settings (like flash drives).
Actually, in newer computers, the BIOS data is stored in a permanent flash memory inside the RTC (real time clock) component. It is a rather big black square box usually sitting near the BIOS chip itself and marked with a clock symbol and/or the manufacturer name (ODIN, etc.). Still, I think the entry can stay unchanged.
There used to be this type of battery which is no longer in use. It was a large cylinder with terminals on top, think it was called a Type A. Anyone want to do a short article on that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.204.3 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 16 October 2006
Do you mean the beer-can-sized 1.5V telephone exchange battery, once beloved of school physics departments? I think that was the No. 6.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.144.21 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 November 2006
Actually, I have seen the Type A, it looks like a fatter AA. I saw it in the back of classic Apple Macintosh models such as the Mac Plus, where it kept CMOS settings and the real time clock running. I don't think that there's anywhere to get replacements, but the Mac Plus batteries did say 'A' on them. 74.1.184.25022:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The battery used in the 680x0 Macintoshs are called 1/2 AA. The voltage is 3.6V volts though, and it is a lithium battery. da_baitsnatcha19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Type "A" NiCd cells are still commonly used in the radio control hobby.
There are several other obscure cell types/sizes not yet included in this article, such as the "1/2"x and "2/3"x (where "x" is a common cell type such as A, AA, C, etc.) commonly used in the radio control hobby. I would also like to see, probably as a separate table, a list of obsolete cell/battery types such as RW-25 and Eveready No. 206.
I remember a type "A" battery when I was a kid, about 4 decades ago. It was slightly taller and fatter than an "AA", in the same way that an "AA" is slightly taller and fatter than a "AAA". It was in a home electronics project transistor radio, you know one those deals where you bought resistors, capacitors, coils, variable capacitors, transistors, and soldered them together according to a schematic in a boys' magazine. It had an orange-red color and a glossy-looking paper label; it was Eveready 9 lives, I think. Now that I think of it, I could be wrong, inasmuch as I doubt that 1.5 volts is enough to bias a 2N103 transistor; forgive me, it has been a long time since I have dealt with this sort of thing.
I came to this page because I wanted to make up battery packs and needed help with dimensions. The A cell, or its variants such as solder tab 4/5 A cell, are commonly available cells in electronics stores and I think it would be good if there was a definition of the A cell size and a list of its variants.Msto030 (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Mark
Also, was there ever a "B" cell? Seems likely, given the current sizes and the general acknowledgment above that there was an "A" even if no agreement on size and availability. I'd appreciate a section that discusses or at least mentions historical, obsolete sizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.173.176 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
A batteries are still available. they have the same lenght as AA, but they are fatter. See [1]. I added this size to the "less common batteries" table. --MrBurns (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Manganese debated
I do not think manganese battery equals alkaline battery. Batteries marked as "Alkaline" are truly long-lasting in use, while cells marked as "manganese" are usually marketed as "Heavy Duty", for eaxmple the Panasonic green apple logo batteries (like these: http://www.babyandcompany.co.za/batteries2.html). These are somewhat half-way between carbon-zinc and alkalines. So I think alkaline and manganese single use cells are two distinct category and so the cell tech table in the article is incorrect. 195.70.32.13612:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
If you follow the links to zinc-carbon and alkaline you will see that there is manganese in both of them, but the rest of the chemistry is different. (I will expand the alkaline article a bit) Han-Kwang12:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Battery Categories
This article is making a good attempt to list many battery varieties along with all the common names. It is clearly incomplete, for example there are many more types of button cell than listed here. Because the list would be enormous and unwieldy if/when all types are included I think it would be a good idea to list various battery types separately (eg all button cells together in one list) and introduce further categories for different general uses/types. For example, one category could be "standard" 1.5V types, and include AAAA, AAA, AA, C, D. Other potential categories are listed below, which I have singled out because there are some known (to me) omissions.
Historically there have been all manner of batteries, especially for valve-operated equipment (I believe these fell into three different sub-categories with different voltages for different parts of the circuitry, and some batteries had multiple connections to supply more than one of the different voltages so fitting into multiple sub-categories). I have no more information on these, but it might be a good idea to separately list current and obsolete types, and in the latter case include modern-day alternatives for people searching for suitable batteries for old equipment.
As the list becomes more complete and the entries more obscure, I am sure that not all types will have a "common" name, just some official name. It's probably best not to list them by that common name, especially as the common name is not necessarily universal. I think AA etc are fairly ubiquitous - are these not something more official than just a commonly-used name?
I appreciate I am raising the possibility of including far more batteries with very few specific details; I apologize! I am happy to rearrange the article into the general framework suggested if people think it is a good idea, and then let the experts come and provide the details!
I've just bought a gadget (made in China), which states on the box, that it operates with two "AM 3" batteries. Luckily, there are "AA" marks under the battery cover, but this page has no information about this standard (there are "AM 2" and "AM 1" batteries out there, as I've found them elsewhere). 82.141.167.2312:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
am 1 = D
am 2 = C
am 3 = AA
am 4 = AAA
am 5 = N
These seem to be alternate names used by Asian countries for these common types. Several articles seem to suggest the "am" stands for "American" (probably ANSI).
In addition to PP3 there were various other PPx batteries, most of which were, I believe, primarily used as radio batteries. PP7 and PP9 were definitely 9V radio batteries, and are still available (albeit, rare). Google suggests other PPx batteries existed and that the PP8 was 6V, but I cannot vouch for this.
I remember in England in the 1960s, there were several different sizes of larger 9 volt batteries. A common one was about 2 1/2" x 2 1/2" x 3" high. They were made by Ever-Ready, which had a near-monopoly of the British market back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.215.202 (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Lantern Batteries
The article mentions "big" lantern batteries, but there were/are at least three sizes of lantern battery that I recall.
Lead Acid Batteries
There are many standard lead acid batteries available which are not included at all at present. These fall into (at least) two main categories: those used in automotive applications and smaller varieties generally used in intruder alarms etc.
I am not a radio controlled equipment user, but I notice that there seems to be many, presumably standard, rechargeable battery packs used in such equipment. They generally look like several cells "shrink wrapped" together. Ros0709
This is true. The concept of these rechargeable battery packs is always the same though. There are standard voltage ratings for such packs, so you will most likely have ratings like 7.2V, 9.6V or 12V on these packs. Since 1.2V rechargeable batteries are used, the packs always contain an even number of cells. This is done for packaging reasons, I suppose.
Depending on what battery size you use A,AA,etc. the capacitiy varies.
The connectors are semi-standard, a few connector types introduced by different companies have coexisted for years.
This leads to a lot of different versions that have not been named or something like that. I don't think this deserves an entry because it is actually just custom packaging of cells and not a cell type.
I suggest that batteries, were they are several cells "shrink wrapped" together, be dealt with in a separate Secondary Battery article. See Primary vs. Secondary Batteries above. - SKisby 28 March 2009
About Battery Categories and Common Names
Common Names
I have no idea where these common names have come from, if you can find out feel free to add a paragraph here. All I can do is list what I see in any drug store, or corner market, or at Radio Shack.
Old/Obscure Batteries
Before I massively rewrote and cleaned up this article there were actually quite a few 'obscure' battery types listed, like 1/3C, or 2/3C. They had no info other than a name. It was virtually impossible to find even the most rudimentary information about these batteries. I took them out because, while they did exist, they are not really a 'currently' used battery. I suggested then, and again now, that old, discontinued, or very obscure batteries be listed in a separate article, like List of old battery sizes.
The only new(ish) battery I've seen added (ever) is the CR123 (Camera Battery), which while being very close to a size C, is a high drain Lithium chemistry. Clearly the need for such a battery overcame the industry tendency to settle on a few standard sizes.
"'obscure' battery types listed, like 1/3C, or 2/3C."
I'm going to second Tabby here. A look through any electronics supply catalog will show a lot of different rechargeable battery styles, like "2/3C". "Sub-C" batteries are very common in the rechargeable tool packs (such as the DeWalt 18v, pack with 15 sub-C cells). I have a 486 laptop around that uses 5/4AA cells in it's power pack. However, I don't think that all the endless variations need to be put in this article unless you can buy them off the shelf at retail.71.191.253.116 (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that these more obscure and specialized rechargeable battery types are mostly, if not all, one or more more standard sized cells repackaged together. If that's the case, I suggest that they be listed in a separate Secondary Battery article leaving this article to focus mostly on primary celled batteries. See Primary vs. Secondary Batteries above. - SKisby 28 March 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC).
Button Cells
I'm sure there have been thousands of button cells over the years but right now, these are the most common ones used and available. Like the old/obscure batteries there is no info available on discontinued button cells. In the past decades many button cells (like other batteries) have become standardized to a few dozen sizes. If you make a product that doesn't used a 'currently common' button cell then it will fail commercially, thus self reinforcing the current few dozen sizes.
Categories
Since there are not that many currently used common battery sizes (less than 50 including button cells), I don't think It necessary to split up this article into separate sections or articles. For me, I wanted people to be able to put in "CR2032", or "Size N Battery" or "AAAA", and come here to get basic info until (if ever) someone makes an article for that specific battery. A single article can't be all things, and knowing when to make a new article is part of Wikipedia.
History of Battery Sizes
A section about the history of the the 'common names' would be nice, especially if the most used name has changed over time. For example, I think that "PP3" was actually the most common name long ago but NOW the most common name is "9-Volt". Many of the valve batteries you mentioned were never used by normal people for any common purpose. Before you clutter up this article or hack it to death, it would be better to put that info into a separate article.
Lantern Batteries
I've only seen two types of lantern batteries currently available (three if you count screw-top/spring-top as separate batteries). Also the 'common' names are a little less 'firm' for lantern batteries than for the regular batteries and button cells, hence why there are so many common names listed for each.
Lead Acid Batteries
I have no information about car/marine/backup batteries like this, but they generally do not have a 'common designation' that an everyday consumer would recognize. Like the old valve batteries they tend to change from car to car and year to year and an article about 'battery sizes' is NOT the place to list the hundreds (or thousands) of batteries like this. They last a long time, so there has never been an industry push to 'winnow out the field' of batteries like this. From working with cars myself I would bet that manufacturers purposely change them every year (like car models and auto parts) just to make it hard for after market manufacturers to make workable alternatives. Also, this would probably be better in List of obscure battery sizes.
There are probably at least as many sizes of lead-acid batteries for automotive purposes as there are sizes of batteries for flashlights. *Someone* could write something referring to the Battery Council International battery group numbers, at least. I'd do it, but firstly I'm no authority on automotive battery sizes, and secondly if I see one more schoolboy tag an article "Does not reflect a world-wide point of view" and spew snarky anti-American comments about "not IEC sizes" and "that's not what the sizes are called here in East Cheem", I shall hurltechnicolor chunks. Oh, and then some bot will come along and helpfully change all the hyphens to em dashes. Do we have bots fixing spelling errors valid in no variety of English? No, but the wrath of Jimbo forbid that someone uses "-" when it shoud be &endash. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The "4.5-Volt" and "Size N" are commonly used in radio controlled vehicles. I think there may be a few other 'standardized packs' that should be here, but if it is incredibly obscure it should be in List of obscure battery sizes
Coda
Anyway, your heart seems in the right place, but most of your suggestions would be better off in separate articles, with links to and from here. This would preserve the integrity of this article as well as those related articles.
Suspected error in "Table of modern battery sizes", size C
Under IEC, it says "R14 (carbon–zinc)". I doubt this is correct.
I do have some Philips NiCd size C cells, it is marked:
"KR27/50(R14)1.2V".
The cells is also clearly marked nickel cadmium, and not carbon zink. Therefore, I doubt "R14" means carbon zink.
I will add KR27/50 as IEC name for size C NiCd cells, and I leave it to others to edit the "carbon zink" part because I am not completely sure. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The terminal layout of square, 6 volt lantern batteries should be center post (-) and corner post (+). The ANSI specification document has this layout. I have corrected the table. Bear47501:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The table of battery sizes is rather wide, and forces my browser to scroll horizontally. It would be preferable for it to not do this; is there a way to reduce the width or number of columns to make for a narrower table? --Brandon Dilbeck00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I share your pain. Since Windows XP doesn't have any decent resizing (that applies across all formats and programs) I run my monitor at 800x600 to make everything bigger so I can see it. There's no real way to make the table less wide without losing some data or making the text too tiny to read. I tried to keep the most important data (names and alternate names) on the left so that one only has to scroll right if one wants more detailed info about a specific battery. I tried shifting the table into the left column that wastes 20% of every page, but it doesn't work in all browsers. Sorry.
If you want this to all fit on a low-resolution screen without horizontal scrolling, you're just going to have to accept that there is too much data to have all the data in one long row. Here is an example I've created of how this could be done. Note I have room for yet another field by the comments, so why not throw in a cropped image of each battery (if available)?
DMahalko05:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
This obscure type of lithium coin cell is used extensively in blinkies.
30 (Lithium)
3 v
D 9.5 mm H 2.7 mm
CR1220
CR1220 (Lithium)
40 (Lithium)
Coin
+ bottom/sides - top
Standard Discharge Current: 0.1 mA.
3 v
D 12.5 mm H 2.0 mm
CR1225
CR1225 (Lithium)
50 (Lithium)
Coin
+ bottom/sides - top
Standart discharge current: 0.2 mA. Maximum discharge current: 1 mA. Maximum pulse discharge current: 5 mA.
3 v
D 12.5 mm H 2.5 mm
CR1620
CR1620 (Lithium)
78 (Lithium)
Coin
+ bottom/sides - top
Standard Discharge Current: 0.1 mA.
3 v
D 16 mm H 2.0 mm
CR2016
CR2016 (Lithium)
90 (Lithium)
Coin
+ bottom/sides - top
Standard Discharge Current: 0.1 mA. Often used in pairs instead of CR2032 for devices that require more than 3 volts, like blue/white LED flashlights. CAUTION: Using 2 CR2016 when not specified can damage a device.
5000LC (Lithium)
3 v
D 20 mm H 1.6 mm
CR2025
CR2025 (Lithium)
160 (Lithium)
Coin
+ bottom/sides - top
Standard Discharge Current: 0.2 mA.
? (Lithium)
3 v
D 20 mm H 2.5 mm
CR2032
CR2032 (Lithium)
225 (Lithium)
Coin
+ bottom/sides - top
Standard Discharge Current: 0.2 mA. Maximum discharge current: 3 mA. Maximum pulse discharge current: 15 mA. Common battery in computers to keep the date and CMOS settings current when power is off.
Woa. Since I use css instead of tables I never knew one could do row spans as well as column spans. I generally like it EXCEPT that having data other than the most common name in the same column makes it harder to read. I would make the name and alternate name both two rowspan entries then the rest just like it is. Maybe this weekend I'll try converting it. Nice work.
The pictures are nice but they lack something without perspective. the AA looks just like AAAA. Maybe pictures with a perspective item like a dime, or a #2 pencil would be better. Still nice though.
Putting the "other names" in a separate column unfortunately pushes the table off the right edge for people at 800x600 resolution.
There is enough data to put nine items in a 3x3 grid with the comments along the right. This is friendly to 800x600 resolution, and orders the data in a clear manner since the three different naming conventions and the textual shape explanations are all in the same columns.
That's good too, but I would put other names above IEC and ANSI. Many of the other names were the most common names in the past and/or the most common names in some (smaller) English speaking countries.
How things are viewed at different resolutions and on different browsers is somewhat subjective. Your last example is totally within my 800x600 screen. But my last example is also totally within my screen on Opera 9.21, Explorer 7.0.5730.11, but just barely over the edge of Firefox 2.0.0.4. And the comments are usually missing or irrelevant on most batteries.
I myself only use 800x600 because I have bad eyesight and Windows XP has a crummy inconsistent resisize scheme so that some things are gigantic, while others are tiny. The only sure way to make EVERYTHING in XP scale larger is to decrease one's resolution. (I also have a 22" CRT monitor, that weighs 80 pounds, and can do 2048x1536) Also, some people use the built in text resizing system available in all browsers, which would make the table larger or smaller.
And, lastly while I sympathize with 800x600 people. I have to admit that it is going the way of 640x480. 1024x768 is much more common, especially with the new lower cost of LCD monitors. Yours does look nicer than even my last one.
One last thing, I can't quite envision it, but perhaps a layout like this last one, but the shape (which is usually very short and one word), the picture (so it can be bigger) and the comments (so they can be smaller) arranged in a slightly different way. Still your last one is much better than mine.
If the eventual table needs another entry to balance, then weight (in grams) would be logical. I keep meaning to add weight to the table. It would probably be different for different chemistries and have some moderate variation from manufacturer to manufacturer, but it would still be useful.
May I present to you: the hacked 6x6 table, which looks like a 3x3 table. Since I cannot specify a cell height of "1.5" cells, I am changing this into a table 6 cells tall so that I can span 3 rows instead.
It appears I cannot have cell rows with no cell data, so there is a filler cell for each row that appears way on the far right edge just to make the table render correctly. These empty cells must exist for this table method to work.
My brain just exploded. (I like the one with the weight best so far.) Maybe have the pic a 2 rowspan and the comments a 1 rowspan, instead. Remember, that other people are goind to (try) and add to this table and they will invariably mess it up badly if it is too over the top complicated.
It occurred to me that not every battery will have an image and not every battery will have comments, so why not combine them both in the last column? This would also make the whole thing more simple (that is, no need to constantly fix table errors made by other people). Also the placement of the Image/Comments can vary depending on the desired size of the image and the length (if any) of the comments.'
I think I'm gonna run with this (soon) unless there are objections.
The voltage of that battery suggests it may be a secondary battery (a repackage of 8 1.5V or 4 3V primary button cells). - SKisby
History of Battery Sizes: Comment by a Wikipedia newbie
I'm 75 years old, and I used to buy radio parts in the Cortlandt Street district of New York before it was demolished to make way for the World Trade Center, so I have forgotten things you're not likely to find on the web. The batteries (or DC voltages derived by rectifying AC) for the filament, plate and grid of vacuum tubes used to be designated as A, B and C respectively, without regard for voltage value or battery size or shape. There are thus two different uses of letters, for battery functions and for cell sizes, and I think this section of the article confounds the two. I believe the topic needs to be more thoroughly researched. Marty39 (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're quite right. I have removed the section as it has little to do with battery sizes. I hope you will keep an eye out for other historical errors.--agr (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
SR44 button battery naming notes are contradictory?
from the notes:
"SR# / LR# / AG# Button Cells: IEC SR series batteries are silver oxide chemistry and provide 1.55 volts, while IEC LR series batteries are alkaline chemistry and provide 1.5 volts. Since there are no 'common' names beyond the AG# designation, many places use these three terms interchangeably, and they will all fit and work. The only difference is that the SR series typically have 50% greater capacity than the LR series. In low-drain
devices like watches (without lights) this isn't very important, but in high-drain devices like blinkies, key chain flashlights, or laser pointers the LR type is preferred."
I think there's a typo and it should read:
SR# / LR# / AG# Button Cells: IEC SR series batteries are silver oxide chemistry and provide 1.55 volts, while IEC LR series batteries are alkaline chemistry and provide 1.5 volts. Since there are no 'common' names beyond the AG# designation, many places use these three terms interchangeably, and they will all fit and work. The only difference is that the SR series typically have 50% greater capacity than the LR series. In low-drain
devices like watches (without lights) this isn't very important, but in high-drain devices like blinkies, key chain flashlights, or laser pointers the SR type is preferred." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.124.253 (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I flushed out the table and sections that dealt with button cells (as anonymous user 24.83.224.121) mostly for the AG# series of cells. As part of that I significantly rewrote the notes that follow that table. - SKisby 28 March 2009
another one
Heres another one you guys have missed. Makita 24v cordless drills have a powerpack consisting of 20 cells (so they must be 1.2 V ie 2 in serial making 2.4v x 10 = 24v). The batteries are Ni-Mh solder tag and as far as i can measure 17.6 mm diameter and 63.6 mm long.
82.21.206.85 (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that batteries, were they are several cells repackaged together, be dealt with in a separate Secondary Battery article. See Primary vs. Secondary Batteries above. Note that this would also apply to notebook computer battery packs which are similarly packaged this way (internally composed of standard sized cells). - SKisby 28 March 2009
Chemistry
Isn't this section in the wrong article? Or, at least, displayed too prominently at the top of an article that, by title, ought to be more focused on other matters than chemistry? Jim.henderson (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this page is titled "List of battery sizes" after all. Cell chemistry is an essential characteristic of batteries however, so it should have a page of its own. MrPhelps (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Since the focus is on battery sizes, one idea is to move the chemistry sections beneath the primary table/list, above the See Also. The general types of chemistry for each type/size is included with the table, and the detail about the chemistry is of secondary importance for this list. Splitting off a battery/cell chemistry article is a fine idea. Including that info under Battery (electricity) might make the Battery (electricity) article cumbersome. Dagordon01 (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Common Li-Ion sizes
The article suggests--a little misleadingly in my view--that Lithium ion batteries aren't available in common sizes. While it's true that they're best known in their pre-packaged form (laptop batteries, cell phone batteries, etc.) there are a number of standard sizes of bare Li-Ion cylindrical cells:
14500: 14mm diameter, 50mm length
18500: 18mm diameter, 50mm length
18650: 18mm diameter, 60mm length
The naming convention should be pretty obvious. A quick google search comes up with dozens of vendors of standard-sized cylindrical Li-Ion cells. I'd like to incorporate information on these cells into this article. And there are useful articles on replacing the cells in laptop batteries, such as this one. Can anyone suggest how I should arrange this information for the article, and where it should go? Thanks! ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 21:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Article's title
The title's name "List of battery sizes" does not reflect the actual content of the article since it includes not only sizes but also chemical composition. Thus, I propose a change in the articles title to a broader description such as "List of battery properties" or "Types of batteries", in which other properties could be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAP1st (talk • contribs) 05:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Several people have mentioned that. A way to handle this (and reduce the size of this article) would be to have a separate article devoted to how the current IEC 60086 standard names batteries (essentially taking the Type designation section of the Button_cell article and making that its own article, or using that as the basis of a new article). One of the codes in that naming standard defines the electrochemical system, also known as the battery's chemical composition. Such an article could go into the details leaving this article to simply note battery chemistry where it means a different battery name - SKisby 28 March 2009
I've expanded the IEC section from Button cell at Battery nomenclature. I haven't found anything yet that conveniently lists the JIS sizes, the old British sizes, etc. The books I've seen so far are careful to distinguish cell/battery *size* from the chemistry - that reduces the number of combinations required. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please research and include the new Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) batteries that are rapidly increasing in popularity for high-current rechargable devices, especially in Flashlights. Some of these have come out of Laptop battery packs and are now individualized for consumer products as self contained, high quality consumer battery cells with colorful branding and retail packaging.
As far as I know, most of these batteries are referred to by a 5 digit number. A couple of them have nicknames that may or may not be official, such as RCR123A for Rechargeable CR123A.
The ones I know about are:
18650 - A long cell at 65mm with a diameter of 18mm. Seemingly common as laptop battery components, these were the first to become mainstream as individual consumer cells.
16340 - Also known as RCR1234 or RCR123A or RCR123 or just "RCRs". These are the same size as CR123A batteries.
14500 - These are the size of AA batteries but charge at a voltage of 3.6 to 4.2 volts.
10440 - These are the size of AAA batteries.
There are also 17500 17650 17670 series of batteries I know nothing about, and there may be others as well.
I don't have the time and energy to do a proper research, but I thought this article should be made aware that these batteries are becoming very popular and important for new generation consumer devices. You will find a LOT of information about them at www.candlepowerforums.com, because these batteries were first realized by high-power flashlight enthusiasts, many of whom develop police and military tactical lighting. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
2 additional points.
There are two points you may want to add.
The first is the term "battery" is not a electrical device, rather it is a collection if things. It has been used for example to describe a battery of guns. Thus we have a Battery Park in New York City, most likely the location of cannons in the early days. Many batteries are true batteries as they are a collection of cells. These include 9 volt and 12 volt batteries as well as many cordless device battery packs. Cells are a different matter. 1.5 volt cells include D cells C cells AA, AAA and etc. These usually are 1.5 volts or so but a lead acid cell is 2 volts and Li cells are typically 3 volts.
Also,
In the early days of radio batteries were used for power. The 3 types were called A, B and C. These terms had nothing to do with sizes. A type batteries powered the tube filaments and the B batteries were for the plate power supplies. They ran from 22 to 67 volts and are still available. A and B batteries were used through the 50's in portable radios but they were expensive. The C batteries were used in very early days to bias the tube grids but they were soon replaced with a resistor capacitor combination.
Arydberg (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
2/3 AA and AAA types
I work in a electrical/electronic shop in the UK and we're getting a lot of people looking for replacement rechargeable batteries for their small wireless land line telephone handset. These seem to be called 2/3AA or 2/3AAA types. No doubt used instead of the standard AA or AAA to make the handset shorter?
Any one wanting to update the list of battery sizes to include these so-called 'new' types? I know they're used in the R/C (remote control) hobby.
I am new to editing wikipedia and i do not know how to say this, but when you click the link to AAAA battery type, it links back to the page we are on, and I am guessing this needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.159.36 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Brain-deadening articles not required
It's an encyclopedia, not a parts catalog. We don't need an "article" on every single size of flashlight battery ever known. We don't need even more articles full of tripe like " A 1/2 inch bolt is smaller than a 3/4 inch bolt but bigger than a 1/4 inch bolt; a 15/32 inch bolt is nearly the same size. Bolts are used to hold things together such as metal parts of structures. Nicholas Tesla invented the bolt in 1893. Other places that use bolts include automobiles, and the bus stop at the end of my street. In England a wrench is called a spanner. Most countries use metric dimensions for bolts." and similar dreadful tedious mind-deadening unsourced rubbery platitudinous garbage that is embarrasing to read. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
From what I know, first A was the smallest (but it's hardly used nowadays) and later they invented smaller sizes, becuase of higher energy density and smaller devices. I.E. the AAA standard was invented in the 1950s by Duracell for a camera with an integrated flash from Kodak, as you can read under Duracell#History. --MrBurns (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Breaking up the mega-tables - a bold edit
This article has long annoyed me as being extremely difficult to read. The table is stuffed with so much data arranged in vertical columns that it is difficult to remember what each column means when you wade deep into the table. Meanwhile the wide format is unforgiving of people with small / narrow screen resolutions and results in a lot of unnecessary side to side scrolling.
Meanwhile the data is hard to edit, with a huge number of forced breaks and non-breaking spaces all over the place, to try to stuff data into each column in a readable format.
I have decided to be bold and spent about an hour trying to break up the huge tables into separate tables, each with its own headings, and oriented for long horizontal data cells that can wrap nicely if using a narrow window width.
Also, by breaking up the mega-tables it allows for section headings for each type for quick lookup via the table of contents. This allows direct linking to each battery type via wikilinks and redirect pages. DMahalko (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this is the wrong direction. Tabular information should be in tables. Information about anything but sizes should be in more appropriate places. I must have missed a Signpost issue or too, when did Wikipedia become the world's battery catalog? 32000 sizes of button cells is not an encyclopedia article. I look forward to our "List of different bolt sizes" which would be equally useful and boring beyond measure.
The tables would be easier to read if they were about battery sizes and not " fun unreferenced things we (think we) know about batteries". Voltage depends on chemistry, not size, and so is a useless column. Shape is given away by the dimensions column - if it doesn't have a diameter, we can assume its some kind of prism shape, otherwise diameter says it's a cylinder. Why was there a column of polarity information? The comments column was either baffling, or else trite, amounting to "Used in things that use this size of battery". I'm tempted to further sarcasm but it's Christmas. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and you hate the list of 7400 chips too, yep I got that, and your deletion attempt of that article was voted down, but you keep on trying to winnow technical data out of the encyclopedia.
Perhaps you should go read the page Wikipedia:don't worry about performance because having this stuff listed here is not hurting the encyclopedia. It does no harm for the encyclopedia to include this information. With an article length of about 60 kilobytes, and a 500 gig drive now costing about $50, that puts the cost of listing this page content here at some $0.000006.
It is encyclopedic because this information applies worldwide to a huge number of people. There are people who want to know the history of the N battery because they used it for much of their lives but now can't find it anymore. It is culturally and historically significant to them.
We should not depend on manufacturers to provide this information because they are not obligated to provide it. They only provide it where it is within their fiscal interest to do so. This means that batteries which are old and obsolete (ahem, historical) are necessarily removed and unlisted by manufacturers because there is no profit in them listing a product that they don't sell.
As far as your problems with the shape and dimensions information, I also don't like the way data is listed here either because the information is better represented in graphical notation. I would like to see engineering drawings next to each size, using simple plain black 2D outlines with dimensions, so we can stop using direct pictures of trademarked battery devices.
Batteries are not much like bolts, in that the dimensions are defined in 3D and highly variable, as opposed to bolts which usually just get longer or shorter between sizes.
Oh, but I do love your bolt sizes article suggestion. I suppose I will get started on that one. I'm sure I can expect to see you on its doorstep editing and AFD'ing it. :) DMahalko (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and Merry Christmas to you too, *******. The list of 7400 chips, and this list, and the list of asteroids, should all be killed off as inane material, unsuitable for an encyclopedia. If Wikipedia is free, how come we get badgered for donations 6 weeks of the year? Anyone who seriously needs to know dimensions is going to use the national standards (which are rarely cited by Wikipedia editors). But of course we have lists of Hong Kong bus stops and every Pokemon ever made, too. When will we see "List of IP addresses" so people can use Wikipedia instead of DNS? --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
As for "winnowing out technical data", I was under the misapprehension for several years now that I was adding technical content, in encyclopediac style. Making monkey copies of data sheets is not writing an encyclopedia article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
No one is asking you to edit this article. If you don't want to edit a huge "boring" detailed list of specs, then don't. (Wow, sure solved that problem for you in a hurry.)
And the article content isn't inane, as you put it. There is actually the potential for interesting history for each item. Who first made it? Who designed it? Why did they bother to create size or capacity X, if other capacities or sizes were already available? If it isn't made anymore, why did it disappear? (The same sorts of questions can apply to every chip type in the 7400 series, and it is historically useful to know these things.)
So, getting back to this article, it appears you have a problem with my reorganizing, specifically, because what you really want is for the article to be deleted. Any sort of editing that improves readability and usability is therefore a bad thing, because that makes it less likely it will get deleted. Is this correct? :-)
The article now has a spectacularly ugly table of contents. The new organization does not improve readability. There will never be any history for any of the sizes because no-one who contributes to Wikipedia has the ambition or resources to write anything meaningful on the different sizes. Supposing that anyone *did* find resources to support such information, it would be far easier to read as a single discourse on the reasons for the introduction of different sizes, rather than a rather tedious Wikipedia-style string of dates and factoids. A concise listing of dimensions of common battery sizes might have some use on a specialist Web site for battery information, but the present organization is anything but compact. Tabular information should be in tables, not in myriad article sections. I think it's unfortunate that Wiki table editing is so clumsy because editors who invest a lot of effort into editing a table become emotionally invested and can't bear the thought of tediously revising a table. --17:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Merging article fragments into new headings?
Furthermore I note User:Wtshymanski's dislike of articles dedicated to each battery. By allowing section headings the relevant content from each article can be moved here into each separate section. DMahalko (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Split off uncommon batteries into new article?
Breaking up the listing into so many separate headings has expanded the article length. It may be helpful to split off the "less common" battery types into a separate article, as has been done with the AC power plugs and sockets articles. DMahalko (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
hmmm "Table of modern primary battery sizes" ?
This seems to be an orphaned section heading, because in this article there isn't any other battery size listed, whether non-modern or non-primary.
Should the heading/indent-level be removed, or can additional sizes outside the modern/primary category be added to give the heading a reason to exist? DMahalko (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, absolutely those should be included here. (Based on your past comments, I think you are bringing this up just to dump more hate on this "stupid list" article. But I will ignore your apparent agenda and blithely assume you're actually trying to be constructive rather than sarcastic.)
As this article grows, it should be broken up into subarticles for the various types, such that this article eventually just has introductions to each branch and then links off to the subsection articles for each type. Otherwise this article will eventually list thousands of items, and be too unweidly as a single document.
Wow, lots of interesting technical/engineering books at the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire library I visited today. I have a few that I checked out, to see what excerpts, summaries, and citations can be added to this article.
Alkaline Storage Batteries, S. Uno Falk and Alvin J. Salkind, Copyright 1969, ISBN0471253626
The Primary Battery, N. Corey Cahoon and George W. Heise, Copyright 1976, ISBN0471129232
Modern Batteries: Introduction to electrochemical power sources, Colin A. Vincent, Copyright 1984, ISBN0713134690
This university doesn't seem to have any of the ANSI or IEC battery standards documents in their library. I may have to try to interlibrary loan the documents from somewhere.
If you can get a look at a reliable IEC reference, see if the CR636-2 and CR736-2 sizes are bogus or not...no-oone seems to list these for sale, and why would IEC assign the letter "R" to non-round cells?
Yes, I do truly hate big dumb list articles. IEC 60086 lists over 100 primary battery sizes. The BCI lists about 111 sizes. Then of course there would be Japanese, and Soviet types. But why stop with lists? Why not full articles on each one? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
We probably don't want to get into listing stationary batteries...in a cut sheet on my desk right now there's 27 different models of lead-acid battery given, and that's just one series from one manufacturer. There's probably still a dozen companies who still make stationary lead-acid cells. Then there's VRLA lead acid types, and various ni-cad types; and Carbonaire types... --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Does not exist?
CR 636-2 and CR 736-2 oblong types don't show up on Digi Key, Sanyo, or Google. They must be really obscure if alibaba.cn isn't offering any. I propose to delete them until someone finds a reference that they exist. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we put the coin cells, at least, into a table instead of dozens of different sections? They all have the same shape, terminals and voltage, and they have no common or ANSI names apart from their IEC designators. If anyone can tell me what good the "standard current" does, we might still keep that in a remarks field. If we adequately explain the IEC numbering scheme (starting with the table at Button cell and expanding it here), we don't need to explain prefixes over and over. We could also put the other round or cylindrical batteries into a table and describe tehir common characteristics ONCE instead of repeating it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was trying to figure out how to do that. The problem is, that the so-called standards do not have a universal naming standard. The ANSI numbering appears to be a mess, so you can't go by that. The IEC lists some types of batteries that ANSI does not, and vice versa. So what the heck are you supposed to do?
I was thinking perhaps we could come up with a unified naming method. Also, note that the IEC numbering skips numbers for some reason. Probably there were sizes in those gaps, and it is precisely those gaps that this article should also include because they are historical.
Another question is why the world needs the ANSI and the IEC both at the same time overlapping each other for battery specs that are sort of similar yet also different. I assume this is just because America says "we're better" and so we have our own, and the rest of the world says "we don't want to follow just your tune" so we have the IEC for everyone else. But meanwhile there must be overlap between them or we get a mess of competing world standards. Someone should tell ANSI to just shut down, because the IEC is good enough. :)
We don't come up with naming methods. If the IEC and ANSI can't do it, it's not Wikipedia's place to invent something. I suggest instead we list all the CRNNNN types in one table; headings would be "Type" (CR number), "Dimensions (Dia x height), mm", "Capacity (Lithium/manganese dioxide), mAHr". They don't have other names, (and NEDA is a distributor's club, that doesn't make battery standards (that's NEMA) ), they all have the same voltage and terminal layout. There's a zillion manufacturers out there but they all cross-reference their coin cells to the IEC sizes, so we don't have to. I'd like to copy over the IEC naming convention paragraph from button cell, expand the table a tad based on the tables in Chapter 4 of "Handbook of Batteries", and stick it in here; that should explain the prefixes, and the table will usefully give the sizes. We should stick a note in somewhere that just because you can invent an IEC name for a cell doesn't mean that anyone makes it. Please let there be no such thing as an R2016 carbon-zinc coin cell!
As for the IEC/ANSI differences, I note that C18 went through 5 revisions (and had taken over from two NBS circulars before that) before the IEC even started TC 35 in 1948. Could it be that the world couldn't wait for the Europeans to stop killing each other before bringing out some useful standards? ( The first meetings must have been *tense* - the last time Percy Uppington-Smythe and Heinreich Grosskopf met, they were shooting at each other...) ANSI is an IEC member, and since 1986 has been working toward harmonizing the ANSI standards with the IEC - sadly, this means now instead of one $100 document you must buy 4 or 5 $100 documents to get all the standards, *just like IEC*. Such is the price paid for international standards harmonization. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's the button cells done
Including zinc-air cells, based on exactly ONE manufacturer's data sheets but that's extensive research by Wikipedia standards. I'd like to turn the standard drugstore cylinder batteries back into a table too, which would eliminate a lot of repetition. We don't need to give 1.5 volts, and "top +, bottom -" over for every size.
I'm not sure. At first I thought it was the current at which they rated the mAhr capacity of the cell, but when you look at manufacturer's data sheets they give the capacity in terms of a constant resistance load. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Polapulse flat pack battery
Probably should keep this article focussed on current types, else we'll have 128 kB of old B batteries no longer made. WHat about Polaroid Polapulse P80? For a while I think you could even get these outside of a film pack. Must research. --17:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Common Names
The article uses what it calls the "common names" like "AA", "AAA", "C", "D" and "PP9" without further explanation. Where did these names come from - are they just product names from a particular manufacturer (EverReady?)--feline116:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Common name means just that, the name most likely to be used by an English speaker in North America, The Isles, or The Colonies. It is also the name most likely to be prominently displayed on the battery packaging.
I think that in the past Britain used a system of battery names based loosely on the IEC naming (like R2, R4) but now uses the 'common names' listed here (I could be wrong). I see that you are in Britain, perhaps you could go to the corner shop and tell us what the 'most common' name (currently, not 10 years ago) used for these various battery sizes is. If it's different then you can put it in the 'common name section' followed by "(Britain)" like the way different chemistries are listed. I am actually somewhat curious because I think these 'common names' are a recent (last 10 years) international standardization effort.
They are not manufacturer names, who notoriously rename batteries (at least with the more obscure sizes) to confuse customers into buying their specific brand of battery. (See LR44_battery as an example)
I would like to see mention of where these so-called "common names" originated too. Saying that common names are "most likely to be used" and "most likely to be prominently displayed on the battery packaging" is pointless, we already knew that (duh!) But those designations had to originate somewhere; where was that? Also, those names are at least 30 years old. I had a radio-controlled toy Ferrari in the late 1970s, of which I recently saw another example at an antique toy fair (like new in the box), that was marked in the battery compartment as using type "AA (UM-3)" cells.
I flushed out the table and sections that dealt with button cells (as anonymous user 24.83.224.121) mostly for the AG# series of cells. For those cells I think the more common name is the two numeric digit LR# designation (e.g. LR44), not the corresponding SR# designation as listed now. I left that as is was as I may be incorrect in that assessment or there may be some other reason to list the SR# designation as the preferred common name. Comments? Should the common name for those button cells be switched to LR#?
- SKisby 28 March 2009
Battery designations are unreasonably messy - too much history and backward compatability built into the national standards, and every manufacturer had his own series. The ANSI history document I've recently cited is a good read and explains a little of the history of what became the C18 standards. The letter designations (A,B...)seem to have started in the US with the 1918 NBS circular. The 1992 IEC system looks very rational, except that they grandfathered old designations too (like R20 for what I'd call a D cell); I think you can pick out the "grandfathers" since they only have one or two digits after the shape letter, but some of the 3-digit ones I don't understand. It doesn't help that IEC didn't start a technical committee till 1948. I imagine there's DIN and British standards, too, ( and Japanese and ???) since there was a vacuum on the international level and the Europeans couldn't use American standards, now, could they? Who used the UM prefix for sizes? I recall this on old transistor radio battery hatches.
As for LR and SR and CR prefixes, these represent different cell chemistry - LR is an alkaline zinc/manganese dioxide, SR is silver oxide, CR is lithium...AG is a different (non-IEC) designation for silver button cells...it goes on and on. I *think* the most rational scheme is to give just the IEC sizes alone or for the common lithium or alkaline types, and note that some sizes are also made in silver oxide. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You gotta pay up to the IEC to see the standards? what a joke
After looking at the IEC's website it appears this is yet another case of information that should be in the public domain being hidden away behind a cashier counter by way of "copyrighting the specifications" even though the specs themselves probably are not copyrightable.
So the reason this article doesn't have direct IEC cites is apparently because no editor of this here free encyclopedia wants to have to pay IEC for the privilege of merely reading and citing their materials.
This standards organization needs to be knocked off their high horse, and the specs made publicly accessible without a need for payment, as is being done with the NFPA and other standards organizations.
http://bulk.resource.org/codes.gov/ -- Unrestricted, free access to the NEC and other standards, as accepted as statutory law in local building codes across the United States
And standards should be free because? Generally, you get what you pay for ( and the irony is so thick...). The class of people with routine access to standards documents or libraries, and the class of people with free time on their hands to edit Wikipedia article , seems to have a very small intersection. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your removal of the information on how standard battery sizes are controlled, calling it "irrelevant" to a page on standard battery sizes is silly. (oh, and I happen to have routine access to standards documents through academic access to BSOL, and contribute to wikipedia FYI.) --UltraMagnusspeak18:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Let's be careful not to rip off the work at [2], especially without credit. On the other hand, that explains where the weird oblong Sanyo cells came from, with the fake IEC-looking numbers but the wrong shape. Does anyone know what the difference between an IEC "M" and IEC "N" mercury battery was? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
So an IEC AAAA is an LR8D425, which almost looks like the systematic name for a round cylindrical cell except for the D. Is it because the diameter is a single digit? Otherwise it would look something like LR8425 which could be ambiguous. And if that's the case, the cells inside an alkaline 9v can't be AAAA because it's describes as a 6LR61, not as 6LR8D425.
Whoops...the Linden battery handbook page 10.27 says an LR61 would be an IEC LR8D425. Why two designations? --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
A year and a half later, I discovered access to IEC 60086 (actually IS EN60086-1:2011, but close enough for my purposes). An R61, according to table C1 on page 28, is 7.8 mm diameter and 39 mm long, nominal dimensions. An R8D425 is maximum 8.3 mm diameter, according to Figure C2 on page 32, and 42.5 mm (maximum) high, according to clause C2.2.2.3 page 34. So, an LR61 that makes up a J battery or a 9 V battery is a little smaller than a AAAA. Mystery solved at last. And if either dimension is bigger than 100 mm, there's a slash between diameter and height. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
There used to be a class of dry zinc-carbon battery called a "4 inch" cell. Although very common in the 1900s, by the 1950s I only ever saw them used with a gas lighter. The battery case itself was cylendrical, around 2 inches in diameter and 4 inches long, and threaded at the top. There was a central button contact on that face. The gas lighter screwed over that end of the battery and had a black bakelite button that pressed a contact onto the centre electrode. A narrow, cranked, arm extended from the cap, and ended in a small slotted metal tube with a hot-wire element in it. When the button was pressed it glowed white hot and could be used to ignite coal gas.
I certainly sold them up to about 1975, but I believe that they did not work in areas of the country converted to "natural gas" from the early 1960s onwards.
I can find no on-line reference to these at all, yet they, and the igniters, must have been one of Ever-Ready's longest lasting products.--Brunnian (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
According to [4], the B size cell was in the 1934 ASA (now ANSI} standard but is no longer manufactured. It should not be in the list of common cell sizes. That reference says that an ASA B cell was 3/4 inch diameter and 2 1/8 inches long. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be at least a reference to car batteries, BCI and their "group" designations. As it is, someone who ends up at this article looking for information on car battery sizes will find nothing helpful. I'm not sure where in the article it should go, though. Some previous discussion on this topic was archived: Lead-Acid Batteries (1), Lead-Acid Batteries (2). I agree there's probably no need to try to include the actual table of BCI designations in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.140.12 (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Voltages please, in this table
In the table in the section "Less common batteries: Cylindrical single-cell", please would someone add a column giving the voltage of each type ? Thanks. Darkman101 (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think that would be redundant with all the other places where we give votlages for different types of battery? This article is about sizes, not voltages. Depending on chemistry an AA-size battery could be rated anywhere from 1.2 to 3.7 volts; it would be tedious and repetitive to give all the permutations for each size, plus I'm not sure that every size is made in every chemistry. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
All the other tables of the less common battery sizes give the voltage, even of the different types. Why not here ? Although this article is nominally about sizes, it is plain common sense for an article about batteries to give the voltages ! This table already gives the typical mAh capacity rating, as do the others, which is also dependent on battery chemistry. All of this is exactly the kind of information wanted by people who come to this encyclopedia. Darkman101 (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The capacity varies by size (duh!) but the terminal voltage does not, only by chemistry. The article is about sizes, not about chemistry and voltage. Goodness knows that's variety enough, would we be helping the reader by making this article 5 times bigger by listing the NiMh, NiCd, carbon-zinc, alkaline, nickel-zinc, lead-acid, primary lithium, and Li-Ion voltages every time for every size? And not every chemistry is made in every size. It's plain common sense not to waste the reader's time telling him the same things over and over again. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
-
What he means is that such information is already placed in the axplanation text above the table, it is not in each aditional cell, but in the text, before the table, it already states the voltage for the battery types contained in the below table. ☩Damërung☩. -- 18:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
New type: 14500
I have added the 14500 type, but in the 18650 section, as I don't know how to insert a new section between previous sections. If anyone knows how (and thinks it matters), please shunt the info into its own section. Darkman101 (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I want some of these for my new Quark AA flashlight (although I can't explain why I "need" it to be any brighter). There are enough of these rechargeable types that I think it's worth the hassle of configuring a table for them all. That could also collect the LiIon variants of the lithium primary types, too. Do you have a citation to add to the article (maker's catalog page, something)? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mr Wtshymanski, thanks for raising up the table. But please can we have a voltage column ? That's exactly what people come to a reference work for ! It's a fundamental battery defining specification, and absolutely vital, precisely because the same sizes can have widely differing voltages ! Other tables on the page have the various voltages and capacities for each different type. In the comments box, may I suggest replacing "alkaline" with "3 Volt" ? (And put a "u" in "reglate" !)
I did a quick google and found a 14500 manufacturer's data sheet at saftbatteries.com if that's any good, please insert it if you think its OK:
If you want 14500's, they are available very cheaply from China on Ebay, (just stick the number in the search box), inc. with chargers. Darkman101 (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Careful, that SAFT data sheet is for a primary (non-rechargeable) battery. Not only does it make for a very expensive run in a flashlight, but it looks like it is limited to around 70 mA discharge, which makes for dim lights. I'd like to see manufacturer's data sheets, a wall of Chinese retailers is all I get when I Google the part numbers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
AD series
A series of heavy duty 1.5v cells for powering valve filaments. Later saw use for starting glowplug engines.
AD4
several others
Rechargeable Li Ion cyclindrical
There's probably scores of different sizes. Could we get some references that identify which possible dimensions are actually made? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Button Cells table confusing
The "Button cells (silver oxide and alkaline)" table is confounding things. In the "Other Common Names" column many alkaline batteries are listed - implying they are "SR" batteries. I believe many folks come looking at this table to figure out the batteries to buy for old cameras, etc... So it would be best to not imply that an LR44 or A-76 cell is a suitable battery for a SR76 requirement.
--Dr UNIX (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
How would you tell the reader this? There is a great long enormous paragraph that prattles on about the differences between silver oxide and alkaline cells and why you shouldn't believe the girl behind the pharmacy counter who will try to sell you a battery that fits. A list of battery sizes is barely tolerable as an encyclopedia "article" anyway, let's not pad it extravagantly by making it 5 times longer and repeating all the tables for all the different chemistries. If you don't know the difference between silver oxide and alkaline, and the large diatribe at the top of the table doesn't remind you that you should, then two (three?) tables aren't going to help. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Mergefrom
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
i'm against that. cr2032 is a popular battery. i'll search for that directly, rather than search for "list of battery size". copy if you will, but don't merge. 167.83.109.24 (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Support - There is nothing special in that article that isn't in this article. The CR2032 article can simply redirect to the relevant section of this article instead. --Lead holder (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I am against merge as well. For general users, who are not into all other battery information, a simple entry about some popular battery type is all we need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.113 (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Suggest merge from N battery; all the facts from that article are already given here. A single size of battery is not a topic notable enough to need an encyclopedia article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Suggest merge from D battery. All the facts from that article are already given here. A single size of flashlight battery is not a topic notable enough to warrant an article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose all three. These proposed merges cannot possibly be an improvement. The number of items collated here dictates minimal details for each; more notable examples (such as the three above) are best presented in summary with expanded detail in their own separate articles, as we have. Indeed, as Wikipedia grows it may become appropriate to spin off more of these into separate articles. There is no benefit in having everything on one big page. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with you, if there was anything substantial that can be said about a size of flashlight battery. I don't think there is, and my searches with Google Books and Google Scholar have yet to show an non-trivia, in-depth discussion of a particular size of flashlight batteries. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Moderately oppose: while the three pages don't have a huge amount of content not already in the "list" page, they do have some. For example the discussion of the different characteristics of of the BR2032 on the CR2032 page (although you can find some of the on the Lithium battery page. But for the common sizes, the dedicated articles are *much* more user friendly than the list, which, IMO, is reason enough to retain them. Rwessel (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what's more "friendly" about stubby descriptions? Certainly if I had some overwhelming desire to learn more about some random size of a flashlight battery I wuold be disappointed if all I found was the diameter, length, and mA hour rating unders ome unspecified conditions - I can get that from the table. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Somewhat support The nominator has the right to make any suggestion he or she likes. It makes sense to me that each general type of battery should have an article, while each size within that type does not need one. On the other hand articles in individual batteries (D cell for instance) do no harm and might be useful if someone wanted specific data on that size. Jaque Hammer (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose all three Just a cursory look at D battery found some historical information that does no appear in this article. Proposer has clearly not carefully researched the claim that "all the facts...are already given here". A reader who has typed "D battery" into the search box is pretty much certain not to be looking for acres of information on silver button cells. A short article focused on the exact search term is quite helpful. SpinningSpark11:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I would also point out that the title of this article is List of battery sizes. A list by its nature will not contain all possible information on each entry. If it is continually expanded with merged in information it will no longer be a list (which this article is in some danger of already). SpinningSpark11:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an inherent problem with a "list of parts" article of any kind; there's no clear-cut way to determine which parts are notable and which parts are just catalog line items. There's nothing notable about any particular size of battery, at least from the perspective of a general purpose encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment on general Mergefrom IMO any such merges should retain within the main article/tables all valid enclopedic content from the individual articles, e.g. sales proportions in different parts of the world, etc. -- Trevj (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
That would require references, which no-one has and no-one will stir themselves to get. What we wind up with is information off the Web pages of the battery manufacturers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Short answer: yes. But are you sure you don't have an LR927? But if you do have an LR297, can you provide any sort of link describing the thing? I can't seem to find any such creature. What type of cell is it? What's it used for? Rwessel (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh and a pic, A pic is never bad. It is certainly an unusual idea and probably proprietary for some specific device? Do tell us more.--Lead holder (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I've seen the LR927s in blinkies often paired with a CR927. They have the exact same size as CR927 but only supply 1.5 volts (from alkaline chemistry). They are often included in blinkies that don't need the whole 6 volts and can run on 4.5 volts (no blue/white/violet leds) to save money (lithium is expensive).
For some reason I don't fully understand blinkies will deplete one battery faster than the other, for example one will read 1.7 load volts while the other will read 2.8 load volts after about 10 hours constant on. I suspect the LR927 is the one that experiences less drain (can't remember if it's the + or - cell).
Despite the fact that millions of CR927s are sold every year they are not an 'official' IEC battery, they just use the (correct) IEC battery nomenclature. LR927 is actually an ad hoc (incorrect) name. If someone can find a reference to LR927* it probably would be better in the CR927 section, with a note.
*(other than me, because in Wikipedia common sense and your own two eyes are not valid references, even for a silly little battery. :P)
IEC doesn't dictate what manufacturers can make, it only gives them a standardized scheme for naming what they make. An R927 according to 60086-1 would be 9.5 mm diameter and 2.7 mm thick. It doesn't happen to be a size discussed in Part 1. In Part 2 a 927 is listed as a "common name" for what IEC designates as an SR57 (pre 1990 size in Table C.1, same size as R927). In Part 3 we see a table of standard load resistors for watch batteries that lists the 927 size in both alkaline and silver. I guess not every manufacturer makes a lithium button battery in this size, it's not listed, for example, on the Energizer site. Table C4 starts with a diameter code of 4, so there can be no IEC standard size R297. A CR927 would be a lithium battery 9.5 mm diameter, 2.7 mm high - perfectly standard nomenclature, but who makes it? Not all the cells that can be defined by the nomenclature are actually made. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
You are totally right. I guess what I meant is that for the CR (lithium) batteries the IEC name is the most common name while for the SR/LR series batteries the SR41 - SR59 naming is the most common name, as opposed to the more descriptive IEC naming. It's just that I've always seen these imprinted with LR927 instead of SR57. Also I didn't mean that CR927 / LR927 s are not official batteries, I guess I meant that the major battery manufacturers didn't sell them (at least for the last 10 years) only blinky manufacturers and direct wholesalers sold them. Lastly, I was wrong, LR927 is a perfectly correct name for this battery, it just doesn't fit into the older more accepted naming scheme, but I guess any new battery would not fit.
I bow to your greater knowledge and suggest that LR927 be added to SR57 and/or be added to the silver/alkaline button cells section, with a note about CR927. This article has really come a long way. I bet it's front page worthy ;).
"Greater knowledge" is really "has access to the IEC standard" in this case. The two-digit names are the pre-1990 system, so that may explain their popularity. The Maxell LR927 crosses to an Energizer 395 silver-oxide which Energizer says is an IEC SR95; don't know why the Maxell site mixes alkaline and silver oxide types. Googling for the lithium variety shows a million Chinese sources for it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Maximum off-load voltage
It took me some time to find out this information when creating my own battery pack. Would it be good to list the "Maximum off-load voltage" section of the specs to this Battery size article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.90.60 (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Standard OCVs are in the IEC standard for common battery types and many manufacturer datasheets also show the OCV. This could be added, it's up to you, it won't do any harm to do so, but it may not be that important a piece of information. I'm an inclusionist, so I say add anything you have and we'll see what happens over time. If you do add, use the existing voltage columns if they are present otherwise add it to comments.--Lead holder (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I definitely second this idea. It is very useful to know the maximum V you can expect from, for example, a Ni-Cad cell, which is nominally 1.2 Volts, but can reach 1.45 Volts open circuit when fully charged. Darkman101 (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
But voltage isn't related to size - size is related to size. This is an article about battery sizes. Or do you propose to list every chemistry system voltage for each size? Isn't that a lot of useless repetition? A nickel-cadmium cell produces the same voltage in a button battery or in a D-size cell. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Very true, and there are articles for different chemistries, if it is desired then it would be more appropriate in those articles. I'm not against it's inclusion either here or in chemistry articles though.--Lead holder (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Terminology
Terminology - e.g. "single-cell round batteries". Wrong throughout - a single cell cannot be a battery. A battery is an assembly of two or more cells. The full correct term is "battery of cells", which has been shortened to "battery" for convenience. A single cell is a cell and only a cell - the terms are NOT interchangeable. Please get it right. 212.159.59.5 (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Technically yes, which has been highlighted in the relevant articles. However in common English language use the term 'battery' is used almost exclusively, 'cell' is rarely if ever used by the "man on the street". Wikipedia is not a technical encyclopedia (it's not even an encyclopedia). Get it right. --Lead holder (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, people publishing battery handbooks call them "batteries" with indifference to the number of cells. The display at the supermarket is called "Batteries" and they don't segregate the multiple-cell types from the single-cell types. What benefit would the encyclopedia get from this refinement? Would we not confuse the reader by insisting on a difference that no-one else observes? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
As always Mr Wtshymanski, you make a good point. That sort of technical snobbishness doesn't really belong in wikipedia articles.--Lead holder (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Uxx (In Britain until the 1980s) ?
As a born and bred UK citizen, I have never heard of the Uxx classification.
Certainly as far back as the early 1970's batteries were always sold with the A,C,D etc classification in bold letters on the box and battery.
If it existed it must have largely disappeared by the 1950's or 60's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelis4 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
It must have persisted past the 1950's as I can recall many of my toys and games having battery doors stamped with various UMX designations as well as NEMA and others. What I haven't been able to find yet is the name of the British standard taht designated the UM types. Or, maybe it was one of the British manufacturers' catalog numbers that became a de-facto standard.
Correct. Ever Ready used 'U'. Vidor used 'V' and Exide used 'E' The numerical part was generally the same, but exceptions did exist. For example Ever Ready never used 'U' for the AA size pen battery but designated it 'D14' for some reason. They adopted the number 7 for the zinc-chloride high power version (HP7). Vidor sold the V7 and Exide the E7. This was a time when all the UK battery manufacturers used their own numbering systems (and often there was no correlation with numbers). 109.145.22.224 (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Suspected error in "Round batteries", size C
Under IEC, it says "KR14 (NiCd)", can this be correct? I do have some Philips NiCd size C cells, they are marked: "KR27/50(R14)1.2V". The cells are clearly marked nickel cadmium. I asked the same on this archived talk page but the response there didn't make me any wiser. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
R14 is the size, which is C size.
K is the chemistry which is Nickel–cadmium
This can be found in the article battery nomenclature. This is the proper IEC name but manufacturers have many ways of naming their products in order to confuse and keep people buying their brand when any old compatible brand would usually do. --Lead holder (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I was looking to replace a "CR 2/3 8L" (or "CR2/38L" or "CR2/38·L") battery, which is not listed in this article. This is a Fuji (FDK) battery, and some retail sites (none WP:RS) suggest that it may be an alternative name to the CR123, or may simply be interchangeable with the CR123. If we could find a RS that states which is the case, it would make a welcome addition to this article. (The CR123 replacement worked in my application, but the cases were not identical. Where my CR123 had a flat negative end, the "CR 2/3 8L" had a low, broad nub: both had the standard, more pronounced, smaller diameter positive end nub.) -- ToE07:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've spotted a few references that this may be an ER17/33 or ER17335 equivalent. Those are basically CR123 compatible except for being a bit lower voltage, and substantially lower current capacity. Was it one of these:
I have an old device requiring an Ever Ready D23 1.5 Volt cell. I cannot find it on the page. Please can anyone tell me what the modern equivalent is ? It is about 10mm diameter and about 35mm long (judging by the size of the battery tube it must fit into). Darkman101 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
How firm is that 12 mm diameter? This [5] says D23 was the name for what's listed here as an N size cell or R1, but that's 12 mm diameter. And this [6] says that the D23 was a popular size during the 1960's. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I have an old 60's test meter, it also uses the D23 cell. The best match I have found is a 2/3 AAA, at 10.5mm dia X 30mm long. Rgds Si.82.5.82.120 (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Trustfire batteries
Is here someone who could complete this article with this type of batteries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazarin07 (talk • contribs)
This is .en. Every language and country of the world doubtless has its own names for flashlight battery sizes, but this is isn't Wiki-translate. Only English-language names need to be listed here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
DD battery
The DD battery, 3.6V, 31000-35000 mAh, Li-SOCl2, 5 in. x 1.4 in, should be included. ER341270 is one number; Tadiran TLH-5937 is another. This is one ad for them, this is another.Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
For a "so-called" LIST of well known battery sizes &/or model numbers.. THIS LIST is deficient in it's content
WHERE OH WHERE -- is the mention of the WELL KNOWN (for many many years) ..
EVEREADY BF torch battery.. Discontinued in the most recent year - The Millienum - of JUST 2000.
ie:
I have an OLD GEC SELECTEST MULTIMETER.. which has finally succumbed to FLAT INTERNAL BATTERIES.?
However..
Upon opening up this OLD instrument.?
I have discovered that the original GEC L 6105 & GEC L 6103 "batteries" have been replaced (in some distant past period) with EVEREADY BF 927 batteries (4 of) "leak proof" AND YES.. there's no sign of leakage .. (but boy are they rusty) and ONE now extremely corroded PHILIPS R 20 TR 1.5v battery.
So?
Guess who came here..
TO SEE that Wikipedia doesn't weven know they existed.?
I have since found a "forum" .. of someone in Australia talking of a torch made years ago ..(By Eveready) ..
Which was called a 2BF Torch .. (WHY? Because used TWO "Eveready" BF 927 Batteries).
Re:
Check out the 2x BF eveready torch - chat forum:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?216029-The-2BF-Bedside-Torch
Re:
The "BF" cell was a short "B" cell, 13/16" diameter x 1 7/16" high.
Sold by Eveready Australia as the 927 until the mid-1970s.
Packaged in a 2-cell battery as the No.8 by Eveready UK until about the year 2000. Varta made a version of the No.8 in Germany and there was also a French make; these all stopped around 2000.
Eveready came out with "Heavy Duty" cells in the 1960s (the 915, 935 and 950 acquired 1015, 1035 and 1050 "Red" counterparts), and in the early 1980s came out with "Super Heavy Duty" (Zinc Chloride, the 1215, 1235 and 1250 "Black" cells). And then, of course, there were Nicads and alkalines, for a price.
But, oddly enough, there were none of these ever made available in the BF size. If you wanted a pair of BF cells to power your Bijou, the Eveready 927 was all there was. Resolutely "Standard Duty" (or "General Purpose") level performance was all there was on offer. In my childhood, Eveready Standard Duty cells had Silver wrappers, and nowadays are Blue. The ones in the photos had white wrappers - this is before my time.
Oh .. and yes..
MY BATTERIES ARE IN BETTER CONDITION THAN HIS.. as mine are nice silver packaged batteries.
122.62.211.175 (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
WSTLNZ & QUIX/ QUIX4U (in New Zealand)
Battery sizes or just some battery sizes?
I'm seeing a repeating pattern here, that could do with addressing directly. Is this 'list of battery sizes' article a list of battery sizes, or is it a list of just some sizes? Personally it makes more sense to me to list them all, but give the popular and current ones their own section near the top for easy access.
Why list all?
firstly it is the title of the article, if one wants to create a 'popular battery sizes' one can
people come to this article for various reasons, including often to identify obsolete or uncommon battery types
the info on uncommon & obsolete battery types is certainly useful, some of us are still running electronics from the 1920s, 30s, 50s etc
the old data doesnt cause a problem if its kept in a separate section from popular batteries
Not all. There's tens of thousands of battery models out there. Let's try and keep our vaulting ambition down to those sizes made by several manufacturers; no-one cares if the Binford company made a 6100 cell ( 7 sided, with wire terminals) from 1914 through 1916 that only fit their particular flashlight. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm totally with Tabby here. An encyclopedia is exactly the kind of the place that should list information on old, obsolete and extinct battery types, not just the latest. All this information, even the abstruse, is important, both for the sake of history as well as being a useful source of technical data.
Mr Wtshymanski: "no-one cares" !!! O.K., you don't care, but many of us come to this encyclopedia hoping to find exactly this kind of information ! (I haven't yet looked at the article on the Binford company. But I will !) Darkman101 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
We can't even get this present subset list properly referenced. Some of the recent additions are just rumors and folklore on the order of "What was that funny little battery we used to see in the shops when I was a child before the War?" level of reminescence. Please add any battery type that was a) actually made and b) for which you can find a good reference. All those UM-prefixes that the British used to use are very badly documented in the books to which I have access, for example. If you can find a document for an obsolete type that gives its designation, size, chemistry, and perhaps some indication of what it was used for, great. But let's try and keep it to reasonably widespread obsolete types, not one-offs. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Recently, I was looking for a "standard" 9 V battery for my Russian Night Vision. The tube that holds the battery is reamed according to a 9 V battery size. I was using a Panasonic, without any problem, although it was tight. When I switched to Fuji, Ray-O-Vac or even Duracell, these batteries were larger and I couldn't even cram them into the space. I ended up using Energizer 9 V which slid in even easier than the Panasonic.
This means to me, that the 9 V sizes do not appear to be standard anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.56.59 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
More likely the device was built with a slightly too small battery compartment. All batteries vary a bit in size, and there are minimums and maximums for all the dimensions. If someone were building any quantity of PP3s larger than the standard maximum size, we'd have heard about it. Rwessel (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I must point out that there are probably HUNDREDS of other sizes of batteries, and perhaps a dozen different battery technologies (not just alkaline, for example). Consider the lead-acid "car" battery for example. This article is both limited and also tries to take on too much at the same time. Needs work. My recommendation is to SIMPLIFY and let other articles take over for the variations. 71.10.146.139 (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
6LF22
I've never seen a flat alkaline cell and my books only describe 9V alkaline batteries as made up of six cylindrical cells. Who makes a 6LF22? Reference? --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe these should be moved into a separate "Round Lithium Cell Sizes" article? If another manufacturer starts to produce this size, then we can add one made by A123.
A123 makes the 32113 ('AHR32113') which is 113 millimeters long and roughly a replacement for 2 D-cells. Short by just 10 millimeters. It makes me wonder why they don't just make a direct replacement for 3V flashlights since they often are actually using 3.6V bulbs run at a lower voltage to give extra life. Guess we're going to need a roll of quarter-dollar coins. :/ 75.70.90.36 (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Dimensional ambiguity?
When physical dimensions are listed in the tables, it is unclear whether they include or exclude projecting terminals (such as on the 9 volt rectangular battery, or the lantern battery with spring terminals). If this is explained in the article, it is not immediately evident when referring to the tables. Is one convention applied consistently, and is this explained somewhere in the article? Reify-tech (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
UM-4 battery
I purchased a wireless indoor and outdoor themometer and it requires two x UM-4 and one x UM-3. Are these simply a AAA battery and a (AA) battery.
Jean
Those are old Japan Industrial Standard designations for battery sizes. Japan now has harmonized battery standards with IEC so the current standard is the nationalized version of the IEC standard. No-one has yet come up with the older JIS standard that gave all these UM sizes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Car batteries aren't "common primary and secondary battery types in household and light industrial use" which is what this article is concerned with. I also suspect that should a list be included, it would be unfeasibly large. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Batteries?
I am bothered by all these cells being called batteries. I don't much care if this is a common ignorance. Go to the Duracell web page -- see if they sell "D batteries" or "D cells."
About 3.5 years ago, I went through most of the tables adding non-breaking spaces ( ) and hyphens (‑) where appropriate to prevent text like "2200–12000 (NiMH)" from breaking (see the capacity column for D cells, for this example). Because ordinary hyphens are used for line breaks, the columns often generate narrow enough to cause these entries to break badly. While the s have been left in, the hard hyphens have all been removed over time, rendering much of the table rather hard to read. I am contemplating doing this again (apparently I enjoy the pain), but perhaps with template:nowrap instead. Comments? Rwessel (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Error Report.
The old British Every Ready number for the AA cell was U12, not U14 as stated in this article. The U14 was much bigger: 2 1/16 x 4 5/16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.235.58 (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Marked in the present table as GB. I've heard it called grid bias battery and C battery, but not GB battery, which I presume is an abbreviation of grid bias.
The voltage tappings are an essential feature of these, the point of them was to provide bias adjustment for valves in the 1930s (how much further back they go I don't know.)
86.29.7.158 (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree in principle, but these tables are unwieldy already, adding another column or two seems like a major stretch for modest gain. Rwessel (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Needs more context. "M" isn't an IEC or ANSI designation for a battery size. What family of standards does size "M" belong to? Or is it a manufacturer's size, if so, which maker? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on List of battery sizes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on List of battery sizes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of battery sizes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
There is no such thing as a "single cell battery". A "battery", by definition, is "two or more cells electrically connected together". I've fixed this.
This has been discussed before - while technically and historically true, in common usage the distinction between cell and battery is non-existent. Rwessel (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
As regards common usage, you are correct. However, the article gives many technical specification concerning cell chemistry, cell and battery construction, and cell properties. Technically the distinction between "cell" and "battery" is important.
If the article used one term or the other consistently, this would be less important. But both terms are used, and the usage is not consistent. In one place we read of "cell chemistry", in another of "battery chemistry" (there is no such thing). Often this occurs in the same sentence, where a unit is referred to as a "cell" at the beginning of a statement and a "battery" at the end. This is both inaccurate and confusing.
In an article that only gave a list of names and sizes, colloquial usage would be, if not strictly correct, at least acceptable. In a technically-oriented article, technically correct definitions and usages are necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2016
Technically the difference between a battery and a cell is important, but even in technical circles, it's typical nowadays to define a battery as one or more cells (See here and here). Everybody agrees that a battery requires at least one cell, whereas only some people insist that it requires at least two cells. --Skrapion (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Organized by popularity?!?! Talk about POV issues. I came to read up on the differences between AAA and AAAA ... and had to wander all over the article to find the information. Here's a thought: all in one table, arranged by the "Most Common..." column (as it is now), and add an additional column for "popularity" (which could be scaled 1-10 or "common/not so common/rare", etc.). </whine> JimScott (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I've never been in love with the separation into "common" and "less-common" groups, although I understand why it was done. And I'm not sure all the current rankings make sense - I suspect that N's or 2032's are more common (now) than the 4.5Vs in the common section. I suppose a few of things are possible:
(1) just eliminate the distinction and merge the tables (and I'm only talking about the first sections - common/less-common cyl/non-cyl/PP, I don't think it's practical to merge *all* the batteries into one table)
(2) add back refs from the "less common" tables (as is already done for PP3 and "Lantern (spring)")
or (3) do the merge as (1), but add forward links from a list of particularly popular sizes.
I took a crack at this, except I also added an 'obsolete' section for anything no longer manufactured or used for legacy applications. --Skrapion (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Combined 90v and 1.5v Valve Radio Batteries
There's no mention of these batteries on this page.
They used to have two sets of connections, one for the 90v HT line to drive the electronics and one for 1.5v to power the valve heaters. They were big things and heavy.
I've had a quick search and found some discussion about them here with a photo:
http://www.radiomuseum.org/forum/philco_transitone_pt_63.html
but I expect they're obsolete and not manufactured so I'm not sure how you'd handle them on this page.
Basically is it possible to do a series-to-parallel connection? ie a 48 volt motor going to a 48 volt.
The neg of the main terminal will go to the posi of the aa battery you want to recharge, the + of the aa battery will go to the negative of the 12 volt fan. Then you put the pos of the 12 volt fan to the main terminal. The main terminals in the pic are petruding out of the 3 battery cells. If you need to recharge an AA battery, and dont want to use the grid, this is the best option. 3 12 volt batteries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.30.97 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a series to parallel circuit, there is a possible solution for a series-to-series-to parallel, and this is electromagnetism or perpetual energy. This solution is the way evs should be built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.30.97 (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Missing R10 cell type
R10 cell
Article mentions 2R10 batteries, but also a single R10 cell used to be available on market, for example in Poland during '70s and '80s there were Elektron brand R10 batteries like one on a photo. Tzok (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
A battery – Source of R23/LR23 designation for A-size battery?
I could not find "R23" on Barak's Electrochemical Power Sources (1980, ISBN 0906048265, makes reference to IEC's 4th edition of standard 60086-1, then simply called 86-1), nor I could locate it on the 10th edition of 60086-1 (2000). However, I do find "R51" on both sources I just cited, and its given dimensions (16.5 mm × 50.0 mm) are very tightly close to those (17 mm × 50 mm) given for the A-size battery in this article's table for cylindrical batteries. Shouldn't "A" have been specified here as R51/LR51 instead of R23/LR23? With no verifiable IEC source for "R23", the given designation can't be listed in the table under the column "IEC" (it should have been listed instead under the column "Other common"). All the other one/two-digit "R" designations under the IEC column in this table are present in both Barak and the IEC standard - only R23 is missing. 74.213.71.21 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey. Has anyone got any positive source of the size of the A battery? I have looked in the IEC and ANSI standards I have available to me but they're now a little old. And I have been informed that maybe the A size is no longer standardised so should probably be referenced elsewhere. As for the current picture of an A battery, I'm quite sure I have some somewhere so should update that picture. Umm, Saft still use A and R23 as a size for their lithium primary cells, but it would be better to have a non-manufacturer source.
--Lead holder (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: Change mAh to mWh
The article is listing each battery's capacity in mAh, which is useless in comparison, because they all use different voltages. I suspect the author got the habit from cell phone battery discussions, which are always centered around mAh since they're almost always the same voltage. But really, it's like measuring a car's gas tank in height, when they're all different widths. A much more useful number to compare how much useable energy you can get out of each battery would be milliwatt hours. moeburn (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the long-established de facto industry standard is to rate batteries in mAh, and WP:RS generally only supply ratings in that form. However, I would not object to an additional column to the tables, giving supplementary ratings in mWh, which would compare batteries with different voltages on a level playing field. Reify-tech (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of battery sizes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
In List_of_battery_sizes#Cylindrical_batteries it says AA batts: "Used in many household electronic devices such as flashlights, toys, cheap Cameras, remote controllers, etc,"
That may have been true well before 2004 when I bought a AA NiMH powered $300+ Fugi digital camera. Since then I actively seek only AA NiMH non-proprietary powered prosumer grade digital cameras. (I keep one pair of NiMHs in the cam, and two pair as backup, since I'm often traveling or am off-grid.)
Here is a partial list of not-Cheap AA-powered digital cams according to a quickie Google:
Nikon COOLPIX B500 16MP 40x Optical Zoom Digital Camera w/ Built-in Wi-Fi 32GB Bundle, $266.95 from 5+ stores
Nikon COOLPIX A10 Digital Camera Deluxe Kit,Compacts 16 Megapixels, HD 720, Color Silver, AA / AAA Powered, 1/2.3", 1/2.3", 5x, 26mm, 130mm, $142.95
Sony DSC-H300 Digital Camera Deluxe Kit Superzoom/Bridge 20 Megapixels, HD 720, 1/2.3", 1/2.3", 35x, 25mm,$254.95
Nikon COOLPIX L340 Digital Camera with 28x Zoom $265.81
Fujifilm Finepix S4250 Digital Camera, 24x Optical Zoom, 14MP, $339.98
Nikon COOLPIX P610 Digital Camera (Black) $ 479.00
I am concerned there is an industry-wide movement to devalue both NiMH and non-proprietary AA batteries, this includes Wikipedia. (For example, (this page, and) Wiki is using 14-year old cites to prove NiMHs have old, crappy self-discharge rates, —and reverted my improvement.) Again, this bias is currently Wiki-wide. One can think of several vested-interests possibly motivating this, or it could be Wiki failure to keep updated with the blazing, rapidly-improving battery chemistries and the current Market. I will make the suggested changes.
In section: "Camera batteries," it says, in total:
"Digital and film cameras often use specialized primary batteries to produce a compact product. Flashlights and portable electronic devices may also use these types."...and as expected ignores rechargeable and AA batteries, which is like an article on sea life that ignores fish. I don't know what to do about that. Thoughts? --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F0C5:DC19:A570:558E (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Chill...sooner or later the Conspiracy will be in touch with you and give you your decoder ring and marching orders. Though I must admit, it's been *months* since my last cheque from the twisty bulb cartel. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you offer any sources to support your claim that "there is an industry-wide movement to devalue both NiMH and non-proprietary AA batteries"? You may include sources that implicate Wikipedia in this theory as well. If not, then you shouldn't be making any changes. Cheers. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Obviously a camera manufacturer wants you to buy their branded accessories, which works fine till the Chinese factory they contracted with puts the same battery on E-bay at 10% of the price. That's not a conspiracy, that's marketing. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Bingo! In Wtshymanski's apparent desire to see conspiracy theories misses the point. I'm not talking conspiracy theory, I'm talking simple economics. If s/he thinks vested interests spoofing technical forums and Wikipedia is something new, s/he should get educated in the matter. Likewise an education in economics/marketing if s/he thinks vested interests will somehow magically ignore the nearly free broadcasting in technical forums, Wikipedia, etc. Unlike overt marketing they do not SHOUT New & Improved! nor use babes in bikinis, —they subtlety change a word here and there to shift meanings and shift emphasis or tone (like "cheap") or forget to mention something (like old high self-discharge NiMH are now hard to find, obsolete).
Chaheel Riens says I should not make changes based on unsourced implications of Wikipedia. I agree, that was never my intention. I only mention it as a heads-up to other editors. I do have an example however: a good deal of this article is misleading without ever telling a lie. Since I cant't read minds obviously I don't know the motivation, it could be poor communication skills, or outdated knowledge, who knows?... but these "unclarities" tend to lean toward "devaluing both NiMH and non-proprietary AA batteries." Example: Section [Camera batteries] is at best mis-titled, but possibly just about all wrong. That section is NOT about common digital camera batteries today which are mostly proprietary model-specific Li-ons or LSD NiMH. That section is NOT about [Camera batteries]! (Go shopping on Google, duh.) And again; "...and as expected it ignores rechargeable and AA batteries, which is like an article on sea life that ignores fish." Yes, this bias is Wiki-wide, I've been editing several Battery articles correcting factual errors and "poor wording."
Again, let me emphasize, I NOT attempting to edit Wikipedia with this "original research," I am attempting to communicate with the editors. Just something to keep an eye open for. Rechargeable Batteries — compared and explained in detail| http://michaelbluejay.com/batteries/rechargeable.html
And where in this article are these facts emphasized? "NiMH cells are often used in digital cameras and other high-drain devices, where over the duration of single-charge use they outperform primary (such as alkaline) batteries. .... NiMH cells are advantageous for high-current-drain applications, largely due to their lower internal resistance (much higher peak current output (amperage) capacity). " Nickel–metal_hydride_battery#Compared_to_other_battery_types
"I'm not talking conspiracy theory" - Yeah, you are: "I am concerned there is an industry-wide movement"
"Chaheel Riens says I should not make changes based on unsourced implications of Wikipedia. I agree, that was never my intention." - Yeah, it was: "I will make the suggested changes"
I'd probably support your suggested changes, pending reliable sourcing, but you're coming across just too rabid for me to comfortably do so. I should imagine that this comment makes me part of the non-declared conspiracy now. If it helps, I've never used babes in bikinis to promote my viewpoint. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Ugh. I debated if I should respond, I think critical thinking would yield the correct interpretation among others and I don't really want to participate in a pissing contest, but I'll assume good intent and attempt to clarify honest misunderstanding. First I should explain my writing style so you better debate me rather than somebody else. Sometimes I fall into the hyperbole trap. Otherwise I choose my words very carefully, with few throw-away words or clauses, and ask that you respond to what I write, not your prejudice or bias, — nor if you think I am bland enough. I also ask that you take the same care in your own words, and (for example, make complete, coherent logical arguments) write carefully. I strongly believe that words mean something, one doesn't get to define them as we go along so they agree with our position. (Some of these misunderstandings look a great deal like straw man fallacies so popular, taught lately on political talk radio.)
The keyword here is "unsourced." I listed a few "not cheap" cameras here, and Wtshymanski made the suggested changes before I could. (S/she seems to function logically without bias nor silly imagined rigid rules.)
In the future I hope not to respond to what a critical thinker would consider to be self-rebutting arguments, nor to gratuitous polemics. Lately I've been thinking babes in bikinis in red convertibles with iced beer are more persuasive than anything I have. ;)
It would be extremely helpful if there were 2 more columns - for Amp Hour capacity and for internal resistance range
Amp-Hours are fundamental to battery selection. For example: an AA cell will have several entries depending on the chemistry. Carbon-zinc would have the lowest AH rating, alkaline quite a bit higher, and so on. This would be really helpful for someone who is trying to select a battery based on duration of output under load. Manufacturers and battery specialty vendors usually give this info, though it can be a bit hard to find for specific types, so a range of values would be sufficient.
Internal resistance is not something vendors are usually willing to share, though such measurements used to be performed (perhaps they still are) in college physics courses. This info is really important in determining the maximum safe current over the life of the battery. For example: a 1 AH 1.5 volt battery might have an internal resistance of 3 ohms, which would mean that 0.5 amps would be the maximum continuous current that the battery could deliver over 2 hours. Depending on the chemistry, exceeding this current might cause adverse reactions (such as polarization) internally which would cause the battery to fail prematurely.
Most sizes have capacities listed, at least for the common zinc and lithium sizes. Internal resistance varies according to the chemistry, discharge history, discharge rate, temperature, and probably a dozen other factors - it would be difficult to give a single number that would have any credibility. Anyone needing that level of detail would be better off consulting the manufacturer's data sheets. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes and no! It would be immensely helpful to have that information here, but as said already you do really also need to check each manufacturers data sheet, which can become extremely tedious. If someone would take the time to fill out the worst and best, or even the average, of these parameters for a given cell size, designers like myself would greatly appreciate it. But, you would end up making this Wikipedia page far too bloated, becoming a battery selection guide. Probably not what we would intend, just too much detail. But you could do it somewhere else, with a link from here, and it would be useful.
Tiger99 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't even know if it's possible to do this at all. I've found it difficult to compare even two different models of alkaline battery from the same manufacturer, as they will display different test parameters for their "industrial" and "consumer" flavors. Cut-off voltage is a very sensitive parameter, for example. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Good point! Having had a closer look, I can see that some gain marketing advantage by using a different cut-off voltage than their competitors. There probably is, or should be, some ISO or IEC standard for how to document the actual performance, but I doubt that many manufacturers of consumer grade batteries would bother to comply. So we probably can't get what me would wish for in this case. So I will give up on that idea for now.
Tiger99 (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
There should really be a separate section or article about the ubiquitous LR 18650 and why it comes with a tip on the + when you buy a device and why both + and - sides are flat when you buy a replacement from most brands. Are there different 18650 shapes, or do the 18650 comes either flat, with a tip, with soldered metal bands? It is very confusing. Chimel31 (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Listed size of 18650 batteries
I have my doubts about the listed common size of 18650 batteries, as the highest capacity 18650 batteries I managed to find were the LG INR18650-M36 and the Panasonic NCR18650G, both at 3600mAh, which is obviously way below the listed top common capacity of 6800mAh. Either the listed capacity is wrong or I'm incompetent at looking for stuff. --Mahuset (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
<months later> There's actual capacity, and then there's the number printed on the label. An 18650 size cell only has room for so much lithium in it, no matter what some mysterious E-bay retailer claims on the label. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I've given up on 18650s altogether, in favour of either NiMH or flat-pack LiPos. The lying factor for cylindrical LiPos is just too big.
I have a discharge tester, also a charger which can measure delivered charge. The theoretical limit for an 18650 (from the volume of chemistry) is something like 3,600 mAh MAXIMUM. You can buy cells approaching this in Japan, Taiwan or Korea, but they're not cheap. 2,500 mAh cost $10 (last time I cared). These are compact, light and more physically robust than a flat pack - maybe they're what you need. However I can buy a reliable AA NiMH with 2,400 mAh for much less, with slightly less volume, albeit 1/3rd of the voltage.
Chinese 18650 cells though are labelled up to 10,000 mAh (which is just impossible) and their lying factor, the true capacity vs. that printed is usually about 10×. Which means that they've just got no advantage over the NiMH whatsoever. They're also temperamental and easily destroyed by over-discharge. Very few retail-grade 18650s are protected as they ought to be. Then there are those which are simply half-filled cell packages, weighted with sand. So don't trust the "heavier" ones either. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
No. 6 dry cell
I was going to add the No. 6 dry cell but am surprised to learn they are no longer made. When did that happen? They were so common through about the 1960s it seems to me they should be in this list. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
They're already here, as obsolete.
AFAIK, they were only ever made as carbon-zinc. Their original use was for a relatively high current load, but after the first years it was much more as a battery with a long shelf life, otherwise difficult to achieve with carbon-zinc. They were mostly used for telephony in remote locations, particularly on railways. Once alkaline technology came along, the same result could be achieved with D cells, far more cheaply. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Your assertion that they are no longer made is incorrect. They are alive and well and available to buy (at least here in the UK). Their current size designation is LR40 and they are available as an alkaline battery. If you want some, you can obtain them here. The reference to 'flag cell' is that the UK Ever Ready company (not to be confused with the US eveready company) sold the batteries under their size designation of 'FLAG' (please don't ask me why). The current cells are dimensionally slightly larger at about half a millimetre greater diameter and about six millimetres extra height (due to larger terminals). DocFergus (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
"In some cases, sizes that originally were considered distinct are now interchangeable. For example, the 189/389 cell is 3.1 mm high and was designated 1131, while the 190/390 size is 3.0 mm high and was designated 1130, but these sizes are now considered equivalent."
I think what we're trying to say in our usual lovable vauge Wikiwaffling way is that battery holders are expected to work with either size of cell. Even Wikipedia consensus can't make 3.0 = 3.1. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Eveready 412
Great page! I was going to add the Eveready 412 but I'm glad to see it is already here. This is the most obscure battery I've encountered personally. It's is one of two (different voltage) batteries in an old flash bulb unit I have. It must be around 70 years old and still has enough charge to light a bulb! Waz (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
22.5V ? Rectangular block with a single contact at each end? They're pretty common in the UK (by such standards). AIUI, they appeared first for valve hearing aids as a grid bias battery, supplying the medium voltage, low current needs of valve circuits. However they were also used in the AVO 8multimeter, and that has had a huge service life, so they're still fairly common as a large, accurate, analogue bench meter. You can buy new alkaline ones from the larger 'big catalogue' suppliers like RS or Farnell, but they aren't cheap. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Amp hours should be watt hours
Displaying the battery's capacity in amp-hours isn't useful information. You can't make any comparison with one battery's amp-hour figure to another, and worse yet some users might be misled into thinking these are complete statements of battery capacity, and actually try to compare them. Measuring a battery's capacity in amp hours is like measuring a car's gas tank in height, in inches. This should be changed to watt-hours. It is an easy enough calculation, just multiply the battery's voltage by its amp hours. But there are too many different voltages of batteries in the list, why even have this column at all if it is in amp-hours? 74.15.79.70 (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Because that is the industrial standard, and because it matters. If you have an MCU working at, say, 2.8V, you could not care less if the battery gives you 3V, 3.2V (LiFePo4), or 3.6V (Lithium Thionyl Chloride, the rest of the "voltage" is lost anyhow, what you are interested in, is how many mAh your battery can give. In this respect, 1000mAh of the CR2477 at 3V is much better than 840mA of the ER2256 even if the second gives you the same energy on the same volume (it supplies 3.6V, Lithium-Chloride chemistry). The first one means about 50% longer life time of your watch. Because at this low voltage, you can't convert efficiently the voltage, a Step-Down (buck) converter would consume more than the benefit, due to continue oscillation, and you would typically use an LDO or nothing, between your battery and your load. You confuse capacity with energy; you have to see the energy as a volume (cube, one lateral is the current, one is the voltage, one is the time). LaurV (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Highest Energy
The remark "Has the highest capacity of lithium button cell batteries" for CR2477 should be accompanied by a time reference ("as of 2018" or so) or edited in some way. It may not be available anymore since CR3256 batteries are available, packing a larger volume (and therefore more energy). LaurV (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Lantern (Screw) battery image and IEC designation
Two questions about the lantern (screw) battery:
1) Is there any free image for the Lantern (Screw) battery? I've found a bunch of images of 915A batteries hosted on commercial websites such as Amazon, but I don't know if using the image here for illustration purposes qualifies for fair use or not, I don't know the details of how copyright works.
2) The table says the IEC designation for the lantern (screw) battery is either 4R25X/4LR25X for carbon-zinc/alkaline respectively. However, an image search of either of these designations results in lantern (spring) batteries, as shown in this Wikimedia image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Lantern_battery_comparison-1.jpg. Most of the batteries depicted have plastic covers on the spring terminals, which might be easily confused with actual screw ones.
I discovered a type of cell that I had never seen in the field. They are called pin cells and seem to be commonly used in archery nook and fishing lure and float lighting. They are also available in rechargeable it seems. They seem to be in typically small diameters and long form factor with a simple pin as the one terminal and an exposed metal case as the return. I would be delighted if they could receive a mention on this page.
A model CR425 was advertised as a rechargeable type.
Some appear to have a factory fitted LED on the end, switching mechanism unknown to me.
Below some other advertised sizes from small to large, may even conform to a modified button cell numbering system with first digit diameter and second and third digits for length, both in (rounded) millimetres if one can take a guess from pictures.
I tried buying a 25500 as listed, but got no offer on eBay.de. So I checked the refs, and found the size 26500 mentioned, for which I did promptly get offers. Both sizes appear to exist, or have existed. Due to the current market relevance of 26500 I'm adding it into the list.
Marco Pellegrino (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be in the Rectangular batteries section
Far more obscure batteries listed here why not at least one type of Valve regulated lead acid battery (VRLA battery) has its own page,
Is there any reason why these are not listed here? VRLA battery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.184.202 (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The most common battery size in Soviet/Russian electronic watches
The giants Fafner and Fasolt might wear a wristwatch that takes a CR2325 cell
In the cell size "18650", 18 is nominal diameter in mm and 650 is the nominal length in tenths of a millimetre. This is given in a diagram in section C2.2.2.1.1 of IEC standard 60086-1, and in section C2.2.1.3. The "R" prefix letter designates a round cell. Calling a ithium-ion battery an "18650" is a short cut. For example, a common button battery is an LR1154, where "L" means alkaline zinc chemistry, R means a round cell, 11 is 11 mm diameter, and 54 is 5.4 mm height. I have removed the suggestion to alter the article as it was referenced, but inconsistent with the IEC standard. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It might be useful, but are there reliable (and consistent) sources for this information? The weights would be approximate and subject to change, since they are not typically specified by the standards definitions, but are determined by various manufacturers. It is very obvious that D cells of different quality vary considerably in weight, but smaller cells may be more consistent. A range of weights would have to be given for the larger cells, at least.
Establishing and maintaining this information in a useful way would take a considerable amount of meticulous effort that might be better applied elsewhere on Wikipedia. Most readers would not find this information that helpful, and anyone actually needing the information would have to verify it independently before relying on it for design. Reify-tech (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Renata 10
I came here to find out what happened to Renata 10 batteries. I have an old watch that has "RENATA 10 OR EQUIVALENT" on the caseback. AG3 batteries fit so I can still used the watch, but wondering about obsolete Renatas.
Middle More Rider (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to repair a little lamp - it has 3 AG3 batteries - I come here to find out what their normal Voltage should be and that's not mentioned? There no voltages mentioned at all - with any battery; isn't that something that should be added? AG3 battery is 1.5V Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
This is an article about battery sizes. The voltage depends on the chemistry. You would have to look up the manufacturer's code number "AG3" to find out the size and chemistry and voltage of the battery, as it is not a designation given in manufacturer-independent standards. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The 66160 LTO batteries are becoming more and more common, especially in applications where very large currents are needed, maybe someone who knows better, can add them to the cylindrical batt table. That table looks like not updated for few years. LaurV (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
There are innumerable fractional variants of the common sizes, but if you think 2/3AA is sufficiently notable to be worth mentioning, that sounds reasonable.
Also, note that the 2/3A size is currently under the separate "Camera batteries" section (as CR123A, its most common chemistry). If we add 2/3AA to the main "Cylindrical batteries" list, we should probably add a placeholder row there with a link (similar to how the PP3 entry in the "PP series" section links to 9V).
I edited a few places in the "Obsolete batteries" table to use the diameter symbol ⌀ rather than ambiguous "D", which could also mean "depth". My thinking was that ⌀ is fairly widely used as a technical symbol, and wikilinked the first instance to Diameter in case anyone isn't familiar with it.
However, User:Wtshymanski reverted the change on the grounds: "no need for rune, round battery only has diameter and height, no risk of confusion". I disagree because the table contains both cylindrical and prismatic batteries, and it's unambiguous only if the reader already knows the shape of the particular battery. (Consider that a blind reader wouldn't be able to infer it from the picture.)
Another alternative would be to use a longer abbreviation, e.g. "dia." or "diam.", or to use "⌀" but wikilink all the occurrences instead of only the first. Suggestions for best way? 73.223.72.200 (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this is a wise change. Only people warped by years of immersion in technology fields think an unpronounceable rune is an improvement over a perfectly legible letter. And it saves no space. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Eveready 416 cell count
The article says it's composed of 46 cells, but 46 * 1.5 V = 69 V, not 67.5V (which would be 45 cells). The source does say 46, but if you click the source for the Eveready 415, it claims that one is composed of 36 cells, not 30, which is even less accurate. 2600:1700:4579:B80:7091:DCE1:1CFD:FA93 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
