Talk:Nine-volt battery

message: I tried to find an equivalent IEC 60086-like designation for the lithium-manganese(IV)-oxide 9-volt battery manufactured by Energizer and UltraLife, but so far I only find the ANSI C18.3 designation 1604LC in their datasheets. I read reference #5 and it does show X-ray images of such a battery, clearly showing the three cells stacked beside each other. The research paper doesn't give the individual cells a technical designation (it was beyond their scope), but given the x-rays, they appear to be prismatic, so they must be of the CPxxxx kind rather than CRxxxx. I attempted to measure the individual cells on the x-rays with a transparent ruler I lay on top of my phone's screen. Relative to the casing measurements provided by Energizer's datasheet, I estimated each cell to measure about 44mm diagonal by 8mm thick, so a possible IEC designation for each 3V cell inside the 1604LC battery, according to my own educated judgment, would be CP4480; consequently, the 9V Li-MnO2 battery could be designated as 3CP4480, unless someone comes up with more precise measurements. 206.248.102.36 (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, unless you've found a publication that duplicates this process, this is an example of "original research" which can't be used here. It's suggestive, and might even prompt someone to find sources - but we can't use this speculative designation till someone finds it in print. Not every cell made needs or needed to have an IEC designation, it's only useful if you are trying to make an interchangeable part. Internal components of this 9-volt battery are probably not being marketed to anyone, so the manfacturer can do what they like in terms of the internal construction. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, Saft also makes a similar battery with an alternative cell configuration (three 14250- or ½AA-size cells in series), but different lithium chemistry (thionyl chloride versus manganese(IV) oxide) and thus different voltage (10.8V versus 9V), in addition to different packaging (a shrink-wrap-like black plastic instead of a metal casing), so it can't be considered a 1604-size 9V battery even though the maximum outer dimensions are very close to 1604-standard and the snap connectors are virtually identical. Saft calls the constituent cells LS14250 (if they were standardized in IEC with that same chemistry, they would be designated ER14250, but the latest version I read lists only the 3V Li-MnO2 CR14250; the only IEC-standardized Li-SOCL2 battery is the square-shaped 2EP3863) and the battery itself LS9V (3ER14250 if it were to be IEC-standardized), which is technically a misnomer due to the larger voltage. The existence of this nonstandard battery suggests me that a proper 9V Li-MnO2 could be alternatively built using IEC-standard 14250-size cells (effectively becoming 3CR14250) and, although it would yield less charge than the ANSI-standard prismatic-cell 1604LC, at least in my opinion it would provide higher performance than an alkaline 1604A/6LR61 (or even its prismatic-cell variant 6LP3146 like the one made by Duracell). 206.248.102.36 (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

text: When I suggested above the theoretical 3CP4480 designation, I had misinterpreted the designation system's dimension rules. I thought that the digits ddhh in nCPddhh referred to the physical dimensions of each of the n individual cells contained in the battery, and that for prismatic cells measuring less than 100mm, hh expressed the height in tenths of mm as is the case for round CRddhh cells. Until I actually read section A.2.2.1 of the IEC standard 60086-1, ninth edition (2000). The nomenclature system devised in October 1990 actually uses the maximum outer dimensions of the battery itself (including the flat-top terminals, but not other types of terminals), not the dimensions of its constituent cells; and the system specifies the height of "non-round batteries" in integral mm, not tenths of mm as is the case for round batteries. So, armed with the new knowledge, I am withdrawing the flawed 3CP4480 designation, and in its place I suggest 3CP3146, because the dimensions specified by the Energizer datasheet above happen to be the same dimensions of the regular alkaline variety (and coincidentally for this alkaline version, the 6LP3146 name used by Duracell appears as an example name in the IEC standard's section I just mentioned above). In contrast, the 8.4V zinc-air variant standardized by ANSI as 7004Z (obsoleted by Energizer but still made by Duracell) is somewhat shorter than the others (41.9mm vs. 46.4mm) and thus could be, in theory, described as 6PP3141 but not 6PP3146. Anyway, the new designation system as described in 60086-1 § A.2 is more useful, more straightforward than the old system since it is less concerned about the inner cells' size and more concerned about the overall geometry of the battery's outer casing/jacket. Thus, in my opinion, even if Energizer or any other 9V lithium manufacturer doesn't publish an IEC designation for its battery, it wouldn't hurt to informally call it 3CP3146, regardless of how it is actually built since all that matters is the battery's geometry/size, not the inner cells' dimensions (nor whether or not the cells themselves are standardized). However, it would be better if such battery, which is sold not only in North America but also in Europe (Energizer's Pan-European datasheet), were in the future added to the IEC standard (at least its outer dimensions and electrical characteristics, not its internal construction) under the new nomenclature system, but that's just my opinion. 74.213.71.21 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the 2006 10th edition of the same standard, section A.2.2.1 was renamed C.2.2.1, since the whole annex A discussing nomenclature in the 2000 edition was moved to annex C in the 2006 ed. 74.213.71.21 (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: IEC designation of Lithium-Manganese 9-volt?

message: "The most common type of nine-volt battery is often called a 9-volt,..."
Well... yeah.  What else would you expect a nine-volt battery to be called?  
A 26-volt?  
A 1.75843 volt?
Seems like a poorly written sentence, at best.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm three years late, but yeah, I agree. I'd instead word it as "The most common type of nine-volt battery, the PP3, is what is commonly understood to mean the 9-volt battery". 72.72.205.192 (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain obvious? 

message: Today I uploaded a microCT picture of a 9 volt battery to Commons. Maybe it could be of interest for this article to show the internal structure. Best regards, Adville (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, but my initial feeling is that the article has more than enough images, including pictures of dissected batteries. — voidxor 00:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  MicroCT picture of a 9 volt battery 

message: Were they ever produced? I can't find any information about them. Also, why are 9-volt batteries called E batteries? Wasn't there a standard battery called an E-cell battery? I think it's the one that was called an Aladdin battery (about as tall as an F-cell but with the thickness of a C-cell). 72.72.205.192 (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Books has become less useful over the years, but did find an ad in a 1964 issue of "Wireless World" that mentioned the PP5 in passing. So, if I were to research this topic further, I'd look for British sources about 50 or 60 years old. They might have been out of production for a long time.  All pre-IEC standardization stuff is not well documented here - old British and Japanese types would be of interest. .  --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to PP2 and PP5?