Talk:Nine-volt battery/Archive 1

need more data

More data needed - charge/discharge curves, self-discharge data. 69.87.203.196 22:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How about the capacities in milliamp hours etc., for the different batteries to better illustrate the differences.?? MSgtUSAFret (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Misleading suggesting these are being phased out?

I wonder if whoever added the section saying these batteries are becoming difficult to obtain could justify their information? I have no problems buying these from corner shops, supermarkets, garages etc, etc. They are so widely used that even if a major manufacturer decided to stop selling them you'd still get the smaller brands carrying on to support the market out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.176.219 (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

PP3?

In the US, this battery is known as a 9-volt. I'd never heard or read the term "PP3" before reading this article. Are we sure this isn't a UK regionalism?

• "PP3" is the US term for an 9 volt battery. The International Electrotechnical Commission refers to it as 6LR61 and ANSI refers to it as 1604A. Where "PP3" comes from, I don't know. I know there are "PP6" sizes as well. Snafflekid 23:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 1604 is a carbon zinc and is an ANSI/NEDA designation, 6LR61 is an IEC designation for an alkaline battery. see battery nomenclature. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
    • • • You do know that ANSI is an American institute, right? 76.100.1.197 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, the US term for a 9 volt battery is 9 volt battery, or 9 volt. No one in the US, other than maybe manufacturers, would call a 9 volt a "PP3".69.222.53.180 07:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I certainly haven't seen the PP3 name in Australia -- they are always referred to as 9 volt batteries (or just "9V"). The article seems to say that "PP3" refers to the connector on the top of the battery. Does this mean that any battery or battery pack with such a connector would be referred to as a "PP3 battery"? --James 05:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • In the UK there is a whole series of "PP" batteries (most of them 9 volt) the popularity of the rest of the "PP" series has declined in recent years although one still sees a few PP9's around. Energiser/Ever Ready used to subbrand the PP series as "power pack" 213.48.97.11 (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I have always seen it referred to, formally, as a 1604A and never before this article as a PP3. 1604a may be a NEDA and ANSI U.S. term. What organization created the PP3 term? As long as there is a redirect it matters little. Edison (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The designation 'PP3' was in fact the type number allocated by the Ever Ready battery company of the UK (no relation to the Everready company of the US - at least not at that time). Other manufacturers selling to the UK market adopted their own numbering scheme, but usually with the number 3 at the end. As the years went on, more of those manufacturers adopted the Ever Ready numbering scheme. AFAIAA, the numbering has not been used elsewhere.

Simply refering to the battery as a '9 volt battery' is too vague as the PP7 (AKA 1605S) and PP9 (AKA 6F100) sizes are still manufactured and freely available (at least in the UK). The PP4 and PP5 sizes have long gone the way of the DoDo. The PP1 was not a 9 volt battery but 6 volt. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought of them as "E-Block" batteries for some reason. Google turns up quite a few references. Something to do with Energizer? vlad§inger ^tlk 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should change it then? Chanology (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tongue problems?

For factual purposes only, do you think the article should mention how, in real life and in popular culture, the nine-volt battery is also used as a prank to shock one's tongue? It makes sense to me. -dogman15 03:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It surely should, though I wasn't aware this was either a 'prank' or a 'shock' of any kind.. it's just how you test if the battery's still any good, and it doesn't shock your tongue so much as taste weird and make it tingle.. right? - Deffo

This is, so far, unsourced original research, and a "how-to." Because of this I am removing it from the article. Edison (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just fyi, it doesn't need a source, it's common knowledge. Even an article or thesis on batteries would not need to source that shorting the two ends atop a 9V with your tongue would give you a shock if the battery is still good. It's not only logical sense, but anyone with access to a 9-volt could readily confirm this (furthering it as common knowledge). It also fails to be a "how-to" as it's mainly informational, as I doubt anyone would advise the best way to test out a 9V is to mildly electrocute yourself. --199.227.86.10 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, your assertion that "it doesn't need a source, it's common knowledge" is incorrect. Wikipedia:No original research says "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. That "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed." likewise a nine-volt battery shocking your tongue needs to be attributable, even if not attributed. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Common knowledge. It might not say what you think it says. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Also just FYI, to "mildly electrocute yourself" is not possible unless you think that there is a possibility of being "mildly dead." "Electrocution" means "death by electric shock." Jeh (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Leclanché cells

To describe dry celled zinc-carbon as 'Leclanché' is completely incorrect. Georges Leclanché did not invent, build, or even conceive of a dry version of his famous cell. Indeed, the chemistry isn't even the same. The electrolyte in the Leclanché cell is ammonium chloride. The (paste) electrolyte in the dry zinc-carbon battery is a 50:50 mix of ammonium chloride and zinc chloride. The difference gives the dry battery an e.m.f. of a little over 1.5 volts versus the Leclanché 1.4 volts. Later, so called, high power versions of the cell dispensed with the ammonium chloride completely and just used zinc chloride.

In any case, the most common name for this type of cell is the zinc-carbon and that should therefore be what it is refered to in the article. Few people (if anyone at all) call it anything other than a zinc-carbon. I also cannot find any manufacturer who describes it as 'Leclanché'. I have therefore reverted this as well. 212.183.140.5 (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you please write to the author of the "Battery Handbook", o anonymous solon, and reprimand him for misleading me? At least "Leclanche" is closer than saying "Zinc carbon" - an alkaline battery has plenty of zinc and carbon in it, and in any case, the carbon isn't part of the reaction. The ratio of ammonium chloride and zinc chloride in dry cells varies, depending on application. Battery nomenclature is idiotically complex. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The German picture is lying. The wrapper is labelled 6LR61, but those aren't round cells. Is it not alkaline? Does say "E-block", must be a German thing. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the picture lying? The manufacturer may have made an error. Or the manufacturer may have decided that the nomenclature defines the physical parameters and voltage and nothing more (and there seems to be anecdotal evidence in this talk page alone that this is not an isolated example). We shall probably never know. By the way, did you intend to add that post to the discussion on Leclanché cells? 212.183.128.178 (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability

Why is this type of battery considered notable enough to have an article? Although the article title is 'nine volt battery' it doesn't discuss any of the other types of nine volt battery and is thus wholly incomplete.

Similarly, there appears to be no articles on one and half volt batteries, three volt batteries or four and a half volt batteries etc. etc. I note that there is an article on lantern battery, but I would argue that the same applies to that article. There isn't very much of it any way. 212.183.140.5 (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Support AfD nomination, but I'll let someone else pick up the polecat. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose We shouldn't waste everybodies time with AfD nominations that have a snowballs chance in hell of passing. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Support AfD nom. Put the thing to bed for good, either way. Whatever the end result someone will be unhappy but it will be a result rather than a constant squabble.--Lead holder (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Notability, and Notability in the English Wikipedia. You will find that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria". You would have to show that there is no such coverage, which you cannot do because there clearly is coverage. In particular, 212.183.140.5's argument is covered in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Individual merit and "avoiding constant squabbles" is not found anywhere in Wikipedia:Notability. You can go ahead and nominate it if you wish, but it will be shot down. Even Wtshymanski realizes this, and he has never seen a deletion he didn't like. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I bow to your clearly superior knowledge of these matters. I was somewhat surprised that the article describes a particular type of nine volt battery but has an all encompassing title and yet does not cover any other nine volt battery type. Maybe the article title is the problem. I note that someone above noted that the article used to called something like 'PP3 battery'. That was not a good title because that battery designation is (I believe) unique to the United Kingdom (probably why it got changed). Can anyone suggest an alternative title? I can't think of one off the top of my head that is both appropriate and likely to be a title that someone would specifcally look for (though that later point can always be overcome with suitable redirects). 212.183.128.178 (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What are they called?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519XBKX8EVL.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41zCTDSUmfL.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51bzll8-M5L.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/316E4nU-0dL.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51-XxGNMmqL.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41-tKxGpazL.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VeFoc7SiL.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510KBRZZXQL.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51JD362JMPL.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41I4GqrNZfL.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GYFCDJH2L.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GkqdBXF0L.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51E9xpVRuCL.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CUJ7f1uwL.jpg

Any questions? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see the point that you are trying to make - but no cigar. One of the pictures has a visible battery type on the front of the battery itself (HR22). Generally, the battery type designation is usually on the side of the battery. I don't know if it is a region specific thing but here in the United Kingdom, all batteries seem to have one or more type designations on the front face of the backing card. 212.183.128.178 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

These are marketing mock-up images, they are not indicative of actual retail packaging, certainly not in my locale anyway. But the point is well made, they are referred to by the vast majority of people as 9 volt batteries.--Lead holder (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they are Amazon.com sellers using either images they created themselves or snagged off some manufacturer's web site. The geographic bias at Amazon is strongly US, often New York or California. I would expect someone in the EU or UK, for example, to see entirely different packaging. Here in Los Angeles, the vast majority of them are sold in blister packs with "9V" (or sometimes 9V1 for one-per-package and 9V2 for two-per-package) as the name. There is often another designator somewhere on the actual battery, but there on the battery there is almost always a big "9V" right next to "DuraCell", "Energizer", "Sony" etc., because that's what they are called. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Where I'm from they're called PP3. But that has been said before, I think everywhere else in the world they are known as 9 volt, oh except Russia.--Lead holder (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct. In Russia it is a 'dyebyahrtye voltof' (transliterated from the cyrilic). 109.145.22.224 (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Battery Inside a Battery

I believe the video depicting "A Look Inside A 9 Volt Battery" to be a hoax. Ever since a popular video appeared depicting 32 individual AA batteries inside a 6V lantern battery (debunked by Snopes), there have been many other similar videos of equally questionable legitimacy, such as videos depicting AA batteries to contain many tiny, hearing aid-type batteries. The "Inside a 9 Volt" video appears to fit this pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.74.184 (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I opened one myself and it in fact, has unmarked batteries that fit into Quadruple A battery slots. I cannot confirm if they work, because the nine volt in question had no energy left. The Smiling Bandit (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Most battery manufactures use a 6-cell design for their 9 volt batteries. I have never came across a non 6-cell design, but I wouldn't doubt the existence. Now if the batteries are of a AAAA size or are just close in size I do not know. But the 6-cell design is why it is a 9 volt. 6 batteries of 1.5 volt size that are not stacked on top of each other. I realize this was redundant, but I was just reiterating what the last person stated with a little more info. (71.103.166.7 (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

A lot of years ago I dissmantled a 9-volt rechargable and it had a number(7?) of flat rectangular cells stacked on top of each other.83.188.248.87 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds right. Most 9-volt rechargeables are 7 prismatic Ni-MH cells because they are 1.2V each. Many of the bettery brands use 6 prismatic cells in their alkaline 9v because less space is wasted. For Ni-MH there would be no good way to fit a 7th cylindrical cell in there and rechargeable ni-mh cells already have less energy per volume so they can't really afford to waste the space in between cylindrical cells.24.33.67.222 (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So what does "6LR61" mean if not six, alkaline, round, size 61 cells? (R61 is the same size as an AAAA ). --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, an R61 is smaller than an R84425 which is the designation of an AAAA sized cell --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It means exactly that because that's how 9-volts were all made when they first started making them. There was no reason to create special prismatic cells for the small energy gains when 9-volts were first created and the 6LR61 name was chosen. 24.33.67.222 (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Er No. When the battery was first made, it was made from layer type rectangular zic-carbon cells. As far as I am aware, no zinc-carbon 9 volt battery has been made with cylindrical cells because layer cells are cheaper to produce. If someone has evidence of the contrary, it would make a useful addition to the article. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It fits the pattern because all the fake videos are spoofs based on the videos about 6 AAAAs inside 9-volt batteries. A bunch of fake spoofs don't make the original concept any less real or credible. 24.33.67.222 (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between fake and misunderstood. The video makers genuinely believe they are AAAA batteries, they are mistaken, it is not an attempt to fool people into opening up their batteries for"the lulz". BTW, LR61 is NOT an AAAA battery. Also, the original PP3's used flat cells, the round ones were used later when alkaline batteries became more popular.--Lead holder (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It is most likely true that most alkaline batteries produced in the world use 6 AAAA size cells in their construction. But some manufacturers do use prismatic cells (the second cell in the illustration of the internals is an alkaline cell using prismatic (or flat) cells (the more robust construction gives it away). The advantage to doing so is that the battery will have a longer life as their is much less wasted space between the cylindrical cells.

Less reputable manufacturers prefer to use cylindrical cells as this gives the battery a shorter life and thus they sell more batteries. Here in the UK (and laterly Europe) where the consumer now has numerous rights against sellers who sell products that underperform, the most reputable battery manufacturers use prismatic cells. I would not be surprised if the view that 'all alkaline batteries use cylindrical cells' is a US centric view because I have no doubt that in a country where the consumer has virtually no rights, manufacturers are only too ready to sell products that under perform. I purchased a set of four AA sized Ni-MH cells last time I was in the US. The cells singularly failed to deliver their claimed mAh capacity, largely because each cell actually had an AAA sized cell inside the AA casing (revealed when I X-rayed the cell at work - I had thought that they were rather light). If that had been bought in the UK, the retailer would have been prosecuted (and under UK law, it is the retailer, not the manufacturer who is responsible - even if he was unaware). 109.145.22.224 (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No, 9V batteries do not use AAAA cells in their construction. There has never been nor is there ever likely to be a 9V battery containing AAAA cells.

I can assure you that the majority of alkaline 9V batteries use the cylindrical cell type. There are some that use flat cells (the middle of the 3 opened batteries as you pointed out). The reason the majority use these round cells is they are easier to make, that is all. There is no conspiracy of manufacturers wanting to sell you inferior batteries. Why would there be when the majority of "big brands" market their product on them lasting longer and having better capacities. Look at the big makers, they all use the 6LR61 type, it is the smaller and cheaper batteries that use 6LF22.

I find your anecdotal evidence on the purchase of some AAs that turned out to be AAAs rather amusing but I fail to see how it relates to this article. I also fail to see how your lampooning the state of US consumer rights has anything to do with an article on 9V batteries. I'm an ex-pat brit BTW and I would like to stress that neither I nor the majority of my "people" would dream of suing a retailer for what is the manufacturer's problem. He is likely to have been equally as ripped off by the maker and punishing him for someone else's fraud just isn't cricket.--Lead holder (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Stating a fact is not lampooning - it's stating a fact. I was attempting to establish the existence of rectangular celled alkaline batteries which one disruptive editor, Wtshymanski, was adamant didn't exist.

I take your point about the liabilities, but if you are ripped off in this manner, your only redress in Europe is with the retailer. You cannot sue the manufacturer because you have no contract with the manufacturer. The law makes the retailer liable (to the purchaser). The retailer can in turn sue his supplier and so on back to the importer or manufacturer. When I worked for the trading standards people around 22 years ago, we regularly prosecuted retailers for selling underweight bags of crisps etc. etc. even though the retailer may well have been unaware.

Things have changed since 2004, because now, if the manufacturer offers a warranty with a product, he is bound by the terms of that warranty (the usual 6 year limit applies (2 years in the rest of Europe)). But: no warranty - no redress. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: "There is no conspiracy of manufacturers wanting to sell you inferior batteries", there are, however, people who want to buy the cheapest possible battery even if it does not last. I am a former Barbie Engineer for Mattel, and I still do a fair amount of consulting for various toy manufacturers. My most successful toy was manufactured at a rate of 100,000 per hour, 24/7. If I could shave a penny off of the cost of each of the four AA batteries in that toy, that's a savings of $100,000 per day. We don't sell the toys without batteries because we want the "try me" feature, which increases sales, but the average toy only goes through ten or twenty try me cycles before it is sold, so long-lasting batteries are not a priority. The next time you buy a battery-operated toy, weigh the batteries. They will often be 1/3 as heavy as a Duracell or Energizer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A Barbie Engineer??? Not heard that one before. What does your degree have to be in to qualify for that title? (OK, not appropriate to an article talk page, but I couldn't resist.) 212.183.128.178 (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to ask/answer brief personal questions. If it gets lengthy we can move it to your user talk page. A Mechanical Barbie Engineer needs to be an expert on high-speed injection molding, when to make something hard to break and when to make it easy to break off but you can snap it back on, working with Chinese factories, chocking hazards, and subtle things like the paint fiasco. It was Mattel and Hasbro wanting shiny painted surfaces that resulted in lead-based paints. It was Mattel's realizing this and one day banning lead-based paint that resulted in a shortage on non-lead-based paint in China, which led to a bunch of small toy manufacturers who had not caught on to the the issue getting suddenly getting a lot of toys with lead-based paint coming out of China.

An Electronics Barbie Engineer (all girls toys, really, not just Barbie) needs to know about really cheap microcontrollers, (wirebonds to the PCB and a glob of epoxy on top, not soldered packages) very high volume and low cost manufacturing, when to design for robots and when to design for an army of people doing hand assembly, and tradeoffs with the mechanical engineers (example: need two glowing eyes? A single bright LED and a molded plastic light pipe is cheaper than two dim LEDs) and of course making schedule - Christmas isn't going to be delayed no matter what your problems are.

Also, you need to study the psychology of how 12-year-old girls play, the effect of package size on sales and on how many will fit in a standard shipping container, what patents you are in danger of infringing on. etc. Once you get good at all of that, you can pretty much write your own ticket. --Guy Macon (talk)

I should have said, "there is no conspiracy of battery manufacturers wanting to sell you inferior batteries". Oh well. Barbie Engineer, that should be your handle :) Thanks for the insight.--Lead holder (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely a Barbie Engineer is responsible for these! 109.145.22.224 (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

References on Wikipedia

With respect to this edit [1]. Wikipedia pages are not acceptable as references. The 'reference' links to a Wikipedia disambiguation page.

From WP:PUS (potentially unreliable sourses) "Wikipedia should not cite itself". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

AGF and all but....NFPA publishes a 1-page .PDF file on the fire hazard of 9 volt batteries. That's the cited document. Any practical suggestions on how to get the link to show up here as well as the name of the document? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Which was done more than three hours before you posted this. As for a practical suggestion as to how to include it? Did it occur to you to try using something like Google? It took me all of 3.5 seconds to find the link. Since when did you start observing the AGF policy? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)