I’ve recently come across a couple of clock sellers both IRL and online recommend zinc-chloride batteries over alkalines for quartz wall/desk clocks. Their reasoning was that alkalines are too powerful for low drain quartz movements.
Here’s an online post trying to explain why in not so good English: http://www.clockmovements.cn/news/html/62.html
And another from a reputable clock company Hoseki: Hoseki - Product Care
Has anyone else here heard of it and is there any truth to it?
The whole point of a quartz 32,768 Hz crystal is that it keeps accurate time without being concerned about the battery. A mechanical non-quartz clock would be affected.
They’re right to an extent, but for the wrong reason. Alkalines leak, unlike zinc-based batteries. They can destroy circuits especially when they’re left in too long, as seen in clocks, remotes, flashlights, etc.
“Can deliver too much current?” It’s true that alkaines have a higher capacity and lower resistance than zinc batteries, but as Halo said, if the clock’s current draw depends on the battery’s internal resistance, something’s not right.
Typically, in devices that only draw very small amounts of current - like quartz clock movements - the lifespan of zinc-chloride batteries isn’t a whole lot shorter than alkalines.
This is because the higher internal resistance of zinc-chloride batteries only becomes significant when you’re attempting to pull a substantial amount of current out of them. Quartz clock movements don’t fit in that category.
Incidentally, zinc-chloride batteries are just as good at producing nasty leaks as their alkaline counterparts - particularly when allowed to completely discharge. Back in the days before alkaline cells were commonplace, many a flashlight suffered an early demise at the hands of a pair of leaky zinc-chloride Mallorys, Evereadys or Burgess’es…