Why would someone NOT use rechargeable batteries??

[Accipiter22]

Just curious, is there any reason what-so-ever that someone wouldn't use rechargeable batteries? They pay for themselves after like 2 or 3 recharges.

 

[Mrvile]

Because NiMH lose charge if not used for a long time, they're not worth it when used in something like a TV remote, and they usually don't hold as much juice as a good quality alkaline, much less a lithium.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
they're not worth it when used in something like a TV remote

Not if you get a hot deal on good batteries.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
Just curious, is there any reason what-so-ever that someone wouldn't use rechargeable batteries?

Because they're an idiotic, wasteful, mouthbreathing, sodadrinking, chainsmoking, candy-snatching, rat-sucking communist?

 

[krunchykrome]

Laziness

 

[snes tor]

it's like getting a new remote control toy on chrismas morning. You open it up, and see it. Wow you want play with it so bad. Alright let's go. Wait what? I have to wait 4 hours for it to charge? And if I don't it'll run for 5minutes? Aww Man...

Cuz they suck.

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Because NiMH lose charge if not used for a long time, they're not worth it when used in something like a TV remote, and they usually don't hold as much juice as a good quality alkaline, much less a lithium.

really?? I've been using the ones in my Cannon A20 digicam for 5 years, and they hold as much charge as ever..hmmmmm go rayovac

for my 4th grade science fair I compared everready (or whichever battery uses the cat as a symbol), Duracell, and energizer. I tested to see which power a flash light the longest. Energizer lasted longest, however the flashlight dimmed long before the Duracell one started to dim. Thus Duracell provided peak power for longest. Ever-ready or whatever wasn't that far behind either.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
Just curious, is there any reason what-so-ever that someone wouldn't use rechargeable batteries?

Because they're an idiotic, wasteful, mouthbreathing, sodadrinking, chainsmoking, candy-snatching, rat-sucking communist?

That's me

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Because NiMH lose charge if not used for a long time, they're not worth it when used in something like a TV remote, and they usually don't hold as much juice as a good quality alkaline, much less a lithium.

really?? I've been using the ones in my Cannon A20 digicam for 5 years, and they hold as much charge as ever..hmmmmm go rayovac

Well your camera is a high-drain device. Also, when I said they'd lose charge I didn't mean they'd lose maximum charge. I just meant that if you left a set of batteries sitting in, say, a CD player for a year, they would lose a good deal of charge since the last time you used them.

 

[Baked]

I use my rechargeable AAs on everything, including remotes. Yes, I put rechargeable batteries in everything that can use AA, AAA, or 9V. All Maha/PowerEx batteries too. I have 5 sets (20) of AAs, 2 sets (8) of AAAs, and 2 sets (4) of 9Vs.

 

[mercanucaribe]

When 4 AAs cost $12, there is no sense whatsoever in buying alkalines for anything other than remotes and smoke detectors. And I think Nimh has long surpassed alkaline for power capacity.. Of course no one publishes mah ratings for their alkalines.

 

[Rubycon]

Because not everything can run off of them. nimh is 1.2 v/cell whereas alkalines are 1.5. This can affect some devices. Same with lithiums; 3V 123A's vs. R123's that are 3.7-4.2V / cell. With the higher voltages, incandescent flashlights particularly where more than one cell is used in series, can blow the bulb instantly.

High current devices will do very well off nimh chemistry as it will exceed the volt/cell under high loads of alkalines.

 

[DaWhim]

I bought 72 AA battaries and 20 AAA batteries for under $10 from buy.com. then I bought 4 AAA rechargeable batteries for almost $10 from target.

I use it for different purposes. the rechargeable batteries are only for my mp3 player which requires 1 AAA batteries.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I buy batteries maybe once every year or two, if that. There's really no need for me to spend extra money on rechargable batteries + recharger.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Because not everything can run off of them. nimh is 1.2 v/cell whereas alkalines are 1.5. This can affect some devices. Same with lithiums; 3V 123A's vs. R123's that are 3.7-4.2V / cell. With the higher voltages, incandescent flashlights particularly where more than one cell is used in series, can blow the bulb instantly.

High current devices will do very well off nimh chemistry as it will exceed the volt/cell under high loads of alkalines.

Ooooo I like the way you talk

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Because NiMH lose charge if not used for a long time, they're not worth it when used in something like a TV remote, and they usually don't hold as much juice as a good quality alkaline, much less a lithium.

The capacity of NiMH batteries is much greater than alkalines.

 

[secretanchitman]

because after recharging them they hold less charge - thus dying out faster.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Because not everything can run off of them. nimh is 1.2 v/cell whereas alkalines are 1.5. This can affect some devices. Same with lithiums; 3V 123A's vs. R123's that are 3.7-4.2V / cell. With the higher voltages, incandescent flashlights particularly where more than one cell is used in series, can blow the bulb instantly.

High current devices will do very well off nimh chemistry as it will exceed the volt/cell under high loads of alkalines.

That's why I don't use rechargeable batteries. Raovac (spelling?) once came out with a rechargeable 1.5v AA batteries and I did buy those. But after a year either the charger broke or the batteries wouldn't hold any charge. But by that point, the product was taken off the market anyways.

Irregardless, electronics today are so much more power efficient nowadays, I doubt I even go through 5 batteries a year.

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Because not everything can run off of them. nimh is 1.2 v/cell whereas alkalines are 1.5. This can affect some devices. Same with lithiums; 3V 123A's vs. R123's that are 3.7-4.2V / cell. With the higher voltages, incandescent flashlights particularly where more than one cell is used in series, can blow the bulb instantly.

High current devices will do very well off nimh chemistry as it will exceed the volt/cell under high loads of alkalines.

Ooooo I like the way you talk

I second that...seriously Dawn is there anything you don't know?

 

[meltdown75]

Sometimes you need to man up and purchase the Duracells when you forget to charge the digital camera batteries and you're on vacation. It sucks but what the frick are you gonna do when that perfect photo op slaps you in the face? It's time for the copper top or your ass is getting nagged.

 

[Suture]

All I use are rechargables now. I have so many things that need batteries around the house, from remote controls to cameras and game controllers, etc. They're totally worth it. I have a combination of Monster, Duracell, and Energizers. Probably about 30 AAs alone.

 

[SagaLore]

The real question is - why don't we have batteries that "self-charge"? You know, a tiny speck of uranium. The atomic decay would charge a coil, which then is stored into an array of capacitors.

 

[merlocka]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Because NiMH lose charge if not used for a long time, they're not worth it when used in something like a TV remote, and they usually don't hold as much juice as a good quality alkaline, much less a lithium.

The capacity of NiMH batteries is much greater than alkalines.

NiMH lose ~10% of their charge on the first day, and about 1% per day after that. So, they are half dead after 2 months of just sitting.

Alkaline batteries will hold their charge longer, although have a higher probability of corrosion which can lead to failure.

So, both still have their applications. I doubt many people will use NiMH in smoke detectors.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Because NiMH lose charge if not used for a long time, they're not worth it when used in something like a TV remote, and they usually don't hold as much juice as a good quality alkaline, much less a lithium.

I've heard that Sanyo's got some new "super-lattice" thingy with their new NiMH batteries, that is supposed to counter this storage problem. They came out sometime in 2003, and were originally marketed in some kind of fancy plastic package. Eneloop it was called. Now it might just be a part of their regular battery offerings. These mention "super-lattice" in the description. I haven't used any though, so I can't say if they do hold energy longer or not.

Originally posted by: SagaLore
The real question is - why don't we have batteries that "self-charge"? You know, a tiny speck of uranium. The atomic decay would charge a coil, which then is stored into an array of capacitors.

And that tiny speck of uranium would provide only a tiny speck of power. There's really not all that much energy in radioactive decay. The RTGs that go out on spacecraft don't supply a whole lot of power, and they're using plutonium.
From here:
"Each RTG uses the heat generated by the decay of 10.9 kg of plutonium dioxide (PuO2) to generate electrical power to be used throughout the spacecraft. At the beginning of the mission, each RTG was capable of producing 300 W of electrical power."
So you get 300W from 10.9kg of plutonium dioxide.
0.02753 watts per gram. Add to that the casing and electronics to convert the heat of decay into that 300W of electricity, and the overall watts/gram goes down even more.
I've got some 2500mAH AA's here. 2.5AH at 1.2v = 3WH each. Mass, maybe 30 grams. 0.1 watts per gram.

Assuming I've done my math right, that's a win for the AA NiMH battery, without the need for radioactive material.

Plus your battery would now be extremely expensive with its array of capacitors, which will also self-discharge to a degree, and bit of uranium, and a means of converting the energy of radioactive decay into electricity.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Because NiMH lose charge if not used for a long time, they're not worth it when used in something like a TV remote, and they usually don't hold as much juice as a good quality alkaline, much less a lithium.

on the contrary. for most modern digital devices, where there is a do-or-die voltage cut-off for operation, the Ni-MH batteries have a far superior life-span per charge, because they provide nearly their full voltage for a long time, then die quickly. alkalines taper off slowly right from the start, meaning you dip below your device's threshold much sooner.