Re: GPS - non-rechargeable versus rechargeable

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Chris Malcolm, Jan 17, 2005.

  1. "[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:

    >Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >to be lasting for absolutely ages....


    >Any techies got an explanation?


    Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.

    Next question? :)
    --
    Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Tags:


  2. Phil Cook

    Phil Cook Guest

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:

    >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >
    >>Any techies got an explanation?

    >
    >Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.


    Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    alkaline.
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
     
  3. Phil Cook

    Phil Cook Guest

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:

    >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >
    >>Any techies got an explanation?

    >
    >Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.


    Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    alkaline.
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
     
  4. Phil Cook

    Phil Cook Guest

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:

    >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >
    >>Any techies got an explanation?

    >
    >Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.


    Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    alkaline.
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
     
  5. Phil Cook

    Phil Cook Guest

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:

    >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >
    >>Any techies got an explanation?

    >
    >Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.


    Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    alkaline.
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
     
  6. Phil Cook

    Phil Cook Guest

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:

    >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >
    >>Any techies got an explanation?

    >
    >Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.


    Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    alkaline.
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
     
  7. Phil Cook

    Phil Cook Guest

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:

    >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >
    >>Any techies got an explanation?

    >
    >Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.


    Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    alkaline.
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
     
  8. Phil Cook

    Phil Cook Guest

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:

    >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >
    >>Any techies got an explanation?

    >
    >Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.


    Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    alkaline.
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
     
  9. In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
    <[email protected]> writes
    >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >>
    >>>Any techies got an explanation?

    >>
    >>Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.

    >
    >Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    >longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    >efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    >alkaline.


    A lot depends upon the load / current too. At higher loads alkaline
    cells can have lower capacity than NiMh and even NiCd. The first digicam
    I used ate a set of 4 alkalines in 20 pictures whereas the 650mAh NiCd
    cells I put in it lasted over twice that.

    --

    Dominic Sexton
     
  10. In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
    <[email protected]> writes
    >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >>
    >>>Any techies got an explanation?

    >>
    >>Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.

    >
    >Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    >longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    >efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    >alkaline.


    A lot depends upon the load / current too. At higher loads alkaline
    cells can have lower capacity than NiMh and even NiCd. The first digicam
    I used ate a set of 4 alkalines in 20 pictures whereas the 650mAh NiCd
    cells I put in it lasted over twice that.

    --

    Dominic Sexton
     
  11. In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
    <[email protected]> writes
    >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >>
    >>>Any techies got an explanation?

    >>
    >>Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.

    >
    >Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    >longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    >efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    >alkaline.


    A lot depends upon the load / current too. At higher loads alkaline
    cells can have lower capacity than NiMh and even NiCd. The first digicam
    I used ate a set of 4 alkalines in 20 pictures whereas the 650mAh NiCd
    cells I put in it lasted over twice that.

    --

    Dominic Sexton
     
  12. In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
    <[email protected]> writes
    >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >>
    >>>Any techies got an explanation?

    >>
    >>Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.

    >
    >Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    >longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    >efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    >alkaline.


    A lot depends upon the load / current too. At higher loads alkaline
    cells can have lower capacity than NiMh and even NiCd. The first digicam
    I used ate a set of 4 alkalines in 20 pictures whereas the 650mAh NiCd
    cells I put in it lasted over twice that.

    --

    Dominic Sexton
     
  13. In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
    <[email protected]> writes
    >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >>
    >>>Any techies got an explanation?

    >>
    >>Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.

    >
    >Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    >longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    >efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    >alkaline.


    A lot depends upon the load / current too. At higher loads alkaline
    cells can have lower capacity than NiMh and even NiCd. The first digicam
    I used ate a set of 4 alkalines in 20 pictures whereas the 650mAh NiCd
    cells I put in it lasted over twice that.

    --

    Dominic Sexton
     
  14. In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
    <[email protected]> writes
    >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >>
    >>>Any techies got an explanation?

    >>
    >>Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.

    >
    >Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    >longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    >efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    >alkaline.


    A lot depends upon the load / current too. At higher loads alkaline
    cells can have lower capacity than NiMh and even NiCd. The first digicam
    I used ate a set of 4 alkalines in 20 pictures whereas the 650mAh NiCd
    cells I put in it lasted over twice that.

    --

    Dominic Sexton
     
  15. In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
    <[email protected]> writes
    >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >>
    >>>Any techies got an explanation?

    >>
    >>Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.

    >
    >Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    >longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    >efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    >alkaline.


    A lot depends upon the load / current too. At higher loads alkaline
    cells can have lower capacity than NiMh and even NiCd. The first digicam
    I used ate a set of 4 alkalines in 20 pictures whereas the 650mAh NiCd
    cells I put in it lasted over twice that.

    --

    Dominic Sexton
     
  16. In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
    <[email protected]> writes
    >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >>
    >>>Any techies got an explanation?

    >>
    >>Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.

    >
    >Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    >longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    >efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    >alkaline.


    A lot depends upon the load / current too. At higher loads alkaline
    cells can have lower capacity than NiMh and even NiCd. The first digicam
    I used ate a set of 4 alkalines in 20 pictures whereas the 650mAh NiCd
    cells I put in it lasted over twice that.

    --

    Dominic Sexton
     
  17. In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
    <[email protected]> writes
    >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >>
    >>>Any techies got an explanation?

    >>
    >>Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.

    >
    >Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    >longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    >efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    >alkaline.


    A lot depends upon the load / current too. At higher loads alkaline
    cells can have lower capacity than NiMh and even NiCd. The first digicam
    I used ate a set of 4 alkalines in 20 pictures whereas the 650mAh NiCd
    cells I put in it lasted over twice that.

    --

    Dominic Sexton
     
  18. In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
    <[email protected]> writes
    >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    >>>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    >>>to be lasting for absolutely ages....

    >>
    >>>Any techies got an explanation?

    >>
    >>Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.

    >
    >Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    >longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    >efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    >alkaline.


    A lot depends upon the load / current too. At higher loads alkaline
    cells can have lower capacity than NiMh and even NiCd. The first digicam
    I used ate a set of 4 alkalines in 20 pictures whereas the 650mAh NiCd
    cells I put in it lasted over twice that.

    --

    Dominic Sexton
     
  19. On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:53:47 +0000, Dominic Sexton
    <{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    | In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
    | <[email protected]> writes
    | >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
    | >
    | >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    | >>
    | >>>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    | >>>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    | >>>to be lasting for absolutely ages....
    | >>
    | >>>Any techies got an explanation?
    | >>
    | >>Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.
    | >
    | >Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    | >longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    | >efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    | >alkaline.
    |
    | A lot depends upon the load / current too. At higher loads alkaline
    | cells can have lower capacity than NiMh and even NiCd. The first digicam
    | I used ate a set of 4 alkalines in 20 pictures whereas the 650mAh NiCd
    | cells I put in it lasted over twice that.

    My digital camera, a high current load, works crap on alkaline, but takes
    many more photos using 2300 mah NiMh rechargeable. IME alkalines are much
    better than NiMh for low current loads.

    --
    Dave F
     
  20. On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:53:47 +0000, Dominic Sexton
    <{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    | In article <[email protected]>, Phil Cook
    | <[email protected]> writes
    | >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
    | >
    | >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> writes:
    | >>
    | >>>Just as a test I've got a couple of AAA non-rechargeable batteries in
    | >>>my GPS and when compared to the life of rechargeable ones they appear
    | >>>to be lasting for absolutely ages....
    | >>
    | >>>Any techies got an explanation?
    | >>
    | >>Well, technically speaking, non-rechargeable alkalines last longer.
    | >
    | >Yep the chemistry in an alkaline is more efficient and will last
    | >longer for a given volume than the NiMh which in turn is more
    | >efficient than NiCd. The Li chemistry is even more efficient than
    | >alkaline.
    |
    | A lot depends upon the load / current too. At higher loads alkaline
    | cells can have lower capacity than NiMh and even NiCd. The first digicam
    | I used ate a set of 4 alkalines in 20 pictures whereas the 650mAh NiCd
    | cells I put in it lasted over twice that.

    My digital camera, a high current load, works crap on alkaline, but takes
    many more photos using 2300 mah NiMh rechargeable. IME alkalines are much
    better than NiMh for low current loads.

    --
    Dave F
     
Loading...
Loading...