Re: GPS - non-rechargeable versus rechargeable

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

  1. 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
     


  2. 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
     
  3. 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]eeserve.co.uk> 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
     
  4. 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
     
  5. 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
     
  6. 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
     
  7. 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
     
  8. 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
     
  9. 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
     
  10. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

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

    >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.


    The alkaline batteries would have been fine for other applications if you'd
    tried them. Their limitation is an inability to deliver a sufficiently high
    current without exhibiting voltage drop, which the camera electronics will
    detect and promptly shut down. Left to recover, they would have been fine -
    they are usually up around the 2000-3000mAh range (iirc) and could not have
    been flattened as such with such short use. (Unless the high current
    actually caused internal damage, but I would think this unlikely.)

    For non-rechargeable (emergency backup) use in digicams, use lithium cells
    instead. They are 3V cells and can often be found in a 2-AA size which
    directly replaces two ordinary AA cells if the battery compartment has the
    right connections, will cope well with the load and have a high capacity and
    very long shelf life. Not too expensive either, if you look in the right
    places.

    --
    Math illiteracy affects eight of every five people.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
  11. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

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

    >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.


    The alkaline batteries would have been fine for other applications if you'd
    tried them. Their limitation is an inability to deliver a sufficiently high
    current without exhibiting voltage drop, which the camera electronics will
    detect and promptly shut down. Left to recover, they would have been fine -
    they are usually up around the 2000-3000mAh range (iirc) and could not have
    been flattened as such with such short use. (Unless the high current
    actually caused internal damage, but I would think this unlikely.)

    For non-rechargeable (emergency backup) use in digicams, use lithium cells
    instead. They are 3V cells and can often be found in a 2-AA size which
    directly replaces two ordinary AA cells if the battery compartment has the
    right connections, will cope well with the load and have a high capacity and
    very long shelf life. Not too expensive either, if you look in the right
    places.

    --
    Math illiteracy affects eight of every five people.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
  12. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

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

    >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.


    The alkaline batteries would have been fine for other applications if you'd
    tried them. Their limitation is an inability to deliver a sufficiently high
    current without exhibiting voltage drop, which the camera electronics will
    detect and promptly shut down. Left to recover, they would have been fine -
    they are usually up around the 2000-3000mAh range (iirc) and could not have
    been flattened as such with such short use. (Unless the high current
    actually caused internal damage, but I would think this unlikely.)

    For non-rechargeable (emergency backup) use in digicams, use lithium cells
    instead. They are 3V cells and can often be found in a 2-AA size which
    directly replaces two ordinary AA cells if the battery compartment has the
    right connections, will cope well with the load and have a high capacity and
    very long shelf life. Not too expensive either, if you look in the right
    places.

    --
    Math illiteracy affects eight of every five people.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
  13. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

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

    >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.


    The alkaline batteries would have been fine for other applications if you'd
    tried them. Their limitation is an inability to deliver a sufficiently high
    current without exhibiting voltage drop, which the camera electronics will
    detect and promptly shut down. Left to recover, they would have been fine -
    they are usually up around the 2000-3000mAh range (iirc) and could not have
    been flattened as such with such short use. (Unless the high current
    actually caused internal damage, but I would think this unlikely.)

    For non-rechargeable (emergency backup) use in digicams, use lithium cells
    instead. They are 3V cells and can often be found in a 2-AA size which
    directly replaces two ordinary AA cells if the battery compartment has the
    right connections, will cope well with the load and have a high capacity and
    very long shelf life. Not too expensive either, if you look in the right
    places.

    --
    Math illiteracy affects eight of every five people.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
  14. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

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

    >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.


    The alkaline batteries would have been fine for other applications if you'd
    tried them. Their limitation is an inability to deliver a sufficiently high
    current without exhibiting voltage drop, which the camera electronics will
    detect and promptly shut down. Left to recover, they would have been fine -
    they are usually up around the 2000-3000mAh range (iirc) and could not have
    been flattened as such with such short use. (Unless the high current
    actually caused internal damage, but I would think this unlikely.)

    For non-rechargeable (emergency backup) use in digicams, use lithium cells
    instead. They are 3V cells and can often be found in a 2-AA size which
    directly replaces two ordinary AA cells if the battery compartment has the
    right connections, will cope well with the load and have a high capacity and
    very long shelf life. Not too expensive either, if you look in the right
    places.

    --
    Math illiteracy affects eight of every five people.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
  15. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

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

    >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.


    The alkaline batteries would have been fine for other applications if you'd
    tried them. Their limitation is an inability to deliver a sufficiently high
    current without exhibiting voltage drop, which the camera electronics will
    detect and promptly shut down. Left to recover, they would have been fine -
    they are usually up around the 2000-3000mAh range (iirc) and could not have
    been flattened as such with such short use. (Unless the high current
    actually caused internal damage, but I would think this unlikely.)

    For non-rechargeable (emergency backup) use in digicams, use lithium cells
    instead. They are 3V cells and can often be found in a 2-AA size which
    directly replaces two ordinary AA cells if the battery compartment has the
    right connections, will cope well with the load and have a high capacity and
    very long shelf life. Not too expensive either, if you look in the right
    places.

    --
    Math illiteracy affects eight of every five people.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
  16. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

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

    >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.


    The alkaline batteries would have been fine for other applications if you'd
    tried them. Their limitation is an inability to deliver a sufficiently high
    current without exhibiting voltage drop, which the camera electronics will
    detect and promptly shut down. Left to recover, they would have been fine -
    they are usually up around the 2000-3000mAh range (iirc) and could not have
    been flattened as such with such short use. (Unless the high current
    actually caused internal damage, but I would think this unlikely.)

    For non-rechargeable (emergency backup) use in digicams, use lithium cells
    instead. They are 3V cells and can often be found in a 2-AA size which
    directly replaces two ordinary AA cells if the battery compartment has the
    right connections, will cope well with the load and have a high capacity and
    very long shelf life. Not too expensive either, if you look in the right
    places.

    --
    Math illiteracy affects eight of every five people.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
  17. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

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

    >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.


    The alkaline batteries would have been fine for other applications if you'd
    tried them. Their limitation is an inability to deliver a sufficiently high
    current without exhibiting voltage drop, which the camera electronics will
    detect and promptly shut down. Left to recover, they would have been fine -
    they are usually up around the 2000-3000mAh range (iirc) and could not have
    been flattened as such with such short use. (Unless the high current
    actually caused internal damage, but I would think this unlikely.)

    For non-rechargeable (emergency backup) use in digicams, use lithium cells
    instead. They are 3V cells and can often be found in a 2-AA size which
    directly replaces two ordinary AA cells if the battery compartment has the
    right connections, will cope well with the load and have a high capacity and
    very long shelf life. Not too expensive either, if you look in the right
    places.

    --
    Math illiteracy affects eight of every five people.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
  18. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

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

    >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.


    The alkaline batteries would have been fine for other applications if you'd
    tried them. Their limitation is an inability to deliver a sufficiently high
    current without exhibiting voltage drop, which the camera electronics will
    detect and promptly shut down. Left to recover, they would have been fine -
    they are usually up around the 2000-3000mAh range (iirc) and could not have
    been flattened as such with such short use. (Unless the high current
    actually caused internal damage, but I would think this unlikely.)

    For non-rechargeable (emergency backup) use in digicams, use lithium cells
    instead. They are 3V cells and can often be found in a 2-AA size which
    directly replaces two ordinary AA cells if the battery compartment has the
    right connections, will cope well with the load and have a high capacity and
    very long shelf life. Not too expensive either, if you look in the right
    places.

    --
    Math illiteracy affects eight of every five people.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
  19. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

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

    >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.


    The alkaline batteries would have been fine for other applications if you'd
    tried them. Their limitation is an inability to deliver a sufficiently high
    current without exhibiting voltage drop, which the camera electronics will
    detect and promptly shut down. Left to recover, they would have been fine -
    they are usually up around the 2000-3000mAh range (iirc) and could not have
    been flattened as such with such short use. (Unless the high current
    actually caused internal damage, but I would think this unlikely.)

    For non-rechargeable (emergency backup) use in digicams, use lithium cells
    instead. They are 3V cells and can often be found in a 2-AA size which
    directly replaces two ordinary AA cells if the battery compartment has the
    right connections, will cope well with the load and have a high capacity and
    very long shelf life. Not too expensive either, if you look in the right
    places.

    --
    Math illiteracy affects eight of every five people.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
  20. John Laird

    John Laird Guest

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

    >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.


    The alkaline batteries would have been fine for other applications if you'd
    tried them. Their limitation is an inability to deliver a sufficiently high
    current without exhibiting voltage drop, which the camera electronics will
    detect and promptly shut down. Left to recover, they would have been fine -
    they are usually up around the 2000-3000mAh range (iirc) and could not have
    been flattened as such with such short use. (Unless the high current
    actually caused internal damage, but I would think this unlikely.)

    For non-rechargeable (emergency backup) use in digicams, use lithium cells
    instead. They are 3V cells and can often be found in a 2-AA size which
    directly replaces two ordinary AA cells if the battery compartment has the
    right connections, will cope well with the load and have a high capacity and
    very long shelf life. Not too expensive either, if you look in the right
    places.

    --
    Math illiteracy affects eight of every five people.

    Mail john rather than nospam...
     
Loading...
Loading...