Talk:Button cell

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Moved to "Button cell" rather than "Watch battery" because this battery is used elsewhere other than watch. Kboom 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But "watch battery" is the official term used in the relevant international standard (IEC 86-3) and is clearly more descriptive. Reverting move. Markus Kuhn 17:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "button cell battery" for title, redundant or not. There are various terms [button, coin, disc]+[battery, cell] and various uses besides in watches. A standard for usage in watches doesn't define it use. Also many wrist watches do not use button batteries. Today's smartwatches use built-in batteries, with wireless inductive recharging etc... Yohananw (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/IEC 83-3 lists the following diameter codes: 20 = ... 5 = ... Shouldn't the first line read 4 = ...? Isn't there a 20 farther down the list? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, context shows I'm right so I'll change it myself. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page originally had the correct reading (4 = ...) but was vandalised by Special:Contributions/Senguin, who has done nothing on Wikipedia but vandalise this page three times on the 29 January 2008. While the other errors were corrected, the replacement of '4 = ...' by '20 = ...' was overlooked. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Type designation section of this article goes into more detail about how the current IEC 60086 standard names batteries, it has been linked-to as such in the List of battery sizes article. Further, because parts of this section applies to more than just button cells, I float the idea that it may be appropriate to move that section of this article to the List of battery sizes article or make that section of this article its own article. More on this in the Talk area of the List of battery sizes article. - SKisby 28 March 2009

I was just going to expand the coding system description here but it became long enough to become Battery nomenclature - which still needs some summary of JIS and British standards, and more explanation of the ANSI system logic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is a size issue... there are also "DL" type batteries, apparently made by Duracell, which also lists them as CR batteries. Does anyone have good reference on this information to update the page on this? I found this link, but not sure it's up to standard: http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/industrial/difference-between-dl-and-cr-batteries/ HH (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are IEC and ANSI standard sizes, and then there are manufacturer's part numbers which can follow what ever internal logic suits the manufacturer. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it: This site calls a 4.8 × 1.65 mm silver oxide watch battery a SR421. According to this article's chart, shouldn't it be a SR416? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, this site for example, has the dimensions as 4.8 × 2.1 mm. I couldn't find the edit button on the 4.8 × 1.65 mm page, or I would have fixed it, too. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be two different IEC 60086 dimension codes. A one-to-two digit code and a three-to-four digit code (that may only apply to button cells). More on this in the Talk area of the List of battery sizes article. If the three-to-four digit code only applies to button cells, it would be approbate to mention this in this article. - SKisby 28 March 2009

Can anybody add a diagram of the structure? If not, I will. Ratstail91 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Common applications section, "# Cartridges for Pokémon Gold, Pokémon Silver, and Pokémon Crystal." is listed.

But weren't/aren't button cell batteries used in most/all video game cartridges that had a save function up until (roughly) later Game Boy Advance games? If so, shouldn't we change this common application to "older video game cartridges with a save function" in general?

Josh7289 (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONT TOUCH IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.93.201 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

too late...

So, is the SG927 Panasonic cell really a lithium/copper oxide cell, or a silver oxide cell? It's not on the Panasonic web site, anywhere I can see so far anyway. Third party sites replace the Panasonic with either silver oxide or alkaline types, but battery sites are notoriously sleazy about accuracy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Amazon and eBay there is much discussion of fake brand-name CR-2032 batteries, usually claiming to be made in Japan, but actually made in China or Indonesia. Are there any sources of real information about this? How many actual factories are there, where, and are most of the batteries actually the same? Where is data about how many of each battery each big name makes? Please add info to article.-96.237.15.180 (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a great many comments about fake batteries, particularly lithium coin cells, the very widely-used CR2032 and others. This appears on the Web sites of retailers who support user reviews (e.g. Amazon), in some commercial Web sites ("our batteries, though more expensive, are not the widely-sold fakes"), and elsewhere. (Reviews tend to be 90% positive, but careful reading finds 90% "delivered promptly, just installed, successfully powered my equipment", with a small minority of "bought 3 months ago, expected to last for years, failed today". My person experience (banned Original Research) is that I have bought CR2032s with a reputable name (Panasonic, maybe others, don't remember) which came in not very professional-looking bubble packs. I tended to keep them (I keep at least one spare, replace when used); when I came to use them (months, not years after purchase—not expired) they worked perfectly at first, but lasted for only a very short time, maybe 3 months instead of 2-3 years.

I haven't found a "Wikipedia-reliable" source of this fakery. According to Wikipedia guidelines this means this topic is off-limits, verboten, taboo. Despite this the evidence is, I think totally convincing. In addition to the reviews and discussions, the pricing of batteries and the appearance of some (not all) of the packaging arouses suspicion. As of mid-2013, UK electronic trade distributors sell CR2032 batteries to the general public (trade prices will be lower) at prices starting at £0.75 for an unknown (but genuine) make, about £1.10 up for known makes such as Panasonic. Shops sell at prices from around £3. But name-brand CFR2032 batteries are available from Internet sources and some shops at 12 Panasonics for £3 including delivery, 10 Maxells for £2 delivered, and so on. I expect the situation in other countries to be similar; I doubt this is a local issue. (£1 is about US$1.50; UK prices tend to be higher than US.)

The consistent and widespread reports of fake batteries, the often wrong-looking packaging, the prices way below trade, let alone retail, prices, and my own personal experience—surely shared by many of you who read this—add up to a fairly convincing picture of fakery. I think another Wikipedia guideline becomes operative here: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". This is actually an important issue, despite the small amount of money that a battery costs; it can be anything from inconvenient to dangerous for a battery to fail prematurely (medical equipment uses batteries); and the total amount of money involved is probably very large.

I propose to amend the article with this information at some time, and seek consensus here (or condemnation, in which case I won't). What do you think? Better still, can you find any sources that meet Wikipedia guidelines? Pol098 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source at last! Pol098 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An eBay seller asserts:

"Please Beware of people selling cheap China kind Maxell batteries their freshness and capacity is very low. Though they are saying that the batteries are genuine maxell they are not. HITACHI maxell don’t make any alkaline button cell, these are cheap china batteries... You can confirm this with Maxell USA as well. Hitachi maxell Only makes the following numbers in alkaline button cells LR41, LR43,LR44,LR1120, LR 1130. But these numbers also they are selling the fake ones... Original Maxell batteries have a new HOLOGRAM SEALED BLISTER CARD. Which will you see in the picture in my listing. Fake Maxell batteries have a card board type packing and are normally multicolored packing..."

Can any of this be verified?-96.237.15.180 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The heading of this section doesn't match the text. CR2032 batteries are lithium button cells (not alkaline), and Maxell make nearly a dozen types including CR2032. Fake lithium buttons abound, often with reputable names, but the above text has nothing to do with that. Packaging and markings on batteries may or may not help - I don't know enough. But don't trust a battery just because it has a known name. Pol098 (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some good comparative pictures of fake vs genuine batteries can be found on the Hitachi Maxell website http://www.maxell.com.hk/product-items/micro-battery-blister/

All the button cell battery articles should be merged here; it makes it easier to compare and contrast their individual capacities, and there seem to be little notability in any one size of battery. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Which articles are you suggesting, exactly? RichardOSmith (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, LR44 and CR2032 for starters, though I was shocked to find just how many hits the LR44 page had in the last 30 days. If it's kept, it should be careful to better distinguish between silver and alkaline chemistry. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, for several reasons:

1. Your crusade to get similar items (batteries, electrical components) grouped onto one page does not have my support at all. One of the biggest advantages of Wikipedia over paper encyclopaedias is the ease with which I can hop from one page to another. If I am interested in button cells I have this article; if I wish for more information on more notable examples this is only a click away. Merging more detailed information about specific batteries onto one big page is not an advantage at all.
2. Your suggestion that these batteries are just "for starters" is far too vague and wide-ranging. It would be absolutely wrong to make a blanket recommendation; each article would have to be considered in isolation.
3. The two batteries that you have specifically listed are not, IMO, suitable candidates for merge. They are probably the most notable of the button cells - they are certainly amongst the most commonly used sizes - and you have already proposed merging CR2032 to List of battery sizes. It is clear that if there are two potential merge targets that the article should remain separate from either.

RichardOSmith (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, belated: it may make sense to merge the articles for all comparable coin cells (same chemistry, as SR44, SR927; maybe interchangeable to some extent, as LR44, SR44); for disposable lithiums; and for the various families of rechargeable lithiums. I agree with Wtshymanski to the extent that a detailed discussion of type CR2032 is rather pointless, as its content would have to be virtually duplicated for, say, CR2477 (substituting 20mm==>24mm, 3.2mm==>7.7mm), with at most a paragraph saying that CR2032 is among the most-used, computer CMOS backup, etc. (Some notable sizes may merit a subsection in the relevant article.)
  
  Maybe "Coin cells (silver oxide)", "Coin cells (alkaline)", "Coin cells (disposable lithium)", "Coin cells (rechargeable lithium)", cross-referenced (particularly alkaline and silver), with "LR44" being a redirect to "Coin cells (alkaline)". This "Button cell" article could become something a little bit more than a disambiguation page, an important page as most people will land there, with a brief paragraph per type, linking to a main article.("Coin" and "button" are synonyms for this purpose.) Pol098 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see more articles on individual cells and cell families. What is the history of so many different numbers for nominally identical cells? Very hard to learn difference between 395 and 399, for example. -71.174.175.150 (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• www.energizer.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/specialty/WE_Cross_Reference_Guide.pdf

col 1: old low-drain type
col 2: old high-drain type
col 3: multi-drain type
-----
301 386 386-301 MD
384 392 392-384 MD
397 396 397-396 MD
390 389 390-389 MD
303 357 357-303 MD
362 361 362-361 MD
394 380 394-380 MD
395 399 395-399 MD
371 370 371-370 MD
364 363 364-363 MD
377 376 377-376 MD
381 391 391-381 MD

-71.174.175.150 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Button cell which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/sgs-safeguards-05713-eu-batteries-a4-en-13.pdf

  Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for information on the origina and of the AG1.. AGn naming convetion. If you find anything, please add a link, or a brief description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.182.242 (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too would be interested in knowing where the AG/SG numbering convention comes from.

Idyllic press (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Lithium are generally larger, and so more hazardous as the smaller sizes can get passed through. Nevertheless "Batteries and sharp objects should be removed immediately to avoid complications while others [foreign objects] can be observed for spontaneous passage."PMID 23261258 [PubMed abstract] The NLM doesnt have a MeSH for button battery ingestion. it falls under the MeSH -- Electric Power Supplies/adverse effects* Foreign Bodies Foreign-Body Reaction/ This free full text review article on button cell battery ingestion notes that hearing aid cells are more common source of injested battery. Jatana, Kris R. et al. Pediatric button battery injuries: 2013 task force update. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology , Volume 77 , Issue 9 , 1392 - 1399 http://www.ijporlonline.com/article/S0165-5876(13)00285-1/pdf A clear public info source is THE NATIONAL CAPITAL POISON CENTER., "Swallowed a Button Battery? https://www.nema.org/Policy/Environmental-Stewardship/Documents/batteryingest.pdf Yohananw (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to find something about when these were developed, when the first cells came to market, when they became (per field of use) ubiquitous. Nothing. Not surprised by the quality of WP --jae (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of Wikipedia's countless editors, who work on it for free, nobody is sorrier than me that the world's largest encyclopedia has been unable to make you happy with this article.GliderMaven (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IEC 60086-1-2000 table 3 on p14 has an overlapping list of codes (-ABCEFGLPS), but usefully also has the maximum open circuit voltage. (Sadly does not have the M/N codes for mercury cells). Could just add as external link if not suitable for ref for amended table ?
Same doc could be used as source for the package code subsection. - Rod57 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add info about shelf life, self-discharge no-load leakage, etc. Temperature dependence? Are silver based longer shelf life than alk?-71.174.185.30 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Button cell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224085334/http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/81 to http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/81
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017232254/http://www.maxellshop.com.au/Batteries/watch%20batteries to http://www.maxellshop.com.au/Batteries/watch%20batteries

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is a CR2032 variant named CR2032-CL. It has a PVC cover and a cord, with a connector at its extremity. But this one isn't covered here, on this article!--MisterSanderson (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although MRxxxx, VRxxxx and LIRxxxx rechargeable button cell batteries are briefly mentioned in the main article, no information is provided about their properties (voltage, capacity) or chemistry.

Here is an external article that outlines the key properties for each of the above mentioned types: http://www.cr2032.co/chemistry-article.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortenHattesen (talk • contribs) 10:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is missing information about History. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page.

-- Beland (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Battery Watch. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 18#Battery Watch until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Battery watch. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 19#Battery watch until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war is brewing where an editor has removed the section regarding children swallowing these objects. The material is referenced and point directly to the subject. I leave this as a placeholder for discussion for involved editors. Ifnord (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor continually reverts back in a section containing clinical details on the effect of children swallowing lithium batteries.

First: the section is contains nothing about lithium batteries in particular and is applicable to batteries of any kind.

Second: It documents the more intricate clinical details which might be more relevant in an article about the clinical effects of battery swallowing but not to a general article on the batteries themselves.

Third: the article already contains three references to the fact that such batteries can be swallowed to the point of redundancy. 185.69.145.22 (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In /*Electrochemical system*/ there are currently two tables. The first is non-rechargeable only. The second is is all rechargeable except one.

It would be simpler to just have one combined table. One column could be rechargeable with a yes/no value. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a bullet list after "For rechargeables, the IEC prefixes are:" which could be combined into such a single table too, for easier comparison. Empty fields can just be left blank. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]