Do not buy gadgets having proprietary batteries

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:09:27 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

> Wow! That iAudio G3 also sounds really nice. The iRiver T10 only comes in
> 512kb, 1GB and 2GB versions (those 2GB versions might be fake, I am not
> sure). That T60 also sounds very nice as well. Sorry to hear about the small
> displays, I'm very nearsighted so small is just fine with me. Does either
> have FM and record from them too? The T10 can record up to 4 hours with the
> timer. It doesn't run out of memory, that is all it allows on the timer.
> Sometimes I wish for more, but that is why I have more of them.

Both have FM and record mp3 or wav files at user specified bit
rates. There's no time limit that I'm aware of other than available
memory and battery power. To get around the battery power problem,
you could use the Zoom H2 Handy Recorder. As a portable recorder
it's pretty poor, getting only 4 hours from a pair of AA batteries
and it has no built-in memory, relying instead on SD or SDHC cards.
But with the included wall-wart power supply it can record single
audio files that are many hundreds of hours long. Stereo mp3 files
ranging from 48 to 320kbps (and VBR), and 16 and 24 bit wav files at
44.1, 48 or 96khz with "Time Stamp and Track Marker functions in
Broadcast WAV Format (BWF)". For wav formats, the H2's four stereo
mic. capsules allow for choices such as Front 90° Cardioid, Rear
120° Cardioid and Surround 360° polar patterns. It also has a
mini-plug socket for external stereo microphones (with or without
plug-in power) and a line level input, normally used with CD
players, but perfectly matched to my radio's line level output (the
Sony AM/FM/SW/LW ICF-SW7600GR), and a socket for monitoring using
either headphones or as a regular line out. It's also relatively
inexpensive (somewhere between $150 and $200, IIRC) and also
available from either B&H and J&R.

---

› See More: Do not buy gadgets having proprietary batteries

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:44:35 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Perhaps you can explain how one could get 3 AAA cells into a phone the
> size of the Motorola RAZR. Do that, and I would be a likely customer.
> Until then, the lithium ion batteries are the best answer, and lighter
> as well.

You can have the RAZR if you want one. That's a 'stylish' phone
almost designed to be worn as jewelry, and marketed as such.

Today's cell phones could easily get good life and performance
from only two AAA cells, and if that would result in more weight
than you can tolerate (your self-imposed weakness standards are
legendary), you wouldn't be able to hold and eat a fried chicken
leg, but would have to use a knife and fork (using light plastic or
aluminum utensils) to cut the chicken into dainty, bite-sized
morsels. Come to think of it, your P&S cameras are probably larger
and heavier than the little cell phones using 2 AA batteries would
be. What are you, some kind of commie-pinko Texan? Everybody knows
that for Texans, size matters. But not the way you measure it.
You're a traitor to your state. Get some exercise, couch potato,
and with something other than a knife and fork.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ron Hunter <[email protected]> wrote:
> ASAAR wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:50:26 -0400, U*U earned a 'D' by writing:

>>>> Am I really talking about battery legislation here? I am indeed, and
>>>> doing my best not to come off as old-fartish as Andy Rooney while
>>>> doing so. What do you think do you agree with me, or did I just
>>>> waste 15 minutes of your life on an absurdly inane issue? Let me hear
>>>> it!
>>> Even Andy Rooney is laughing at you!!! I am to trade of my slim LithION
>>> cellphone battery for what "AA" batteries, oh wait better be "D cells" to
>>> get decent battery life.

>> Nice theory, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
>> Years ago I had a small, slim Nokia phone that used a NiMH battery
>> pack that when opened revealed essentially three AAA NiMH cells.
>> Battery talk and standby time was good (it only needed to be
>> recharged weekly), and it supported both digital and analog
>> networks. Cell phones aren't used like cameras, so despite the NiMH
>> cells of that time having fairly high self-discharge rates, it had
>> no measurable negative impact. Today's Eneloop AAA cells have
>> higher capacity as well as lower self-discharge rates than Li-Ion
>> batteries. With such small battery requirements, Li-Ion's lighter
>> weight hardly matters, unless you're dealing with sub-miniature
>> electronic devices intended to attach to, or dangle from ears.
>>
>> Li-Ion batteries have some nice properties, but low cost isn't
>> often the case. The last several cell phones I've used had
>> replacement batteries priced so high that I've never bought any of
>> them. Instead, I've wastefully purchased complete duplicate cell
>> phones, including chargers, manuals and new batteries for anywhere
>> from 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of just the proprietary battery.
>>
>> The Panasonic portable phone I bought earlier this year has
>> excellent battery life, and I can use it for hours with the battery
>> indicator never showing that the capacity has been reduced by more
>> than one segment. The batteries will probably last many years but
>> when they're eventually replaced I won't have to worry about whether
>> any expensive, proprietary, batteries can still be found, since it
>> uses just two 630mAH NiMH AAA cells. Today's AAA NiMH cells are
>> very inexpensive (just a couple of dollars) and have capacities at
>> least up to 1,000mAH. Even low self-discharge AAA Eneloops have
>> significantly higher capacity, 800 mAH, but even that's overkill
>> since today's phones (and cameras too) use so much less power than
>> they used to.
>>
>> I noticed that you removed sci.chem.electrochem.battery and some
>> other newsgroups from the OP's original list, substituting for them
>> alt.usenet.kooks. Would that happen to be your home base?
>>
> Perhaps you can explain how one could get 3 AAA cells into a phone the
> size of the Motorola RAZR. Do that, and I would be a likely customer.
> Until then, the lithium ion batteries are the best answer, and lighter
> as well.

I had a mobile phone whose battery was part of the removable
back. That meant you could get much longer lasting batteries which
made the phone fatter. One third party battery supplier knocked up a
very long life back which contained three AA cells. It made the phone
the size of a packet of cigarettes, but the batteries lasted me over
three weeks of normal use, and over a month if I remembered to switch
it off at night.

I loved that long battery life so much I didn't mind the bulk and
weight at all. What was especially nice was being able to go on
holiday or business trips without needing to worry about either spare
batteries or a charger. If they made such an accessory for my current
phone I'd buy it immediately.

--
Chris Malcolm

added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

> source:
> http://www.popsci.com/gear-amp-gadge...08-10/double-o
> k
>
> I bet the ’80s was a good decade for Energizer, Duracell and
> their ilk. I mean, it was a good decade for sharkskin, too,
> but the ’80s had to be the absolute peak for these battery
> makers. Suddenly, it seemed like everything required portable
> juice: that new-fangled wireless TV remote, the Walkman, my
> futuristic calculator watch and, of course, all of those
> awesomely high-tech electronic toys like Simon (which actually
> had its launch party at Studio 54!).
>
> Well, Energizer’s mascot might not have changed since then,
> but times sure have. Today, I can’t even count the number of
> portable electronic gadgets I own—each of them requiring its
> own on-the-go power source. And yet, I probably buy fewer than
> 10 batteries per year. Even then I’m only buying them for my
> two TV remotes, smoke alarm and flashlight— things that
> haven’t changed much since the ’80s.
>
> Nowadays, proprietary batteries are forced upon us by the
> manufacturers of the very devices we need them for. What’s
> worse, these batteries are in many cases impossible to replace
> without performing major surgery on your gadget’s delicate
> innards (ahem, Apple). While this is quite the cozy and
> convenient situation for manufacturers, I can’t help but feel
> screwed. And I don’t like feeling screwed…
>
> Where’s the beef? C’mon, that should be obvious. Anyone who’s
> ever traveled from Point A to B knows the misery of lugging
> around the cable salad of different proprietary chargers for a
> laptop, cell phone, digital camera, iPod and portable gaming
> unit. I roll up and pack each and every one of these chargers
> with me on even the briefest of excursions; I’m sure you do
> too. We’ve all been there. We’ve all had a gadget die on us
> and not had its charger on hand. For me, it wasn’t as tragic a
> scenario as having my digital camera conk out on vacation, but
> it was painful nonetheless. I recently traveled to Europe and,
> in the rush to get to the airport, neglected to pack my iPod
> charger. So, while I rocked all the way to Heathrow, the
> flight back was far less enjoyable. What were my options,
> after all? I could have gone without, or I could have
> purchased a new charger. For iPod owners, that’s now a
> two-part kick in gut: the USB cable, plus the USB-
> to-power-outlet thingamajig. That’s a £40 expenditure at the
> apple.com/ uk store, so it would have cost me about $80. No
> thanks.
>
> Some time in the early part of this decade I owned a digital
> camera by Olympus that accepted standard batteries. If the
> battery ran out on me during a trip, I could buy a new one at
> any drug store and be on my way. That’s a right I’d like back.
> If my iPod dies, I shouldn’t have to wait until I get home or
> near a power outlet to use it again. If my cell phone sputters
> out while traveling, I shouldn’t be forced to locate a Best
> Buy or Verizon store in order to shell out a new charger. Why
> have we accepted this completely unnecessary inconvenience as
> a fact of life?
>
> I saw an ad recently for Energizer’s new Ultimate Lithium
> batteries, which are designed specifically for digital
> devices. Duracell has something similar called PowerPix, which
> is a line geared for cameras. Panasonic makes the
> gadget-friendly EVOLTA. Problem solved, right? Wrong. I can’t
> find more than a handful of products that actually use these
> batteries. Energizer’s site lists a few Nikon cameras, a
> Motorola Bluetooth headset, a GPS unit from Bushnell and some
> LEGO robots. Duracell’s site doesn’t bother listing anything
> at all, and Panasonic’s EVOLTA site only goes so far as to
> show a remote- controlled car and a no-name digital camera,
> both of which I suspect are stock photography. Typing a
> hundred variations of “AA batteries portable electronics” into
> Google is a completely fruitless endeavor.
>
> It’s too bad these battery makers have close to no support
> from the electronics industry—but it’s understandable why.
> Electronics manufacturers make boatloads forcing us to buy
> their chargers and replacement batteries, which they have a
> convenient monopoly on. Plus, proprietary batteries are
> essentially custom made for the gadgets they’re powering,
> which is why our electronic toys have continued to shrink in
> size over the years. Think about how bloated your iPhone would
> be if it had to accommodate a chamber for two AA bullets.
> Energizer and Duracell could easily make a universal
> slim-profile battery and make it available everywhere. But,
> what incentive would there be for gadget manufacturers to make
> their products work with it?
>
> Sadly, our power liberation won’t come without
> standardization, and standardization won’t come without
> legislation. Without laws forcing manufacturers to make their
> products compatible with a standard battery size, this notion
> of mine will remain forever a pipe dream. So here it is: I’m
> calling for a new battery size—let’s call it “G” for Grouse.
> It’s super slim, it’s available in both rechargeable and
> disposable flavors, it’s available anywhere you can buy toilet
> paper and it’s compatible with all digital cameras, cell
> phones, handheld media players and portable game consoles. And
> because it’s manufactured by different vendors, it’s
> affordable.
>
> Am I really talking about battery legislation here? I am
> indeed, and doing my best not to come off as old-fartish as
> Andy Rooney while doing so. What do you think – do you agree
> with me, or did I just waste 15 minutes of your life on an
> absurdly inane issue? Let me hear it!
>
think about this out-of-the-box some. it is often true that prior
to development of unversal batteries of a particular new
technology, product inventors have a need for that much power and
long life. that, coupled with space constraints in the product
often require creation of proprietary batteries.

what is better to you, having standard batteries or a new,
unique, and highly useful product? examples abound including
digital cameras, battery power tools, electric toothbrushes, even
powered liquid soap containers. if the product first invented
takes off and the inventor creates an entire line of new products
such as power tools, then the proprietary battery becomes
amortized across all the tools you buy.

so, I think your rant is that of a truculent troll who can't
stand the fact that invention of better mousetraps trumps the
warped views of product misanthropes. nice try, no cigar.

or, are you a Far Left Loon Hussein OBama freak that supports yet
another Socialist attack on freedom of choice? want that, move to
Canada or the UK. if you want to live here, believe in the free
market system and quitcher *****in'


--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:44:35 -0500, Ron Hunter <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Perhaps you can explain how one could get 3 AAA cells into a phone the
>size of the Motorola RAZR. Do that, and I would be a likely customer.
>Until then, the lithium ion batteries are the best answer, and lighter
>as well.

No reason why the phone manufacturers couldn't come up with a new
standard battery size. Even if you take phones of a similar size from
the same manufacturer the batteries are incompatible.

<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:44:35 -0500, Ron Hunter <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you can explain how one could get 3 AAA cells into a phone the
>>size of the Motorola RAZR. Do that, and I would be a likely customer.
>>Until then, the lithium ion batteries are the best answer, and lighter
>>as well.
>
> No reason why the phone manufacturers couldn't come up with a new
> standard battery size. Even if you take phones of a similar size from
> the same manufacturer the batteries are incompatible.

Yep. And over here (Japan), the cell phone battery situation is even
battier.

Our CEO has been complaining that her cell phone doesn't hold much of a
charge, so she's going to buy a new cell phone. Sheesh, that's nuts, I say,
replace the battery. No its not, she says. The provider has a "points"
system (like airline miles) and they'll give her a new cell phone. But she
has to pay for the battery, which would be US$50 or so.

Sheesh.

--
David J. Littleboy
Who refuses to buy a cell phone in
Tokyo, Japan

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d6951e71-e3cb-4d8e-8a70-65653e34b3e4@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
source: http://www.popsci.com/gear-amp-gadge...8-10/double-ok

I bet the ’80s was a good decade for Energizer, Duracell and their
ilk. I mean, it was a good decade for sharkskin, too, but the ’80s had
to be the absolute peak for these battery makers. Suddenly, it seemed
like everything required portable juice: that new-fangled wireless TV
remote, the Walkman, my futuristic calculator watch and, of course,
all of those awesomely high-tech electronic toys like Simon (which
actually had its launch party at Studio 54!).


Studio 54 - I went there in 1984 - what ****hole!



SNIP - long rant

NiCd - good for high current draw, poor for low current due to self leakage,
"memory effect" and low cell voltage (~1.2V).

NiMH - Better than the above - higher energy density and voltage.

Lithium - highest energy density. Not a direct replacement due to much
higher cell voltage (~3V). Also much lighter.

There is a tendency for gadget makers to go for proprietary chargers and
batteries. For main stream products alternative compatible batteries
usually become available at modest cost before too long.

Bad luck if you just bought an obscure make cam corder or similar...

"R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I bet the ’80s was a good decade for Energizer, Duracell and their
>ilk.... but the ’80s had to be the absolute peak for these battery makers.

You obviously don't have grandkids. Toys one big market. It's hard to
find toys these days that don't need batteries. I spend far more on
Duracells than all my encapsulated batteries combined. One website
puts alkalines at 7.5 Billion consumed a year. I believe it. Smoke
alarms, TV remotes, flashlights, cameras, mp3 players, radios, fade to
black as the list continues...

In news:[email protected],
AJL typed on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:17:03 -0700:
> "R. Mark Clayton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I bet the '80s was a good decade for Energizer, Duracell and their
>> ilk.... but the '80s had to be the absolute peak for these battery
>> makers.
>
> You obviously don't have grandkids. Toys one big market. It's hard to
> find toys these days that don't need batteries. I spend far more on
> Duracells than all my encapsulated batteries combined. One website
> puts alkalines at 7.5 Billion consumed a year. I believe it. Smoke
> alarms, TV remotes, flashlights, cameras, mp3 players, radios, fade to
> black as the list continues...

Why not invest into rechargeables? I had some last over 30 years. Although
they are only supposed to last about 7 years according to some circles. And
don't buy those alkaline rechargeables. I'm talking about Ni-MH. Ni-Cads are
okay too, but Ni-MH is better most of the time.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2

"ASAAR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:44:35 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you can explain how one could get 3 AAA cells into a phone the
>> size of the Motorola RAZR. Do that, and I would be a likely customer.
>> Until then, the lithium ion batteries are the best answer, and lighter
>> as well.
>
> You can have the RAZR if you want one. That's a 'stylish' phone
> almost designed to be worn as jewelry, and marketed as such.
>
> Today's cell phones could easily get good life and performance
> from only two AAA cells, and if that would result in more weight
> than you can tolerate (your self-imposed weakness standards are
> legendary), you wouldn't be able to hold and eat a fried chicken
> leg, but would have to use a knife and fork (using light plastic or
> aluminum utensils) to cut the chicken into dainty, bite-sized
> morsels. Come to think of it, your P&S cameras are probably larger
> and heavier than the little cell phones using 2 AA batteries would
> be. What are you, some kind of commie-pinko Texan? Everybody knows
> that for Texans, size matters. But not the way you measure it.
> You're a traitor to your state. Get some exercise, couch potato,
> and with something other than a knife and fork.
>
>
Nokia proved with the 5110 in 1997 the viability of the 3 x NiMH
or 1 x Li-ion, 3.6volt battery configuration.
The advantage is in cold climates where Li-ion fail to work,
3 x NiMH cells can be substituted.

Ericsson for years refused to use li-ion because of it's low temperature
failings

The only 2x NiMH cell, phone produced proved a dead end,
The Nokia 3210 running on 2.4v could not use a 3.6v Li-ion cell

Steve Terry

"Fewer than..." instead of "less than", "the '80s" instead of "the
80's"?
What are you, a literate person?

Anyway, my beef is with built-in batteries, inaccessible by the user,
such as are found in the iPod, I believe.

But I agree with you on the need for more standardization.

> Nowadays, proprietary batteries are forced upon us by the
> manufacturers of the very devices we need them for. What’s worse,
> these batteries are in many cases impossible to replace without
> performing major surgery on your gadget’s delicate innards (ahem,
> Apple). While this is quite the cozy and convenient situation for
> manufacturers, I can’t help but feel screwed. And I don’t like feeling
> screwed…

I'm not sure the situation is as bad as you make out.

I have a Nokia Mobile Phone, Nintendo DS, TomTom, iPod Video, Digital Camera
and probably one or two other bits and pieces I forgot to mention.

Do I need 5 chargers? No.

Let's say I'm in my car. I have a car charger that gives me a USB port, and
from this USB port I can charge my iPod, using its USB cable, the Nintendo,
using a USB-DS connector cable which I picked up on eBay for a few pounds,
the TomTom, using the TomTom's USB-Mini USB cable, and the Nokia, using the
USB-Nokia adaptor cable.

If I'm not in my car, then I will at least have access to an electric
socket. And guess what, I have a second USB adapter thingy but instead of a
car lighter plug, it has a 3 pin socket.

So unless I'm on a very long plane journey or something without access to a
car lighter socket or a mains socket, and unless I've used up all my
gadgets' battery lives on the journey, I don't see this as a major problem.

USB has gone a long way to standardising power supply and charging, so it's
not so much a case of having 5 chargers, it's a case of having 5 cables,
which I can just about live with. I get the little retractable ones too so
5 of these will easily fit in a small bag or box.

Oh, but what about the digital camera? Well I'm in two minds about this.
On the one hand I like the idea of a camera that operates on standard AA
batteries. As you say, you can find them anywhere and they're fairly
inexpensive.

On the other hand, standard AA batteries, even Duracells or other brands
that are supposed to give long life, just don't give you anywhere near the
sort of battery life you need. I've regularly used various Canon and Fuji
models, and it's using a proprietary battery then realistically you need to
be using rechargeable AAs to get any decent battery life at all.

Of course, we don't want to lug around rechargeable batteries and a charger
for that or we're defeating our own objective. So what's my solution?
USBCells. In my opinion one of the best inventions of the last 5 years. So
simple really when you think about it but someone actually had to go ahead
and do it. So I can recharge my AA size USBCells from the USB charger as
well, and they give a decent battery life.

If I'm on the road and am using my laptop too, I can recharge the USBCells
from the Laptop USB ports as an alternative. As for the laptop itself, well
I have an Main Voltage inverter which I can plug into the lighter socket
which gives me a 3-pin mains socket. I can run a 4-gang extension socket
off of that and plug one of the USB chargers into one socket there, whilst
charging my laptop battery with its own charger.

The possibilities are there, you just have to think around the problem
sometimes.

Tanel.

[email protected] wrote:

> Sadly, our power liberation won’t come without standardization, and
> standardization won’t come without legislation. Without laws forcing
> manufacturers to make their products compatible with a standard
> battery size, this notion of mine will remain forever a pipe dream. So
> here it is: I’m calling for a new battery size—let’s call it “G” for
> Grouse. It’s super slim, it’s available in both rechargeable and
> disposable flavors, it’s available anywhere you can buy toilet paper
> and it’s compatible with all digital cameras, cell phones, handheld
> media players and portable game consoles. And because it’s
> manufactured by different vendors, it’s affordable.
>
> Am I really talking about battery legislation here?

In China, there is a requirement that low current chargers use a USB
plug of some sort.

I guess you could get the government involved in setting a standard for
Li-Ion battery packs of different voltages and capacities, but I'm not
sure that you'd end up with anything much better than you have now.
Don't believe for a moment that one single size will be sufficient,
you're going to need many different sizes. If you buy the most popular
devices you're already able to buy after-market Li-Ion packs at very low
prices.

You can still buy digital cameras that use AA batteries. They aren't
popular because for small cameras the AA batteries are two big, and
because there are such overwhelming advantages to Li-Ion batteries
versus NiMH or non-rechargeable AA cells.

I see the problem not as one of the batteries, because as you said you
rarely have to replace the battery, but one of all the different
chargers for devices with internally recharged batteries. That's where
some standards like China's would be good.

Steve
"http://batterydata.com"

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:40:12 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in part:
> You can still buy digital cameras that use AA batteries. They aren't
> popular because for small cameras the AA batteries are two big,
So make the cameras use AAA if they REALLY need to be small. (In most
cases I'd prefer C or D size power for my SLR, so I could get 4 to 10
times the shots for the same money and weight (since I have to carry
more spares with the smaller batteries.)

(For my family's Sony DSC T-n00 cameras I'd go with AAA instead of AA
cells for $3 a set compared to $30 a set for proprietary. Note
that the T-100 and T-300 use different proprietary batteries.)
> and
> because there are such overwhelming advantages to Li-Ion batteries
> versus NiMH or non-rechargeable AA cells.
Why cant the Li-Ion batteries be in standard sizes?
> Steve
> "http://batterydata.com"

In news:[email protected],
Mark F typed on Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:50:23 -0500:
> Why cant the Li-Ion batteries be in standard sizes?

Eveready sells Lithium in AA size since '88.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A96E948260

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 8GB
Windows XP SP2 and Xandros Linux


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **