Posted by Eeyore on October 11, 2007, 3:32 pm
Anonymous wrote:
> We use a fair amount of batteries, mostly aa and aaa, to power various
> gadgets. I would be willing to invest in nicad batteries if they really
> worked, but the last time I did that about 5 years ago, they did not
> hold a charge very well.
> Have things improved any? Does the kind of charger you use make any
> difference?
> Any recommendations?
Nicads have been eclipsed by NiMH batteries.
Both have suffered from loss of charge issues but recent NiMH technology from
certain manufacturers has improved that. Sorry but I forget which brands
offhand.
Graham
Posted by Chris Hill on October 11, 2007, 3:37 pm
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:12:15 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous
>We use a fair amount of batteries, mostly aa and aaa, to power various
>gadgets. I would be willing to invest in nicad batteries if they really
>worked, but the last time I did that about 5 years ago, they did not
>hold a charge very well.
>Have things improved any? Does the kind of charger you use make any
>difference?
>Any recommendations?
>Thanks
>.
They've been mostly replaced by Nimh batteries. Neither type were
designed to hold a charge for a long time while setting unused. They
are fine for things like cameras and other high demand devices, if you
know when you're going to use the device or you can leave the
batteries on charge until needed. For things that have a low power
drain over a long period of time, such as remote controls, rechargable
batteries aren't very useful.
Posted by Eeyore on October 11, 2007, 4:12 pm
Chris Hill wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
> >We use a fair amount of batteries, mostly aa and aaa, to power various
> >gadgets. I would be willing to invest in nicad batteries if they really
> >worked, but the last time I did that about 5 years ago, they did not
> >hold a charge very well.
> >
> >Have things improved any? Does the kind of charger you use make any
> >difference?
> They've been mostly replaced by Nimh batteries. Neither type were
> designed to hold a charge for a long time while setting unused. They
> are fine for things like cameras and other high demand devices, if you
> know when you're going to use the device or you can leave the
> batteries on charge until needed. For things that have a low power
> drain over a long period of time, such as remote controls, rechargable
> batteries aren't very useful.
For sure in the past, an alkaline battery would have been the best bet in such
situations.
There are a few manufacturers of improved NiMHs who are now selling them 'ready
charged' just like alkalines. Apparently they will hold at least 50% of their
charge for a year.
Graham
Posted by Neon John on October 11, 2007, 5:03 pm
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:12:15 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous
>>We use a fair amount of batteries, mostly aa and aaa, to power various
>>gadgets. I would be willing to invest in nicad batteries if they really
>>worked, but the last time I did that about 5 years ago, they did not
>>hold a charge very well.
>>
>>Have things improved any? Does the kind of charger you use make any
>>difference?
>>
>>Any recommendations?
>>
>>Thanks
>>.
>They've been mostly replaced by Nimh batteries. Neither type were
>designed to hold a charge for a long time while setting unused. They
>are fine for things like cameras and other high demand devices, if you
>know when you're going to use the device or you can leave the
>batteries on charge until needed. For things that have a low power
>drain over a long period of time, such as remote controls, rechargable
>batteries aren't very useful.
NiCads hold charge quite well. NiMH, much less well. NiMH is still at about
1%/day.
The solution is simple. Store them on trickle chargers. That's what I do.
One can buy large trickle chargers from the likes of
http:/www.qualitychinagoods.com,
http://www.dealextreme.com and other places that hold up to 16 AA cells. Select
one
that floats only a few ma of current. Simply store the cells in the charger
until
use.
As for remote controls, who really cares how long they last? They last between
90
and 180 days, depending on the specific battery chemistry. No big deal to pop
'em
out and pop in new ones.
It's been almost a year since I did any serious testing and things have improved
in
the interval. Back then the green/black/silver printed Energizer AAs had the
most
actual capacity. Labeled 2500 mah, actual about 2450.
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Hell is truth seen too late. -Hobbs
Posted by Jim on October 12, 2007, 5:01 pm
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:12:15 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous
>>We use a fair amount of batteries, mostly aa and aaa, to power various
>>gadgets. I would be willing to invest in nicad batteries if they really
>>worked, but the last time I did that about 5 years ago, they did not
>>hold a charge very well.
>>
>>Have things improved any? Does the kind of charger you use make any
>>difference?
>>
>>Any recommendations?
>>
>>Thanks
>>.
> They've been mostly replaced by Nimh batteries. Neither type were
> designed to hold a charge for a long time while setting unused. They
> are fine for things like cameras and other high demand devices, if you
> know when you're going to use the device or you can leave the
> batteries on charge until needed. For things that have a low power
> drain over a long period of time, such as remote controls, rechargable
> batteries aren't very useful.
I use them in all my remotes, and even battery operated clocks. The
drain does not appear to occur if there is an actual load, no matter how
slight, on the battery. I have had no problems whatsoever and couldn't be
happier.
XML site map
> gadgets. I would be willing to invest in nicad batteries if they really
> worked, but the last time I did that about 5 years ago, they did not
> hold a charge very well.
> Have things improved any? Does the kind of charger you use make any
> difference?
> Any recommendations?