On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 05:11:01 GMT, "Asimov"
wrote:

" bravely wrote to "All" (03 Nov 05 13:46:08)
--- on the heady topic of "Battery quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/whatever"

mc From:
mc Xref: core-easynews rec.radio.amateur.homebrew:88699

mc Has anyone investigated the
mc quality/life/efficiency/MostBangForTheBuck/ whatever of ordinary AA (or
mc other) cells? I recently saw the following in a local sto

mc (I determined COST as the price for the most-economical
mc blister-pack divided by the number of cells in that pack.)

mc $ COST
mc EACH MANUFACTURER BRAND NAME OTHER CLAIM
mc ------ ------------ ---------- ------------------------------
mc 0.4435 Duracell CopperTop
mc 0.4435 Energizer Max
mc 0.81 Energizer Titanium
mc 0.2875 Rayovac Alkaline Same Performance, Better Price
mc 0.235 Rayovac Heavy Duty
mc 0.36 (StoreBrand) Ever Alive

mc 2.105 Energizer Lithium
mc 2.4575 Energizer Rechargable
mc 2.2425 Rayovac Rechargable
mc --
mc --Myron A. Calhoun.


Have a look at AAA's for a chuckle. If we compare them by mass, one
gets 4 times less in AAA's (2 cells) than in AA's (4 cells) for the
*same* price. The battery makers must be giggling all the way to the
bank over this one. Howver, my remote control doesn't care if it is a
fine vintage Union Carbide or a China special. That will have an
effect eventually, especially in lost jobs.

A*s*i*m*o*v

... I came, I saw, I got sidetracked, I forgot why I was here.


From a manufacturer's point of view AA and AAA probably cost about
the same. Small long tubes are harder to draw and fill without
rejects. What really annoys me is the way designers are pushing
toward AAA in LED flashlights and small portable radios to keep the
weight/size down. I would much rather have AA.