# Rayovac 4.0 Discharge Testing



## beamis (Dec 14, 2009)

I couldn't find any real data on the inexpensive Rayovac 4.0 AA batteries. We all know they're not going to come anywhere near the performance of an Eneloop, but can we quantify? Here's the result of a test I did this morning with 4 Rayovac 4.0 AA batteries hot off the MAHA C-401FS charger and into the C9000 for a 1000 mA discharge. The batteries had been slow discharged at 100 mA and subject to a "break-in" cycle on the C9000 before being run down again at 400 mA and then charged on the C-401FS.

I discharged all 4 batteries simultaneously and averaged the voltage from all four at each reading. I recorded the voltage every few minutes and graphed the result in Excel. I'm working on other discharge rates.


----------



## ltiu (Dec 14, 2009)

Good one. Thanks.


----------



## Niconical (Dec 14, 2009)

A good clear chart, thank you for putting in the time and effort, these things are always appreciated


----------



## Vikas Sontakke (Dec 14, 2009)

Great chart! Has anbody posted similar chart for Eneloop?

- Vikas


----------



## beamis (Dec 14, 2009)

I intend to graph a 500 mA discharge and also graph Eneloops on the same regimen for comparison tonight when I get home.

I also intend to conduct a self-discharge test on these batteries. Since they're only $1 each, they are certainly worth something. I plan on using them for my weather stations, clocks, remote controls, and other low-drain non-critical devices.

According to this thread, the Rayovac 4.0 performs at 1000 mA the way the Eneloop does at 3000 mA output in terms of voltage.


----------



## Conan (Dec 14, 2009)

Vikas Sontakke said:


> Great chart! Has anbody posted similar chart for Eneloop?
> 
> - Vikas



Could this contain what you're looking for?

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/149804


----------



## Black Rose (Dec 14, 2009)

beamis said:


> I also intend to conduct a self-discharge test on these batteries.


I've done 3-month and 6-month self-discharge tests on them.

After 3-months the cells had 84% of their charge.
After 6-months, the cells had 80% of their charge.


----------



## beamis (Dec 15, 2009)

Well, tonight I finished running a shoot out between two AA Eneloops and 2 AA Rayovac 4.0's. I charged each on the Maha C-401FS until the lights turned green, and then I removed them and started the discharge. The two Eneloops were in slots 1 and 2 on the Maha C9000, and the Rayovacs in slots 3 and 4. Every 5 minutes I took a reading for each battery and averaged between the two of each type. I was *VERY* surprised at the result. The Rayovacs hold their own against the Eneloop at 1000 mA. There is barely a difference between the two at this load.






I fully expected the Rayovacs to prove inferior to the Eneloops even at 1000 mA. Sometimes the data prove our intuition wrong. This does not mean that the Rayovacs are as sturdy or consistent as the Eneloops, but out of the box at least they perform well. I would cautiously say that they are at least worth the $1 per unit price I bought them for.


----------



## beamis (Dec 15, 2009)

I suppose my next move will be to conduct this same test using a different set of batteries. Interesting indeed.


----------



## beamis (Dec 15, 2009)

Black Rose said:


> I've done 3-month and 6-month self-discharge tests on them.
> 
> After 3-months the cells had 84% of their charge.
> After 6-months, the cells had 80% of their charge.



That's not too bad. After this testing I'm curious about the longevity of these cells. I almost feel like I've been insulted because a lowly Rayovac is running neck and neck with Eneloops (electrically speaking), so I want to find a fault. It looks like Eneloops are better on the LSD end, and I'm guessing they will prove to last through more charge cycles also, but without solid testing you never can tell.


----------



## carbine15 (Dec 15, 2009)

YOu guys all assume that the cheaper cells will run through fewer cycles or perform less admirably at a given load. Because of what? Marketing? Hype? Pricing? What if the cheaper cell is better (or as good) in every way. LOL wouldn't that be a hoot?


----------



## beamis (Dec 15, 2009)

I think it would be great if it turned out that there were some "cheap" cells that competed with Eneloops in a meaningful way. It would mean that competition was strong in the battery business and everybody will benefit. I'm just very cautious in proclaiming that one cell is as good as an Eneloop based off of one test. Eneloops have been subjected to all sorts of tests on this and other sites, and it will take some strong and consistent test results for me to be comfortable declaring another cell on par with the Eneloop.


----------



## snakebite (Dec 15, 2009)

just rebuilt a 2way pack with these 4.0's.
this radio gets used heavily and uses a fast charger that terminates on temp.
it also lacks low voltage shutdown so an occasional deep discharge will happen.
maha 777+2 test shows 1997 mah on the assembled pack after break in.
in a few months we will know.btw i last rebuilt it 4 years ago with the green sanyo "industrial" 1800's.
those had several hundred cycles on them and had lost enough capacity that the rig was dead in 1 day.it would run in recieve 2 days on these when new.
tx on high is around 1.5a on high on 12v.


----------



## ltiu (Dec 15, 2009)

I'm going to Fry's and I'm buying some of these Rayovacs for my HOTWIRE!


----------



## beamis (Dec 16, 2009)

Ok. So I repeated the experiment tonight with different batteries just to rule out some coincidence like getting a really good pair of Rayovacs and a bad pair of Eneloops. Here are the results:






It seems to me that at 1000 mA the Rayovac holds its own against the Eneloop. The best Eneloop cell and the worst Rayovac cell were only separated in capacity by 2%. Not bad for a sub-$1 battery.


----------



## carbine15 (Dec 16, 2009)

push it harder. Its only fun when something breaks.


----------



## beamis (Dec 16, 2009)

I wish I could. The C9000 doesn't go any higher.


----------



## beamis (Dec 17, 2009)

Here's a 500 mA test using the same batteries as used in the second 1000 mA test.






One interesting thing I noticed was that there was no slight advantage to the Eneloop at the "knee" as in the 1000 mA tests. In fact, for about an hour and a half the Rayovacs were slightly higher voltage than the Eneloops. 

I do not have anything more sophisticated or able than the Maha C-9000, so my discharge testing is limited to 1000 mA. If someone wants to push these cells harder, it might prove interesting.

Anyone interested may access the data for these graphs here.


----------



## Niconical (Dec 17, 2009)

I have 2 of the Maha C9000, and a multimeter, but how do you check the voltage without removing the battery?

The metal pointy bits (dont know what they're actually called) are thin, but certainly not thin enough to touch the + of the battery while it is still in the charger. 

Any tips?

´

EDIT: I just thought, the C9000 displays the voltage for each cell as it discharges. 
I didn't really pay attention to that before (just used breakin and charge), so is that what you use, read it from the display at the correct intervals?


----------



## beamis (Dec 17, 2009)

Yes. When I want to use a multimeter to read the voltage, I just loop a paperclip around the positive button before inserting the battery. Then I can take the readings from the paperclip.


----------



## Niconical (Dec 17, 2009)

Ah, ok, I will try to do a similar test for these batteries, just for some practice. 

Don't expect a graph though, writing down numbers/times is as far as my skills will take me


----------



## ltiu (Dec 17, 2009)

Energizer.

Would be neat to test Energizers against Rayovacs and Eneloops.

Energizers have been getting a bad rap here in CPF but I do not remember seeing any tests like these for Energizers.


----------



## Bones (Dec 17, 2009)

ltiu said:


> Energizer.
> 
> Would be neat to test Energizers against Rayovacs and Eneloops.
> ...



You mean like this one:

http://gizmodo.com/5152116/battlemodo-energizer-vs-duracell ...

Basically, it states that during this battlemodo, a Duracell low self-discharge 2000mAh cell ran an Icon on high for twice as long as the Energizer 2200mAh regular chemistry cell.



ltiu said:


> ...
> 
> Energizers have been getting a bad rap here in CPF but I do not remember seeing any tests like these for Energizers.



Considering the now infamous debacle with their 2500mAh regular chemistry NiMH cell, I also think it's fair to say that Energizer is way beyond 'getting' a bad rap here. Even so, until such time as this least ethical of corporations brings a decent quality low self-discharge cell to market, it's just being kind not to publish any further tests...


----------



## beamis (Dec 17, 2009)

ltiu said:


> Energizer.
> 
> Would be neat to test Energizers against Rayovacs and Eneloops.
> 
> Energizers have been getting a bad rap here in CPF but I do not remember seeing any tests like these for Energizers.



That was my next plan. I have some well-used Energizer 2500s and Duracell 2650s. I'm going to run the same test on them. After that I'm going to do the same thing for all except waiting 7 days after charging. I'm interested to find out just when it becomes more of an advantage to have an Eneloop or Rayovac than a Duracell 2650 or similar.

I'm also going to put a set in the refrigerator for the same period to see how much of an effect it has (or doesn't).


----------



## Niconical (Dec 17, 2009)

In the link above provided by Bones, this comment made me chuckle, especially the part I underlined....

"And generally, Rechargables are best for short bursts of power use. IE: A camera. Not flashlights. 
Standard Alkalines tend to work better for flashlight/extended current draw devices". 

Right then, off to ebay to stock up on some alkies. 
It's written on the interwebz so it must be true....


----------



## FlashlightsNgear.com (Dec 17, 2009)

Great Info Beamis, I now have to try some of the Rayovac 4.0's myself, keep up the good work, thank you


----------



## ltiu (Dec 17, 2009)

Niconical said:


> "And generally, Rechargables are best for short bursts of power use. IE: A camera. Not flashlights.
> Standard Alkalines tend to work better for flashlight/extended current draw devices".



Wow, these guys have no clue about batteries.

Another comment:

" ... I started using the Sony Lithium rechargeable batteries that I picked up off of amazon with a nice recharger. Love them. Great battery life, better than both the Duracell and Energizer sets have provided in my experience. ... "

Sony Lithium rechargeable??? WTF???


----------



## ltiu (Dec 17, 2009)

Bones said:


> You mean like this one:
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5152116/battlemodo-energizer-vs-duracell ...



Thanks for posting the link. I am surprised Energizers are still bad, today.

One thing the test did not indicate is how they charged the batteries and if they ran the test HOT off the charger.

I'm also curious about the amp draw of the Icon light.

Energizer must be reading all this. I wonder if they are working on improving their rechargeables?


----------



## beamis (Dec 18, 2009)

OK. Conducted a discharge test of the Energizer 2500 and Duracell 2650 hot off the C-401FS charger. I plotted the results over one of the earlier graphs for the Rayovac and Eneloop cells. Keep in mind that my Energizer and Duracell cells are a couple of years old and have done a lot of duty.


----------



## hopkins (Dec 18, 2009)

Very informative graphs. Good job. Thanks.

To probe hard to get at battery contacts, an ordinary paperclip twisted onto a probe works ok. Use 2 needle nose pliers to get a real tight wrap connection.


----------



## ltiu (Dec 19, 2009)

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?p=2414434#post2414434


----------



## davidefromitaly (Dec 22, 2009)

for doing this tests you should use a CC dischargers, maha and lacrosse are pulse dischargers, the voltage reading can be inaccurate and also the battery react in a different way respect to a CC discharge


----------



## beamis (Dec 31, 2009)

After 14 days with the same cells, I get the following:


```
Rayovac 4.0         1761 mAh         1.20V
Eneloop             1794 mAh         1.19V
```


----------



## HarryN (Dec 31, 2009)

Thank you for the testing - very useful.


----------



## beamis (Dec 31, 2009)

It's testing I would do for myself, but I figure it might be useful for others. Next step is a 90-day (March 31) test and a 180-day (June 29) test.


----------



## beamis (Apr 11, 2010)

OK. Batteries were lost in some boxes due to a move, but I discharged them today. I didn't graph the output every 10 minutes like before (sorry), but the final readings from the C9000 were:


```
Rayovac 4.0:  1638 mAh   1.20V    81.9%
Eneloop:      1734 mAh   1.18V    86.7%
```


----------



## kramer5150 (Apr 12, 2010)

beamis said:


> OK. Batteries were lost in some boxes due to a move, but I discharged them today. I didn't graph the output every 10 minutes like before (sorry), but the final readings from the C9000 were:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



:thumbsup: Thanks for doing this.

Not too bad for a $1 Chinese cell. I have been using ROV 4.0 cells in my lantern and they have worked fine in this low current device.

:twothumbs


----------



## thekernal (Apr 16, 2010)

Thanks for the info...I added this thread to my toolbar awaiting the results. thanks again!


----------



## VidPro (Apr 17, 2010)

carbine15 said:


> YOu guys all assume that the cheaper cells will run through fewer cycles or perform less admirably at a given load. Because of what? Marketing? Hype? Pricing? *What if the cheaper cell is better (or as good) in every way*. LOL wouldn't that be a hoot?


 
I Have 4 of those. Totally unexpected. "Suncocell" 2500ma, they came with something for "free" ??? Long ago, and they werent low discharge or anything special, they werent even 2500s, more like 2300s.
I started using them in sidelined stuff that i did not care about at all. Charged them with just anything , any way, did not care, expected them to be useless so fast it wouldnt matter.
After *time* i would say they Whooped the energysers 2500s up one side and down the other. They still are going and going and going, Although at reduced capacity, but they dont croak in 2 weeks like Every one of the high caps of any sort did over time. I run them IN one of the meters now and that meter runs non-stop for more than a month.

These (only) 4 lonely Suncocells defied all odds and projections.


----------



## beamis (Jun 30, 2010)

Here we are at 6 months. Man, time flies. Who knew that within six months these batteries would already be discontinued. Anyway, here is a 1000 mA discharge graph. The final capacities were:


```
Eneloop        1648
Rayovac 4.0    1536
```


----------



## cckw (Jul 2, 2010)

beamis said:


> Here we are at 6 months. Man, time flies. Who knew that within six months these batteries would already be discontinued. Anyway, here is a 1000 mA discharge graph. The final capacities were:
> 
> 
> ```
> ...




So this test is about the capacity ofter 6 months of storage, right?

I would like to hear from the dude that put the 4.0 in the radio power pack for frequent cycling.

As for 4.0 being gone. I suspect it is just relabeled as Platinum, with a much better marketing presentation then 4.0 had. Rayovac clearly has poor leadership in their marketing dept (and perhaps whole company). Might be able to make something of Platinum with a well planned ad campaign, but I don't think we'll see that.


----------



## beamis (Mar 11, 2011)

Pretty sure I had a one year discharge test here. I'll check my files to see.


----------



## srfreddy (Mar 11, 2011)

Are these still obtainable?


----------



## brted (Mar 12, 2011)

No, though you might be able to find some old stock. Now Rayovac has "everyday" and "platinum" LSD NiMH batteries. The platinums seems to be similar to the 4.0's, but aren't being sold at clearance prices. The everyday batteries have lower capacity (1400mAh instead of 2100mAh).


----------

