From: allr1 on

caught(a)22.com (ASAAR)

" What would require limitless circuitry and intelligence is trying to
figure out why you've apparently dedicated your life to deifying Li-Ion
batteries and at the same time fabricating bogus or trivial AA battery
drawbacks to buttress you bias. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

One would hope he sells them, or has stock
in a company that sells them.

There's really no other good reason to do so.

From: John Turco on
SMS wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote:
> > SMS wrote:
> >
> > <heavily edited, for brevity>
> >
> >> It's not for no reason that all the high end cameras use Li-Ion, not to
> >> mention all cell phones, PDAs, laptop computers, etc. Even some
> >> high end flashlights and bicycle lights now use Li-Ion rechargeables.
> >
> >
> > Hello, Steven:
> >
> > Wow, I guess my tiny Kodak V603 is a "high end camera," then, as it
> > takes a proprietary Li-Ion pack. Wonder why it only cost me $124.98
> > USD (on clearance, at the local Target store), in April? <g>
>
> Yes, it's not just high-end cameras that use Li-Ion, the tiny cameras
> really have no choice but to use Li-Ion because of size and energy
> density issues.
>
> But on the non-tiny cameras, you'll usually find that the higher-end
> ones use Li-Ion, and the lower end ones use AA's. There are exceptions
> of course.


Hello, Steven:

Good call. The V603's overall dimensions - 4" (9.2 cm) x 2" (5 cm) x 1"
(2.2 cm), lens retracted - >do< preclude the use of AA cells, at that.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur(a)concentric.net>
From: John Turco on
ASAAR wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 2007 10:34:29 -0700, the SMS nitrogen factory emitted:
>
> >> There is enough bullshit above to start a fertilizer farm!!!!
> >
> > LOL, maybe you'd like to point out anything there that isn't true.
> > Didn't think so.
>
> I've pointed out your spin and mistruths quite often to all of
> your points, and not long after I started doing so, you either
> stopped reading my replies or are faking it. The question should be
> "Can you handle the truth?". Don't think so.


Hello, ASAAR:

As I'm sure you were quite aware, already, Steven M. Sharf killfiled
you, long ago. Hence, your many subsequent responses to him, are merely
for the purported benefit of this newsgroup's members, no? :-)


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur(a)concentric.net>
From: John Turco on
SMS wrote:

<edited, for brevity>

> It isn't the issue of too low of power, it's more a mechanical issue,
> one that most of us have experienced on battery powered devices. Look at
> the most commonly replaced part on AA powered digital cameras--it's the
> spring contact battery cover. It has constant pressure against it, and
> it's flimsy plastic. It's even worse if the the part that breaks is tabs
> in the camera body rather than tabs on the replaceable battery door. On
> cameras that use Li-Ion packs, the battery cover is usually not holding
> the battery contacts against the contacts inside the camera.
>
> Steve
> http://batterydata.com


Hello, Steven:

However true that may be, it's apparently because of a lucrative racket,
created by the various camera manufacturers, themselves. They willfully
designed laughably shoddy, easily breakable battery doors, simply in
order to sell more replacement parts.

It's even led to a thriving aftermarket, for numerous eBay vendors, as
well.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur(a)concentric.net>
From: Ron Hunter on
SMS wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> I agree that a visual/audible alarm is a good idea, but for those who
>> DO know something about how the engine actually works, a gauge can
>> provide much better information than a simple light.
>
> There's no reason not to have a gauge, a warning light, and an audible
> alarm. I think most cars still have a temperature gauge, but how many
> people glance at it very often? Most vehicles no longer have an ammeter,
> voltage, or oil pressure gauge.
>
True, and very unfortunate, in my opinion, but then I have driven cars
without automatic spark advance, so my opinion is colored by my age, I
suppose.