Oh My - Has Phonak stopped using disposable batteries?

Same here. I dont like the idea of using rechargeable hearing aids.
If I cannot buy a phonak hearing aid with disposable battery in the future then I’ll move to another brand

I don’t think that they as a business care about the environment
but I do think that a whole lotta people hear often enough all the “pro environment” talking points that they buy into a lot of it.
And I think brainwashing is about the extent of the reach of the “big brother idea”

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it’s all misinformation about the environment…but I certainly think a lot of it is…

and about the rechargeable… I’ve posted here before… and actually not long ago after I had this same conversation with my Audi about Phonak’s latest model not offering replaceable batteries… Count me in as a very solid Phonak LOST customer. Up until now based on my experience with my Phonaks with my only other comparison experience being Oticon, would be very hard pressed to even look at another brand…but for teh foreseeable future I absolutely will NOT consider rechargeable unless there are absolutely ZERO other options.

I had rechargeable phonaks as loaners a while back while mine were sent in for repair. They worked and were absolutely no problem
but i had lots of anxiety…after laying down in bed, “did they seat properly in the charger?”…“did the cat jump up and knock the charger so that they disconnected?”…“I’ll be screwed royally if the power goes out prior to full charge”, etc…
and yes I know lots of folks have and use them successfully long term
but I’m sorry…it’s stupid. I get a full week without worry and can pop spares in in seconds and don’t have to carry around a charger every where I go

I recon I will reconsider all of this only when fully charged aids will last me multiple days (maybe at least 3 days)
AND can charge wirelessly (assuming wireless chargers are even more prevalent by then)
AND assuming they can go from zero to at least close to full in just a few minutes
OR they are set up so that I can carry around a spare set of recharged batteries and swap them out like I can now with 13’s
OR even better I could pull out the dead rechargeable cells in a pinch and replace with over the counter disposables temporarily.

as best as I know, they aint close to any of that yet!

I have Marvel Rs for 4 years. Batteries went after 2 years. Phonak replacement with new ones, still working fine. I have lots of Roger stuff 4 & 5 years old all doing well battery wise.

On waiting list for updated Virto, have been told delayed because new longer life battery in development.

@Um_bongo said:

Actually: usage wise, not so much these days. Average wear time for a set of iPod can easily get up to 8-9 hours, while the hearing aid data puts average usage at about 10-13 hours.

I mean qualitative difference, not quantitative. Hearing aids not working have a much bigger impact on the user than earbuds not working. Hearing aids are medical devices, not consumer electronics, and the prices reflect that.

@Um_bongo said:

my understanding is that if you’re dealing with a fixed R load, but have double the voltage, your current requirement haves: therefore you battery drain is reduced and the life increases.

No, it doesn’t work that way. Whatever the advantages of higher voltage circuits, and I don’t doubt there are some from the designer’s point-of-view, battery life is mainly based on how much energy is stored in the battery. Just from what I’ve seen in this forum, comparing multi-day runtimes on disposables vs. marginally eking out a day’s use with some rechargeables, clearly zinc-air disposables hold more energy than a rechargeable charge.

@Um_bongo said:

the amount of output from cell batteries has been a huge limiting factor in respect of hearing aid design for years.

OK. But the existence of special 675 batteries for implants tells me that zinc-air batteries can be engineered to increase the output current.

I can imagine that the hearing aid industry would love to use the same kind of batteries and the same voltage as other electronics manufacturers, since it would make their job easier and save them money. But we have to look out for our interests.

@jeffrey said:

The majority of HA users prefer rechargeable aids

Are you sure about this, and would you have any evidence to back this claim up?

Or is it that there wasn’t a choice for the customer between choosing the replaceable/disposable battery option in exactly the same type of hearing aids, therefore the rechargeable aids were the only option?

What would you consider “proof?” Most hearing aid models still offer the choice of disposable batteries. Even the premise of this thread is misleading as Phonak still offers disposables in some models. Years ago somebody did a survey (I think it was Phonak) to determine what the most desirable hearing aid feature was. Rechargeable batteries won. Members of the forum scoffed. We need to remember that forum members are not representative of the greater hearing aid user community.

Thanks @MDB . Interesting. It’d be beneficial to know more details about the survey. That’s what I would consider “proof”.

Personally for me as a new hearing aid user who also has some memory problems, I find disposable batteries a life saver. Being able to leave batteries in my nightstand,car,at work, wallet, backpack etc. I find it easier to just change out batteries wherever I am versus remembering to put them on a charger at night. I’ve gotten into a bad habit of sometimes forgetting I’m wearing my hearing aids and going to bed with them on because it drastically helps my tinnitus and I find some peace, without disposable batteries I would be out of luck some mornings. I will say I do believe that rechargeable should be the way to go for pediatric aids as then there is a much lesser safety risk.

@MDB said:

We need to remember that forum members are not representative of the greater hearing aid user community.

The greater hearing aid community skews pretty old, I imagine. With age comes problems that make it hard to handle small batteries. If rechargeables enable you to use aids that you couldn’t otherwise manage, you’ll make that choice, whatever the disadvantages. Doesn’t mean that those of us who can deal with batteries should willingly accept the downsides of rechargeables.

@CountryGirl said:

Some of us love to unplug and go camping, backpacking and simply not charge a darn thing for a few days.

YOU BETCHA!!! That is why I’d still rather have battery-operated aids. Where are ya gonna plug a charger in at the campsite? I used to do off-grid camping and backpacking, but now that I’ve moved to a steamy-hot location I won’t have to worry about that … HERE.

Majority of HA users with mid range to profound hearing loss prefer disposable batteries. That might change a little depending on level of streaming and day to day risk tolerance.

And to be honest - Most Audi’s prefer disposable batteries/aids to service. Simply because there are less repair issues with aids using disposable batteries.

Now if I was wearing a ITE or a hidden canal aid - I probably go with the rechargeable. Simply because small batteries don’t last very long. So to each his own but just saying HA manufactures can’t let the pendulum swing too far in one direction.

@stevemink said:

Majority of HA users with mid range to profound hearing loss prefer disposable batteries. That might change a little depending on level of streaming and day to day risk tolerance.

And to be honest - Most Audi’s prefer disposable batteries/aids to service. Simply because there are less repair issues with aids using disposable batteries.

If you could show me any evidence of either point I’d be happy.

As for the fewer repair issues: I’m not seeing that - we don’t get bent/broken pins, ripped battery drawers, batteries forcibly inserted upside down and split cases any more. We DO get medium lifetime failures, though, but we educate our clients to expect that before the end of year 2 - like receiver failures.

@x475aws said:

No, it doesn’t work that way. Whatever the advantages of higher voltage circuits, and I don’t doubt there are some from the designer’s point-of-view, battery life is mainly based on how much energy is stored in the battery. Just from what I’ve seen in this forum, comparing multi-day runtimes on disposables vs. marginally eking out a day’s use with some rechargeables, clearly zinc-air disposables hold more energy than a rechargeable charge.

Li-Ion puts out something in the order of 3.5v, which you can bump up to 6-7v+ with a bit of clever voltage shenanigans.

Now this allows you latitude, to do things you simply can’t do at 1.2v.

Yes capacity is STILL an issue, but if you go back to reading Electrical Engineering 101, in a closed system if you can bump the voltage higher while R/P(work) stays the same, the effect is that you proportionally reduce current draw, which is even better news for your battery life.

So although your 1.2v CAN keep trickling out for several days, it’s pretty meaningless if you need 3v+.

As for going off grid, do any of you hike with a USB power bank? Or better still, a charger box for your aids?

@x475aws said:

OK. But the existence of special 675 batteries for implants tells me that zinc-air batteries can be engineered to increase the output current.

I can imagine that the hearing aid industry would love to use the same kind of batteries and the same voltage as other electronics manufacturers, since it would make their job easier and save them money. But we have to look out for our interests.

No, the chemistry limits them to 1.4v, usually 1.2v under load nominal. You could technically stack two 312, but you’d blind off the air holes; and it doesn’t create more energy. You can’t ‘add’ energy to a closed system. Bigger is better, different chemistry is better.

Why wouldn’t any hearing aid manufacturer strive to use the best battery tech on the market? They could corner the market with a Uranium powered aid that lasted for 5 years?