Talk:AA battery

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Look ma, no heading

Who is responsible for the standardization of AA / AAA batteries? --Abdull 13:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IEC (International Electrotechnial Commission). Rintrah 08:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also covered by ANSI C18.1M. By this specification the AA and AAA dimensions (in mm) are as follows

AA: diameter = 13.5 - 14.5, length = 49.3 - 50.5 (includes positive terminal), minimum positive terminal height = 1

AAA: diamter = 9.5 - 10.5, length = 43.3 - 44.5 (includes positive terminal), minimum positive terminal height = 0.8

the copy of the specification I have is dated 2001, but I believe this is the most current. Yiming689 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the designations "AA, AAA, C, D" ?

Each designation describes size. Rintrah 08:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sizes also: AAAA, 4/5AA, A, 4/5A "four-fifths A", 4/5SC, SC "small C". 18670 is borrowed from Li-ion size nomenclature (approx. 18mm diameter x 67mm length). See http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/chem/nicmet/index.html. B size supposedly existed but fell out of use, maybe still available in Europe. Size C alkaline used to be common for flashlights and radios etc. in the 1980's but have been nearly extinct at retail for years. There's a page describing the batteries in a vacuum tube system as being labeled A, B, C and having varying voltage, but that page claims there was never a size "A" cell which is not true. I suspect much of that page is speculation and the history of transition from battery packs to cells with the same labeling is poorly documented. mattbayly 03:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The size C is still common in Britain. AA, AAA, C, D and PP3 are available in supermarkets and a lot of other shops. Other sizes require more hunting or ordering on-line. 146.90.252.158 (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions:

Which company introduced the AA battery (and when)?

217.34.39.123 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to "List of battery sizes", its colloqiual name is Penlight Mignon. To answer to your other question, AA is the standardised definition set by the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission)(source: http://www.bbma.co.uk/batterysizes.htm). I do not know which company first manufactured it. Rintrah 08:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why redirect "A Battery" to this article?

What is the point of having the "A Battery" redirect point to this article, when this article makes no attempt to explain or discuss the "A Battery" type? I do see in the references an article for "A Battery (vacuum tubes)" which is the more logical redirect target, and so I'm changing the redirect to point to there.

DMahalko 12:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

81.86.133.117 keeps adding a link to the moixa website on this page (referencing the USBCELL). This user only appears to make edits related to moixa and their CEO. Usually self-serving and non encyclopedic. Meanmeancoffeebean 09:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum Volts to Power Various Equipment

Calling the battery guy to write this up for everyone, please? Some years ago, Popular Science (maybe something related) ran an article explaining that various batteries, at least D,C,AA,AAA, had MUCH useful life for certain devices that required far less than a full 1.5V per cell was required for some devices, meaning that even when many were ready to dispose of them, there was substantial useful life. In other words, items with motors, lights, and high (important) memory devices--cameras, gps.....shut down and/or fail to work fully when the batteries are not far down from 1.5V. Save those batteries for clocks, clocks with sound chips (incl alarm clocks), as these will function with the "deadest" batteries. Pocket radios will work on very low voltage, too. AM requires far less power than FM, as it turns out. I have a ANR (automatic noise reduction) headset and the voltage required is FAR less than the full 1.5V (it works well, even when the little "on" light barely lights). Along these lines then, note that rechargeables at 1.2V maximums will QUIT in those devices where shutoff thresholds are high. Someone help to write this somewhat meaningful information in encyclopedia form, please? Note that this public service might reduce the number of batteries going to the trash...or perhaps delay the discard, thereof. Good luck! 207.178.98.4 03:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has anything to do with battery SIZE. It's an issue that a cell's voltage will be "dragged down" more when providing higher current, so it may "look dead" when in a high-power device even though it still has a fair amount of energy stored that can be drained at a lower rate. A cell's voltage is not pegged at the nominal specified on the package (1.5V for alkaline and 1.2V for NiMH rechargeable), it will bounce up & down depending on the load current. Maybe I'll try to add something to the page on internal resistance as that is the issue you describe. User:mattbayly 04:00 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What means AM3?

Is it the same as "LR6"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.47.149 (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at an AA battery now and it has AA/LR6/AM3 marked on it, so I would say it is. 70.88.250.45 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NiMH 2500mAh.jpg

The image Image:NiMH 2500mAh.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Batteries are Cells

Due to common usage the term battery has had its original meaning changed. A battery is a collection of things, guns for a gun emplacement and for electrical cells we have the standard 9v battery. This is the only correct use of the word battery that one usually buys at a convenience store . All AA, AAA, C, D and all their sub-groups are really cells. But who would walk into a shop and ask for "AA cells"; but that is what they really are. These days other examples of true batteries exist such as battery power tools and cell phones.

This is good example of how usage changes and often enhances our language. Instead of the buyer having to know how the 'battery' is assembled, all portable power sources use the one description - battery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.234.86 (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum capacity / lack of citations

There seems to be a general lack of citations in this article, most notably, "Nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) AAs are also available in various capacities ranging from 1300 to 2900 mAh.", I haven't seen 2900mAh batteries available anywhere and would really like to see a source for this. Comrinec (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc-Chloride AA battery energy is stated as 400-900 mAh in Chemistry and capacity section. Inconsistently, it is stated as 400–1700 mAh in Comparison table. I consider the first one as true. Source: AA, Kodak Super Heavy Duty (Carbon-Zinc), low current discharging) Tomkan1 (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this point, at one place in the article is says that the maximum capacity of NiMH is 2900, however later it states that the maximum is "above 2000 mAh". A citation would be great, but consistency is also important, no?

I want to know why non-rechargible batteries do not state how much energy they store. How is one supposed to do a comparison?? H0dges (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.196.222 (talk) [reply]

Battery Mass

The masses of rechargeable AA batteries seem to correlate positively with the capacity. I took some measurements using digital micro scales (0-100g):

Brand	Type	Nominal Capacity	Mass
Xellex Extra Heavy Duty	Zinc Chloride (?)	?	13.4g
Gut und Billig	Alkaline	?	22.8g
Duracell ProCell	Alkaline	2700 mAh	24.5g
Energizer Lithium	Lithium	2900 mAh	14.8g
H&H	NiMH	1400 mAh	22.7g
Usance	NiMH	1600 mAh	24.7g
FiF	NiMH	2100 mAh	28.4g
MODEN	NiMH	2500 mAh	27.9g
Panasonic Infinium	LSD NiMH	2100 mAh	27.7g
Fujifilm	NiMH rechargable	1800 mAh	28.0g Rod57 (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sanyo	NiMH rechargable Eneloop HR-3UTG	2000/1900 mAh	26.1g
Toshiba	NiCd rechargable T-50AA	500 mAh	21.4g (made 1994, measured 2010)
Powercell	Cheap ZnC	? low mAh	11.0g

Seems more to do with the chemistry than the nominal capacity. Rod57 (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A whole Article?

Why is there one article for this particular type of battery when it could equally apply to the A, AAA, C, D, F cells? Was there at one point in time an article on the most common? This could reduce duplication of content if sections within this article apply to more than one battery. hrf (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the change made by Wtshymanski, which redirected this page to List of battery sizes, as this was done unilaterally without reaching a consensus on the talk page. It may be a good idea to flag this page as a candidate for merging. --Supergloom (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I once again undid Wtshymanski second redirect attempt - I agree with Supergloom that there first should be a discussion on how to merge all articles. The redirect tag should be used after discussion has been done. Else we will use interesting pictures and information which is distributed in the different A* battery articles. --Abdull (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one was bold, nothing would ever get done. Sitting around waiting for "consensus" is a do-nothing attitude. I've repeatedly explained why i think a plethora of articles on random battery sizes is no good for the Encyclopedia. I've yet to see anyone put up a rational reason for having an article on each size. each battery size article gives ( a randomly mutilated version) of the same facts over and over again. The only unique information in each article is the diameter and length of the AA battery! *That* can be easily given in the table in list of battery sizes. Since no new arguement ahs been made to keep every single battery size article, i know what i'm going to do. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, being bold can be a good habit at Wikipedia, but only when it's done correctly.

Yes, I gave a rational argument, see above: we are loosing information when just redirecting without incorporating the lost facts in other articles.

Precise specifications for different AA battery types (links at the end of the article)
There is a photo of an AA solar charger. This photo will be lost if it isn't incorporated in some article
Fact about 3.6 V Li-Ion AA-sized batteries

These comments also apply to the other articles that you redirected to List of battery sizes, such as C battery (e.g. what happened with File:C-Batteries.jpg?).

Regarding your statement "I've repeatedly explained why i think a plethora of articles on random battery sizes is no good for the Encyclopedia.". Please tell the community where we can find your explanations. Please incorporate the lost information in other articles. List of battery sizes is not the appropriate encyclopedic place for this (see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists), as such list of articles are supposed to focus on mere listing without any further considerations on other viewpoints (e.g. history of batteries, social aspects of batteries).

Next stop will be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to find a resolution. --Abdull (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh heavens...I'm about to have my knuckles rapped by some popularity contest winner. I'm quaking in my boots. See the long discussion at List of battery sizes - it's weird carrying on a disucssion on a redirected page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AA battery, dimensions/ conversion

AA battery#dimensions (1.97×0.56 inches) (1.97 by 0.56 inches or 50.04 by 14.22 millimetres) are the mm dimensions given in this section and/or this article "real", or are they approximations? Doe(s) (do) the original standard(s) give the dimensions in millimetres or in inches? Could some one be so kind as to clarify? Perhaps I can check this in the references. Peter Horn User talk 21:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duracell Spec Link Broken

Link "Detailed specifications for Duracell alkaline AA battery" goes to broken link. This should be fixed or eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.32.192.33 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Gratuitous Advertising

I would like to replace the the Energizer battery pic with a brand neutral one. Comments? 196.23.21.91 (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Agreed, I believe it should be replaced with a shot of any brand that does not show the logo, just the warning, best before etc... Moka20 07:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moka20 (talk • contribs)

PowerGenix has a NiZn AA battery

Should we include mention of the NiZn chemistry? --99.110.255.113 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. Add it to the table, with a reference. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance for consumers

Here are some cells claiming 3800 mAh: http://www.ebay.com/itm/4pcs-3800mah-NiMH-AA-rechargable-battery-/281100883854?pt=US_Rechargeable_Batteries&hash=item4172eb178e

Is this capacity claim fraudulent and/or impossible? If so, it would be nice if the article could provide information that helps consumers spot these bad deals. 174.24.7.220 (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your good faith intentions, Wikipedia is not a place to post advise. Please see WP:NOTHOWTO. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article contained a factual statement such as "The maximum theoretical capacity of a NiMH AA cell is X mAh," this would allow a marginally savvy consumer to spot fraudulent claims, and at the same time would not turn the article into a "how-to." That's what I'm getting at, Cantaloupe. 174.24.42.61 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury-cadmium battery not listed in comparison table??

I noticed that the comparison table in this article doesn't list mercury-cadmium? Can this be added? MisterZed (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am always interested in the obscure batteries of the world but since mercury batteries have been out of the catalogs for a long time, it will be hard to find (Internet) sources for them. And wouldn't that be a better subject to include in mercury battery, anyway? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the bit at Mercury battery#Mercuric oxide and cadmium. No idea if these were ever made in an AA size. The only AA size mercury battery I found a reference to was Everready E502, but it's so obsolete the current Energizer technical data doesn't even have it as an obsolete type. It *could* be an IEC MR06 but maybe the batteries stopped being made before the IEC standard was revised? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ask is because I recently bought a ceiling fan with remote control, and it came with two AA mercury-cadmium batteries.MisterZed (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The world is a very large place, but perhaps the batteries you bought were really trying to say something like "(No) mercury or cadmium" ? It would be *highly unusual* to find that obscure chemistry in a recent consumer product purchase - for one thing, a mercury-cadmium battery only produces about 0.9 V. For another, it would be a much more expensive battery than the usual alkaline. If your batteries say something like "LR06" on them, they are almost certainly alkaline (zinc) batteries. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are correct - it says 0% Mercury / Cadmium. MisterZed (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation - small battery labels can easily be confusing, and it's a coincidence that batteries made mostly with mercury and cadmium (once?) existed. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"penlight"

I grew up calling AA batteries either "double A's" or "penlights". Yes, I know what a penlight is. We didn't call the batteries "penlight batteries"; we simply called them penlights.

Today I was asked why I hadn't changed batteries in something. I said, "I didn't know I needed a nine-volt. I brought penlights."

Okay, so am I alone in this? Theresavalek (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penlight batteries, but never penlights on their own. Penlights were what the double A's were used for! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard the term 'penlights' for a device or a battery (here in the UK). If it's just US usage it might be worth noting that. Presumably the usage is similar to 'flashlight' (which we also don't use in UK). Dybeck (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation guide

I have added text guiding the reader to how "AA" is read. The pronunciation I have added is used in dictionaries and is linked to a Wikipage. For example, "AA" could be read "2A" or "aah", so adding this info is useful. Also, the AAA battery Wikipage has the reading "triple A".

This is the text I added at the start of the article: The AA battery (pronounced eɪ eɪ or double A) is...

Editor Wtshymanski seems to disagree so I'm putting this matter for discussion on the article's talk page.

BrightOrion | talk 06:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia intended for English speaking users. The idea that an such a user cannot figure out how to pronounce “AA” is insulting our intelligence. The same applies to “AAA” though no pronunciation guide exists there. 85.255.233.18 (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says "triple A" on the AAA battery page. Why are you using an anonymous account? BrightOrion | talk 14:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using an anonymous account - you are. Your account name gives no clue as to who you really are or where on the planet you are. On the other hand, you can easily find out where I am if not who I am.

No English user of AA batteries calls them 2A batteries or pronounces the ‘AA’ as anything other than two capital letter A’s. The pronunciation guide as to how to pronounce the letter ‘A’ is ridiculous. If you want to take your obsession to its logical conclusion, you would be providing pronunciations for every word in the article to help English speakers speak their own native language (good luck with that!).

Some people do call AAA batteries ‘triple A’, but who cares because we are not discussing that article. That something exists on another article is not an acceptable justification for its adoption here (see WP:SSE). 85.255.233.18 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The AAA battery article calls them "triple A" and the AAAA battery article calls them "quadruple A" but you object to the AA article calling them "double A". Why? Also, you're missing the point. I added the pronunciation because there are two ways to call these batteries "double A" or "Eh Eh". That's why there is a pronunciation guide.BrightOrion | talk 17:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my last post and at least try to comprehend it. We are not discussing the AAA Battery article or the AAAA Battery article for the reason that I clearly gave above. We are discussing only this article.

The mention of ‘double A’ is questionable because I do not know of anyone who would call it such when ‘AA’ is shorter. What leads you to believe that an English speaker would pronounce ‘AA’ as anything other than ‘A - A’ and why do you believe that grandma needs to be taught how to suck eggs? 85.255.233.18 (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one example. https://www.screwfix.com/c/electrical-lighting/batteries/cat830106?batterytype=aa I've heard them called that in DIY stores, garages etc. Why do you think they aren't called that? Your comprehension is suspect because they are clearly related articles. BrightOrion | talk 18:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is that link proving? It is only a sales site for AA batteries that tells us nothing else.

Please read WP:BRD. Once your initial ‘bold’ (B) was ‘reverted’ (R). Your next step was to ‘discuss’ (D), which you did - eventually. Per that policy, you are not permitted to revert your edit back until you have a consensus to do so at this talk page. You do not, at this time, have that required consensus. Further as you are now at 4RR, having reverted your edit back in four times, you are guilty of edit warring and are liable to be blocked from editing. Revert it again, and it will be arranged. 85.255.233.18 (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midwestern U.S. English speaker chiming in. I've always called them "double A batteries", "triple A batteries", "quadruple A batteries", etc. I've heard "ayy ayy battery" only rarely. Mandelbr0t (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Merriam-Webster a reliable enough source? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double-A BrightOrion | talk 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. What does a dictionary know about batteries? 85.255.233.18 (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It proves that it is pronounced "double-A". You've reverted my sourced info + reference four times so if anyone should be blocked it is you. BrightOrion | talk 14:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So not only do you have a problem with English comprehension, but you have severe numeracy issues as well. I have reverted your edit 3 (three) times, not including reversion of a dummy edit (always permitted). And for you information, per WP:BRD, it is you that needs the consensus to restore your original edit - not those who are objecting to it to remove it - another example of comprehension issues. I would suggest that per WP:CIR, that you should not be editing a Wikipedia at all. 85.255.237.120 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent blocks would indicate that it is you who are in the wrong. What possessed you to immediately restart edit warring within one minute of your first block expiring? And reverting an administrator to boot. 85.255.237.114 (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, edit warring is wrong and BrightOrion got blocked. However, in California where I live, these are commonly called "double A" batteries in everyday speech. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source that calls them "double A" batteries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a consensus for including it the alternate pronunciation, I don't have a strong objection to that. I've pronounced it both ways, but I wonder if anyone actually writes out "double A" vs "AA," and as such, I didn't see it as a glaring omission on the written article. (On the other hand, I don't think I've ever said "A-A-A battery" as opposed to saying "triple A" battery). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a language variant issue because in the UK, few people call it a ‘double A battery’ or the smaller cousin a ‘triple A battery’. But having said that: I dare say that, as you note, few would actually write it out as ‘double A’ but simply as ‘AA’ even if they say it as ‘double A’. I note that’s there is a redirect Double A battery.

But this was not my original objection. My original objection was the pronunciation guide as to how an English reader should actually pronounce the ‘AA’ part, as I know of no one who would pronounce it any other way. This is not present in AAA Battery as BrightOrion repeatedly claimed. 85.255.237.114 (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since writing the above, it occurs to me that since ‘Double A battery’ is a redirect to this article, that the text should read ‘… AA battery or Double A battery …’. A supporting reference is unnecessary as bold texted titles that are incoming redirects are seldom separately referenced.

I was going to make the changes myself but in view if the recent socking shenanigans, I decided to hold fire and let a suitable consensus be established first. 85.255.237.114 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding a description regarding "double-A". Could we get a consensus on that please? Please see the post below as this thread is getting very long. Incidentally, whoever did a joe job on me, you've been rumbled mate. BrightOrion | talk 13:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on mentioning of "double-A"

Hi, I propose adding wording at the start of the article so that it reads: "The AA battery (also pronounced double-A battery) is a standard size single cell..." Can I get a consensus on this matter please? Thanks BrightOrion | talk 07:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BrightOrion:If I were you I would hold fire given the history. It could easily be seen as you restarting an edit war following coming off a block for the same thing, a block for that would likely be for a month or more. It’s just not worth it given the relative triviality of the edit.

Although there is some support here for the ‘double A’ addition, there has also been those who have objected at the article. As I stated above, the ‘double A’ is an incoming redirect so I view it as a legitimate addition not requiring any reference to support it. As I also stated: I held back from adding it. I would wait until a convincing consensus forms here first (perhaps a couple more supporters might do it). I would also suggest that either let someone else do the edit, or better still might be to put an edit request using the edit request template on this talk page and let someone else review the consensus and do the edit. Having reverted three times myself, I would be reluctant to do it at this stage. 85.255.234.113 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Given that it's fairly trivial, as you say, why on earth is a consensus needed for adding an established fact to an article? It's beyond me. It's more about the principle of the thing for me. Being stopped from adding facts to an article is against the spirit of Wikipedia in my opinion. You say wait for a consensus, but that is exactly what I'm doing. I'm asking for a consensus here. I just don't get your points, sorry.BrightOrion | talk 17:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. It works on consensus. Nobody can just edit something to be what they want. Even material that some may believe to be obvious still needs a consensus. Most of the time that consensus is established when an edit goes unchallenged. 85.255.232.109 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: what should lede say?

Current lede: "The AA battery is a standard size single cell cylindrical dry battery."

Option 1 Change lede to "The AA battery (or Double A battery) is a standard size single cell cylindrical dry battery." If this option, I'd also suggest applying the same to AAA battery; at least in the US, it's fairly uncommon to hear someone pronounce it "A-A-A" versus "triple A."

Option 2 Leave as is.

Discussion

Option 1 though I agree with an earlier editor in that we absolutely do not need an explanation of how to pronounce the phrase "double A" as it's insulting to the reader. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 on the grounds that ‘double A battery’ is an incoming redirect though it should be ‘Double-A battery’ to match the redirect. We do not need the insulting pronunciation guide (though, to be fair, that does seem to have been dropped in the later edits). ‘Triple-A battery’ is also an incoming redirect to AAA battery. 85.255.235.197 (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1; redirect terms should be mentioned in the target article. In the U.S., the battery is commonly referred to as "double A". Schazjmd (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 It's worth noting that the AAA battery article did say "The AAA or triple-A battery..." until 15 July 2021, when the person who did a joe job on me (you know who you are, and so do I) changed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AAA_battery&type=revision&diff=1034971659&oldid=1033771693 The AAAA battery article says "The AAAA battery (usually read as quadruple-A) ..." To keep consistency, and also purely for information, the lede should say "The AA battery (or double-A battery)...". (Note: Don't need a capital D in double and with a hyphen.) In response to User:Ohnoitsjamie, my original edit was on how to pronounce "A-A" and not how to pronounce "double-A" but if the consensus is against that, fair enough. Oh, and to the IP hopper, you said on this talk page "No English user of AA batteries calls them 2A batteries or pronounces the ‘AA’ as anything other than two capital letter A’s." Have you changed your mind since then? I must admit there is a grain of doubt in my mind about this, because after all “What does a dictionary know about batteries?” BrightOrion | talk 08:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind, but only because I discovered the incoming redirect and it is generally normal to provide the emboldened search text to let the user know that they have arrived at the correct place. 85.255.235.197 (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know...is this really the right place for someone who'd be frightened by clicking on "Double A" and winding up here at "AA" ? Users aren't mindless robots and understand English. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 is the most informative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 if that meant leaving out all the redundant synonyms. This shouldn't even be a free-standing article, it's one non-notable battery size that could be sufficiently covered at our article at List of battery sizes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rechargeable Alkaline

There are rechargeable alkaline batteries in AA and AAA sizes. At least one type says 1200 mAh and 600 mAh respectively. As the voltage is near 1.5v, they might be better for some uses where NiMH is too low, and NiZn is too high. Laser pointers and perhaps digital cameras would be examples. Someone who can research currently available brands (I have seen at least 2) should add these to the table. agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.167.50 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not standard AA batteries (Posted without title)

Batteries: R6P AA UM-3 1.5V Batteries are NOT Standard AA Batteries, i repeat, NOT Standard AA Batteries as the R6P AA UM-3 1.5V Battery measures less in Length than the Standard AA Battery by 1.5mm. I've got both types & this as i've just stated is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmfrancisor (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of comparing batteries with different voltage at the same current?

The comparison table lists max capacity at fixed current. This is a worthwhile comparison if and only if the batteries have the same voltage.

Power draw seems like a more natural choice... 89.25.184.206 (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shelf-life

What's the shelf life of the various types? And why do alkaline cells leak? (in my personal, but anecdotal experience, duracell usually leak, and energizer alkaline less so; and I found one set of ever-ready zinc carbons still in perfect condition after 25 years - was ever-ready actually a claim to endurance rather than just advertising? ) 185.254.136.122 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to have some documented discussion of shelf life, but this varies by type and vintage. I understand that one reason batteries leak is that as the reactions occur, the products of the reaction take up more space - zinc oxide is less dense than the zinc that produced it. This increases pressure in the cell and causes it ultimately to leak. Your very old zinc-carbon cells may have dried out before they had a chance to leak - perfect outward physical condition does not assure internal resistance as slow as when manufactured. I havent't seen any published study that shows a meaningful difference in leakage between brands - the universal advice is never store anything with zinc0carbon batteries in it for a long time. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

German Name

As you can read on the German version of this article, the AA type cell is called "mignon" on there. can we please add this name to the list of names? 2A02:8108:53C0:1690:4CC0:23A6:F159:1362 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But every language has a different word for any English word? This is the English Wikipedia - we're doing well to collect English-language names for things, and leave the names in other languages to the stalwart editors of those Wikipedia versions. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the misleading picture of a "solar charger"

The inclusion of a photo of a pocket-sized "solar charger" in an encyclopedia suggests technical feasibility. But it's a cheap gimmick, and the vendor specifications are a joke, as a back-of-envelope calculation shows:

- active surface of the device ca 6 cm × 7.5 cm = 4.5·10⁻³ m², so ca 5·10⁻³ m². We see that much less (maybe half) of that surface is actually covered in solar cells, but, you know what, what's a factor of two between friends and a least-cost electronics vendor. - standard "high" solar irradiation 1 kW/m² - solar irradiation, best case, on the active area, 5 W. - best-case efficiency of 2008 cells 15% = 0.15 - power output, best case, of the solar cells, thus 0.75 W - charging efficiency NiMH including DC/DC converters is at ca 50% = 0.5 - the power available to charge batteries is hence, best case, 0.375 W - a 1500 mAh NiMH should have ca 1.2 V · 1.5 Ah = 1.8 Wh, so charging takes: - 4.8 h charging at optimimum conditions for a single cell, and 19.2 h charging for four cells at optimum conditions, which sadly only exist on sci-fi planets that have ginormous moons

A more realistic estimate would incorporate the actual active surface, and add another factor of two to these charging times.

Hence, I came to the conclusion that having this picture, uncommented, in the article will mislead readers to believe things about battery-powered systems and their rechargability "in the wild" that are false. I'm removing that picture, as it, on top of it all, has no real relevance to the article. MüllerMarcus (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]