Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > "Remove the battery when not using the camera."

Reply
Thread Tools

"Remove the battery when not using the camera."

 
 
Hp
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2010
On 9/13/2010 10:46 PM, philo wrote:
> On 09/13/2010 08:59 PM, thanatoid wrote:
>> "Buffalo"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:i6mkfo$bsr$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:


>> <snip>


>>>> IS there ANY advantage to removing the Li-Ion battery and
>>>> placing in the nifty plastic mini-case other than the fact
>>>> you are /very/ likely to lose it, thereby being forced to
>>>> buy a new one, presumably at the price of the camera
>>>> itself?
>>>
>>> What better reason is there and it will help the economy.
>>>


>>> I hope you enjoy it!
>>> Buffalo




> It should not hurt anything to leave the battery in the camera.


> I'd only take it out if the camera was going to be out of use for more
> than a few months. There is a small possibility it could leak.


THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE BATTERY: battery life, leaving the main
battery in the camera WILL KILL the battery fairly soon.
In some camera's in a matter of only 2 weeks.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thanatoid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2010
joevan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Why not try yogurt.


I like yogurt.


--
"Anytime I hear the word "culture", I get on the Internet."
- a 21st Century Moron
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thanatoid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2010
Hp <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:i6o6e7$95g$(E-Mail Removed):

> THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE BATTERY: battery life,
> leaving the main battery in the camera WILL KILL the
> battery fairly soon. In some camera's in a matter of only 2
> weeks.


OK, that /sounds/ like a good reason. Thank you...

Still, can you substantiate your claim? MOST people never read
manuals and do not remove batteries EVER, unless they are
charging them. Surely SOMETHING would come up on Google? Nothing
did.



--
"Anytime I hear the word "culture", I get on the Internet."
- a 21st Century Moron
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jenna Tills
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2010
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:51:25 +0000, thanatoid wrote:

> Hp <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:i6o6e7$95g$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE BATTERY: battery life, leaving the main
>> battery in the camera WILL KILL the battery fairly soon. In some
>> camera's in a matter of only 2 weeks.

>
> OK, that /sounds/ like a good reason. Thank you...
>
> Still, can you substantiate your claim? MOST people never read manuals
> and do not remove batteries EVER, unless they are charging them. Surely
> SOMETHING would come up on Google? Nothing did.


My Casio EX-1050 hasn't been charged in 2 months. The battery is left
inside and has 3/4 of its charge left. It depends on the camera as to how
fast the battery discharges if left inside and unused.
 
Reply With Quote
 
VanguardLH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2010
thanatoid wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> You've never had batteries leak?

>
> Of course, but I have never owned a Li-Ion battery and I have
> not heard of them leaking, or even having anything that COULD
> leak inside them.


When they go dead, they outgas. That pressure is what causes the
leaking.

Did the instructions say how LONG you should not leave the batteries
inside the camera? You might put in batteries, use them until they had
little charge left, and then go store your camera in a drawer for years.
Non-use to them would be long-term storage to you.

>> Your suggestion (in your other post) of just cleaning up
>> after the mess doesn't work.

>
> It works for me, YMobviouslyV.


Please explain how you "clean" the /*corroded*/ contacts? You really
replate the nickel coating on them during your "cleaning"? You manage
to polish them shiny again rather than scratching the contacts? You can
turn iron oxide into steel again along with restoring the nickel
plating? You cannot clean corroded contacts. You might make them
workable again by providing a better contact with a replacement battery
but that's not getting them clean nor restoring the contact. If you're
lucky enough to catch the leaking when it is fresh then you won't have
corroded contacts. It is rare that a user haps upon a battery just when
it starts to leak.

The suggestion to store the battery outside the camera is for when you
don't use your camera for an extended time, like months or years, not
for a week or two. They probably assumed the user was sufficiently
familiar with using batteries to know they can leak.

> Which contacts? The "heavy duty" or alkaline battery is history,


Those must be some huge warehouses that can continue to stock the store
shelves with the no-longer-manufactured alkaline batteries.

> and the metal contacts in the unit can handle both corrosion AND
> cleaning, and if not, they can be replaced for about 50 cents.


You've found flashlights, cameras, and other battery-powered devices
that actually have corrosion-proof contacts. Marvelous. I'll have to
travel to your planet someday.

You really have a parts shop where you can purchase the contact parts
for your particular camera. That's nice. I haven't seen one yet. Of
course, you could buy a defective same-model camera to scavenge it for
parts but I doubt you'll get the defective camera for a mere 50 cents
unless you are admitting to dumpster diving.

What brand and model camera do you have? Now show me a link where you
can buy just the contacts for a total of only 50 cents. Now show me the
video of you having to dismantle the camera's case to clip out the old
contacts and then snap the new ones in and also solder back the leads to
them. I admit it's doable (versus your claim of cleaning corroded
contacts) but I haven't seen where you buy internal parts for digital
cameras down to the level of getting replacement contacts. And, of
course, all camera owners are expected to have this expertise or bother
with performing that technical level of a repair.

>> So you think you can clean the contacts.

>
> I know I can, I have done it about half a dozen times.


Yes, by scraping at the metal to remove more of the nickel plating and
expose more of the steel so it oxidizes even faster from now on. So
just how do you restore the /*corroded*/ portion of the contact? To be
frank, I don't believe you when you say that you have dismantled cameras
to replace their battery contacts. If you are a camera repair
technician, you wouldn't be asking why or when batteries leak, any type
for electrolyte, or why the manufacturer recommends not storing the
device with the battery inside.

Although nickel has less conductivity than gold, nickel is a lot cheaper
than gold. Nickel is used to reduce oxide buildup on the contacts.
Nickel steel is not required and too expensive for constructing
electrical contacts. Instead a steel contacte is plated with nickel.
If that nickel plating is damaged, like through corrosion, it's gone.
You can scrape off the electrolyte but you won't be replacing the nickel
plating. You may need to scrap the steel that is exposed to remove the
oxide on it to improve the electrical contact but it will now oxidize
faster without the nickel plating for protection. The nickel plating on
contacts is extremely thin. Once corrosion has attacked the plating, it
gets underneath and separates the plating from the steel base.

If the contact has no nickel plating but is of the cheap polished
stainless steel variety, they oxidize quickly and create poor contacts.
Rust is not a good electrical conductor. The nickel plated contacts you
have in digital cameras eliminates most of the oxide problem but it is
not impervious to corrosion.

>> Are you also
>> going to fully dismantle the case to make sure you remove
>> any electrolyte that has oozed inside the case?

>
> Of course, I have done it about half a dozen times.


So you have dismantled camera cases about half a dozen times to remove
electrolyte from inside the case from a leaking battery and yet you come
here wondering why the manufacturer recommends not storing the camera
with the battery inside. Uh huh.

> Why not stick to the thread title? I was asking about the
> curious phrasing of the warning.


How is "remove the battery when not in use" a curious phrase? You
couldn't figure out what they were saying? Your first post didn't ask
how to interpret their statement. You were asking why they said to
remove the battery.

It doesn't seem difficult to me to understand. When using the camera,
battery is in. When not using the camera, battery is out. It's just a
suggestion. "Not in use" implies for an extended period of time - not
for a few hours, or overnight, or a week, or even a month. You might
leave the camera in a drawer for several months or years, and that
drawer might be out in your garage or sitting in the glove box of your
car where the battery endures extremes of temperatures.

"Not in use" requires some interpolation on your part regarding how LONG
is that term of non-use. If every statement required complete analysis
and background to describe its meaning then that instruction booklet
would bloom into the 1700+ page size of the Oxford English Dictionary.
They assumed you were familiar with battery use and understood what
interval was implied by "not in use".

You might leave a battery inside a flashlight for years because it has
to be always ready in case of power outages because, well, it's just a
flashlight, the contacts are already cheap so scraping them to clean off
electrolyte is okay for awhile, and it's cheap to replace. Personally I
replace all the batteries once per year in my emergency flashlights (I
check twice per year for the flashlight in the toolbox inside my car
because of the extremes in temperatures). Losing a camera due to a
leaking battery because you stored it in a drawer for years can be an
expensive lesson.

They probably don't specify what is considered long-term storage because
that depends on your climatic conditions and how the camera gets stored.
They can't say because they don't know the conditions suffered by the
device.

> The person I am speaking of, who has done BOTH, has had the
> camera with two AA alkalines in it sitting on his shelf for 3
> years, with 4 pix in it. The cable is still in the sealed
> plastic bag. There is no leakage from the batteries.


Leaking occurs when the battery is dead and outgases. That pressure
causes the leaking. Alkaline batteries have a shelf life ranging 5 to 7
years. So your friend has been lucky in that he will probably now
replace those old batteries before they start to leak to prevent ending
up with corroded contacts later. He really should get engrained in a
regimen to inspect and replace all alkaline batteries once per year if
he really expects the device to be usable on-demand and to eliminate
tossing away expensive (or even cheap) devices due to leakages. You
really don't know how old are those batteries by the time you get to buy
them.

> I have yet to see a 5.1V alkaline battery which is a 1 x 1.2"
> rectangle 1/8" inch thick.


Cylindrical packaging is not required for alkaline batteries. I have
seen lots of different package styles used for alkaline batteries,
including flat square packages. I had an RCA remote control that had a
rectangular alkaline battery called a J battery. Here's one:

http://www.batteriesplus.com/product...e-Battery.aspx

There are other rectangular packages but inside which use a series of
button batteries soldered together in rows and then placed together (in
series or parallel depending on the voltage or current requirement) in
columns.

>> All batteries go dead. Dead
>> batteries leak. Li-ion batteries will leak, too.

>
> Maybe. Will removing them from the camera make a differnce?
> Ahhh. That would require addressing the thread subject...


Yep, as in them saying to "remove when not in use" which is not the
"curious" phrase you claim it to be. Storing the batteries won't
prevent them from leaking, either. They'll just leak into whatever
container in which you stored them. Presumably that container is of
less value to you. I don't know what is the "container" you mentioned
that apparently they gave to you with the camera in which to store the
batteries. Sounds like a fancy baggy. If it's a case, I would still
put the battery inside a plastic bag (you can get some small specimen
bags that are only a little bigger than the battery) so they leak inside
that rather than mess up the convenient storage case they gave you. The
bagged battery might still fit inside the storage container. Of course,
this assumes that you are storing the battery unused for many months or
years. If you are actually using the camera and the battery then you'll
probably be tossing the battery when it starts to become unusable (if a
disposable Li-ion) or won't take a decent charge (if rechargeable).

By the way, most times that I've encountered leaking was during the
recharging. Eventually the battery gets too old to take a charge and
ends up overheating despite the charger supposedly watching for too high
a current draw and limiting it. I can usually tell before the battery
starts to leak by how hot it gets during recharging; however, I don't
sit and watch the recharger and have returned to find some mess to clean
up and a battery to toss. Yes, the contacts can be cleaned up because
the electrolyte exposure on the contacts is new. It hasn't had time to
corrode. Recharging batteries has a lot different monitoring than of
storing batteries in a drawer or inside a device where they don't get
check until whenever you next use the device.

"Remove when not in use" seems a no-brainer statement but it does
presume the user realizes that this means for long-term storage. You
don't need to be removing the battery if you're using that camera every
day or every week or perhaps even every month. You'll notice if the
battery is leaking and then clean off the contacts BEFORE they get
corroded and then replace the battery. It is more likely that with
regular use that you'll end up tossing the battery long before it ever
degenerates to the state where it outgases and leaks.

How long do you expect to store your digital camera before its next use?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hp
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2010
On 9/14/2010 3:34 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> thanatoid wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> You've never had batteries leak?

>>


snip

you must have awoken on the wrong side of a bad hair day to be in such
an Acrimonious acerbic mood with your replies today.
 
Reply With Quote
 
VanguardLH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2010
thanatoid wrote:

> NO ONE needs more than 6 MPs


Digital cameras still have a long ways to go before they have the
resolution available with film. Digital is convenient. It's also a lot
cheaper to plug into your computer to get the pics (provided you don't
waste the colored ink to then print a copy) for storage or transmission.
Compared to digital, film is a lot more expensive to buy and especially
to process. While film is still more granular, there is no lag between
taking the pic and having it available as there is when having to
process film.

A 6MP camera is still less than 14,000 times the resolution available in
B&W film (but this is measured at a physical level well below what is
discernable by the naked eye). Rather than specify the 86,400,000,000
silver oxide crystals that can differentiate between light and dark in
35mm film, grains are used as the measurement. ISO 100 color negative
film would supposedly take around 18-24MP for an equivalent digital
image.

Consumers have learned to accept the quality difference in favor of
convenience. They've been well trained with cell phones to accept
suffereable signal quality, so accepting digital images of far less
quality just continues the trend. The trade-off is ease of use versus
quality. Depending on the needs of the user, one usually beats out the
other but it also depends on the application (i.e., how the image will
get used). While I have a 4MP digital camera which is handy for
snapshots of large images (houses, cars, people, etc), it's obviously
not very good at closeup shots or anywhere high granularity, extreme
sharpness, or high accurate tonal reproduction is needed. I haven't
been impressed enough with 6MP or 8MP cameras to bother upgrading. The
15-18MP cameras are way outside my price range.

> these days, all the cameras costing more than $50 offer 12 or 14
> MPs, not to mention the 50 or 60 MP Hasselblad.


Please provide a link to legitimate sales of decent 14MP digital cameras
costing only $50. Or where I can find the $19K+ 40MP Hasselblad H4D-40
for only $50.
 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2010
thanatoid <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns9DF2D2DFF2E1Dthanexit@188.40.43.230:

> I recently stepped /even deeper/ into this century, by buying a
> digital camera. It is pretty amazing. Of course, it is also
> fodder for my carping, since NO ONE needs more than 6 MPs, and
> these days, all the cameras costing more than $50 offer 12 or 14
> MPs, not to mention the 50 or 60 MP Hasselblad.
>
> Anyway, the instructions say "remove the battery when not in
> use".
>
> (Yes, I read instructions, even when they are NOT included with
> the camera except on the CD - along with the most absurdly
> bloated 80MB [IIRC] and totally unnecessary "software" - and
> have to be printed out, all 100+ pages.)
>
> It is also suggested you place the battery in a nice $0.03 piece
> of clear plastic thoughtfully provided and proudly bearing the
> moniker of "battery case".
>
> I am not aware of any factual reason for removing the battery.
> The instruction do not even say "when not using the camera for a
> long time". They just say "remove it".
>

No idea. But there either has to be a reason due to a lawsuit or battery
life. Just do it.

> IS there ANY advantage to removing the Li-Ion battery and
> placing in the nifty plastic mini-case other than the fact you
> are /very/ likely to lose it, thereby being forced to buy a new
> one, presumably at the price of the camera itself?
>

Keep it in the camera case or in the same container your stash is in?
<g>


Seriously, I wouldn't worry about the stupid plastic container so long
as you *do* keep it in something sealed and non-metalic so you don't
short out the two contacts with each other.


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2010
thanatoid <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:Xns9DF365A1EB6F3thanexit@188.40.43.230:

> Jenna Tills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news(E-Mail Removed):
>
> <snip>
>
>> Obviously the battery discharges while in the camera.

>
> That would be quite peculiar for the otherwise impressively
> intelligent Lumix design. All batteries "lose" a tiny amount of
> power *wherever* they are, in the camera, in a drawer, /or/ used
> as a necklace pendant.
>
>> The camera must have a separate CMOS clock and power source to
>> retain settings and date/ time.

>
> While the power source is not specified, it must be a tiny
> capacitor, since the camera stores the date (and possibly the
> settings, sadly, that is not mentioned) with the main battery
> removed - for up to 3 months. It could be a tiny button cell,
> they last for 5-10 years so mentioning them is pointless since
> people replace their digital cameras every time another 2 MPs
> become available for the same price.
>
>> Do as the owners manual says.

>
> Thank you, but I am trying to think for myself, with the aid of
> the 24hr HELPdesk.
>
> So far, I have yet to see a single convincing argument FOR
> removing the battery whenever the camera is not on. I /would/
> remove it if I was not going to use the camera for 2 months.
>

You're debating in a vacuum. Try this: get a brand new unused battery.
Check the voltage of it and write it down (to .01v accuracy at least).
Then put the battery in the camera without using said camera at *all*
for one week. Then check the battery again.


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
thanatoid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2010
Jenna Tills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news(E-Mail Removed):

> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:51:25 +0000, thanatoid wrote:
>
>> Hp <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:i6o6e7$95g$(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE BATTERY: battery life,
>>> leaving the main battery in the camera WILL KILL the
>>> battery fairly soon. In some camera's in a matter of only
>>> 2 weeks.

>>
>> OK, that /sounds/ like a good reason. Thank you...
>>
>> Still, can you substantiate your claim? MOST people never
>> read manuals and do not remove batteries EVER, unless they
>> are charging them. Surely SOMETHING would come up on
>> Google? Nothing did.

>
> My Casio EX-1050 hasn't been charged in 2 months. The
> battery is left inside and has 3/4 of its charge left. It
> depends on the camera as to how fast the battery discharges
> if left inside and unused.


OK, thanks, this is making more sense now. I have read that
unlike old Ni-Cads (with which I had a LOT of fun when I used to
do film and video decades ago), Li-Ions do NOT suffer from the
memory effect. My brand-new battery (the manual tells you to
charge it fully before using) charged in about 70 minutes - the
manual said it will take about 2.5 hrs.

Anyway, if THAT is the main concern, and not nasty electrolyte
invading all the secret tiny places in the camera, than it's not
a big deal. I will probably use the camera every day for the
next 2 months (I almost never use the flash, and I am /dying/ to
see how many shots one batt. charge will provide for - the mnual
says 300, but that's with flash every second shot, etc.) and
then not use it for 6 months.

I *will* remove the battery THEN, but will also charge it every
2 months

Thanks again.



--
"Anytime I hear the word "culture", I get on the Internet."
- a 21st Century Moron
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CMOS battery low wrong memory on CMOS battery Uncle Nobby Computer Information 1 11-08-2006 12:13 AM
Manufacturer Battery vs. OEM Battery rab Digital Photography 13 05-10-2005 06:56 AM
Should I buy original Battery or the replacement Battery ? eko Digital Photography 4 04-17-2004 03:52 AM
Making battery pack for Li battery. roror Digital Photography 2 10-09-2003 05:24 AM
Poor Mans NIMH Battery Pack and SLA Battery Pack ajacobs2 Digital Photography 0 08-19-2003 12:42 PM



Advertisments