Aren't rechargeables for high current applications?
 

(Crossposted, please feel free to trim)


Since the worth of a NiMH rechargeable battery is determined by how
many alkalines you avoid buying and disposing of, what's the point of
low leakage current NiMHs?

In other words. Why would you care if the NiMH still has a charge after
one year? Doesn't that negate the value of being able to recharge the
battery hundreds of times? Why not use an alkaline if it needs to last
for one year?

Or, is ordinary/current NiMH leakage current problematic even for high
current uses, and battery makers are trying to correct that?

Thanks.



--
The first big front wheel rollerblades.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/3056505603

Re: Aren't rechargeables for high current applications?
 

"John Doe"
>
> Since the worth of a NiMH rechargeable battery is determined by how
> many alkalines you avoid buying and disposing of, what's the point of
> low leakage current NiMHs?

** Obvious.

The things retain charge for much longer so need less regular attention from
owners and are suitable for use with occasionally used items.


> In other words. Why would you care if the NiMH still has a charge after
> one year?


** Cos you can use them straight away - fool.


> Doesn't that negate the value of being able to recharge the
> battery hundreds of times?

** Wot complete insanity is this ?


> Why not use an alkaline if it needs to last
> for one year?


** A torch or a camera may sit idle for long periods, you do not know WHEN
you are going to need them next - so a rechargeable cell that has a long
charge retention time is a real plus over one that does not.

Fact is, the short and variable self discharge periods of NiCd ( and some
MiMH ) cells is their biggest drawback - resulting in the early demise of
the vast majority of NiCd packs from accidental overcharging the cells that
had longer retention than the others.



....... Phil

Re: Aren't rechargeables for high current applications?
 

John Doe wrote:
> (Crossposted, please feel free to trim)
>
>
> Since the worth of a NiMH rechargeable battery is determined by how
> many alkalines you avoid buying and disposing of, what's the point of
> low leakage current NiMHs?

For cameras, people may use them only every couple of months for most of
the year, then use it a lot during a couple of weeks, but alkalines
perform especially poorly in cameras due to their high internal resistance.

Yes, for flashlights, alkalines are often fine. But now a lot of people
use LED flashlights as bicycle lights for commuting, needing to charge
then often.

Low leakage NiMH batteries are pretty cheap now, on sale they're around
$1.50, so they're only about 2x the price of name brand AA alkalines at
Costco.
\

Re: Aren't rechargeables for high current applications?
 

Do you insult people in person like you insult people over the
Internet, Phil? Were you an orphan? Don't know about the average
Australian, but seems there are a few too many like Phil (another
Australian foul mouth apparently with no self control is Rod Speed
in the storage group). I'm genuinely curious. Maybe they come from
some small backwards tribal region, like where their customs are the
reverse of normal people.


"Phil Allison" <philallison tpg.com.au> wrote:

> Path: flpi142.ffdc.sbc.com!flph199.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy. com!flph200.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed2.tel usplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!feeder.erje.net!ne ws2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: "Phil Allison" <philallison tpg.com.au>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: Aren't rechargeables for high current applications?
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:47:53 +1100
> Lines: 46
> Message-ID: <6prfibF9m427U1 mid.individual.net>
> References: <Dx%Zk.13030$Ws1.9515 nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>
> X-Trace: individual.net U1hqlj6kdlRkDvORti4GPQEyojULKxzOLCe2Pw05nmLh0u0l2v
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:oAQnC33cb4eHpHD94AlxEexpzkQ=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.photo.digital:1516030 sci.electronics.design:947160
> X-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:47:57 EST (flpi142.ffdc.sbc.com)
>
>
> "John Doe"
>>
>> Since the worth of a NiMH rechargeable battery is determined by how
>> many alkalines you avoid buying and disposing of, what's the point of
>> low leakage current NiMHs?
>
> ** Obvious.
>
> The things retain charge for much longer so need less regular attention from
> owners and are suitable for use with occasionally used items.
>
>
>> In other words. Why would you care if the NiMH still has a charge after
>> one year?
>
>
> ** Cos you can use them straight away - fool.
>
>
>> Doesn't that negate the value of being able to recharge the
>> battery hundreds of times?
>
> ** Wot complete insanity is this ?
>
>
>> Why not use an alkaline if it needs to last
>> for one year?
>
>
> ** A torch or a camera may sit idle for long periods, you do not know WHEN
> you are going to need them next - so a rechargeable cell that has a long
> charge retention time is a real plus over one that does not.
>
> Fact is, the short and variable self discharge periods of NiCd ( and some
> MiMH ) cells is their biggest drawback - resulting in the early demise of
> the vast majority of NiCd packs from accidental overcharging the cells that
> had longer retention than the others.
>
>
>
> ...... Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
The first big front wheel rollerblades.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210 N04/3056505603
Google Groups is destroying the USENET archive.

Re: Aren't rechargeables for high current applications?
 

On Dec 5, 11:33 am, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> (Crossposted, please feel free to trim)
>
> Since the worth of a NiMH rechargeable battery is determined by how
> many alkalines you avoid buying and disposing of

That's just *one* sense of worth, there are others.

> what's the point of low leakage current NiMHs?

Obviously, they hold their charge longer than ordinary NiMH's. That's
a good and useful thing for many people and many purposes.

> In other words. Why would you care if the NiMH still has a charge after
> one year? Doesn't that negate the value of being able to recharge the
> battery hundreds of times? Why not use an alkaline if it needs to last
> for one year?

There comes a point where if you use the item so infrequently, that
can indeed be the case.
But there are countless usage variations you are not considering.

> Or, is ordinary/current NiMH leakage current problematic even for high
> current uses, and battery makers are trying to correct that?

Pretty much, yes.
Unless you are using an item say better than once a week, you will be
losing a significant amount of charge, and that can be really
annoying.

Dave.

Re: Aren't rechargeables for high current applications?
 

On Dec 4, 5:52*pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
> > (Crossposted, please feel free to trim)
>
> > Since the worth of a NiMH rechargeable battery is determined by how
> > many alkalines you avoid buying and disposing of, what's the point of
> > low leakage current NiMHs?
>
> For cameras, people may use them only every couple of months for most of
> the year, then use it a lot during a couple of weeks, but alkalines
> perform especially poorly in cameras due to their high internal resistance.
>
> Yes, for flashlights, alkalines are often fine. But now a lot of people
> use LED flashlights as bicycle lights for commuting, needing to charge
> then often.
>
> Low leakage NiMH batteries are pretty cheap now, on sale they're around
> $1.50, so they're only about 2x the price of name brand AA alkalines at
> Costco.
> \

I use ENELOOPs, but a Costco AA cell costs about 25 cents. So actually
I use both, but try to use the ENELOOPS as much as possible.

Now granted, I used the price of the house brand, but the capacity of
alkaline batteries don't vary much between brands the last time I saw
a capacity test done. I've even used Korean made batteries at the
dollar store in a pinch. About the only cell brand I find that is not
competitive in capacity is Ultralast. Now granted, I've got those
batteries for under a dime at times.

Re: Aren't rechargeables for high current applications?
 

"John Doe"

( snip load of top posted, puerile drivel)


** Anyone as colossally stupid as YOU pal, needs to develop a thicker
hide.


**** off - fool.


...... Phil

Re: Aren't rechargeables for high current applications?
 

John Doe wrote:
> (Crossposted, please feel free to trim)
>
>
> Since the worth of a NiMH rechargeable battery is determined by how
> many alkalines you avoid buying and disposing of, what's the point
> of
> low leakage current NiMHs?
>
> In other words. Why would you care if the NiMH still has a charge
> after one year? Doesn't that negate the value of being able to
> recharge the battery hundreds of times? Why not use an alkaline if
> it
> needs to last for one year?

It's bloody inconvenient to have your clock or keyboard run down after
3 monts because of internal leakage in the battery.

> Or, is ordinary/current NiMH leakage current problematic even for
> high
> current uses, and battery makers are trying to correct that?
>
> Thanks.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Re: Aren't rechargeables for high current applications?
 

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> "John Doe"

> ( snip load of top posted, puerile drivel)

Appears to be a same dialect. Okay, so I see Phil is obsessed with
Sylvia in the Australian legal group. So maybe Phil and Rod are the
same, or brothers, or maybe bedfellows.

> ** Anyone as colossally stupid as YOU pal, needs to develop a
> thicker hide.

Do you have a Crocodile Dundee complex, Phil?

> **** off - fool.

Are you in a movie, Phil?
















>
>
>
> ..... Phil
>
>
>
> Path: flpi141.ffdc.sbc.com!flph199.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy. com!flph200.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu. edu!feeder.erje.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftw are.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: "Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,sci.electronics.design
> Subject: Re: Aren't rechargeables for high current applications?
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:14:50 +1100
> Lines: 17
> Message-ID: <6prrmbF9kvs9U1@mid.individual.net>
> References: <Dx%Zk.13030$Ws1.9515@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> <6prfibF9m427U1@mid.individual.net> <cQ1_k.9852$YU2.346@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>
> X-Trace: individual.net QEqRNBF4DyoFblIGvQA7LQqb4IYBI4RPSkwLLSIgMwLtbb9sho
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:1aTeG07Z/PcoYTXsuACqu4vFrtk=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.photo.digital:1516072 sci.electronics.design:947179
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:14:53 EST (flpi141.ffdc.sbc.com)

Re: Aren't rechargeables for high current applications?
 

"John Dope"

( snip another whole load of top posted, puerile drivel )


** Anyone as monumentally stupid as YOU pal, needs to develop a very thick
hide.

To go with that very think head of yours.

**** the hell off - you PITA trolling ****wit.