From: Ron Hunter on
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter(a)charter.net> wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would too. Getting 4 AA batteries for the same price as 4 AAA
>>>> batteries is always a good value!
>>>> Perhaps there should be more package choices...
>>> I want more AAAs! I put four into a remote, then two into two MP3
>>> players my kids have use one AAAs.
>> For the alkaline AA and AAA batteries, I watch for sales, and usually
>> get them for about $.30 each. Nothing exotic, just Walgreens, or CVS.
>> For the applications where alkaline batteries are the best value, I find
>> these prices reasonable. Because NiMH Batteries are so long-lasting, I
>> rarely have to buy them. Still, for things like clocks, they are a
>> better fit than NiMH batteries.
>
> Put an Eneloop in your clocks and you might change your mind. At $0.30 cents
> per alkaline, it will pay for itself in 9 charges ... so the remaining 491
> charges are free ;-) Granted, you will probably only have to charge the
> battery every 7 or 8 months :-)
>
Let's see. 491 charges at, say 1 recharge/6 months (to make the math
easy) is 245 years. I am 64, so unless I plan to live about another 100
years, it probably isn't worth the difference, not to mention the
hassle. Some things just don't make sense for the 'real world'.
From: Ron Hunter on
SMS wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Still, compared with regular NiMH batteries, 500 charges from an
>>>> Eneloop battery would be better than 1000 from a regular NiMH
>>>> battery, at least the way I use the batteries.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> In reality, most people will get far more life out of an Eneloop
>>> because they'll be charging them a lot less.
>>
>> A darn sight less aggravation, too!
>
> That's really the big advantage (as well as not throwing more alkalines
> into the landfill). What some people don't realize is that not everyone
> wants to become a battery hobbyist, devising elaborate methods for
> rotations, top-up charges, matching battery capacities, and keeping
> batteries in sets. All that hassle goes away with eneloop.

Well, not ALL of it. One still has to recharge now and then, which IS
more trouble than just replacing the old batteries with a new set. But
it surely does simplify the process. I suspect that some 'warts' will
show up with the Eneloop batteries in a couple of years, and they may
well require matching of capacities. Still, they are a great benefit
for those who use their cameras irregularly.
From: Ron Hunter on
SMS wrote:
> Bill Tuthill wrote:
>> John Turco <jtur(a)concentric.net> wrote:
>>> Sorry, man, but I've gone through the hassles of Li-Ion packs, with
>>> my Kodak digicams that use them (P850, DX6490 and V603). They may have
>>> their place, and yet, I'm still glad I'll be able to stick ubiquitous
>>> AA batteries, in my new Pentax 6.1 megapixel DSLR.
>>
>> I suspect everybody who has owned a digicam for more than 3-4 years
>> feels that way.
>
> You suspect wrong. I've had a Canon G2 for more than five years. I still
> use it a lot. I've bought two batteries in those five years, one for a
> spare, and one as a replacement, for a total cost of about $25 including
> shipping.
>
> In the mean time, the AA powered cameras are rarely used any more. Too
> much of a hassle dealing with AA cells. Now with the eneloop batteries
> the situation is improved and one of them gets used more by my son.
>
> There are very good reasons why virtually every new D-SLR (except
> Pentax) and most higher end point and shoot cameras use Li-Ion packs.
> Consumers don't want to put up with the hassle of AA cells.

It might also be due to most DSLRs being used in 'studio' applications.
In the field, AA batteries may be preferable due to their ubiquitous
availability.
From: Ron Hunter on
ASAAR wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:20:56 GMT, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>> Put an Eneloop in your clocks and you might change your mind.
>> At $0.30 cents per alkaline, it will pay for itself in 9 charges ... so
>> the remaining 491 charges are free ;-) Granted, you will probably
>> only have to charge the battery every 7 or 8 months :-)
>
> There are clocks and there are clocks. I bought a pair made by
> Casio about 16 years ago. They use a single AA battery and are
> electronic (LCD display) rather than mechanical. So far I've only
> had to change the batteries in each twice. If eneloops were used in
> these, I might have to recharge them once every two years.
> Correction. Change "have to" to "want to" :)
>
I have a little 'egg clock' that eats a set of AAA alkaline batteries in
about 2-3 months (it lights when touched). Will probably put eneloops
in it next time.
From: ASAAR on
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:56:36 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> There are clocks and there are clocks. I bought a pair made by
>> Casio about 16 years ago. They use a single AA battery and are
>> electronic (LCD display) rather than mechanical. So far I've only
>> had to change the batteries in each twice. If eneloops were used in
>> these, I might have to recharge them once every two years.
>> Correction. Change "have to" to "want to" :)
>
> I have a little 'egg clock' that eats a set of AAA alkaline batteries in
> about 2-3 months (it lights when touched). Will probably put eneloops
> in it next time.

Yep. There's no one rule that fits all. Any type of AA/AAA
battery can be preferable, and if the drain is extremely low, as in
the clocks I mentioned above, even cheap non-alkaline batteries (aka
Heavy Duty) can perform very well. I discovered this about 15 years
ago when the first AAA battery I used in a new (gray market), tiny
Sony AM/FM radio was one of those cheap non-alkalines. I expected
that I'd have to replace the single AAA cell within a few hours, but
to my surprise, it lasted, over a period of several weeks, for about
40 to 50 hours. An alkaline AAA wouldn't have done much better.
How long do estimate the batteries would last in your 'egg clock' if
it was used very infrequently, say, once/month?