Posted by Stephen Wolstenholme on October 8, 2009, 10:14 pm
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:18:18 -0700 (PDT), harry
>The "AA" sort of size I mean. My house is full of gizmos that need
>batteries. TV remotes, electric clocks, smoke alarms, computer bits
>sort of thing.
>So, I thought why not get rechargeable batteries. Be green! I'm now
>wondering if this is not some sort of con.
>First you need to buy a charger. Then the batteries cost five or six
>times more than the non-rechargeable ones. Then there is the question
>of capacity. The rechargeables are marked X mAh but the nons are not.
>But the rechargeables don't seem to last as the long as the nons. Also
>they don't seem to be able to be recharged as many times as
>advertised. And I suppose there's the cost of electriciy to recharge.
>And they're always flat when you need one.
>The latest thing I've found out after a lot of head scratching is that
>some things won't work with them because they are a slightly lower
>voltage than the nons. (I'm thinking of my wireless computer
>keyboard.) The range is cut down by a factor of five or six.
>I think I'll go back to the cheap old nons.
There are no inexpensive rechargeable batteries that are suitable for
lower power devices. They will need to be recharged every few weeks
and, as you have noticed, the voltage is often too low for some
devices. You can get suitable batteries but they are expensive.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
Posted by Neon John on October 8, 2009, 10:57 pm
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:14:42 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
>There are no inexpensive rechargeable batteries that are suitable for
>lower power devices. They will need to be recharged every few weeks
>and, as you have noticed, the voltage is often too low for some
>devices. You can get suitable batteries but they are expensive.
Nope. The Sanyo Eneloop and Eveready Hybrid low-self-discharge NiMh
batteries work just fine in low current applications. There's a set of
them in the wireless mouse that I'm using on this computer and they've
been there for the better part of a year. There is another set in my
alarm clock and they've been there for around a year also.
The only problem one has to look out for is with devices that require
the full 1.5 volt open circuit voltage of alkaline batteries. The
rechargeables, at 1.25 volts, won't work in these applications.
John
Posted by Stephen Wolstenholme on October 8, 2009, 11:12 pm
>On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:14:42 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
>>
>>There are no inexpensive rechargeable batteries that are suitable for
>>lower power devices. They will need to be recharged every few weeks
>>and, as you have noticed, the voltage is often too low for some
>>devices. You can get suitable batteries but they are expensive.
>Nope. The Sanyo Eneloop and Eveready Hybrid low-self-discharge NiMh
>batteries work just fine in low current applications. There's a set of
>them in the wireless mouse that I'm using on this computer and they've
>been there for the better part of a year. There is another set in my
>alarm clock and they've been there for around a year also.
As I said "no inexpensive". IMO, the batteries you mention above are
expensive. The batteries in my alarm clock have been in for a least a
year and they are just plain AA. I can buy about 50 AA for the price
of a four pack of Sanyo Eneloop.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
Posted by Josepi on October 9, 2009, 12:50 am
About a month before Christmas each year Walmart puts out packs of 48
Ray-o-Vac AA for $.88 Canuck.
The rechargable ones are not economical in certain usages.
> The "AA" sort of size I mean. My house is full of gizmos that need
> batteries. TV remotes, electric clocks, smoke alarms, computer bits
> sort of thing.
> So, I thought why not get rechargeable batteries. Be green! I'm now
> wondering if this is not some sort of con.
> First you need to buy a charger. Then the batteries cost five or six
> times more than the non-rechargeable ones. Then there is the question
> of capacity. The rechargeables are marked X mAh but the nons are not.
> But the rechargeables don't seem to last as the long as the nons. Also
> they don't seem to be able to be recharged as many times as
> advertised. And I suppose there's the cost of electriciy to recharge.
> And they're always flat when you need one.
> The latest thing I've found out after a lot of head scratching is that
> some things won't work with them because they are a slightly lower
> voltage than the nons. (I'm thinking of my wireless computer
> keyboard.) The range is cut down by a factor of five or six.
> I think I'll go back to the cheap old nons.
Posted by Jim Wilkins on October 9, 2009, 12:02 pm
I bought bunches of AA Ray-O-Vac Renewals (1.5V) when they were
available and still get good service from most of them, as long as
they are recharged every few months. Some cells have lasted well over
10 years in low-drain clocks and remotes. They aren't as good in
flashlights and a full discharge kills them quickly.
jsw
XML site map
>batteries. TV remotes, electric clocks, smoke alarms, computer bits
>sort of thing.
>So, I thought why not get rechargeable batteries. Be green! I'm now
>wondering if this is not some sort of con.
>First you need to buy a charger. Then the batteries cost five or six
>times more than the non-rechargeable ones. Then there is the question
>of capacity. The rechargeables are marked X mAh but the nons are not.
>But the rechargeables don't seem to last as the long as the nons. Also
>they don't seem to be able to be recharged as many times as
>advertised. And I suppose there's the cost of electriciy to recharge.
>And they're always flat when you need one.
>The latest thing I've found out after a lot of head scratching is that
>some things won't work with them because they are a slightly lower
>voltage than the nons. (I'm thinking of my wireless computer
>keyboard.) The range is cut down by a factor of five or six.
>I think I'll go back to the cheap old nons.