Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lithium batteries not recommended?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 2:02:38 AM

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

Just purchased a Sony Cybershot DSC-H1...The manual says...

You can not use lithium batteries. I have always used non
rechargeable lithium AA's for emergency back ups. Why doesn't
Sony want these batteries used?
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 12:15:32 PM

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

<tnom@mucks.net> wrote in message
news:42cci1dusne17n8skrmpep7c8lhr9o650r@4ax.com...
> Just purchased a Sony Cybershot DSC-H1...The manual says...
>
> You can not use lithium batteries. I have always used non
> rechargeable lithium AA's for emergency back ups. Why doesn't
> Sony want these batteries used?

Probably because the initial voltage of lithium cells is higher than
alkaline or rechargeable and could damage the camera.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 8:13:13 PM

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

"Kinon O'Cann" <somew@re.over.the.rainbow> wrote in message
news:EpzVe.3$4s2.0@bos-service2.ext.ray.com...
>
> <tnom@mucks.net> wrote in message
> news:42cci1dusne17n8skrmpep7c8lhr9o650r@4ax.com...
>> Just purchased a Sony Cybershot DSC-H1...The manual says...
>>
>> You can not use lithium batteries. I have always used non
>> rechargeable lithium AA's for emergency back ups. Why doesn't
>> Sony want these batteries used?
>
> Probably because the initial voltage of lithium cells is higher than
> alkaline or rechargeable and could damage the camera.
Canon says same thing.
Dave Cohen
Related resources
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 6:40:21 AM

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

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
> <tnom@mucks.net> wrote in message
> news:42cci1dusne17n8skrmpep7c8lhr9o650r@4ax.com...
>> Just purchased a Sony Cybershot DSC-H1...The manual says...
>>
>> You can not use lithium batteries. I have always used non
>> rechargeable lithium AA's for emergency back ups. Why doesn't
>> Sony want these batteries used?
>
> Probably because the initial voltage of lithium cells is higher than
> alkaline or rechargeable and could damage the camera.
>
>
LIthium batteries are capable of very high current flow, and if the
camera is designed for the lower current values of alkalines, then it
may not be able to handle the lithium battery current. If this is the
case, then it is a matter of very poor circuit design on the part of Sony.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 10:54:37 AM

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

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:40:21 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> Probably because the initial voltage of lithium cells is higher than
>> alkaline or rechargeable and could damage the camera.
>
> LIthium batteries are capable of very high current flow, and if the
> camera is designed for the lower current values of alkalines, then it
> may not be able to handle the lithium battery current. If this is the
> case, then it is a matter of very poor circuit design on the part of Sony.

Cameras are designed to operate over a particular voltage range.
They aren't designed to use the battery's internal resistance to
limit the current. I'm quite sure that AA lithium batteries that
provide slightly lower voltage (whether by pre-using them or by
using a diode in series with them) would not cause any damage,
despite their being able to supply greater current than alkalines.
Put another way, if an external power pack was made from alkaline D
cells, which probably can supply greater current than lithium AAs,
the use of the D cells wouldn't damage the camera. The battery type
capable of delivering the greatest current is NiCad (approx. 1.2 v
max., just like NiMH), despite their much lower capacity. If the
manual also says to avoid the use of NiCads, it's probably because
of their much shorter run time per charge, not because the camera
would draw too much current.
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:49:48 PM

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

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:40:21 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Kinon O'Cann wrote:
>> <tnom@mucks.net> wrote in message
>> news:42cci1dusne17n8skrmpep7c8lhr9o650r@4ax.com...
>>> Just purchased a Sony Cybershot DSC-H1...The manual says...
>>>
>>> You can not use lithium batteries. I have always used non
>>> rechargeable lithium AA's for emergency back ups. Why doesn't
>>> Sony want these batteries used?
>>
>> Probably because the initial voltage of lithium cells is higher than
>> alkaline or rechargeable and could damage the camera.
>>
>>
>LIthium batteries are capable of very high current flow, and if the
>camera is designed for the lower current values of alkalines, then it
>may not be able to handle the lithium battery current. If this is the
>case, then it is a matter of very poor circuit design on the part of Sony.

The way I understand it (and I'm not an EE) is that a device such as a
camera doesn't care how much current is available, as long as it meets
the minimum required.
IOW, a battery pack with 50 Ah won't hurt a camera anymore than a
battery pack with 2Ah (2000mAh) will.
No?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:49:03 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:40:21 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>> Probably because the initial voltage of lithium cells is higher than
>>> alkaline or rechargeable and could damage the camera.
>> LIthium batteries are capable of very high current flow, and if the
>> camera is designed for the lower current values of alkalines, then it
>> may not be able to handle the lithium battery current. If this is the
>> case, then it is a matter of very poor circuit design on the part of Sony.
>
> Cameras are designed to operate over a particular voltage range.
> They aren't designed to use the battery's internal resistance to
> limit the current. I'm quite sure that AA lithium batteries that
> provide slightly lower voltage (whether by pre-using them or by
> using a diode in series with them) would not cause any damage,
> despite their being able to supply greater current than alkalines.
> Put another way, if an external power pack was made from alkaline D
> cells, which probably can supply greater current than lithium AAs,
> the use of the D cells wouldn't damage the camera. The battery type
> capable of delivering the greatest current is NiCad (approx. 1.2 v
> max., just like NiMH), despite their much lower capacity. If the
> manual also says to avoid the use of NiCads, it's probably because
> of their much shorter run time per charge, not because the camera
> would draw too much current.
>

Doesn't compute. An alkaline has an initial voltage of 1.6 volts, and
the current AA lithiums 1.7 volts. That's just not a significant
difference, even if 4 are in series. Perhaps someone really KNOWS why
Sony doesn't recommend lithium disposables. My suggestion was speculation.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:50:47 AM

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

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:40:21 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Kinon O'Cann wrote:
>>> <tnom@mucks.net> wrote in message
>>> news:42cci1dusne17n8skrmpep7c8lhr9o650r@4ax.com...
>>>> Just purchased a Sony Cybershot DSC-H1...The manual says...
>>>>
>>>> You can not use lithium batteries. I have always used non
>>>> rechargeable lithium AA's for emergency back ups. Why doesn't
>>>> Sony want these batteries used?
>>> Probably because the initial voltage of lithium cells is higher than
>>> alkaline or rechargeable and could damage the camera.
>>>
>>>
>> LIthium batteries are capable of very high current flow, and if the
>> camera is designed for the lower current values of alkalines, then it
>> may not be able to handle the lithium battery current. If this is the
>> case, then it is a matter of very poor circuit design on the part of Sony.
>
> The way I understand it (and I'm not an EE) is that a device such as a
> camera doesn't care how much current is available, as long as it meets
> the minimum required.
> IOW, a battery pack with 50 Ah won't hurt a camera anymore than a
> battery pack with 2Ah (2000mAh) will.
> No?
>
That is the way it should be, however engineers have been known to take
some interesting shortcuts in order to save a few cents per unit in
consumer devices.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 9:29:41 AM

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

imbsysop wrote:

> The alkalines cannot deliver the current peaks required, their
> internal resistance is too high, combined with a slow (chemical)
> regeneration this sinks down efficiency like a stone in water ..

Do you mean the lithium batteries? They're the ones the manufacturer
says not to use.

Mark
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 11:44:39 AM

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

On 15 Sep 2005 05:29:41 -0700, "redbelly" <redbelly98@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>imbsysop wrote:
>
>> The alkalines cannot deliver the current peaks required, their
>> internal resistance is too high, combined with a slow (chemical)
>> regeneration this sinks down efficiency like a stone in water ..
>
>Do you mean the lithium batteries? They're the ones the manufacturer
>says not to use.
>
>Mark

You snipped too much; redbelly was answering why alkalines deliver so
little performance.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 12:13:49 PM

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>> LIthium batteries are capable of very high current flow, and
>>> if the camera is designed for the lower current values of
>>> alkalines, then it may not be able to handle the lithium
>>> battery current. If this is the case, then it is a matter of
>>> very poor circuit design on the part of Sony.
>> The way I understand it (and I'm not an EE) is that a device
>> such as a
>> camera doesn't care how much current is available, as long as it meets
>> the minimum required.
>> IOW, a battery pack with 50 Ah won't hurt a camera anymore than a
>> battery pack with 2Ah (2000mAh) will.
>> No?
>>
>That is the way it should be, however engineers have been known to take
>some interesting shortcuts in order to save a few cents per unit in
>consumer devices.

It happens that the ability to supply very high currents, even
if for just a very short time, *can* be very significant. For
example... in a circuit that charges a capacitor! And when the
intent is to provide short recycle times, it is very likely that
indeed the current limiting might well be a function of the
battery itself.

That means that it is possible the circuit could draw too much
current for 1) the battery itself, 2) the wiring (tiny traces),
or 3) for the available electronics. I would suspect in this
case it would be the electronics.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 3:08:45 PM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:49:03 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> Cameras are designed to operate over a particular voltage range.
>> They aren't designed to use the battery's internal resistance to
>> limit the current. I'm quite sure that AA lithium batteries that
>> provide slightly lower voltage (whether by pre-using them or by
>> using a diode in series with them) would not cause any damage,
>> despite their being able to supply greater current than alkalines.
>> Put another way, if an external power pack was made from alkaline D
>> cells, which probably can supply greater current than lithium AAs,
>> the use of the D cells wouldn't damage the camera. The battery type
>> capable of delivering the greatest current is NiCad (approx. 1.2 v
>> max., just like NiMH), despite their much lower capacity. If the
>> manual also says to avoid the use of NiCads, it's probably because
>> of their much shorter run time per charge, not because the camera
>> would draw too much current.
>>
>
> Doesn't compute. An alkaline has an initial voltage of 1.6 volts, and
> the current AA lithiums 1.7 volts. That's just not a significant
> difference, even if 4 are in series. Perhaps someone really KNOWS why
> Sony doesn't recommend lithium disposables. My suggestion was
> speculation.

But it was poor, ill-informed speculation to assume that because a
battery type can deliver higher currents that a camera would draw
currents in such huge amounts that it would be damaged. I still
think it may be a voltage related problem. While the difference
between alkaline and lithium AAs may only be 0.2 volts if 2 AA cells
are used, that's only the no-load difference. When the camera is
turned on there's a fairly large current drawn even when the camera
is doing nothing, and the alkaline battery's higher internal
resistance should cause the voltage that they're supplying to drop
substantially lower. Now the voltage difference between alkaline
and lithium, supplied by fresh batteries to internal circuits might
rise to 0.5 volts or more. That might well be enough to have some
internal components operate out of spec. It might not even damage
the camera, but may result in lower quality images, cause the AF to
operate more poorly, or have some other side effect.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:37:37 PM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:49:03 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>ASAAR wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:40:21 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>>> Probably because the initial voltage of lithium cells is higher than
>>>> alkaline or rechargeable and could damage the camera.
>>> LIthium batteries are capable of very high current flow, and if the
>>> camera is designed for the lower current values of alkalines, then it
>>> may not be able to handle the lithium battery current. If this is the
>>> case, then it is a matter of very poor circuit design on the part of Sony.
>>
>> Cameras are designed to operate over a particular voltage range.
>> They aren't designed to use the battery's internal resistance to
>> limit the current. I'm quite sure that AA lithium batteries that
>> provide slightly lower voltage (whether by pre-using them or by
>> using a diode in series with them) would not cause any damage,
>> despite their being able to supply greater current than alkalines.
>> Put another way, if an external power pack was made from alkaline D
>> cells, which probably can supply greater current than lithium AAs,
>> the use of the D cells wouldn't damage the camera. The battery type
>> capable of delivering the greatest current is NiCad (approx. 1.2 v
>> max., just like NiMH), despite their much lower capacity. If the
>> manual also says to avoid the use of NiCads, it's probably because
>> of their much shorter run time per charge, not because the camera
>> would draw too much current.
>>
>
>Doesn't compute. An alkaline has an initial voltage of 1.6 volts, and
>the current AA lithiums 1.7 volts. That's just not a significant
>difference, even if 4 are in series. Perhaps someone really KNOWS why
>Sony doesn't recommend lithium disposables. My suggestion was speculation.

Why not ? the initial voltages as you mention for Alkaline and Lithium
being what they are, in a 2-battery set will have 3V2 or 3V4 where a
"rechargeable" NiMH will have 2V4. At the delivered peak currents that
might be more than enough to bust todays micro-electronics .. (look at
computer CPU power consumption and what overclockers do .. fortunately
CPU's are build to cope with the 0.1/0.2V overcharge ..)
What surprises me is that also NiCd's get banned ..
FWIW
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:36:58 PM

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

On 15 Sep 2005 05:29:41 -0700, "redbelly" <redbelly98@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>imbsysop wrote:
>
>> The alkalines cannot deliver the current peaks required, their
>> internal resistance is too high, combined with a slow (chemical)
>> regeneration this sinks down efficiency like a stone in water ..
>
>Do you mean the lithium batteries? They're the ones the manufacturer
>says not to use.

OP suggested he saw the problems with his 6x alkalines setup ...
suppose Lithium should eb ok except maybe for their high initial
Voltage ? (as said here 1.7V?)
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:18:51 PM

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

>It happens that the ability to supply very high currents, even
>if for just a very short time, *can* be very significant. For
>example... in a circuit that charges a capacitor! And when the
>intent is to provide short recycle times, it is very likely that
>indeed the current limiting might well be a function of the
>battery itself.
>
>That means that it is possible the circuit could draw too much
>current for 1) the battery itself, 2) the wiring (tiny traces),
>or 3) for the available electronics. I would suspect in this
>case it would be the electronics.

You may have found the answer. Lithium's can supply the
high impulse current used to charge a flash for example.
However they do this at a higher voltage than the
recommended NIMH.

If A 1.2 volt NIMH = 1, then a 1.5 volt lithium = 1.5625

So that a Lithium AA could potentially increase the wattage
of a flash by a factor of 1.5625
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 9:47:24 PM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:18:51 -0400, tnom@mucks.net wrote:

> You may have found the answer. Lithium's can supply the
> high impulse current used to charge a flash for example.
> However they do this at a higher voltage than the
> recommended NIMH.
> If A 1.2 volt NIMH = 1, then a 1.5 volt lithium = 1.5625
>
> So that a Lithium AA could potentially increase the wattage
> of a flash by a factor of 1.5625

That's not correct, for several reasons. You didn't consider that
alkaline batteries are not prohibited, and they have voltages more
in line with lithium than NiMH batteries. It also assumes that the
charging circuit charges the flash capacitor to levels based on the
existing battery voltage. This would produce widely varying flash
power, depending on whether the batteries are fully charged/fresh or
near the end of their capacity. Not a slight, but a very large
difference, which would produce inconsistently lighted images.

Lastly, the flash capacitor is charged to a much higher voltage
than that supplied by the batteries. As the batteries are depleted,
the time required to charge the flash capacitor increases. While
this isn't clear proof that the charging circuit is trying to boost
the capacitor's voltages to a predetermined fixed level, that's what
it is doing, as can implied by the specifications listed in the
manuals provided with the better flash units. In other words, if a
battery was used that provided a high voltage (higher than 1.5
volts), the charging circuit would cut off when the flash capacitor
reached its appropriate charge level, and wouldn't overcharge the
capacitor due to the voltage supplied to the charging circuit being
higher than NiMH batteries provide.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 10:41:09 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:4kpji1tfeb9butm8jtclr3hfs63sqt4g4q@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:18:51 -0400, tnom@mucks.net wrote:
>
> > You may have found the answer. Lithium's can supply the
> > high impulse current used to charge a flash for example.
> > However they do this at a higher voltage than the
> > recommended NIMH.
> > If A 1.2 volt NIMH = 1, then a 1.5 volt lithium = 1.5625
> >
> > So that a Lithium AA could potentially increase the wattage
> > of a flash by a factor of 1.5625
>
> That's not correct, for several reasons. You didn't consider that
> alkaline batteries are not prohibited, and they have voltages more
> in line with lithium than NiMH batteries. It also assumes that the
> charging circuit charges the flash capacitor to levels based on the
> existing battery voltage. This would produce widely varying flash
> power, depending on whether the batteries are fully charged/fresh or
> near the end of their capacity. Not a slight, but a very large
> difference, which would produce inconsistently lighted images.
>
> Lastly, the flash capacitor is charged to a much higher voltage
> than that supplied by the batteries. As the batteries are depleted,
> the time required to charge the flash capacitor increases. While
> this isn't clear proof that the charging circuit is trying to boost
> the capacitor's voltages to a predetermined fixed level, that's what
> it is doing, as can implied by the specifications listed in the
> manuals provided with the better flash units. In other words, if a
> battery was used that provided a high voltage (higher than 1.5
> volts), the charging circuit would cut off when the flash capacitor
> reached its appropriate charge level, and wouldn't overcharge the
> capacitor due to the voltage supplied to the charging circuit being
> higher than NiMH batteries provide.

Just wondering something. In my Sony W5 manual it says you can use the
following kinds of batteries:

HR 15/51 : HR6
AA Nickel metal hydride
NH - AA - DA
NH -AA -2DB, etc.
R6 - AA alkalines.

What are the two types of NH batteries listed? the NH-AA-2DB says etc.
whatever that means.
And what is HR 15/51 : HR 6?
I guess R6 - AA alkines, is just "ordinary" alkalines, not
rechargeables.

I notice on Sony website, there are two different listings for Sony Nimh
rechargeable batteries. Both are 2500 and both are the same price, but
the batteries are different colors. Any idea what might be the
difference?

Cathy
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 10:41:10 PM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:41:09 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> I notice on Sony website, there are two different listings for Sony Nimh
> rechargeable batteries. Both are 2500 and both are the same price, but
> the batteries are different colors. Any idea what might be the
> difference?

The color! <g> [seriously now] Sony's store is called "Sony
Style" for a reason. Just look at their products and you'll see
many have very odd designs and bright colors and names, intended to
appeal to a younger demo. I like the idea though, as different
battery colors make my job marking them with unique colors a bit
easier.


> Just wondering something. In my Sony W5 manual it says you can use
> the following kinds of batteries:
>
> HR 15/51 : HR6
> AA Nickel metal hydride
> NH - AA - DA
> NH -AA -2DB, etc.
> R6 - AA alkalines.
>
> What are the two types of NH batteries listed? the NH-AA-2DB says etc.
> whatever that means.
> And what is HR 15/51 : HR 6?

In the USA (and I assume Canada too) the different standard
battery sizes have designations of N, AAAA, AAA, AA, C, D, F, etc.
Other countries have their own designations. R6 is the same as AA.
I believe that some of the other standard sizes have similar names,
such as R2, R3, etc. This is just a guess, as I'm not very familiar
with them. I think that in some Asian countries the AA cells may be
called UM-3 or SUM-3. The HR6 appears to be an NiMH AA cell, and I
assume that the HR 15/51 is also, but this one I'm not at all
familiar with. NH-AA-2DB seems to be what Sony uses to refer to a
"2-pack" of NiMH AA batteries. Another that I'm not very familiar
with is the ZR6, which seems to be the "super AA" that was mentioned
several months back, an Oxy Nickel battery that I believe is made by
Panasonic and was included with one of the new small P&S models.


> I guess R6 - AA alkines, is just "ordinary" alkalines, not
> rechargeables.

Yes. But R6 or AA (as I'm sure you're aware) doesn't just refer
to alkalines. It also describes NiCad, NiMH, Lithium,
Zinc-Manganese and any other batteries having the size and shape of
AA cells and a max. voltage in the 1.2v to 1.7v range. I found some
battery info. in a Sony camera manual that I'll repeat in case it's
missing or slightly different from what's printed in yours:

> Batteries you cannot use with your camera
> Manganese batteries
> Lithium batteries
> Ni-Cd batteries
> If you use the above batteries, we cannot
> guarantee full performance of the camera by
> property of the batteries, such as brownout of the
> batteries.

You mentioned these batteries, but I don't recall seeing anything
about the "brownout" potential, which I'm sure applies only to the
Manganese and NiCad batteries. You may be more familiar with
manganese batteries under their more common "Heavy Duty" name. And
they're only heavy duty in comparison to the Carbon Zinc batteries
that were common back about 50 years ago. They provide much shorter
life than alkaline batteries, both in hours they can power a camera
as well as shelf life. And they can do more damage if/when they
leak.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:39:10 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:ggsji15mm7cmkpkpvjk20dgo3l6efg40ed@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:41:09 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > I notice on Sony website, there are two different listings for Sony
Nimh
> > rechargeable batteries. Both are 2500 and both are the same price,
but
> > the batteries are different colors. Any idea what might be the
> > difference?
>
> The color! <g> [seriously now] Sony's store is called "Sony
> Style" for a reason. Just look at their products and you'll see
> many have very odd designs and bright colors and names, intended to
> appeal to a younger demo. I like the idea though, as different
> battery colors make my job marking them with unique colors a bit
> easier.

I've never seen different color batteries that were exactly the same
batteries before for any battery manufacturer in the stores here or
websites here. I've looked at Energizers and Duracells 2400 for example,
and they are always the same color and appearance in all stores, unless
maybe a different color for different power such as 1800, 2000, 2400 etc
but not different colors for the exact same batteries. I thought maybe
they were different colors to differentiate between batteries you have
charged or not charged.

> > Just wondering something. In my Sony W5 manual it says you can use
> > the following kinds of batteries:
> >
> > HR 15/51 : HR6
> > AA Nickel metal hydride
> > NH - AA - DA
> > NH -AA -2DB, etc.
> > R6 - AA alkalines.
> >
> > What are the two types of NH batteries listed? the NH-AA-2DB says
etc.
> > whatever that means.
> > And what is HR 15/51 : HR 6?
>
> In the USA (and I assume Canada too) the different standard
> battery sizes have designations of N, AAAA, AAA, AA, C, D, F, etc.

Yes, I've always known about AAA, AA, C,D, but never needed N or AAA or
F.
I wondered what the HR 155/51 and HR6 meant.

> Other countries have their own designations. R6 is the same as AA.
> I believe that some of the other standard sizes have similar names,
> such as R2, R3, etc. This is just a guess, as I'm not very familiar
> with them. I think that in some Asian countries the AA cells may be
> called UM-3 or SUM-3. The HR6 appears to be an NiMH AA cell, and I
> assume that the HR 15/51 is also, but this one I'm not at all
> familiar with. NH-AA-2DB seems to be what Sony uses to refer to a
> "2-pack" of NiMH AA batteries. Another that I'm not very familiar
> with is the ZR6, which seems to be the "super AA" that was mentioned
> several months back, an Oxy Nickel battery that I believe is made by
> Panasonic and was included with one of the new small P&S models.
>
>
> > I guess R6 - AA alkines, is just "ordinary" alkalines, not
> > rechargeables.
>
> Yes. But R6 or AA (as I'm sure you're aware) doesn't just refer
> to alkalines. It also describes NiCad, NiMH, Lithium,
> Zinc-Manganese and any other batteries having the size and shape of
> AA cells and a max. voltage in the 1.2v to 1.7v range. I found some
> battery info. in a Sony camera manual that I'll repeat in case it's
> missing or slightly different from what's printed in yours:

I've only needed AA.,AAA, C,D batteries before for flashlights, remote
for TV, various other things. I hadn't heard of R6 before.

> > Batteries you cannot use with your camera
> > Manganese batteries
> > Lithium batteries
> > Ni-Cd batteries
> > If you use the above batteries, we cannot
> > guarantee full performance of the camera by
> > property of the batteries, such as brownout of the
> > batteries.
>
> You mentioned these batteries, but I don't recall seeing anything
> about the "brownout" potential, which I'm sure applies only to the
> Manganese and NiCad batteries.

I didn't quote about the brownout part in my message to you, but it does
say that in the manual I have below the list of recommended batteries.

> You may be more familiar with
> manganese batteries under their more common "Heavy Duty" name. And
> they're only heavy duty in comparison to the Carbon Zinc batteries
> that were common back about 50 years ago. They provide much shorter
> life than alkaline batteries, both in hours they can power a camera
> as well as shelf life. And they can do more damage if/when they
> leak.

I usually get plain AA and AAA alkaline batteries for everything I have
which needs batteries.
I've seen cheap AA and AAA batteries in stores which say Heavy Duty so
and so, whatever.

Cathy
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:39:11 AM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:39:10 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> > In the USA (and I assume Canada too) the different standard
> > battery sizes have designations of N, AAAA, AAA, AA, C, D, F, etc.
>
> Yes, I've always known about AAA, AA, C,D, but never needed N or AAA
> or F.

The AAAA batteries are pretty rare, but they're simply slimmer
versions of the AAA batteries. They're often used in very slim
laser pointers, and their main drawbacks are that they have a
shorter life, are harder to find, and are probably priced higher
than comparable AAA batteries. The N cells are stubby little
things. F cells are like D cells, but taller. Open up a 6 volt
lantern battery and you'll find 4 F cells. Available in regular
(Heavy Duty) and Alkaline versions, and usually ridiculously
expensive.


> I've only needed AA.,AAA, C,D batteries before for flashlights, remote
> for TV, various other things. I hadn't heard of R6 before.

If you needed an AA, then you also needed an R6. The only
difference between an AA and an R6 is a little printer's ink on the
label. Something to remember if you go traveling abroad. It's
understandable that you wouldn't have heard of R6 batteries before,
but they're sometimes found in Odd Lot type discount stores that
sell imported "gray market" goods.


> I usually get plain AA and AAA alkaline batteries for everything
> I have which needs batteries.
> I've seen cheap AA and AAA batteries in stores which say
> Heavy Duty so and so, whatever.

That's a good policy. I'd only use the Heavy Duty batteries in
devices that draw *very* low current, such as clocks or small analog
audio equipment that uses only earphones (not speakers), and only if
the equipment has little value, in case the batteries leak. And I
never buy them, but they're sometimes packages with other products.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:58:24 AM

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

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote in message
news:s1lgi11fhbl1cbc9q3febl7p5oouoh7612@4ax.com...

> The way I understand it (and I'm not an EE) is that a device such as a
> camera doesn't care how much current is available, as long as it meets
> the minimum required.

Well, for what it's worth, I am an EE - and I still can't figure out why
some manufacturers don't like lithiums. I face the same issue with the
battery grip for my Canon 20D - I can install 2x proprietary batteries, or
use a caddy containing 6x AA. With the 2x 1400mA packs install I can take
over 1000 shots - with 6x AA alkalines installed I can only take a few dozen
shots - and - you guessed it - I'm "not allowed" to use lithiums.

I've get to hear a good answer why.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:58:25 AM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:58:24 +1200, "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote in message
>news:s1lgi11fhbl1cbc9q3febl7p5oouoh7612@4ax.com...
>
>> The way I understand it (and I'm not an EE) is that a device such as a
>> camera doesn't care how much current is available, as long as it meets
>> the minimum required.
>
>Well, for what it's worth, I am an EE - and I still can't figure out why
>some manufacturers don't like lithiums. I face the same issue with the
>battery grip for my Canon 20D - I can install 2x proprietary batteries, or
>use a caddy containing 6x AA. With the 2x 1400mA packs install I can take
>over 1000 shots - with 6x AA alkalines installed I can only take a few dozen
>shots - and - you guessed it - I'm "not allowed" to use lithiums.
>
>I've get to hear a good answer why.
>

The alkalines cannot deliver the current peaks required, their
internal resistance is too high, combined with a slow (chemical)
regeneration this sinks down efficiency like a stone in water ..
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:58:25 AM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:58:24 +1200, "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote in message
>news:s1lgi11fhbl1cbc9q3febl7p5oouoh7612@4ax.com...
>
>> The way I understand it (and I'm not an EE) is that a device such as a
>> camera doesn't care how much current is available, as long as it meets
>> the minimum required.
>
>Well, for what it's worth, I am an EE - and I still can't figure out why
>some manufacturers don't like lithiums. I face the same issue with the
>battery grip for my Canon 20D - I can install 2x proprietary batteries, or
>use a caddy containing 6x AA. With the 2x 1400mA packs install I can take
>over 1000 shots - with 6x AA alkalines installed I can only take a few dozen
>shots - and - you guessed it - I'm "not allowed" to use lithiums.
>
>I've get to hear a good answer why.
>
>
Remembering that I'm not an EE...
Is it possible that, under the camera's load, the Lithium batteries
might deliver too much voltage, while the others might have their
voltages dropped by that same load?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:58:26 AM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:32:30 +0200, imbsysop wrote:

>>Well, for what it's worth, I am an EE - and I still can't figure out why
>>some manufacturers don't like lithiums. I face the same issue with the
>>battery grip for my Canon 20D - I can install 2x proprietary batteries, or
>>use a caddy containing 6x AA. With the 2x 1400mA packs install I can
>> take over 1000 shots - with 6x AA alkalines installed I can only take a
>> few dozen shots - and - you guessed it - I'm "not allowed" to use lithiums.
>>
>> I've get to hear a good answer why.
>
> The alkalines cannot deliver the current peaks required, their
> internal resistance is too high, combined with a slow (chemical)
> regeneration this sinks down efficiency like a stone in water ..

That's not the reason. The battery grip was defective, and some
couldn't even take a few dozen shots. About a month or two ago
Canon identified which ones should be returned to them for repair
(based on serial number, IIRC). There's probably a news item about
it on dpreview.com
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 2:55:38 AM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:47:24 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:18:51 -0400, tnom@mucks.net wrote:
>
>> You may have found the answer. Lithium's can supply the
>> high impulse current used to charge a flash for example.
>> However they do this at a higher voltage than the
>> recommended NIMH.
>> If A 1.2 volt NIMH = 1, then a 1.5 volt lithium = 1.5625
>>
>> So that a Lithium AA could potentially increase the wattage
>> of a flash by a factor of 1.5625
>
> That's not correct, for several reasons. You didn't consider that
>alkaline batteries are not prohibited,

They are prohibited. They have higher internal resistance and can drop
voltage under high current conditions.

> and they have voltages more
>in line with lithium than NiMH batteries. It also assumes that the
>charging circuit charges the flash capacitor to levels based on the
>existing battery voltage.

I used the flash as an example only. It is very possible that the
flash or other high current circuits may operate at the higher lithium
voltage and hence current, and then consume 1.5625 times more power.

>This would produce widely varying flash
>power, depending on whether the batteries are fully charged/fresh or
>near the end of their capacity. Not a slight, but a very large
>difference, which would produce inconsistently lighted images.

Not a big difference at all in illumination. How much brighter is a
150 watt light bulb compared to a 100 watt bulb? How about a 150watt
audio amp compared to a 100 watter?
>
> Lastly, the flash capacitor is charged to a much higher voltage
>than that supplied by the batteries. As the batteries are depleted,
>the time required to charge the flash capacitor increases. While
>this isn't clear proof that the charging circuit is trying to boost
>the capacitor's voltages to a predetermined fixed level, that's what
>it is doing, as can implied by the specifications listed in the
>manuals provided with the better flash units.

If this is the way that the flash works then the flash bulb was a bad
example, however the flash bulb isn't the only high current device in
a camera.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:21:38 AM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:55:38 -0400, tnom@mucks.net wrote:

>> That's not correct, for several reasons. You didn't consider that
>> alkaline batteries are not prohibited,
>
> They are prohibited. They have higher internal resistance and can drop
> voltage under high current conditions.

Because you say so? All the OP has stated so far is that Sony's
manual says "You can not use lithium batteries." Alkalines do
indeed have higher internal resistance than some other battery
types, yet they perform very well in many cameras. Until someone
having access to a manual can verify that Sony "prohibits" the use
of alkaline batteries I'll have to assume that you're guessing.
That's also a reasonable opinion based on some of your other
comments that show a lack of knowledge, such as:

> I used the flash as an example only. It is very possible that the flash
> or other high current circuits may operate at the higher lithium
> voltage and hence current, and then consume 1.5625 times more power.

Just silly.


> Not a big difference at all in illumination. How much brighter is a
> 150 watt light bulb compared to a 100 watt bulb? How about a 150watt
> audio amp compared to a 100 watter?

The eyes, ears and camera's sensor do NOT react similarly. Do you
have any idea what kind of power ratio is required for one sound to
be twice as loud as another? Here's a clue: Much more than 2 to 1.

Additionally, you're basing an already bogus calculation on the
difference between a fresh lithium battery and a fully charged NiMH
battery. But nobody takes only one flash picture and they replaces
the battery. They continue until the battery is exhausted, and
you'd have to base your calculation on the highest lithium voltage
vs. the lowest lithium or NiMH voltage, which will be near 1.0
volts. Even your bogus formula will then produce a number much
greater than "1.5625". (this shows that you also don't understand
the proper use of mathematical precision.)


> If this is the way that the flash works then the flash bulb was a bad
> example, however the flash bulb isn't the only high current device in
> a camera.

I know, I know. Some cameras also have dim bulbs.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 5:34:08 AM

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

imbsysop wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:49:03 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> ASAAR wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:40:21 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Probably because the initial voltage of lithium cells is higher than
>>>>> alkaline or rechargeable and could damage the camera.
>>>> LIthium batteries are capable of very high current flow, and if the
>>>> camera is designed for the lower current values of alkalines, then it
>>>> may not be able to handle the lithium battery current. If this is the
>>>> case, then it is a matter of very poor circuit design on the part of Sony.
>>> Cameras are designed to operate over a particular voltage range.
>>> They aren't designed to use the battery's internal resistance to
>>> limit the current. I'm quite sure that AA lithium batteries that
>>> provide slightly lower voltage (whether by pre-using them or by
>>> using a diode in series with them) would not cause any damage,
>>> despite their being able to supply greater current than alkalines.
>>> Put another way, if an external power pack was made from alkaline D
>>> cells, which probably can supply greater current than lithium AAs,
>>> the use of the D cells wouldn't damage the camera. The battery type
>>> capable of delivering the greatest current is NiCad (approx. 1.2 v
>>> max., just like NiMH), despite their much lower capacity. If the
>>> manual also says to avoid the use of NiCads, it's probably because
>>> of their much shorter run time per charge, not because the camera
>>> would draw too much current.
>>>
>> Doesn't compute. An alkaline has an initial voltage of 1.6 volts, and
>> the current AA lithiums 1.7 volts. That's just not a significant
>> difference, even if 4 are in series. Perhaps someone really KNOWS why
>> Sony doesn't recommend lithium disposables. My suggestion was speculation.
>
> Why not ? the initial voltages as you mention for Alkaline and Lithium
> being what they are, in a 2-battery set will have 3V2 or 3V4 where a
> "rechargeable" NiMH will have 2V4. At the delivered peak currents that
> might be more than enough to bust todays micro-electronics .. (look at
> computer CPU power consumption and what overclockers do .. fortunately
> CPU's are build to cope with the 0.1/0.2V overcharge ..)
> What surprises me is that also NiCd's get banned ..
> FWIW
>
My camera uses 2 AA NIMH (2.5V), or two disposable lithium AA cells
(3.4V) but NOT 2 AA alkalines (3V). The alkalines just don't have the
current for the camera, but the extra voltage of the lithiums doesn't
seem to be a problem for this camera. So why should it for the Sony??

Note that when it comes to electrical energy, and damage, it isn't
usually the voltage but the current that does the damage.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 5:37:11 AM

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

Floyd Davidson wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>> LIthium batteries are capable of very high current flow, and
>>>> if the camera is designed for the lower current values of
>>>> alkalines, then it may not be able to handle the lithium
>>>> battery current. If this is the case, then it is a matter of
>>>> very poor circuit design on the part of Sony.
>>> The way I understand it (and I'm not an EE) is that a device
>>> such as a
>>> camera doesn't care how much current is available, as long as it meets
>>> the minimum required.
>>> IOW, a battery pack with 50 Ah won't hurt a camera anymore than a
>>> battery pack with 2Ah (2000mAh) will.
>>> No?
>>>
>> That is the way it should be, however engineers have been known to take
>> some interesting shortcuts in order to save a few cents per unit in
>> consumer devices.
>
> It happens that the ability to supply very high currents, even
> if for just a very short time, *can* be very significant. For
> example... in a circuit that charges a capacitor! And when the
> intent is to provide short recycle times, it is very likely that
> indeed the current limiting might well be a function of the
> battery itself.
>
> That means that it is possible the circuit could draw too much
> current for 1) the battery itself, 2) the wiring (tiny traces),
> or 3) for the available electronics. I would suspect in this
> case it would be the electronics.
>
I know that from previous discussions, some flash units DO operate that way.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 7:15:22 AM

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

tnom@mucks.net wrote:
>> Additionally, you're basing an already bogus calculation on the
>>difference between a fresh lithium battery and a fully charged NiMH
>>battery. But nobody takes only one flash picture and they replaces
>>the battery. They continue until the battery is exhausted, and
>>you'd have to base your calculation on the highest lithium voltage
>>vs. the lowest lithium or NiMH voltage, which will be near 1.0
>>volts. Even your bogus formula will then produce a number much
>>greater than "1.5625". (this shows that you also don't understand
>>the proper use of mathematical precision.)
>
>Bogus calculation? It is common knowledge that in a resistive circuit
>the power quadruples when the voltage doubles. It the square law.
>Hardly bogus.

It is not a bogus calculation, but in fact it is a meaningless
figure when the topic is a flash unit.

A flash charges a capacitor to a given level of energy, and the
the battery voltage and maximum current capability do not change
the total amount of charge the capacitor takes, but do change
how fast that charge can be built up.

Hence it will *not* use 1.5625 times as much power with the
higher voltage batteries. Instead it will take a shorter time
to charge the capacitor, and since the circuit that does so is
not 100% efficient the batteries that have a higher voltage will
take less time and therefore they will expend *less* total
energy to reach full charge.

--
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 9:23:49 AM

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

>>> That's not correct, for several reasons. You didn't consider that
>>> alkaline batteries are not prohibited,
>>
>> They are prohibited. They have higher internal resistance and can drop
>> voltage under high current conditions.
>
> Because you say so? All the OP has stated so far is that Sony's
>manual says "You can not use lithium batteries." Alkalines do
>indeed have higher internal resistance than some other battery
>types, yet they perform very well in many cameras. Until someone
>having access to a manual can verify that Sony "prohibits" the use
>of alkaline batteries I'll have to assume that you're guessing.
>That's also a reasonable opinion based on some of your other
>comments that show a lack of knowledge, such as:

Page 98 of user guide2-629-895-11(1) Alkaline's are not recommended.

>> Not a big difference at all in illumination. How much brighter is a
>> 150 watt light bulb compared to a 100 watt bulb? How about a 150watt
>> audio amp compared to a 100 watter?
>
> The eyes, ears and camera's sensor do NOT react similarly. Do you
>have any idea what kind of power ratio is required for one sound to
>be twice as loud as another? Here's a clue: Much more than 2 to 1.

I don't have a clue? 10db Do you know what a db is?

> Additionally, you're basing an already bogus calculation on the
>difference between a fresh lithium battery and a fully charged NiMH
>battery. But nobody takes only one flash picture and they replaces
>the battery. They continue until the battery is exhausted, and
>you'd have to base your calculation on the highest lithium voltage
>vs. the lowest lithium or NiMH voltage, which will be near 1.0
>volts. Even your bogus formula will then produce a number much
>greater than "1.5625". (this shows that you also don't understand
>the proper use of mathematical precision.)

Bogus calculation? It is common knowledge that in a resistive circuit
the power quadruples when the voltage doubles. It the square law.
Hardly bogus.
>
>
>> If this is the way that the flash works then the flash bulb was a bad
>> example, however the flash bulb isn't the only high current device in
>> a camera.
>
> I know, I know. Some cameras also have dim bulbs.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 10:26:23 AM

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

imbsysop wrote:

> OP suggested he saw the problems with his 6x alkalines setup ...

I stand corrected.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 11:40:51 AM

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

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 05:23:49 -0400, tnom@mucks.net wrote:

>>> They are prohibited. They have higher internal resistance and can drop
>>> voltage under high current conditions.
>>
>> Because you say so? All the OP has stated so far is that Sony's
>> manual says "You can not use lithium batteries." Alkalines do
>> indeed have higher internal resistance than some other battery . . .
>
> Page 98 of user guide2-629-895-11(1) Alkaline's are not recommended.

Then I was correct. You evidently still don't know the difference
between prohibition and recommendation. Alkalines may not perform
as well in certain cameras, and many manuals state this. When
lithium batteries are "prohibited" it's because their use can damage
the camera.


>>> Not a big difference at all in illumination. How much brighter is a
>>> 150 watt light bulb compared to a 100 watt bulb? How about a
>>> 150watt audio amp compared to a 100 watter?
>>
>> The eyes, ears and camera's sensor do NOT react similarly. Do you
>> have any idea what kind of power ratio is required for one sound to
>> be twice as loud as another? Here's a clue: Much more than 2 to 1.
>
> I don't have a clue? 10db Do you know what a db is?

Of course, and 10 db is correct. So you've proven my point that
your comparisons were absurd. The difference between 100 watts and
150 barely noticeable. The difference in light output, based on
your calculations (still bogus, btw) will be much greater than your
"1.5625" figure because it assumes, incorrectly, that voltages won't
drop as batteries are used. The real difference would easily be
enough to cause underexposures easily spotted by anyone.


> Bogus calculation? It is common knowledge that in a resistive circuit
> the power quadruples when the voltage doubles. It the square law.
> Hardly bogus.

It is bogus when misapplied. The complex charging circuit which
includes a voltage multiplier is NOT a simple resistive circuit. If
it was, the flash output power would decline drastically as the
battery voltage dropped. Camera manufacturers wouldn't be able to
say that (at a particular aperture) the flash was usable up to a
particular distance. They'd have to give a distance RANGE, which
would vary depending on whether the batteries were fresh/fully
charged or near depletion. If you *really* know what a 'db' is but
think that flash charging circuits behave like simple resistive
electrical circuits, you're making it difficult to be seen as
anything but an electrical ignoramus.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:53:04 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:BHtWe.15907$tc7.49@fe03.lga...
> imbsysop wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:49:03 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ASAAR wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:40:21 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Probably because the initial voltage of lithium cells is higher than
>>>>>> alkaline or rechargeable and could damage the camera.
snip
>>> Doesn't compute. An alkaline has an initial voltage of 1.6 volts, and
>>> the current AA lithiums 1.7 volts. That's just not a significant
>>> difference, even if 4 are in series. Perhaps someone really KNOWS why
>>> Sony doesn't recommend lithium disposables. My suggestion was
>>> speculation.
>>
>> Why not ? the initial voltages as you mention for Alkaline and Lithium
>> being what they are, in a 2-battery set will have 3V2 or 3V4 where a
>> "rechargeable" NiMH will have 2V4. At the delivered peak currents that
>> might be more than enough to bust todays micro-electronics .. (look at
>> computer CPU power consumption and what overclockers do .. fortunately
>> CPU's are build to cope with the 0.1/0.2V overcharge ..)
>> What surprises me is that also NiCd's get banned .. FWIW
>>
> My camera uses 2 AA NIMH (2.5V), or two disposable lithium AA cells (3.4V)
> but NOT 2 AA alkalines (3V). The alkalines just don't have the current
> for the camera, but the extra voltage of the lithiums doesn't seem to be a
> problem for this camera. So why should it for the Sony??
>
> Note that when it comes to electrical energy, and damage, it isn't usually
> the voltage but the current that does the damage.

yes but one must assume that the electrical "load" is fairly constant (give
or take the peaks) for any given camera so the current flow can only be
higher if the voltage is higher ..
So I could understand banning Lithiums 'cos of the higher voltage => more
watts, the alkalines 'cos they don't deliver enough peak power (which should
not be damaging) but not NiCd's .. it still leaves me with some Q's but I'm
not going to put my "precious" digicam on the line for experimenting :-)
FWIW
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 10:00:22 PM

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

>> Page 98 of user guide2-629-895-11(1) Alkaline's are not recommended.
>
> Then I was correct. You evidently still don't know the difference
>between prohibition and recommendation. Alkalines may not perform
>as well in certain cameras, and many manuals state this. When
>lithium batteries are "prohibited" it's because their use can damage
>the camera.

I didn't realize that you like to knit pick so much.
The exact phrase is "Batteries you can not use"
Then it lists alkaline's, lithium's ect.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 10:00:23 PM

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

tnom@mucks.net wrote:
>>> Page 98 of user guide2-629-895-11(1) Alkaline's are not
>>> recommended.
>>
>> Then I was correct. You evidently still don't know the difference
>> between prohibition and recommendation. Alkalines may not perform
>> as well in certain cameras, and many manuals state this. When
>> lithium batteries are "prohibited" it's because their use can
>> damage
>> the camera.
>
> I didn't realize that you like to knit pick so much.
> The exact phrase is "Batteries you can not use"
> Then it lists alkaline's, lithium's ect.

I spy six nice new nits!
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 3:58:01 AM

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

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:00:22 -0400, tnom@mucks.net, noting numerous
nits wrote:

>>> Page 98 of user guide2-629-895-11(1) Alkaline's are not recommended.
>>
>> Then I was correct. You evidently still don't know the difference
>> between prohibition and recommendation. Alkalines may not
>> perform as well in certain cameras, and many manuals state this.
>> When lithium batteries are "prohibited" it's because their use can
>> damage the camera.
>
> I didn't realize that you like to knit pick so much.
> The exact phrase is "Batteries you can not use"
> Then it lists alkaline's, lithium's ect.

You have a manual and I don't. First you say that Sony states
that the batteries are "prohibited". Then you change what they said
to "not recommended". Now you flip-flop again and say what Sony
really claims is "Batteries you can not use". Is the Sony manual a
living book that morphs its contents to suit your whim? Whether
you're talking about picks for breaking up streets or picks for
plucking strings, you're not going to get very far. You'll have
better success knitting your wooly logic, after combing out the
nits, that is. I'm puzzled though by your last sentence. Is Sony
hinting that the problem with alkaline and lithium batteries is that
they might mess up the camera if they leak their ect(oplasm)?

One last nit. If you quoted accurately, Sony should not have said
"Batteries you can not use". "Batteries you should not use" would
have been better. I hope that it isn't necessary to explain why.

Yours truly,
ASAAR, nattering nabob of nitticisms.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 3:26:18 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:8q3ni11g8dododr48ti501cvhpfnuaqesb@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:00:22 -0400, tnom@mucks.net, noting numerous
> nits wrote:
>
snip
>
> One last nit. If you quoted accurately, Sony should not have said
> "Batteries you can not use". "Batteries you should not use" would
> have been better. I hope that it isn't necessary to explain why.

<grin> I would even emphasise "Batteries you must not use" ? :-)
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 2:56:11 PM

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

"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lBbWe.11839$iM2.1038441@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "Bill Funk" <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote in message
> news:s1lgi11fhbl1cbc9q3febl7p5oouoh7612@4ax.com...
>
>> The way I understand it (and I'm not an EE) is that a device such as a
>> camera doesn't care how much current is available, as long as it meets
>> the minimum required.
>
> Well, for what it's worth, I am an EE - and I still can't figure out why
> some manufacturers don't like lithiums. I face the same issue with the
> battery grip for my Canon 20D - I can install 2x proprietary batteries, or
> use a caddy containing 6x AA. With the 2x 1400mA packs install I can take
> over 1000 shots - with 6x AA alkalines installed I can only take a few
> dozen shots - and - you guessed it - I'm "not allowed" to use lithiums.
>
> I've get to hear a good answer why.
>
>

I guess if the cell internal resistance is low there might be in-rush
current limits, otherwise I can't see a justification.

Lester
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 9:35:05 PM

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

"Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> writes:

>Well, for what it's worth, I am an EE - and I still can't figure out why
>some manufacturers don't like lithiums. I face the same issue with the
>battery grip for my Canon 20D - I can install 2x proprietary batteries, or
>use a caddy containing 6x AA. With the 2x 1400mA packs install I can take
>over 1000 shots - with 6x AA alkalines installed I can only take a few dozen
>shots - and - you guessed it - I'm "not allowed" to use lithiums.

>I've get to hear a good answer why.

One possibility: Consider the current delivered into a load that is a
fraction of an ohm. NiCds will maintain their voltage pretty well even
under several amps of load, so the current is mostly determined by the
external resistance in the circuit and the 1.2 V per cell of the NiCds.
NiMH cells are similar, but have slightly higher internal resistance so
the current is likely to be slightly less. Alkalines have much higher
internal resistance, so the current will be lower than either NiCd or
NiMH. But lithium AA cells output 1.6 V, not the 1.2 V of NiCd and
NiMH, and have low internal resistance too, so the current could be
about 1.3 times greater than any other AA cell.

If you've designed the circuit to handle the greater power, that's great -
it will do whatever the circuit does faster. But if it can't handle the
greater current, something could fail.

There were once electronic flash units designed to be powered by
alkaline batteries that failed when you used NiCd batteries instead, due
to the larger current and inadequately specified components in the
inverter. These should all be extinct now. But it's still possible to
design flash circuitry that's beefy enough for NiCd and NiMH but not for
the AA lithiums.

Dave
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 9:35:06 PM

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

In article <dgk8g9$a0m$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>, Dave Martindale
<davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:

> There were once electronic flash units designed to be powered by
> alkaline batteries that failed when you used NiCd batteries instead, due
> to the larger current and inadequately specified components in the
> inverter. These should all be extinct now. But it's still possible to
> design flash circuitry that's beefy enough for NiCd and NiMH but not for
> the AA lithiums.

If you dig deep enough, Nikon actually has a list of which products are
rated for lithium batteries, and which are not.

I'm a computer system engineer, not an electrical engineer, so don't
fault me if this doesn't make sense - but the following is what a Nikon
factory rep told me:

Supposedly, at very low loads, lithium batteries exceed their rated
voltages significanty. So some types of circuits can be damaged by the
"startup surge" when the device is first turned on.

When I asked why my N8008s (which was not approved for lithium) had
been running happily on them for years, I was told the camera had been
designed before lithium AA's were widely available, so it had never
been officially certified for them. And, as it was no longer in
production, they weren't going to the trouble to certify it safe.

Executive summary: Whatever you've got, it will PROBABLY work fine with
lithium batteries. But if we've told you not to use them, don't come
crying to us when...
September 20, 2005 4:42:40 PM

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

In article <87psra48ci.fld@barrow.com>,
Floyd Davidson <floyd@barrow.com> wrote:

....
> It happens that the ability to supply very high currents, even
> if for just a very short time, *can* be very significant. For
> example... in a circuit that charges a capacitor! And when the
> intent is to provide short recycle times, it is very likely that
> indeed the current limiting might well be a function of the
> battery itself.
>
> That means that it is possible the circuit could draw too much
> current for 1) the battery itself, 2) the wiring (tiny traces),
> or 3) for the available electronics. I would suspect in this
> case it would be the electronics.

The battery used in any electrical circuit is part of that circuit and
contributes not only the electrical energy to the entire circuit but an
electrical load in the form of internal resistance as well.

Digital devices typically require only a small amount of current to work
properly.

By design, an alkaline cell has a higher internal resistance than a
Li-ion cell. The lower voltage and higher internal resistance of these
cells makes them a perfect, inexpensive choice for designers trying to
address the low current needs of a typical digital camera.

When you replace the alkaline batteries with higher voltage Li-ion
batteries with their much smaller internal resistance, your camera
experiences a double whammy. The source of energy is suddenly suppling
more energy per charge to a circuit with a correspondingly lower
resistance.

Thus the warning.

ron
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 2:37:14 AM

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

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:17:28 -0400, Scott Schuckert <not@aol.com>
wrote:

>>
>Supposedly, at very low loads, lithium batteries exceed their rated
>voltages significanty. So some types of circuits can be damaged by the
>"startup surge" when the device is first turned on.
>
>When I asked why my N8008s (which was not approved for lithium) had
>been running happily on them for years, I was told the camera had been
>designed before lithium AA's were widely available, so it had never
>been officially certified for them. And, as it was no longer in
>production, they weren't going to the trouble to certify it safe.
>
>Executive summary: Whatever you've got, it will PROBABLY work fine with
>lithium batteries. But if we've told you not to use them, don't come
>crying to us when...


I may be talking without adequate facts, because I wonder how the
1.5v. AA Lithium cells commonly available in stores can be used in
normal AA cell applications. REASON: Most Lithium cells,
specifically Lithium Ion and Lithium Polymer, have a terminal voltage
of nominally 3.7 volts. With this as a POSSIBLE voltage under some
circumstances that I'm not aware of, you could do major damage to some
circuitry.

So, can someone else clarify how they obtain the lower voltages listed
on these AA Lithium cells sold in stores? It seems contradictory to
the chemistry of these types of cells.

Olin McDaniel
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 2:37:15 AM

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

>So, can someone else clarify how they obtain the lower voltages listed
>on these AA Lithium cells sold in stores? It seems contradictory to
>the chemistry of these types of cells.
>
>Olin McDaniel

It's anew type of Lithium cell that uses Iron in its composition..
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 5:32:40 AM

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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:37:14 GMT, Olin K. McDaniel wrote:

> So, can someone else clarify how they obtain the lower voltages listed
> on these AA Lithium cells sold in stores? It seems contradictory to
> the chemistry of these types of cells.

There are many lithium formulations. The one used in AA and AAA
batteries is quite different. Not only is the battery voltage lower
(about 1.6 volts) but the low temperature performance is even better
than the other lithium battery types, being rated for use down to
40º below zero.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 6:03:24 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:h3g4j1hr040252utvs4c0phh4datn4isfo@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:37:14 GMT, Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
>
> > So, can someone else clarify how they obtain the lower voltages
listed
> > on these AA Lithium cells sold in stores? It seems contradictory to
> > the chemistry of these types of cells.
>
> There are many lithium formulations. The one used in AA and AAA
> batteries is quite different. Not only is the battery voltage lower
> (about 1.6 volts) but the low temperature performance is even better
> than the other lithium battery types, being rated for use down to
> 40º below zero.

Today I saw some Energizer lithium AA's, 2 pack 1.5 V online at a store
here. It said "New" and
"Advanced" on the pack. Since my Sony rechargeables I now have are 1.2V,
does that mean that 1.5V AA's are too high for my cameera? Also, on a
slightly different matter, if I bought a charger that had a capacity of
2300 mah (or whatever its called), and I wanted to buy rechargeables for
it that were 2400 mah, does that mean that charger is not strong enough
for 2400 mah? If that is the case, and if I want to use 2400 mah or
2500 mah, do I need a charger that states it has capacity for 2400 or
2500?

Cathy
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 6:46:33 AM

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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 02:03:24 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> Today I saw some Energizer lithium AA's, 2 pack 1.5 V online
> at a store here. It said "New" and "Advanced" on the pack. Since
> my Sony rechargeables I now have are 1.2V, does that mean that
> 1.5V AA's are too high for my cameera?

No, 1.5V AA's shouldn't be too high, but with a caveat. There are
no truly 1.5 volt batteries. If you carefully measure alkaline
batteries you'll see a higher voltage. I've measured them to be
about 1.56 volts when fresh and under no load. With a light load,
the voltage will immediately drop a bit. My Energizer e² Lithium
batteries also state on the package 1.5V, but I take that with a
grain of salt. I believe that under no load they supply about 1.6V
or slightly higher. The Lithium AAs you saw are probably the same,
especially if somewhere on the package it also says the it is
suitable for operating temperatures down to minus 40º (C or F).
Your camera should have no problem using alkaline AA batteries, but
didn't you say that the manual said to avoid using lithium AAs? If
so, I would only use NiMH or alkaline AAs in your Sony W5.



> Also, on a slightly different matter, if I bought a charger that had a
> capacity of 2300 mah (or whatever its called), and I wanted to buy
> rechargeables for it that were 2400 mah, does that mean that charger
> is not strong enough for 2400 mah? If that is the case, and if I want
> to use 2400 mah or 2500 mah, do I need a charger that states it has
> capacity for 2400 or 2500?

No, the charger would be strong enough. Just make sure that you
buy a "smart" charger that detects when the batteries become fully
charged. The type to avoid are the older ones that use a timer to
stop charging. Smart chargers generally charge at a fixed rate
(current), and if you try to charge higher capacity batteries, they
just take a little longer to fully charge the batteries. They work
by detecting relatively sudden changes in battery voltage that
occurs as they get close to being fully charged. If you get a set of
2400mah batteries that take 80 minutes to go from fully depleted to
fully charged, then after the batteries are a year or two old, their
capacities will be reduced. If they then have a capacity of only
1800mah, they'll simply charge more quickly, about 60 minutes. If
next year you find and buy new 3000mah batteries, you'd expect them
to take longer to fully charge. In this case, about 100 minutes.
In addition to trying to get a "smart" charger, the fast ones
generate more heat. So to minimize heat, the better chargers have
an external power adapter (transformer/wall wart) since the heat
generated by the power adapter won't be added to the charger holding
the batteries.
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 7:04:55 AM

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

Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:17:28 -0400, Scott Schuckert <not@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Supposedly, at very low loads, lithium batteries exceed their rated
>> voltages significanty. So some types of circuits can be damaged by the
>> "startup surge" when the device is first turned on.
>>
>> When I asked why my N8008s (which was not approved for lithium) had
>> been running happily on them for years, I was told the camera had been
>> designed before lithium AA's were widely available, so it had never
>> been officially certified for them. And, as it was no longer in
>> production, they weren't going to the trouble to certify it safe.
>>
>> Executive summary: Whatever you've got, it will PROBABLY work fine with
>> lithium batteries. But if we've told you not to use them, don't come
>> crying to us when...
>
>
> I may be talking without adequate facts, because I wonder how the
> 1.5v. AA Lithium cells commonly available in stores can be used in
> normal AA cell applications. REASON: Most Lithium cells,
> specifically Lithium Ion and Lithium Polymer, have a terminal voltage
> of nominally 3.7 volts. With this as a POSSIBLE voltage under some
> circumstances that I'm not aware of, you could do major damage to some
> circuitry.
>
> So, can someone else clarify how they obtain the lower voltages listed
> on these AA Lithium cells sold in stores? It seems contradictory to
> the chemistry of these types of cells.
>
> Olin McDaniel
>

Like many aspects of modern life, one doesn't NEED to know the technical
details to use the products. I believe you can Google the subject, and
find a full discussion of the technical details, if you really want to know.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 7:06:52 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:37:14 GMT, Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
>
>> So, can someone else clarify how they obtain the lower voltages listed
>> on these AA Lithium cells sold in stores? It seems contradictory to
>> the chemistry of these types of cells.
>
> There are many lithium formulations. The one used in AA and AAA
> batteries is quite different. Not only is the battery voltage lower
> (about 1.6 volts) but the low temperature performance is even better
> than the other lithium battery types, being rated for use down to
> 40º below zero.
>
BRRRR! I am NOT going there. It also seems to do well even if left in
a car in Texas this summer. It has been around 100 degrees this week,
and that means temps in a closed car in the sun can exceed 160 degrees
in just a few minutes. The batteries in my GPS receiver are handling
the heat just fine.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 7:08:34 AM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> news:h3g4j1hr040252utvs4c0phh4datn4isfo@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:37:14 GMT, Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
>>
>>> So, can someone else clarify how they obtain the lower voltages
> listed
>>> on these AA Lithium cells sold in stores? It seems contradictory to
>>> the chemistry of these types of cells.
>> There are many lithium formulations. The one used in AA and AAA
>> batteries is quite different. Not only is the battery voltage lower
>> (about 1.6 volts) but the low temperature performance is even better
>> than the other lithium battery types, being rated for use down to
>> 40º below zero.
>
> Today I saw some Energizer lithium AA's, 2 pack 1.5 V online at a store
> here. It said "New" and
> "Advanced" on the pack. Since my Sony rechargeables I now have are 1.2V,
> does that mean that 1.5V AA's are too high for my cameera? Also, on a
> slightly different matter, if I bought a charger that had a capacity of
> 2300 mah (or whatever its called), and I wanted to buy rechargeables for
> it that were 2400 mah, does that mean that charger is not strong enough
> for 2400 mah? If that is the case, and if I want to use 2400 mah or
> 2500 mah, do I need a charger that states it has capacity for 2400 or
> 2500?
>
> Cathy
>
The recharge time would just be longer. If the charger is a 'smart' one
(don't buy anything else), then it will just take a few minutes longer
to charge the batteries to the higher capacity. Kinda like filling a
water bucket...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 12:06:53 PM

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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 03:06:52 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> There are many lithium formulations. The one used in AA and AAA
>> batteries is quite different. Not only is the battery voltage lower
>> (about 1.6 volts) but the low temperature performance is even better
>> than the other lithium battery types, being rated for use down to
>> 40º below zero.
>
> BRRRR! I am NOT going there. It also seems to do well even if left in
> a car in Texas this summer. It has been around 100 degrees this week,
> and that means temps in a closed car in the sun can exceed 160 degrees
> in just a few minutes. The batteries in my GPS receiver are handling
> the heat just fine.

I wouldn't want to go there either. I imagine that the lithiums
could take 160 degrees while not being used (might shorten their
life though). But they're also rated for use up to +140 degrees, so
your GPS would keep on working long after you fried. :) 
!