Skip to content
HearingTracker
Log in

Rechargeable aids: wanted by customers or by factories?

341 replies10.3k viewsLast reply

Jump
Link to this topic
Reply

In reply to @david.hendon

@david.hendon said:

I for one do know that it couldn’t be made to work and I bet I’m not the only one. It’s just physics dear boy.

It probably is true that the chips they’re using these days draw more power, intermittently or continuously, than available zinc-air batteries can supply.

But are there chip technologies available today with low enough power draw, perhaps at a higher cost? If not, will they be available in the near future? Will costs drop, and if so, when? Could higher per-chip costs be made to work with the economics of hearing aid production and distribution?

I think one would have to be in the chip business, or the hearing aid design and manufacturing business, to come up with a reliable and actionable answer to those questions. Technology moves very fast, and companies aren’t giving away their secrets online.

Power draw also depends on the firmware. Is hearing aid firmware as efficient as it could be? I’m led to this question by the user who reported here that his Phonak aids’ runtime was half as long when running a saved program. Are there other inefficiencies like that, that the manufacturers are throwing power at, rather than fixing the software (which can be very difficult)?

@flashb1024 said:

It also bears repeating that in most cases the provider will send the rechargeable aids in for service prior to warranty expiry, so the user should expect long term performance.

None of the manufacturers are willing to promise that, right? And we’ve seen reports here about aids coming back from service with batteries that don’t perform at the level of new batteries.

If the refurbish goes well then, yes, you get a few years extra life out of them. If you have money or benefits then you probably want a new pair anyway by then. But there are plenty of people with hearing loss and neither money nor benefits.

My sphere’s go forever on a full charge. I often work 16 hour days and I’ve never had to recharge them. I also have Luminty aids and they won’t make it past 13 hours. I was ready to go back to non- rechargeable aids, but the fact that rechargeable aids have better protection against moisture I stuck with the rechargeable aids. The negative is my Spheres aids are bigger than the Luminty and due to their increased size i lost an aid wiping sweat off my head while cutting grass.

Bringing this thread out of hibernation to mention the new Oticon Verit line, and , which is powered by zinc-air batteries. BTE 105 uses size 13 batteries, others use size 312. Second generation , latest connectivity stuff.

I believe this settles the question of whether Oticon follows Hearing Tracker forums. Clearly the answer is No, because if they read these forums they would know it’s impossible to make such a device.

No, it doesn’t have an accelerometer like Intent has. Based on previous discussions I think it’s omitted because of a packaging issue, not because zinc-air batteries are simply not capable of powering an accelerometer.

I switched to rechargeable for my new because all the disposable batteries I’ve found come in child-proof packaging which requires a chainsaw and a crowbar to open.

Shootist, I’m gonna go way way way out on a limb and guess you don’t have neuropathy, arthritis or Parkinson’s. Enjoy your health!

Edited

I’ve just started using rechargeable Phonak aids on trial after twelve years of using Oticon replaceable battery devices. It’s early days but I’ve already found the recharging routine a bit of a chore. At the end of each day I seem to be conscious or wondering about the state of charge and have to put the aids in the charger overnight.

I could forget about the Oticons for at least a week when a few beeps would inform me that a battery was running low.

I have a reserve of many dozens of these zinc-air batteries which are quite inexpensive and I carry a tiny holder for 3 of them on my key ring. I can change a battery in about 30 secs wherever I am. I don’t need a charger.

Therefore I am of the opinion that it is the manufacturers that are wishing to sell us rechargeable aids and chargers for their benefit, not for the convenience of users.

In addition, all lithium - ion batteries have a finite life and number of charging cycles (those in hearing aids are estimated to last 6-8 years depending on many factors). My Oticon aids are currently 12 years old and I can get batteries free from the NHS.

Could it be that replaceable battery aids last a little too long for the industry’s liking and more aids can be sold and at a higher price if they are of the rechargeable type?

I don’t think it is a conspiracy. One consideration is that authorities keep pushing legislation that favours rechargeables over disposable batteries (e.g. Regulation EU 2023/1542). Another is that Li-batteries deliver the extra power required for increasingly sophisticated (“”-enabled) chips (as someone else explained in this Forum). Personally, I rather let my Phonaks sleep overnight in a charger than having my unexpectedly run out of power at the most inconvenient moment. When I was still working I kept a diary noting when I had last replaced my batteries, so they would not run dry in the middle of an important presentation with the CEO. Finally, rechargeable batteries can be sealed in the HAs, better protecting the electronics from moisture.

Yes, suffering from “range anxiety” -batteries running out of mileage near the end of the day- is very annoying, but the latest Spheres point the way, with simply larger batteries that carry ample power capacity. Remains the fact that these batteries lose their capacity over time. As far as I understand, Phonak will replace your batteries near the end of the warranty period for free (after four years, will find out next spring…). This remains a bit of a concern for someone who likes to stick with their HAs for well over a decade (like me).

Sorry about the glitch, it seems that my reply may have been sent mid sentence.

Thanks Rob, some very valid points there. It really comes down to personal preference and lifestyle. I’ve been retired seventeen years now, twelve of those with hearing aids and I’ve not had a single instance where the low battery scenario has been inconvenient.

In a formal meeting, for instance (car club etc.) or social group, I can change a battery as discreetly and as quickly as wiping my specs including removing and replacing the aid in my ear (mind you, I did have custom ear moulds up till now and I’m struggling with the new domes). The Oticon aids give plenty of advance warning

I thoroughly agree though, that even if zinc-air cells don’t pose such a toxic risk as some, disposable batteries are a huge environmental nightmare.

I think I’ve acquired a resistance to the whole rechargeable world having had a few poor experiences with household and garden appliances and also with mobile (cell) phones!

@david.hendon said:

The point is that zinc/air batteries deliver only a very low current. A milliamp or so. It’s very challenging to get complex digital electronics to operate on a low voltage of a volt or so and only one milliamp.

Lithium batteries can deliver much higher voltages and currents in a small form factor, so AI type features become feasible.

@RobHooft said:

Li-batteries deliver the extra power required for increasingly sophisticated (“AI”-enabled) chips (as someone else explained in this Forum).

@x475aws said:

it’s been disproven by the release of Oticon Verit

I am confused. Did the release of that new model force us to rewrite the laws of physics?

@RobHooft said:

I am confused. Did the release of that new model force us to rewrite the laws of physics?

No the laws of physics haven’t changed!

I don’t know Oticon hearing aids but the vented domes they seem to use don’t need power, so it’s not an - assisted heating aid and no doh to will take simple zinc-air batteries. No doubt someone who knows can comment.

It’s clear from this page

https://www.oticon.com/inside-oticon/press/2026/2026-87

that Oticon Verit has their 2.0, which is as used in hearing aids. And I don’t understand what you’re saying about domes and power. Domes, and molds also, are passive components that don’t use power. Is there a counter example that I’m unaware of?

Whether zinc-air batteries can power AI aids has always been an engineering question, not a physics question.

The difference between the Intent and the Verit is that due to the use of zinc-air batteries in the Verit, thy do not include the Intent’s 4 D Sensors, due to lower power.

This may be a moot point to some, but it is a trade-off, and for future & with accelerometers, etc, you’ll have no choice if you want top tier ’s.

Related discussions