Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Oxyride batteries - a real advance?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 9, 2005 1:20:44 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Excerpts from the NY Times -

==============================

This June, Panasonic will introduce Oxyride batteries - AA and AAA
disposable batteries that the company calls the most significant
developments in primary battery technology in 40 years.

According to Panasonic, these batteries last up to twice as long as
premium alkaline batteries, yet cost the same as regular alkalines.

Oxyride batteries are also supposed to deliver more power. The result,
the company says, is that flashlights shine brighter, camera flashes
are quicker to recharge, and music players produce richer sound.

As it turns out, the power-boosting effect is no marketing concoction
- it's real. In identical flashlights, Oxyrides produce an obviously
wider, whiter circle of light than Duracell Ultras. The Oxyrides even
make power screwdrivers spin faster - 364 rpm, compared with 316 rpm
for the Duracell Ultras.

Amazingly, Panasonic Oxyrides do deliver more power, for the same
price as ordinary alkalines. To be precise, they deliver 1.7 volts,
which is 13 percent more juice than the 1.5 volts of alkalines.

According to Panasonic, Oxyrides get their power not only from an
improved chemical makeup, but also from a vacuum-assembly machine that
packs more ingredients into the same space.

Panasonic says the Oxyrides were designed to shine in high-drain
gadgets.

The challenge - see how many shots a pair of AAs can take in a digital
camera. The test - 50 consecutive shots, alternating flash and
nonflash, followed by 10 minutes turned off so the batteries could
rest. Then another 50 shots, and so on until "Change the batteries"
appears on the camera's screen.

The final score: Regular alkalines, 354 shots; premium alkalines, 566;
Panasonic Oxyrides, 844. That's not exactly twice the longevity of
premium alkalines, as Panasonic promises. But it's 2.4 times the life
of regular alkalines, for the same price.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/07/technology/circuits/0...
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 10:14:53 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <s30g51llf8qlp6timkddj6u02lnsrclal5@4ax.com>, Steve
<kh@mf.inv> writes
>
>
>Amazingly, Panasonic Oxyrides do deliver more power, for the same
>price as ordinary alkalines. To be precise, they deliver 1.7 volts,
>which is 13 percent more juice than the 1.5 volts of alkalines.
>
Actually, since power = V^2/R, and R is (for any appliance) effectively
constant, there will be a 28.4% increase in the power delivery.

However, some appliances may be damaged by the overvoltage, and bulb
life is likely to be drastically shortened.

David
--
David Littlewood
April 9, 2005 10:14:54 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Amazingly, Panasonic Oxyrides do deliver more power, for the same
>>price as ordinary alkalines. To be precise, they deliver 1.7 volts,
>>which is 13 percent more juice than the 1.5 volts of alkalines.
>>
>Actually, since power = V^2/R, and R is (for any appliance) effectively
>constant, there will be a 28.4% increase in the power delivery.
>
>However, some appliances may be damaged by the overvoltage, and bulb
>life is likely to be drastically shortened.

Good points, be nice if they mentioned this in the article. Wonder
what Panasonic would have to say in response...
Related resources
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 10:20:40 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <a2nszTKN2AWCFwD0@dlittlewood.co.uk>,
David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <s30g51llf8qlp6timkddj6u02lnsrclal5@4ax.com>, Steve
> <kh@mf.inv> writes
> >
> >
> >Amazingly, Panasonic Oxyrides do deliver more power, for the same
> >price as ordinary alkalines. To be precise, they deliver 1.7 volts,
> >which is 13 percent more juice than the 1.5 volts of alkalines.
> >
> Actually, since power = V^2/R, and R is (for any appliance) effectively
> constant, there will be a 28.4% increase in the power delivery.
>
> However, some appliances may be damaged by the overvoltage, and bulb
> life is likely to be drastically shortened.
>
> David

Alkaline battery voltages are all over the place. 1.5V is just a nice
round number to describe them. The 1.7V output by the new batteries
could be fine if the output is consistent. If they're over 2.1V fresh
from the package, that will damage some circuits.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 12:32:55 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve wrote:
> Excerpts from the NY Times -
>
> ==============================
>
> This June, Panasonic will introduce Oxyride batteries - AA and AAA
> disposable batteries that the company calls the most significant
> developments in primary battery technology in 40 years.
>
> According to Panasonic, these batteries last up to twice as long as
> premium alkaline batteries, yet cost the same as regular alkalines.
>
> Oxyride batteries are also supposed to deliver more power. The result,
> the company says, is that flashlights shine brighter, camera flashes
> are quicker to recharge, and music players produce richer sound.
>
> As it turns out, the power-boosting effect is no marketing concoction
> - it's real. In identical flashlights, Oxyrides produce an obviously
> wider, whiter circle of light than Duracell Ultras. The Oxyrides even
> make power screwdrivers spin faster - 364 rpm, compared with 316 rpm
> for the Duracell Ultras.
>
> Amazingly, Panasonic Oxyrides do deliver more power, for the same
> price as ordinary alkalines. To be precise, they deliver 1.7 volts,
> which is 13 percent more juice than the 1.5 volts of alkalines.
>
> According to Panasonic, Oxyrides get their power not only from an
> improved chemical makeup, but also from a vacuum-assembly machine that
> packs more ingredients into the same space.
>
> Panasonic says the Oxyrides were designed to shine in high-drain
> gadgets.
>
> The challenge - see how many shots a pair of AAs can take in a digital
> camera. The test - 50 consecutive shots, alternating flash and
> nonflash, followed by 10 minutes turned off so the batteries could
> rest. Then another 50 shots, and so on until "Change the batteries"
> appears on the camera's screen.
>
> The final score: Regular alkalines, 354 shots; premium alkalines, 566;
> Panasonic Oxyrides, 844. That's not exactly twice the longevity of
> premium alkalines, as Panasonic promises. But it's 2.4 times the life
> of regular alkalines, for the same price.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/07/technology/circuits/0...
>
>
My understanding was about twice the performance, with higher currents,
for about the same price. I will believe the 'same price' claim when I
can BUY them. Doesn't anyone remember when Bluetooth was going to be
$20 to add it to a device? Hasn't happened.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 1:29:38 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> writes:

> Why would anybody use disposable batteries for digital cameras ?

Desperation.

Twice so far I've exhausted all the sets of NiMH I had with me before
I was done shooting (at least once I just screwed up on my recharging
and didn't have with me what I should have; but still, most of us make
mistakes now and then, and have to live with them), and had to use my
primary lithium emergency backup batteries. More than $10 for a pack
of 4, but hey, it's cheap compared to film+processing.

The primariy lithium have a *very* long shelf life and are light, so
keeping a pack of 4 in the camera bag for emergencies isn't too
unpleasant.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 2:12:31 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Why would anybody use disposable batteries for digital cameras ?
--

Alfred Molon

http://www.molon.de/Galleries.htm - Photos from China, Myanmar, Brunei,
Malaysia, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Nepal, Egypt, Germany, Austria,
Prague, Budapest, Singapore and Portugal
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 2:12:32 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> Why would anybody use disposable batteries for digital cameras ?

Emergencies.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 2:31:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 22:12:31 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:

> Why would anybody use disposable batteries for digital cameras ?

Because not everyone takes thousands of pictures per year and does
so with cameras that go through batteries very quickly. For these
people, rechargeable batteries are the best option. But there are
probably millions that don't take their cameras out of storage more
than a couple of times per year. For them, as long as the cameras
aren't the older BDs (battery destroyers), alkalines can be far more
practical than rechargeables (with one exception I know of, cameras
that take AAs don't have rechargeable lithiums as an option). It
seems like many of the newer compact cameras that take a pair AAs
can get several hundred shots (a mix of flash & no flash) from them.
For these people they'd get much lower cost (a couple of AAs that
might last a year or two could easily be bought for less than a
dollar - I pay less than 1/2 that) and the excellent shelf life
makes them far more convenient to use than NiMH AAs that suffer high
self discharge rates and probably wouldn't be very useable for
unplanned, spur-of-the-moment pictures.

For the type of person I described, 4 NiMH AAs (two sets) and a
good charger might cost $20 or so. At one dollar per pair of
alkaline AAs (again, more than twice what I pay), that $20 could
keep millions of people supplied with fresh batteries for 30 to 50
years, without that hassle of keeping batteries freshly charged. And
those four NiMH batteries are unlikely to last anywhere near as long
as 30 years.

So what do I use? Mostly NiMH, but for short trips a backup set
of alkalines takes up less space than a backup set of rechargeables
along with the charger.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 2:40:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:32:55 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> According to Panasonic, these batteries last up to twice as long as
>> premium alkaline batteries, yet cost the same as regular alkalines.

> I will believe the 'same price' claim when I can BUY them.

They'll probably be about the same price as the current lot of
high priced 'premium' alkalines. But Panasonic literally didn't say
that you or I would be able to buy the Oxyride batteries for the
same price. If Panasonic's manufacturing costs for the Oxyrides is
about the same as for regular alkalines, they would be telling the
truth, courtesy of some carefully chosen, deceptive 'weasel words'.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 6:54:01 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Alfred Molon <alfredREMOVE_molon@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>Why would anybody use disposable batteries for digital cameras ?
>
>
> Desperation.
>
> Twice so far I've exhausted all the sets of NiMH I had with me before
> I was done shooting (at least once I just screwed up on my recharging
> and didn't have with me what I should have; but still, most of us make
> mistakes now and then, and have to live with them), and had to use my
> primary lithium emergency backup batteries. More than $10 for a pack
> of 4, but hey, it's cheap compared to film+processing.
>
> The primariy lithium have a *very* long shelf life and are light, so
> keeping a pack of 4 in the camera bag for emergencies isn't too
> unpleasant.
I figure the cost of a CRV3 lithium battery as $.03 a picture. Not too
high a price for backup.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 6:58:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 22:12:31 +0200, Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>
>>Why would anybody use disposable batteries for digital cameras ?
>
>
> Because not everyone takes thousands of pictures per year and does
> so with cameras that go through batteries very quickly. For these
> people, rechargeable batteries are the best option. But there are
> probably millions that don't take their cameras out of storage more
> than a couple of times per year. For them, as long as the cameras
> aren't the older BDs (battery destroyers), alkalines can be far more
> practical than rechargeables (with one exception I know of, cameras
> that take AAs don't have rechargeable lithiums as an option). It
> seems like many of the newer compact cameras that take a pair AAs
> can get several hundred shots (a mix of flash & no flash) from them.
> For these people they'd get much lower cost (a couple of AAs that
> might last a year or two could easily be bought for less than a
> dollar - I pay less than 1/2 that) and the excellent shelf life
> makes them far more convenient to use than NiMH AAs that suffer high
> self discharge rates and probably wouldn't be very useable for
> unplanned, spur-of-the-moment pictures.
>
> For the type of person I described, 4 NiMH AAs (two sets) and a
> good charger might cost $20 or so. At one dollar per pair of
> alkaline AAs (again, more than twice what I pay), that $20 could
> keep millions of people supplied with fresh batteries for 30 to 50
> years, without that hassle of keeping batteries freshly charged. And
> those four NiMH batteries are unlikely to last anywhere near as long
> as 30 years.
>
> So what do I use? Mostly NiMH, but for short trips a backup set
> of alkalines takes up less space than a backup set of rechargeables
> along with the charger.
>

The 'hitch' there is that many cameras, especially older ones, don't get
enough pictures from alkaline batteries to make it practical to put
them in the camera. Newer ones are a different story. My first camera
warned against using alkalines as the voltage was higher than it was
designed for, but my current one has no such prohibition. Already
having my batteries, and charger, I saw no reason to try the alkalines
in the new one, using disposable lithiums instead.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 8:35:50 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:16:54 GMT, "ameijers"
<aemeijers@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>So they claim. All I know is, on an overnight charge of the factory lithium
>battery, my Nikon Coolpix 775 doesn't take near as many pictures as it used
>to before battery goes flat. Leastways, the camera thinks it is going flat,
>and shuts off. Haven't had the time or ambition to dig out the meter and do
>a measured test, controlling for flash/no flash, zoom/ no zoom, etc, current
>draw variables. I'm lucky if I get 100 frames per charge any more. And I
>haven't put that many miles on the thing, which is probably part of the
>problem. 1-2 months between uses are not uncommon. That, or maybe this
>aftermarket charger I bought to replace the nikon one that fell apart isn't
>topping the thing off correctly. (Nikon's consumer entry-level
>point'n'shoots, digital or film, are not the quality of their 'real'
>cameras. Somebody obviously OEM's them for them.)


This parallels a problem I experienced with my Olympus 8080 Wide Zoom
last week. I was taking pictures at a local air show, when the camera
told me the battery was dead. I replaced it, took a couple more
pictures, and again the camera told me the battery was dead. I put in
my third battery, and the same thing happened.

I went home, researched the problem, and resigned myself to driving it
to the nearest repair debot (about 50 miles away) but was resigned to
being without the camera for at least two weeks.

I was getting ready to pack it up, when I decided I'd put in the
original Olympus XD card and the OEM battery, now fully charged. I
turned the camera on, took a few pictures, and was amazed to find that
the problem had vanished. It turns out that the Lexar 512 MB Compact
Flash card had gone bad - several other cards I had on hand worked
fine.

Check it with a different card to see if that's a factor.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:10:15 AM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:

>>Amazingly, Panasonic Oxyrides do deliver more power, for the same
>>price as ordinary alkalines. To be precise, they deliver 1.7 volts,
>>which is 13 percent more juice than the 1.5 volts of alkalines.

>Actually, since power = V^2/R, and R is (for any appliance) effectively
>constant, there will be a 28.4% increase in the power delivery.

Actually, that's a really bad assumption for electronic devices, and
it's not even good for flashlights.

Electronic devices have voltage regulators inside. If it's a simple
linear voltage regulator, then current remains constant as voltage
increases. So the power goes up linearly with voltage, not as the
square of the voltage (but the extra power is being wasted as heat in
the voltage regulator).

If the device has a switching regulator, then as voltage increases the
current drawn *decreases* and total power remains about constant. This
is good - when current decreases a certain number of mAh lasts longer.
But "power delivery" is a pretty useless measure for electronic loads.

Even a flashlight bulb is not a simple resistor. Increase the voltage
and current will increase *some*, but not proportional to the voltage
because the filament resistance increases as well. So power still isn't
proportional to voltage squared.

Dave
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:41:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:58:26 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> The 'hitch' there is that many cameras, especially older ones, don't get
> enough pictures from alkaline batteries to make it practical to put
> them in the camera.

Where's the hitch? I made it clear that alkalines aren't suitable
for older, less efficient cameras, and you even quoted that part "as
long as the cameras aren't the older BDs (battery destroyers)".
That side of practicality is understood by almost everyone that is
familiar with alkaline and NiMH batteries. The opposite side, where
alkalines can be more practical to use than rechargeables of any
type is generally not recognized. Mostly because until recently,
cameras required enough power to make alkalines a poor choice. I'm
sure that for some time to come there will be photography "experts"
telling friends and neighbors that alkalines can't last long enough
to be useful, only to be shown that the one or two year old cameras
are still using the original alkalines that were supplied with the
cameras.


> Newer ones are a different story. My first camera
> warned against using alkalines as the voltage was higher than it was
> designed for, but my current one has no such prohibition. Already
> having my batteries, and charger, I saw no reason to try the alkalines
> in the new one, using disposable lithiums instead.

That's fine, and disposable lithiums have other advantages as long
as you don't mind paying much more for them. But you won't have too
many opportunities in Texas to take advantage of their superior low
temperature performance. :) 

Even with your current camera's lack of prohibition, the Oxyride's
voltage is sufficiently higher than that of standard alkalines to
make it risky to use them without a manufacturer's approval. If
they do appear on the shelves later this year and Fuji says they're
safe (Panasonic's standard alkalines were included with my camera,
so Fuji might be willing to comment) I'd like to compare them with
several other battery types to see if there are any meaningful flash
recycle time differences, for fresh or partially depleted batteries.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 3:57:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:29:38 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> The primariy lithium have a *very* long shelf life and are light, so
> keeping a pack of 4 in the camera bag for emergencies isn't too
> unpleasant.

Because of the huge price difference between alkaline and lithium
AA batteries, the longer shelf life of lithiums isn't very
meaningful. Batteries purchased in 2004 had an expiration date of
2019 for lithiums, and both 2012 and 2013 for the alkalines. I'm
sure that by 2010 the small number of backup alkalines could be put
to good use in a radio or flashlight to make way for fresher ones.

The lighter weight of the lithium batteries might be a much bigger
advantage than a direct comparison of weights would indicate though,
since one set of lithiums might last as long as two or three sets of
alkaline batteries. Lithiums also work in temperatures well below
the point that alkalines and humans decide that it's too cold. :) 
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 4:27:00 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d3ajgn$ond$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>, Dave Martindale
<davem@cs.ubc.ca> writes
>David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>Amazingly, Panasonic Oxyrides do deliver more power, for the same
>>>price as ordinary alkalines. To be precise, they deliver 1.7 volts,
>>>which is 13 percent more juice than the 1.5 volts of alkalines.
>
>>Actually, since power = V^2/R, and R is (for any appliance) effectively
>>constant, there will be a 28.4% increase in the power delivery.
>
>Actually, that's a really bad

you mean bad as in "sensible and cautious"?

> assumption for electronic devices, and
>it's not even good for flashlights.
>
>

>Electronic devices have voltage regulators inside. If it's a simple
>linear voltage regulator, then current remains constant as voltage
>increases. So the power goes up linearly with voltage, not as the
>square of the voltage (but the extra power is being wasted as heat in
>the voltage regulator).

Some electronic devices have voltage regulators inside.... Yes, I
should have said "any device (unless fitted with a regulator)". And some
voltage regulators dissipate the extra power as heat.
>
>If the device has a switching regulator, then as voltage increases the
>current drawn *decreases* and total power remains about constant. This
>is good - when current decreases a certain number of mAh lasts longer.
>But "power delivery" is a pretty useless measure for electronic loads.

But it is a very good one for motors, and (despite your point below) a
reasonable one for bulbs. And many devices with metering circuits will
not be accurate with a changed voltage battery (....unless they have a
regulator!); witness the problems many people have had with legacy
cameras designed to use mercury cells at (?) 1.2-1.3V.
>
>Even a flashlight bulb is not a simple resistor. Increase the voltage
>and current will increase *some*, but not proportional to the voltage
>because the filament resistance increases as well. So power still isn't
>proportional to voltage squared.
>
True - there is a point where you have to stop refining the detail or
the message gets lost in science. However, it is also true that the life
of a filament bulb is impaired much faster then in proportion to the
rise in voltage. Sorry, I should say "most filament bulbs", as no doubt
you will point me to an exception.

My post was intended as a caution to people to think carefully before
using higher voltage batteries. Are you trying to say there is no danger
of damage?

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 5:19:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:29:38 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>
>>The primariy lithium have a *very* long shelf life and are light, so
>>keeping a pack of 4 in the camera bag for emergencies isn't too
>>unpleasant.
>
>
> Because of the huge price difference between alkaline and lithium
> AA batteries, the longer shelf life of lithiums isn't very
> meaningful. Batteries purchased in 2004 had an expiration date of
> 2019 for lithiums, and both 2012 and 2013 for the alkalines. I'm
> sure that by 2010 the small number of backup alkalines could be put
> to good use in a radio or flashlight to make way for fresher ones.
>
> The lighter weight of the lithium batteries might be a much bigger
> advantage than a direct comparison of weights would indicate though,
> since one set of lithiums might last as long as two or three sets of
> alkaline batteries. Lithiums also work in temperatures well below
> the point that alkalines and humans decide that it's too cold. :) 
>

Hummm. My past experience with alkalines indicates a 2 year shelf life,
and in 4, they are leaking white crystals. Maybe newer ones are better,
but I haven't been too fond of them since the last time they ate up
something.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 5:34:19 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve" <kh@mf.inv> wrote in message
news:v94g51pnh0884pnthmc3cv4engosthkjhr@4ax.com...
> David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Amazingly, Panasonic Oxyrides do deliver more power, for the same
>>>price as ordinary alkalines. To be precise, they deliver 1.7 volts,
>>>which is 13 percent more juice than the 1.5 volts of alkalines.
>>>
>>Actually, since power = V^2/R, and R is (for any appliance) effectively
>>constant, there will be a 28.4% increase in the power delivery.
>>
>>However, some appliances may be damaged by the overvoltage, and bulb
>>life is likely to be drastically shortened.
>
> Good points, be nice if they mentioned this in the article. Wonder
> what Panasonic would have to say in response...

Er, Panasonic would say:

"Oxyride batteries are also supposed to deliver more power.
The result, the company says, is that flashlights shine brighter,
camera flashes are quicker to recharge, and music players
produce richer sound."

Read your own post!

Clyde Torres
April 10, 2005 5:34:20 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote:
>>>However, some appliances may be damaged by the overvoltage, and bulb
>>>life is likely to be drastically shortened.
>>
>> Good points, be nice if they mentioned this in the article. Wonder
>> what Panasonic would have to say in response...
>
>Er, Panasonic would say:
> "Oxyride batteries are also supposed to deliver more power.
> The result, the company says, is that flashlights shine brighter,
> camera flashes are quicker to recharge, and music players
> produce richer sound."
>Read your own post!

Yes, well, I see no mention of appliance damage or bulb life in the
original post. If Panasonic were to respond as you indicate here,
stating this same position all over again, that would mean they
entirely ignored the question (a not unlikely possibility, to be
sure).
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 5:46:00 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:D 3ajgn$ond$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>Amazingly, Panasonic Oxyrides do deliver more power, for the same
>>>price as ordinary alkalines. To be precise, they deliver 1.7 volts,
>>>which is 13 percent more juice than the 1.5 volts of alkalines.
>
>>Actually, since power = V^2/R, and R is (for any appliance) effectively
>>constant, there will be a 28.4% increase in the power delivery.
>
> Actually, that's a really bad assumption for electronic devices, and
> it's not even good for flashlights.
>
> Electronic devices have voltage regulators inside. If it's a simple
> linear voltage regulator, then current remains constant as voltage
> increases. So the power goes up linearly with voltage, not as the
> square of the voltage (but the extra power is being wasted as heat in
> the voltage regulator).
>
> If the device has a switching regulator, then as voltage increases the
> current drawn *decreases* and total power remains about constant. This
> is good - when current decreases a certain number of mAh lasts longer.
> But "power delivery" is a pretty useless measure for electronic loads.
>
> Even a flashlight bulb is not a simple resistor. Increase the voltage
> and current will increase *some*, but not proportional to the voltage
> because the filament resistance increases as well. So power still isn't
> proportional to voltage squared.
>
> Dave

I don't believe that David Littlewood wrote the above (Steve did), but I do
agree with your assessment of power dissipation I design embedded computer
applications where I use both linear and switched regulators, and everything
you say above is true. Even the flashlight bulb example is true. As the
current and voltage increases across the bulb, it gets hotter and puts out
more light. Getting hotter means increasing resistance. Another equation
for power is V^2/R, so if R were to stay the same, then yes power would
increase as a squared function. But as you say, R increases also, and that
subtracts from the squared function.

Clyde Torres
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 5:56:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:58:26 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>The 'hitch' there is that many cameras, especially older ones, don't get
>> enough pictures from alkaline batteries to make it practical to put
>>them in the camera.
>
>
> Where's the hitch? I made it clear that alkalines aren't suitable
> for older, less efficient cameras, and you even quoted that part "as
> long as the cameras aren't the older BDs (battery destroyers)".
> That side of practicality is understood by almost everyone that is
> familiar with alkaline and NiMH batteries. The opposite side, where
> alkalines can be more practical to use than rechargeables of any
> type is generally not recognized. Mostly because until recently,
> cameras required enough power to make alkalines a poor choice. I'm
> sure that for some time to come there will be photography "experts"
> telling friends and neighbors that alkalines can't last long enough
> to be useful, only to be shown that the one or two year old cameras
> are still using the original alkalines that were supplied with the
> cameras.
>
>
>
>> Newer ones are a different story. My first camera
>>warned against using alkalines as the voltage was higher than it was
>>designed for, but my current one has no such prohibition. Already
>>having my batteries, and charger, I saw no reason to try the alkalines
>>in the new one, using disposable lithiums instead.
>
>
> That's fine, and disposable lithiums have other advantages as long
> as you don't mind paying much more for them. But you won't have too
> many opportunities in Texas to take advantage of their superior low
> temperature performance. :) 

Well, not in THIS part of Texas, but around Amarillo, it does get pretty
cold.

>
> Even with your current camera's lack of prohibition, the Oxyride's
> voltage is sufficiently higher than that of standard alkalines to
> make it risky to use them without a manufacturer's approval. If
> they do appear on the shelves later this year and Fuji says they're
> safe (Panasonic's standard alkalines were included with my camera,
> so Fuji might be willing to comment) I'd like to compare them with
> several other battery types to see if there are any meaningful flash
> recycle time differences, for fresh or partially depleted batteries.
>

Flash recycle time IS a factor on my camera, and an improvement would be
nice, but it is designed for two 1.2 volt NIMH batteries, and that is
2.4 volts, vs. 3.4 with the Oxirides. Will wait and see what Kodak has
to say about them. They might be a cheaper backup alternative to the
CRV3. Do you know what Oxyride estimated shelf life is?

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 6:51:16 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Steve" <kh@mf.inv> wrote in message
news:5cdi51d3dbquscfj4a73deg6lt2t22nplp@4ax.com...
> "Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote:
>>>>However, some appliances may be damaged by the overvoltage, and bulb
>>>>life is likely to be drastically shortened.
>>>
>>> Good points, be nice if they mentioned this in the article. Wonder
>>> what Panasonic would have to say in response...
>>
>>Er, Panasonic would say:
>> "Oxyride batteries are also supposed to deliver more power.
>> The result, the company says, is that flashlights shine brighter,
>> camera flashes are quicker to recharge, and music players
>> produce richer sound."
>>Read your own post!
>
> Yes, well, I see no mention of appliance damage or bulb life in the
> original post. If Panasonic were to respond as you indicate here,
> stating this same position all over again, that would mean they
> entirely ignored the question (a not unlikely possibility, to be
> sure).

You won't see them respond, Steve. One thing you have to remember is that
Panasonic's engineering department, like any other department is kept in the
back-bowels of the organization, unable to speak and address your question
tecnically. If anyone responds, it will be Panasonic's marketing
department. Those guys will tell you anything to get you off their back or
to get you to buy tons of product. Panasonic is just like any other big
corporation.

Clyde Torres
April 10, 2005 6:51:17 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> wrote:
>> Yes, well, I see no mention of appliance damage or bulb life in the
>> original post. If Panasonic were to respond as you indicate here,
>> stating this same position all over again, that would mean they
>> entirely ignored the question (a not unlikely possibility, to be
>> sure).
>
>You won't see them respond, Steve. One thing you have to remember is that
>Panasonic's engineering department, like any other department is kept in the
>back-bowels of the organization, unable to speak and address your question
>tecnically. If anyone responds, it will be Panasonic's marketing
>department. Those guys will tell you anything to get you off their back or
>to get you to buy tons of product. Panasonic is just like any other big
>corporation.

On that we certainly agree. Which means the most likely response (if
any) would be to ignore the question and parrot the original
assertion, as you indicated...
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 7:07:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:19:28 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Hummm. My past experience with alkalines indicates a 2 year shelf life,
> and in 4, they are leaking white crystals. Maybe newer ones are better,
> but I haven't been too fond of them since the last time they ate up
> something.

You can't know very much about alkalines if you think they have
only a two year shelf life. As I said in the prev. msg., last year
I bought alkalines with 2012 and 2013 expiration dates. Even
odd-lot type discounters have them with 2010 and 2011 exp. dates.
If you bought a couple of packs, do you really think their shelf
life is so limited that in 2007 they'd have lost much of their
capacity while still showing a 2012 expiration date? If so, all of
the battery manufacturers are guilty of fraud. In fact, I
occasionally find some old Duracells in the back of drawers that
have passed their expiration dates by 4 and 5 years. Of course I
wouldn't use them in a camera, but for small radios or LED lights
they've provided many hours of service. Not as much as if they were
new, but at least 1/3, possibly 1/2 the capacity of fresh batteries.

Leakage is always a possibility, but that's why the term 'shelf
life' is used. :)  All of the battery manufacturers recommend that
the batteries not be left in devices that won't be used for extended
periods. That usually means more than a couple of weeks. Seeing a
leaky battery still in an 8 year old unopened package might be at
worst, mildly disappointing. Opening a valued camera to find leaky
alkalines because they'd been left inside for several years
indicates something else entirely, and it's not the batteries that
deserve the major share of the blame when this happens. If this
happened to you, the lesson learned shouldn't have been "don't use
alkalines".

I guess the solution is for camera makers to once again make
cameras so inefficient that the batteries have to be replaced very
frequently, so they don't have time to leak. :) 
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 7:34:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:56:57 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> They might be a cheaper backup alternative to the
> CRV3. Do you know what Oxyride estimated shelf life is?

Not a clue. Until they show up in stores you might be able to
examine some of Panasonic's latest small cameras in a local store,
if they'll let you look inside the box. At least one, maybe a few
are supposed to include a pair of Oxyrides. I don't recall which
one(s) in particular, but it was probably at least one of these: the
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LS1, DMC-LZ1, DMC-LZ2 or DMC-FX7.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 10:27:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:

> On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:29:38 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> The primariy lithium have a *very* long shelf life and are light, so
>> keeping a pack of 4 in the camera bag for emergencies isn't too
>> unpleasant.
>
> Because of the huge price difference between alkaline and lithium
> AA batteries, the longer shelf life of lithiums isn't very
> meaningful. Batteries purchased in 2004 had an expiration date of
> 2019 for lithiums, and both 2012 and 2013 for the alkalines. I'm
> sure that by 2010 the small number of backup alkalines could be put
> to good use in a radio or flashlight to make way for fresher ones.
>
> The lighter weight of the lithium batteries might be a much bigger
> advantage than a direct comparison of weights would indicate though,
> since one set of lithiums might last as long as two or three sets of
> alkaline batteries. Lithiums also work in temperatures well below
> the point that alkalines and humans decide that it's too cold. :) 

And my experience with alkalines in digital cameras is that they last
about 10 minutes, wherease these primary lithium batteries lasted for
weeks.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 10:27:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <m2fyxyyzzo.fsf@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

> ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:29:38 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >
> >> The primariy lithium have a *very* long shelf life and are light, so
> >> keeping a pack of 4 in the camera bag for emergencies isn't too
> >> unpleasant.
> >
> > Because of the huge price difference between alkaline and lithium
> > AA batteries, the longer shelf life of lithiums isn't very
> > meaningful. Batteries purchased in 2004 had an expiration date of
> > 2019 for lithiums, and both 2012 and 2013 for the alkalines. I'm
> > sure that by 2010 the small number of backup alkalines could be put
> > to good use in a radio or flashlight to make way for fresher ones.
> >
> > The lighter weight of the lithium batteries might be a much bigger
> > advantage than a direct comparison of weights would indicate though,
> > since one set of lithiums might last as long as two or three sets of
> > alkaline batteries. Lithiums also work in temperatures well below
> > the point that alkalines and humans decide that it's too cold. :) 
>
> And my experience with alkalines in digital cameras is that they last
> about 10 minutes, wherease these primary lithium batteries lasted for
> weeks.

That depends on whether or not your digital camera uses power more
quickly than Alkalines can produce it. Older power-hungry CCD cameras
couldn't run off alkalines because the chemistry couldn't keep up.
Newer low-power cameras can run longer on Alkalines than NiMH.
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:53:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:19:28 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Hummm. My past experience with alkalines indicates a 2 year shelf life,
>>and in 4, they are leaking white crystals. Maybe newer ones are better,
>>but I haven't been too fond of them since the last time they ate up
>>something.
>
>
> You can't know very much about alkalines if you think they have
> only a two year shelf life. As I said in the prev. msg., last year
> I bought alkalines with 2012 and 2013 expiration dates. Even
> odd-lot type discounters have them with 2010 and 2011 exp. dates.
> If you bought a couple of packs, do you really think their shelf
> life is so limited that in 2007 they'd have lost much of their
> capacity while still showing a 2012 expiration date? If so, all of
> the battery manufacturers are guilty of fraud. In fact, I
> occasionally find some old Duracells in the back of drawers that
> have passed their expiration dates by 4 and 5 years. Of course I
> wouldn't use them in a camera, but for small radios or LED lights
> they've provided many hours of service. Not as much as if they were
> new, but at least 1/3, possibly 1/2 the capacity of fresh batteries.
>
> Leakage is always a possibility, but that's why the term 'shelf
> life' is used. :)  All of the battery manufacturers recommend that
> the batteries not be left in devices that won't be used for extended
> periods. That usually means more than a couple of weeks. Seeing a
> leaky battery still in an 8 year old unopened package might be at
> worst, mildly disappointing. Opening a valued camera to find leaky
> alkalines because they'd been left inside for several years
> indicates something else entirely, and it's not the batteries that
> deserve the major share of the blame when this happens. If this
> happened to you, the lesson learned shouldn't have been "don't use
> alkalines".
>
> I guess the solution is for camera makers to once again make
> cameras so inefficient that the batteries have to be replaced very
> frequently, so they don't have time to leak. :) 
>
Well, I bought some from Sam's wholesale club a couple of years ago and
every last one of them was stone dead! They don't last as long as some
people seem to think. I know I can put one in a flashlight and not use
it, and in a year or two, they are dead. What do you think?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 11:56:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:19:28 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Hummm. My past experience with alkalines indicates a 2 year shelf life,
>>and in 4, they are leaking white crystals. Maybe newer ones are better,
>>but I haven't been too fond of them since the last time they ate up
>>something.
>
>
> You can't know very much about alkalines if you think they have
> only a two year shelf life. As I said in the prev. msg., last year
> I bought alkalines with 2012 and 2013 expiration dates. Even
> odd-lot type discounters have them with 2010 and 2011 exp. dates.
> If you bought a couple of packs, do you really think their shelf
> life is so limited that in 2007 they'd have lost much of their
> capacity while still showing a 2012 expiration date? If so, all of
> the battery manufacturers are guilty of fraud. In fact, I
> occasionally find some old Duracells in the back of drawers that
> have passed their expiration dates by 4 and 5 years. Of course I
> wouldn't use them in a camera, but for small radios or LED lights
> they've provided many hours of service. Not as much as if they were
> new, but at least 1/3, possibly 1/2 the capacity of fresh batteries.
>
> Leakage is always a possibility, but that's why the term 'shelf
> life' is used. :)  All of the battery manufacturers recommend that
> the batteries not be left in devices that won't be used for extended
> periods. That usually means more than a couple of weeks. Seeing a
> leaky battery still in an 8 year old unopened package might be at
> worst, mildly disappointing. Opening a valued camera to find leaky
> alkalines because they'd been left inside for several years
> indicates something else entirely, and it's not the batteries that
> deserve the major share of the blame when this happens. If this
> happened to you, the lesson learned shouldn't have been "don't use
> alkalines".
>
> I guess the solution is for camera makers to once again make
> cameras so inefficient that the batteries have to be replaced very
> frequently, so they don't have time to leak. :) 
>

The problem is that no one takes the batteries out of a flashlight when
it is not in use, nor do most take them out of any other electronic
device that is rarely used. I will do some research on this.
BTW, 'shelf life' is a pretty specific parameter, and a battery must
test 80% of its rated value at the end of the time to have that shelf
life, at least in the US.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 12:18:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:27:07 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> And my experience with alkalines in digital cameras is that they last
> about 10 minutes, wherease these primary lithium batteries lasted for
> weeks.

That may be true for you but it's quite misleading. Was your
lithium powered camera operating for the entire multi-week period
the same way it was during the 10 minutes it used the alkalines?
Had you given the lithiums a comparable continous test they still
would have greatly outperformed the alkalines, but they would have
lasted hours. Not weeks, not days, probably not even 1/2 of a day.
There's a big difference between hours and weeks.

In fact, since you didn't identify the camera or how it was used,
I'm a little suspicious of the exceedingly short 10 minute battery
life. Was the camera used normally, taking a relatively small
number of pictures during that 10 minutes? Some cameras could also
exhaust a set of alkalines in ten minutes, but during those 10
minutes take a couple of hundred or more pictures.

In any case, all you've noted is that you have a camera that is one
that should not use alkalines except as a last resort. You may not
have intended it, but the implication is that based on your
experience alkalines should not be used to power digital cameras.
There's one unusual new camera that comes with a rechargeable
lithium battery that provides up to 500 pictures per charge. The
review I read indicated that it was exceedingly difficult to find
any source for more batteries or accessories. But the review noted
that the camera also used AA batteries and a pair of NiMH lasted for
a bit more than 400 shots and a pair of alkalines lasted for over
200 shots. If I had one of these cameras I wouldn't waste the $50
or more that a spare lithium battery would cost. I'd appreciate the
one provided with the camera, but would try to maximize its life by
also using AAs, either NiMH or alkalines. Either would be very low
cost alternatives, available almost anywhere.

What I've been trying to say is that for some of the newer cameras,
alkalines can be a better choice for some people, some of the time.
For most existing cameras, NiMH would be greatly preferred. And for
certain cameras and uses, primary Lithium batteries are superior. A
good photographer knows his/her tools. Now it's not just lenses,
flash equipment and meters. Knowing the different power
requirements and battery capabilities can be helpful and it's simple
stuff, really. No charts or tables or higher math are needed. When
you get a new camera, if it accepts alkalines, especially if the
manufacturer included a set, use them until you can't take any more
pictures, including using the flash with perhaps 1/2 of them and
using a fair amount of focusing. The cost of wasting one set of
batteries should be far less than what a single roll of film would
cost, and you'll know soon enough whether alkalines are acceptible
or should be avoided. It that specific camera, that is. Not for
all cameras in general.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 2:56:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:53:53 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Well, I bought some from Sam's wholesale club a couple of years ago and
> every last one of them was stone dead! They don't last as long as some
> people seem to think. I know I can put one in a flashlight and not use
> it, and in a year or two, they are dead. What do you think?

You're using one sample to indict an technology? Were the
batteries dead at the time of purchase or a couple of years after
buying them? If the latter, consider the source. Sam's might have
gotten a *really* good price on a defective batch. Reputable
manufacturers provide guarantees for their batteries.

But two other items are worth knowing. What year did you purchase
the batteries, and what expiration dates did they have? Just saying
that you've found alkalines to have a shelf life of only two years
isn't useful if you don't provide additional information. For all
we know the batteries that sat for two years on your shelf might
have been bought six years after sitting in a hot warehouse.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 3:44:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:

> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:27:07 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> And my experience with alkalines in digital cameras is that they last
>> about 10 minutes, wherease these primary lithium batteries lasted for
>> weeks.
>
> That may be true for you but it's quite misleading. Was your
> lithium powered camera operating for the entire multi-week period
> the same way it was during the 10 minutes it used the alkalines?
> Had you given the lithiums a comparable continous test they still
> would have greatly outperformed the alkalines, but they would have
> lasted hours. Not weeks, not days, probably not even 1/2 of a day.
> There's a big difference between hours and weeks.

I think I got more than 10 hours of "actual shooting" out of them,
including one wedding reception accounting for several hundred shots
all by itself.

> In fact, since you didn't identify the camera or how it was used,
> I'm a little suspicious of the exceedingly short 10 minute battery
> life. Was the camera used normally, taking a relatively small
> number of pictures during that 10 minutes? Some cameras could also
> exhaust a set of alkalines in ten minutes, but during those 10
> minutes take a couple of hundred or more pictures.

No, perfectly ordinary use. I already knew that alkalines were a
stupid idea in a digital camera, but this one came with a set, so I
put them in and ran them down, and I was *still* surprised how fast.
It might well have been *twice as long* as I said -- 20 minutes. A
few dozen pictures at the most.

> In any case, all you've noted is that you have a camera that is one
> that should not use alkalines except as a last resort. You may not
> have intended it, but the implication is that based on your
> experience alkalines should not be used to power digital cameras.

Based on my experience with multiple cameras and my talking to other
photographers with, between them, a rather wide range of cameras,
yes.

> There's one unusual new camera that comes with a rechargeable
> lithium battery that provides up to 500 pictures per charge. The
> review I read indicated that it was exceedingly difficult to find
> any source for more batteries or accessories. But the review noted
> that the camera also used AA batteries and a pair of NiMH lasted for
> a bit more than 400 shots and a pair of alkalines lasted for over
> 200 shots. If I had one of these cameras I wouldn't waste the $50
> or more that a spare lithium battery would cost. I'd appreciate the
> one provided with the camera, but would try to maximize its life by
> also using AAs, either NiMH or alkalines. Either would be very low
> cost alternatives, available almost anywhere.

Do you know if the rechargeable "lithium ion" batteries are chemically
about the same thing as the primariy "lithium" batteries, by the way?

> What I've been trying to say is that for some of the newer cameras,
> alkalines can be a better choice for some people, some of the time.

Okay, that's certainly possible. I haven't talked to anybody with
such cameras yet, so they're not in my database.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 3:44:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> writes:
> Do you know if the rechargeable "lithium ion" batteries are chemically
> about the same thing as the primariy "lithium" batteries, by the way?

They are different and the cell voltage is higher.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 4:00:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <_Fe6e.3729$xN.2926@fe05.lga>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> writes
>
>Flash recycle time IS a factor on my camera, and an improvement would
>be nice, but it is designed for two 1.2 volt NIMH batteries, and that
>is 2.4 volts, vs. 3.4 with the Oxirides. Will wait and see what Kodak
>has to say about them. They might be a cheaper backup alternative to
>the CRV3. Do you know what Oxyride estimated shelf life is?
>
The internal resistance of the battery is an important element in the
equation here. IIRC, NiCd cells have a very low internal resistance and
are therefore capable of very high current drain - important for fast
recycling.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 5:03:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:53:53 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I bought some from Sam's wholesale club a couple of years ago and
>>every last one of them was stone dead! They don't last as long as some
>>people seem to think. I know I can put one in a flashlight and not use
>>it, and in a year or two, they are dead. What do you think?
>
>
> You're using one sample to indict an technology? Were the
> batteries dead at the time of purchase or a couple of years after
> buying them? If the latter, consider the source. Sam's might have
> gotten a *really* good price on a defective batch. Reputable
> manufacturers provide guarantees for their batteries.
>
> But two other items are worth knowing. What year did you purchase
> the batteries, and what expiration dates did they have? Just saying
> that you've found alkalines to have a shelf life of only two years
> isn't useful if you don't provide additional information. For all
> we know the batteries that sat for two years on your shelf might
> have been bought six years after sitting in a hot warehouse.
>
One never knows how long a set of batteries has set on a shelf (unless
you know how to decode the manufacture date), or what the storage
environment has been. I am sure that Sam's would have replaced the
batteries had I wanted to bother driving several miles to take them
back. They were bought, and several used immediately. They wouldn't
even power a clock! I thought the clock must be defective, and tossed
one out before noticing the batteries were defective.

These weren't off-brand, batteries (Duracells).
Over the years I have had some alkalines last 3 years (mainly just
sitting without use), and some that didn't last but a few weeks. I find
there tends to be too much variation in them.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 5:51:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:44:00 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> I think I got more than 10 hours of "actual shooting" out of them,
> including one wedding reception accounting for several hundred shots
> all by itself.

That's much more in line with what I would have expected from
lithiums. That rate, if you used 4 AAs, amounts to about $10/day
and would be too costly for me use them instead of NiMHs. But just
being able to keep shooting when you want and not have to worry
about being unprepared when changing battery sets probably makes
lithiums much more attractive for your situation.



>> In fact, since you didn't identify the camera or how it was used,
>> I'm a little suspicious of the exceedingly short 10 minute battery
>> life. Was the camera used normally, taking a relatively small
>> number of pictures during that 10 minutes? Some cameras could also
>> exhaust a set of alkalines in ten minutes, but during those 10
>> minutes take a couple of hundred or more pictures.
>
> No, perfectly ordinary use. I already knew that alkalines were a
> stupid idea in a digital camera, but this one came with a set, so I
> put them in and ran them down, and I was *still* surprised how fast.
> It might well have been *twice as long* as I said -- 20 minutes. A
> few dozen pictures at the most.

Now that's not very unusual. I've heard of some early digital
cameras that could only take about 1/2 dozen shots per set of
alkalines. By the time your camera was designed things had improved
to the point that using alkalines wasn't as stupid an idea as it
used to be. You probably could have taken about as many shots per
day with $10 worth of alkalines as you could have with one $10 set
of lithiums. Yeah, still a stupid thing to do, but not nearly as
stupid as using $50 worth of alkalines to take the same number of
pictures in one of the older digitals cameras.


>> In any case, all you've noted is that you have a camera that is one
>> that should not use alkalines except as a last resort. You may not
>> have intended it, but the implication is that based on your
>> experience alkalines should not be used to power digital cameras.
>
> Based on my experience with multiple cameras and my talking to other
> photographers with, between them, a rather wide range of cameras,
> yes.

All you need do is check reviews of many of the recent cameras to
see how much cameras have changed in the last year or so. Don't
count on other photographers who probably aren't particularly well
informed. You could be the one clueing them in . . .


>> There's one unusual new camera that comes with a rechargeable
>> lithium battery that provides up to 500 pictures per charge. The
>> review I read indicated that it was exceedingly difficult to find
>> any source for more batteries or accessories. But the review noted
>> that the camera also used AA batteries and a pair of NiMH lasted for
>> a bit more than 400 shots and a pair of alkalines lasted for over
>> 200 shots. If I had one of these cameras I wouldn't waste the $50
>> or more that a spare lithium battery would cost. I'd appreciate the
>> one provided with the camera, but would try to maximize its life by
>> also using AAs, either NiMH or alkalines. Either would be very low
>> cost alternatives, available almost anywhere.
>
> Do you know if the rechargeable "lithium ion" batteries are chemically
> about the same thing as the primariy "lithium" batteries, by the way?

They probably aren't, although I imagine that they're much more
similar to each other than to either primary alkalines or
rechargeable NiMHs. I say this because from looking at data sheets
of primary lithium batteries normally used in cameras, I see two
different types (similar, but slightly different chemistries). One
type shows a significant power loss in cold weather (not as bad as
alkalines, but significant). The other type, used in AAs handles
frigid temperatures much better. I'd expect rechargeable lithiums
to show even greater differences, but wouldn't want to guess what
the differences might be. About the only other thing I know about
rechargeable lithium batteries is that they can be quite dangerous
if the charging circuit is faulty or poorly designed.


>> What I've been trying to say is that for some of the newer cameras,
>> alkalines can be a better choice for some people, some of the time.
>
> Okay, that's certainly possible. I haven't talked to anybody with
> such cameras yet, so they're not in my database.

They're already here in the new lines from Canon, Fuji, Sony and
others, but probably won't be seen in the larger cameras pros use
for some time. Those cameras tend to trade battery efficiency for
faster, more accurate focusing, higher power flash, faster and
greater numbers of more power hungry internal CPUs to do much more
processing in a smaller amout of time, etc.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:31:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:56:11 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> in <MWj6e.3815$xN.2235@fe05.lga> wrote:

[snip]
>
>The problem is that no one takes the batteries out of a flashlight when
>it is not in use,

Of course not. Most of my flashlights are emergency lights. They are
"in use" right now while turned off. I have them hanging on several
door knobs in case of power failure. (I have had one major power
failure and two significant earthquakes. Those flashlights are in
use.)



[snip]


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 6:33:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:44:00 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>
>>I think I got more than 10 hours of "actual shooting" out of them,
>>including one wedding reception accounting for several hundred shots
>>all by itself.
>
>
> That's much more in line with what I would have expected from
> lithiums. That rate, if you used 4 AAs, amounts to about $10/day
> and would be too costly for me use them instead of NiMHs. But just
> being able to keep shooting when you want and not have to worry
> about being unprepared when changing battery sets probably makes
> lithiums much more attractive for your situation.
>
>
>
>
>>> In fact, since you didn't identify the camera or how it was used,
>>>I'm a little suspicious of the exceedingly short 10 minute battery
>>>life. Was the camera used normally, taking a relatively small
>>>number of pictures during that 10 minutes? Some cameras could also
>>>exhaust a set of alkalines in ten minutes, but during those 10
>>>minutes take a couple of hundred or more pictures.
>>
>>No, perfectly ordinary use. I already knew that alkalines were a
>>stupid idea in a digital camera, but this one came with a set, so I
>>put them in and ran them down, and I was *still* surprised how fast.
>>It might well have been *twice as long* as I said -- 20 minutes. A
>>few dozen pictures at the most.
>
>
> Now that's not very unusual. I've heard of some early digital
> cameras that could only take about 1/2 dozen shots per set of
> alkalines. By the time your camera was designed things had improved
> to the point that using alkalines wasn't as stupid an idea as it
> used to be. You probably could have taken about as many shots per
> day with $10 worth of alkalines as you could have with one $10 set
> of lithiums. Yeah, still a stupid thing to do, but not nearly as
> stupid as using $50 worth of alkalines to take the same number of
> pictures in one of the older digitals cameras.
>
>
>
>>> In any case, all you've noted is that you have a camera that is one
>>>that should not use alkalines except as a last resort. You may not
>>>have intended it, but the implication is that based on your
>>>experience alkalines should not be used to power digital cameras.
>>
>>Based on my experience with multiple cameras and my talking to other
>>photographers with, between them, a rather wide range of cameras,
>>yes.
>
>
> All you need do is check reviews of many of the recent cameras to
> see how much cameras have changed in the last year or so. Don't
> count on other photographers who probably aren't particularly well
> informed. You could be the one clueing them in . . .
>
>
>
>>>There's one unusual new camera that comes with a rechargeable
>>>lithium battery that provides up to 500 pictures per charge. The
>>>review I read indicated that it was exceedingly difficult to find
>>>any source for more batteries or accessories. But the review noted
>>>that the camera also used AA batteries and a pair of NiMH lasted for
>>>a bit more than 400 shots and a pair of alkalines lasted for over
>>>200 shots. If I had one of these cameras I wouldn't waste the $50
>>>or more that a spare lithium battery would cost. I'd appreciate the
>>>one provided with the camera, but would try to maximize its life by
>>>also using AAs, either NiMH or alkalines. Either would be very low
>>>cost alternatives, available almost anywhere.
>>
>>Do you know if the rechargeable "lithium ion" batteries are chemically
>>about the same thing as the primariy "lithium" batteries, by the way?
>
>
> They probably aren't, although I imagine that they're much more
> similar to each other than to either primary alkalines or
> rechargeable NiMHs. I say this because from looking at data sheets
> of primary lithium batteries normally used in cameras, I see two
> different types (similar, but slightly different chemistries). One
> type shows a significant power loss in cold weather (not as bad as
> alkalines, but significant). The other type, used in AAs handles
> frigid temperatures much better. I'd expect rechargeable lithiums
> to show even greater differences, but wouldn't want to guess what
> the differences might be. About the only other thing I know about
> rechargeable lithium batteries is that they can be quite dangerous
> if the charging circuit is faulty or poorly designed.
>
>
>
>>> What I've been trying to say is that for some of the newer cameras,
>>>alkalines can be a better choice for some people, some of the time.
>>
>>Okay, that's certainly possible. I haven't talked to anybody with
>>such cameras yet, so they're not in my database.
>
>
> They're already here in the new lines from Canon, Fuji, Sony and
> others, but probably won't be seen in the larger cameras pros use
> for some time. Those cameras tend to trade battery efficiency for
> faster, more accurate focusing, higher power flash, faster and
> greater numbers of more power hungry internal CPUs to do much more
> processing in a smaller amout of time, etc.
>

I have been doing some Google research on alkaline batteries, and check
advertising on them. Shelf life listed seems to vary between 3 and 7
years, BUT it is pointed out by testers that once an alkaline is
actually USED, even for a few seconds, it begins a rapid degradation and
will be discharged in less than a year, even if not used. It was also
stated that lithium ion batteries have a normal use life of 2 to 3 years
(which I had read before). I think I will stick with my NIMH batteries,
and my primary lithium for backup. I might try the Oxyrides in my GPS
receiver.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:10:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:03:56 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> But two other items are worth knowing. What year did you purchase
>> the batteries, and what expiration dates did they have? Just saying
>> that you've found alkalines to have a shelf life of only two years
>> isn't useful if you don't provide additional information. For all
>> we know the batteries that sat for two years on your shelf might
>> have been bought six years after sitting in a hot warehouse.
>
> One never knows how long a set of batteries has set on a shelf (unless
> you know how to decode the manufacture date), or what the storage
> environment has been. I am sure that Sam's would have replaced the
> batteries had I wanted to bother driving several miles to take them
> back. They were bought, and several used immediately. They wouldn't
> even power a clock! I thought the clock must be defective, and tossed
> one out before noticing the batteries were defective.
> These weren't off-brand, batteries (Duracells).

You need a battery tester, they're cheap. Until you get one, if
you rub an olive around a picture of a battery it'll give it enough
juice to run most clocks for a while. In the hundreds (more likely
thousands) of batteries I've gone through, I've only come across
three totally dead alkalines, and they were all from the same pack
of a dozen no-name batteries. You shouldn't have to look for a
coded manufacture date these days. Most packages have the
expiration date printed on them. Others (and Duracells are among
them, at least the ones I buy) have the expiration date printed on
the batteries in a font large enough to be easily read by most
people. Duracells are the one brand I've most often seen sold the
way some cameras are - gray market. Printed in French (possibly for
Indonesian markets), German and other languages. And lots of
counterfeit CopperTops - you can tell because they weigh 1/2 as much
as genuine alkalines, and have names like "Doracell". I'm sure the
ones you bought in Sam's were genuine alkalines (well, 95% sure),
but other than that I wouldn't trust them very much. Actually, I
just recalled one more detail about those few dead batteries I
mentioned above. The fine print on the package indicated that they
were originally a well known brand, but the original identifying
shells were replaced to give them their no-name brand. Maybe your
bad experience with alkaline batteries should have made you more
wary of Sams than of alkalines. :) 


> Over the years I have had some alkalines last 3 years (mainly just
> sitting without use), and some that didn't last but a few weeks. I find
> there tends to be too much variation in them.

Well, I hope Texas isn't being treated as a third world country,
getting the dregs, but my experience with many brands, including
private labels (Rite-Aid, Walgreen, etc.) shows little variation,
with all of them retaining most of their expected capacity even
after the expiration dates. At this point I suggest not buying any
alkalines that don't have expiration dates *at least* five years
after the purchase date. With a little effort you can probably do
better than that by a couple of years. And don't buy them at Sams!
April 11, 2005 10:32:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <t3rj51dsjlm4idmoaehhvqgk89dad2so00@4ax.com>, caught@22.com
says...
> Based on your results with the Fuji S5000, and assuming that the
> Duracell and Eveready alkalines were fresh, it would seem that it
> either has an obscenely greater appetite for alkaline batteries than
> its S5100 twin, or it is defective. It's hard to imagine Fuji
> letting a camera out of the design shop that takes fewer pictures
> (3) than the number of AA batteries it holds (4). With that kind of
> performance I'd think that even NiMH batteries wouldn't hold up very
> well. Does the manual even mention battery life, or is it too
> ashamed to say? :) 
>

I just call it a power hungry little beast!

I jusst had the manual for it in my hand last night, and now I cant locate
it!,, Im sure it says the battery life is better than what I got, but I
didn't do extensive testing, and I simply started using NIMH and never turned
back.

OK I found the manual.

It doesn't make a recomendation as to Alkaline batteries other than to say
you should use the same type that came with the camera (Fuji) and that they
will not last as long as a set of properly charged NIMH, then quickly refers
to Page 98 which tells you Dont Use NiCad, Dont use Manganese, and you should
use a Fuji battery charger.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 12:45:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 06:32:58 -0400, Larry wrote:

> OK I found the manual.
>
> It doesn't make a recomendation as to Alkaline batteries other than to say
> you should use the same type that came with the camera (Fuji) and that they
> will not last as long as a set of properly charged NIMH, then quickly refers
> to Page 98 which tells you Dont Use NiCad, Dont use Manganese, and you
> should use a Fuji battery charger.

That's similar to pages 107 and 108 of the S5100 manual, which goes
into great detail about why Manganese and NiCad batteries shouldn't
be used and how to properly use NiMH batteries. But near the end of
the manual on page 116 (the second of two Specification pages) it
gives the table and related information about the expected battery
life from alkaline and NiMH batteries, and the procedures used to
get the results. It's listed under a black bar titled "Power Supply
and Others", which also provides information about the number of
images and lengths of movies that can be held by different sizes of
xD-Picture Cards.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:21:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 02:33:13 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> I have been doing some Google research on alkaline batteries, and check
> advertising on them. Shelf life listed seems to vary between 3 and 7
> years, BUT it is pointed out by testers that once an alkaline is
> actually USED, even for a few seconds, it begins a rapid degradation and
> will be discharged in less than a year, even if not used.

Could you provide links for that? I find that very hard to
believe, as I've had a many devices that prove that to be false.
Clocks and kitchen timers that continue to function for many years
without needing to change batteries. Radios and blood pressure
monitors too. A small number of the digital radios deplete the
batteries in a few months even with no use because of poor design,
but most of the other digital radios and all of the analog radios I
own don't. Even though I shouldn't, I usually have more than a
dozen radios kept alive as backups, with the batteries maintaining
the clocks and station preset memories, and most of them have been
running for 4 to 5 years. The batteries are checked every couple of
months for leakage, and the batteries still have most of their
capacity left and operate normally. The only leakage failure I had
was with a really old Radio Shack CB radio that I forgot about until
late last year. Its 8 AA batteries made a real mess in its
replaceable battery compartment. And they weren't even alkalines,
but very old RS NiCads (purple colored) that had been forgotten
about for about a dozen years.


> It was also
> stated that lithium ion batteries have a normal use life of 2 to 3 years
> (which I had read before). I think I will stick with my NIMH batteries,
> and my primary lithium for backup. I might try the Oxyrides in my GPS
> receiver.

That's what I've read about rechargeable lithium batteries too.
Also that with proper care NiCads and NiMH can get from 500 to 1000
recharge cycles, and lithiums about 200. Actually for NiCads and
NiMH batteries you can probably get many thousands of recharges.
But the capacity keeps decreasing with use, and no sane person would
keep using NiMH batteries that would only power a radio for a few
minutes per charge. Well before that point was reached they'd
probably fail to take even one or two pictures in most cameras.
Some "smart" chargers try to make the decision for you by refusing
to charge some cells that still seem to have lots of life left in
them.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:46:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:03:56 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>> But two other items are worth knowing. What year did you purchase
>>>the batteries, and what expiration dates did they have? Just saying
>>>that you've found alkalines to have a shelf life of only two years
>>>isn't useful if you don't provide additional information. For all
>>>we know the batteries that sat for two years on your shelf might
>>>have been bought six years after sitting in a hot warehouse.
>>
>>One never knows how long a set of batteries has set on a shelf (unless
>>you know how to decode the manufacture date), or what the storage
>>environment has been. I am sure that Sam's would have replaced the
>>batteries had I wanted to bother driving several miles to take them
>>back. They were bought, and several used immediately. They wouldn't
>>even power a clock! I thought the clock must be defective, and tossed
>>one out before noticing the batteries were defective.
>>These weren't off-brand, batteries (Duracells).
>
>
> You need a battery tester, they're cheap. Until you get one, if
> you rub an olive around a picture of a battery it'll give it enough
> juice to run most clocks for a while. In the hundreds (more likely
> thousands) of batteries I've gone through, I've only come across
> three totally dead alkalines, and they were all from the same pack
> of a dozen no-name batteries. You shouldn't have to look for a
> coded manufacture date these days. Most packages have the
> expiration date printed on them. Others (and Duracells are among
> them, at least the ones I buy) have the expiration date printed on
> the batteries in a font large enough to be easily read by most
> people. Duracells are the one brand I've most often seen sold the
> way some cameras are - gray market. Printed in French (possibly for
> Indonesian markets), German and other languages. And lots of
> counterfeit CopperTops - you can tell because they weigh 1/2 as much
> as genuine alkalines, and have names like "Doracell". I'm sure the
> ones you bought in Sam's were genuine alkalines (well, 95% sure),
> but other than that I wouldn't trust them very much. Actually, I
> just recalled one more detail about those few dead batteries I
> mentioned above. The fine print on the package indicated that they
> were originally a well known brand, but the original identifying
> shells were replaced to give them their no-name brand. Maybe your
> bad experience with alkaline batteries should have made you more
> wary of Sams than of alkalines. :) 
>

I haven't bought any alkalines from Sam's since, but I have bought some
NIMH there. They are still working well.

>
>
>>Over the years I have had some alkalines last 3 years (mainly just
>>sitting without use), and some that didn't last but a few weeks. I find
>>there tends to be too much variation in them.
>
>
> Well, I hope Texas isn't being treated as a third world country,
> getting the dregs, but my experience with many brands, including
> private labels (Rite-Aid, Walgreen, etc.) shows little variation,
> with all of them retaining most of their expected capacity even
> after the expiration dates. At this point I suggest not buying any
> alkalines that don't have expiration dates *at least* five years
> after the purchase date. With a little effort you can probably do
> better than that by a couple of years. And don't buy them at Sams!
>

The information I got from Google was rather enlightening. It seems
that alkalines will last 5-7 years on the shelf, BUT when used, even for
a short time begin to deteriorate much more rapidly, and will die in
less than half that time, even if not used. Something to factor into
any choice of batteries.
Now we will need to get a usage profile, and discharge rate chart on the
new Oxyrides...



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:52:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Littlewood wrote:
> In article <_Fe6e.3729$xN.2926@fe05.lga>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> writes
>
>>
>> Flash recycle time IS a factor on my camera, and an improvement would
>> be nice, but it is designed for two 1.2 volt NIMH batteries, and that
>> is 2.4 volts, vs. 3.4 with the Oxirides. Will wait and see what Kodak
>> has to say about them. They might be a cheaper backup alternative to
>> the CRV3. Do you know what Oxyride estimated shelf life is?
>>
> The internal resistance of the battery is an important element in the
> equation here. IIRC, NiCd cells have a very low internal resistance and
> are therefore capable of very high current drain - important for fast
> recycling.
>
> David
So, I understand, are the primary (disposable) lithium batteries. Note,
NIMH batteries are capable of producing some high currents as well. Had
one in my pocket that got a bit too intimate with keys, knife, coins, or
whatever, and got HOT. And that was one I had taken out of my camera
because it was 'discharged'. Be wary of these batteries, they can cause
a hazard.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:55:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 02:33:13 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>I have been doing some Google research on alkaline batteries, and check
>>advertising on them. Shelf life listed seems to vary between 3 and 7
>>years, BUT it is pointed out by testers that once an alkaline is
>>actually USED, even for a few seconds, it begins a rapid degradation and
>>will be discharged in less than a year, even if not used.
>
>
> Could you provide links for that? I find that very hard to
> believe, as I've had a many devices that prove that to be false.
> Clocks and kitchen timers that continue to function for many years
> without needing to change batteries. Radios and blood pressure
> monitors too. A small number of the digital radios deplete the
> batteries in a few months even with no use because of poor design,
> but most of the other digital radios and all of the analog radios I
> own don't. Even though I shouldn't, I usually have more than a
> dozen radios kept alive as backups, with the batteries maintaining
> the clocks and station preset memories, and most of them have been
> running for 4 to 5 years. The batteries are checked every couple of
> months for leakage, and the batteries still have most of their
> capacity left and operate normally. The only leakage failure I had
> was with a really old Radio Shack CB radio that I forgot about until
> late last year. Its 8 AA batteries made a real mess in its
> replaceable battery compartment. And they weren't even alkalines,
> but very old RS NiCads (purple colored) that had been forgotten
> about for about a dozen years.
>
>
>
>> It was also
>>stated that lithium ion batteries have a normal use life of 2 to 3 years
>>(which I had read before). I think I will stick with my NIMH batteries,
>>and my primary lithium for backup. I might try the Oxyrides in my GPS
>>receiver.
>
>
> That's what I've read about rechargeable lithium batteries too.
> Also that with proper care NiCads and NiMH can get from 500 to 1000
> recharge cycles, and lithiums about 200. Actually for NiCads and
> NiMH batteries you can probably get many thousands of recharges.
> But the capacity keeps decreasing with use, and no sane person would
> keep using NiMH batteries that would only power a radio for a few
> minutes per charge. Well before that point was reached they'd
> probably fail to take even one or two pictures in most cameras.
> Some "smart" chargers try to make the decision for you by refusing
> to charge some cells that still seem to have lots of life left in
> them.
>
I rarely get more than two years from an alkaline in any application.
But then I use them only in clocks, and flashlights around here. The
NIMH are much better for digital cameras, and similar devices where you
can either keep them charged (I have a camera with a 'dock') or can
anticipate need for them to top them off before you need them. Not a
good choice for long-term use items like clocks.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 4:32:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

1) Oxyride batts are simply alkalines. Don't expect shelf lives to be
much better than an alkaline.

2) If you want an emergency battery that'll sit for =years= just fine,
go lithium. Lithium AA or other cells + flashlight = you can have it
sitting on the shelf like I have for years and years w/o worry.

3) If you simply want cheap and lots of AAs, www.fatwallet.com/forums/
-> hot deals for the AA deals where you can get them either free after
rebate, or dirt-cheap.

4) If you really want something that'll sit for years w/o worry, get one
of those LED lights with hand-crank/shake to power it. They'll easy sit
for decades w/o worry, and still work fine.

5) LED lights are better if you want long long life in an emergency.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 7:15:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Chien wrote:
> 1) Oxyride batts are simply alkalines. Don't expect shelf lives to be
> much better than an alkaline.
>
> 2) If you want an emergency battery that'll sit for =years= just fine,
> go lithium. Lithium AA or other cells + flashlight = you can have it
> sitting on the shelf like I have for years and years w/o worry.
>
> 3) If you simply want cheap and lots of AAs, www.fatwallet.com/forums/
> -> hot deals for the AA deals where you can get them either free after
> rebate, or dirt-cheap.
>
> 4) If you really want something that'll sit for years w/o worry, get one
> of those LED lights with hand-crank/shake to power it. They'll easy sit
> for decades w/o worry, and still work fine.
>
> 5) LED lights are better if you want long long life in an emergency.

I have an LED light you shake to charge it, and a radio that has a hand
crank. Both are within arms reach as I sit here. This area is part of
what is called 'tornado alley' and I try to keep prepared for the worst,
while hoping for the best. So far, so good, but I did grow up on the US
Gulf Coast, and have been through more hurricanes that I like to
remember, so I understand the need for such devices.
They are like the smoke alarm, you buy and install it, hoping you NEVER
need it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:03:05 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Littlewood <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:

>>>Actually, since power = V^2/R, and R is (for any appliance) effectively
>>>constant, there will be a 28.4% increase in the power delivery.

>>Actually, that's a really bad

>you mean bad as in "sensible and cautious"?

More as in "almost always wrong". You could have said that the
worst-case increase in power delivered to the load was around 29%, and
that would have been accurate. But the assumption that R is constant is
substantially wrong for anything other than heating appliances.

>Some electronic devices have voltage regulators inside.... Yes, I
>should have said "any device (unless fitted with a regulator)". And some
>voltage regulators dissipate the extra power as heat.

Well, no. It's not true of incandescent lamps, where resistance changes
markedly with voltage. It's only approximately true of things like
an electric iron, which don't change resisistance so much with heating.

>But it is a very good one for motors, and (despite your point below) a
>reasonable one for bulbs.

It's not actually accurate for most motors either. Raise the voltage
applied to an induction motor, and the current will drop (but don't
raise the voltage *too* much above rating!). With a DC motor, raising
the voltage will also increase the speed, if there's no speed control,
and that will increase the current a bit. But with speed control, the
speed will stay the same and average current will drop.

>And many devices with metering circuits will
>not be accurate with a changed voltage battery (....unless they have a
>regulator!); witness the problems many people have had with legacy
>cameras designed to use mercury cells at (?) 1.2-1.3V.

True, but you're talking about decades-old cameras now. Back then,
mercury batteries were used in order to avoid any active voltage
regulation, which would have required discrete electronic components.

And that battery was used for metering only. Here, we're talking about
batteries used for bulk power. The camera already has to work properly
with 1.5 V alkalines (that drop to 1 V at end of life) and 1.2 V NiMH
cells. The camera can't depend on steady voltage - it must already have
internal regulation of some sort.

It *is* good to ask whether the camera regulator will be overstressed by
higher than expected battery voltage. If the camera is designed to work
from AA lithium cells at 1.6+ V, the Oxyride cells are probably fine
too. If the camera manual says to avoid AA lithiums, then the Oxyrides
might be a problem too.

>True - there is a point where you have to stop refining the detail or
>the message gets lost in science.

Ok. But if you want to be vague about the science, be vague - just say
"there may be increased heat in some components" or "bulb life will be
shortened".

>However, it is also true that the life
>of a filament bulb is impaired much faster then in proportion to the
>rise in voltage.

That's certainly true. And a warning post is a good idea. But it's not
a good idea to include outright wrong statements in a warning, lest the
whole thing be dismissed as inaccurate. The "constant R" assumption is
almost always wrong, and so is the precise-looking "28.4%" figure based
on it.

Dave
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:06:22 PM

Archived from groups: misc.consumers,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Clyde Torres" <clyde_torres@yahooo.com> writes:

>>>>Amazingly, Panasonic Oxyrides do deliver more power, for the same
>>>>price as ordinary alkalines. To be precise, they deliver 1.7 volts,
>>>>which is 13 percent more juice than the 1.5 volts of alkalines.

>>>Actually, since power = V^2/R, and R is (for any appliance) effectively
>>>constant, there will be a 28.4% increase in the power delivery.

>I don't believe that David Littlewood wrote the above (Steve did),

Steve wrote the first paragraph quoted, with the 1.7 and 1.5 V figures.
David wrote the second one, with the comment about R being constant and
the "28.4% increase" figure. So it's David's statements I was writing
about, although I included one paragraph from Steve for context.

Dave
!