LiON battery recharging - what strategy should I use?

Dev/Null wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ie3184lsol1fe3uvsgvvtrn6bve5glpsrm@4ax.com...
>> Al Dykes writes:
>>
>> I don't really understand why manufacturers love rechargeables so much.
>> What's wrong with two AA batteries?
>>
>
> AA Alkalines don't have the deep cycle that cameras and other tech toys
> require, but at $1 each x 4 (my camera uses) x 300 uses = $1,200
> at is pretty expensive versus rechargables, mind you my last name isn't
> DuraCell
>
>
>
If you are paying $1 each for alkaline batteries, you really need to
watch the ads. I usually draw the line at $.39, and that is for
DuraCell, or similar.

In article <fOKdndYD5JZDihzVnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@giganews.com>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>> I just bought a new digi camera and a second battery pack. The
>> literature says the batteries are good for "300 cycles", FWIW.
>>
>> Should I run the battery in the camera flat before I switch to the
>> second one or should I do a top-off charge on every pack when it's
>> been used for more than a few shots?
>>
>> The camera gets used daily for a few shots but I do an outing that
>> runs a fully charged pack to zero only every coouple months. I like
>> to carry two packs because (a) I distrust rechargables having the
>> charge I think they should have and (b) on occasion I get sucked into
>> something on very short notice that needs a full battery, if not more.
>>
>> I'm not going to get anal on this. A new battery pack is only about 30
>> bucks.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>OK. A few facts.
>Lithium Ion rechargeables have a basic life of 3 years in normal use.
>Charge cycles don't make a lot of difference as most devices that use
>them insist you recharge when the power drops to about 20%, so you can
>recharge daily, if you want to.
>If you will multiply the number of shots you get when you run the
>battery down to the point where it indicates it needs recharging, by the
>number of 'cycles' (300), I suspect that will exceed the number of
>pictures you will likely do with that camera. Given that you have two
>batteries, I don't think you really need to worry about this issue, but
>you should be aware that BOTH the batteries, regardless of use, will
>probably lose more than 50% of their charge capacity over 3 years.
>



Thanks. That jives with my experience with teh Canon 30 rebel that
just died. Thetwo batteries were pretty lame and I was lucky, for a
change, in t hat I didn't buy a new battery.


--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

On 19/07/2008 05:04 ASAAR wrote:
>
>> Also Li-Ion batteries store more energy for their physical volume
>> than ->ALKALINES<-.
>
> That may have been true several years ago, but in that time my
> NiMH AA cells have had an increase in capacity from about 1,000mAh
> to today's 2,700mAh. FWIW, I was quite surprised a week or two ago
> when I found that instead of using relatively large proprietary
> rechargeable batteries, many of today's portable phones from
> Panasonic and other companies are now being supplied with only two
> AAA NiMH cells, and getting very good talk and standby time from
> them. It's still true though that for the same physical volume,
> Li-Ion batteries weigh much less than alkaline or NiMH cells.
>

I didn't say AA cells, I said ALKALINE cells.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:17:16 +1000, Bob Parker wrote:

>>> Also Li-Ion batteries store more energy for their physical volume
>>> than ->ALKALINES<-.
>>
>> That may have been true several years ago, but in that time my
>> NiMH AA cells have had an increase in capacity from about 1,000mAh
>> to today's 2,700mAh. FWIW, I was quite surprised a week or two ago
>> when I found that instead of using relatively large proprietary
>> rechargeable batteries, many of today's portable phones from
>> Panasonic and other companies are now being supplied with only two
>> AAA NiMH cells, and getting very good talk and standby time from
>> them. It's still true though that for the same physical volume,
>> Li-Ion batteries weigh much less than alkaline or NiMH cells.
>>
>
> I didn't say AA cells, I said ALKALINE cells.

Ah, so you did. Sorry. But Li-Ion batteries don't actually store
that much more energy than alkaline batteries. Alkalines have a
relatively high internal resistance, so much of their energy can be
wasted if they're used in devices that have moderately high current
requirements. Non-rechargeable lithium AA cells have about the same
capacity as alkaline AA cells, but tend to last much longer in
cameras than alkalines. But in very low drain devices such as many
clocks and smoke detectors there won't be much of a difference in
battery life. Li-Ion batteries wouldn't be a good choice for use in
such devices for a number of reasons.

Dev/Null writes:

> AA Alkalines don't have the deep cycle that cameras and other tech toys
> require, but at $1 each x 4 (my camera uses) x 300 uses = $1,200
> at is pretty expensive versus rechargables, mind you my last name isn't
> DuraCell

I was thinking of lithium AA batteries. They are light, they can provide a
great deal of current, and they last a lot longer than alkalines, although
they are also more expensive (about $4 each).

So, Anthony, what's your question? Sounds like you got a new toy- maybe you
can hang out here and annoy the photographers for a while and give the
pilots a break.

For those unfamiliar, Anthony has trolled the aviation groups for a while,
yet he doesn't fly and never has. He will ask a presuming innocent question,
and then follow on with how the responders are all wrong and don't know as
much as he, even though his only flying experience is through playing
computer games.

His annoying posting style has resulted in the near demise of the NG. Just
wait and watch.

tnom@mucks.net wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:34:26 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> I don't really understand why manufacturers love rechargeables so much.
>>> What's wrong with two AA batteries?
>> As far as Li-Ion there are a lot of reasons:
>>
>> 1. Much lower self-discharge rate (except for newer Hybrio and eneloop
>> NiMH cells, which trade low self-discharge for lower capacity)
>
> So a Li-Ion battery has a lower self discharge rate than an AA
> alkaline? I don't think so.

No, but an alkaline can't supply sufficient current for very long to a
digital camera due to high internal resistance.

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:33:00 -0700, SMS babbled:

>> So a Li-Ion battery has a lower self discharge rate than an AA
>> alkaline? I don't think so.
>
> No, but an alkaline can't supply sufficient current for very long to a
> digital camera due to high internal resistance.

You're both wrong. Being non-rechargeable, alkalines have
extremely low self-discharge rates which determines their shelf
life. As you well know, it's 8 years or longer, and Li-Ion
batteries don't come close to matching that. In well designed
cameras that draw very low currents when powered off, just enough to
keep memory and clocks chips alive, alkalines can remain viable for
several years in their cameras and still take pictures. Do that
with Li-Ion batteries and their self-discharge will result in
self-destruction.

As for your last point, it's just more of your predictable
nonsense. NO battery technology can provide current for very long
if the current demand is too high. Some batteries overheat. Many
years ago alkaline batteries weren't practical in cameras that drew
so much current and had such high voltage requirements that
batteries could sometimes last for only a dozen or two shots.
Cameras improved over time, and by 2004 (and possibly earlier) Fuji,
Canon and other manufacturers were selling cameras that could get
hundreds of shots from a set of batteries. My 2004 Fuji easily got
more than 600 shots from a set of alkalines. Some of Canon's
cameras had even better battery life, getting up to 1,200 shots per
set of alkalines and 1,600 or more shots per charge from NiMH
batteries. If that's not good enough you, then you're in for a big
disappointment from Li-Ion batteries, even with their lower internal
resistance.

You never repeat this alkaline battery "good news", which is
confirmed in the manufacturer's camera manuals. Instead, you
repeatedly tell us that you "know someone" that says that she only
got 10 shots from her set of alkaline batteries, and accept it as
gospel. Or you heard something similar from some other
unidentified, unreliable source. I've tested Fuji and Canon cameras
using both their CIPA and the more lenient test procedure, and the
number of shots closely matches what's claimed in the manuals. When
you get your Canon P&S back from your relative (if you don't already
have it), it'll only cost about $1.00 in alkalines to perform both
tests. If you can't come close to the manufacturer's stated battery
life, you've either got a broken camera, you don't know how to
perform the tests, or you're not being honest.

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:33:00 -0700, SMS babbled:
>
>>> So a Li-Ion battery has a lower self discharge rate than an AA
>>> alkaline? I don't think so.
>> No, but an alkaline can't supply sufficient current for very long to a
>> digital camera due to high internal resistance.
>
> You're both wrong. Being non-rechargeable, alkalines have
> extremely low self-discharge rates which determines their shelf
> life. As you well know, it's 8 years or longer, and Li-Ion
> batteries don't come close to matching that. In well designed
> cameras that draw very low currents when powered off, just enough to
> keep memory and clocks chips alive, alkalines can remain viable for
> several years in their cameras and still take pictures. Do that
> with Li-Ion batteries and their self-discharge will result in
> self-destruction.
>
> As for your last point, it's just more of your predictable
> nonsense. NO battery technology can provide current for very long
> if the current demand is too high. Some batteries overheat. Many
> years ago alkaline batteries weren't practical in cameras that drew
> so much current and had such high voltage requirements that
> batteries could sometimes last for only a dozen or two shots.
> Cameras improved over time, and by 2004 (and possibly earlier) Fuji,
> Canon and other manufacturers were selling cameras that could get
> hundreds of shots from a set of batteries. My 2004 Fuji easily got
> more than 600 shots from a set of alkalines. Some of Canon's
> cameras had even better battery life, getting up to 1,200 shots per
> set of alkalines and 1,600 or more shots per charge from NiMH
> batteries. If that's not good enough you, then you're in for a big
> disappointment from Li-Ion batteries, even with their lower internal
> resistance.
>
> You never repeat this alkaline battery "good news", which is
> confirmed in the manufacturer's camera manuals. Instead, you
> repeatedly tell us that you "know someone" that says that she only
> got 10 shots from her set of alkaline batteries, and accept it as
> gospel. Or you heard something similar from some other
> unidentified, unreliable source. I've tested Fuji and Canon cameras
> using both their CIPA and the more lenient test procedure, and the
> number of shots closely matches what's claimed in the manuals. When
> you get your Canon P&S back from your relative (if you don't already
> have it), it'll only cost about $1.00 in alkalines to perform both
> tests. If you can't come close to the manufacturer's stated battery
> life, you've either got a broken camera, you don't know how to
> perform the tests, or you're not being honest.
>
Lithium-ion batteries have some definite advantages, such as low weight
to charge capacity, and small size, and good low temperature
performance, and higher intrinsic voltage, but they aren't all things to
all people, as some people try to imply.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:36:17 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Lithium-ion batteries have some definite advantages, such as low weight
> to charge capacity, and small size, and good low temperature
> performance, and higher intrinsic voltage, but they aren't all things to
> all people, as some people try to imply.

Of course, and I'd enthusiastically welcome Li-Ion batteries if
they were produced in a range of standard sizes and were available
at reasonable prices even in convenience stores.

While alkalines aren't ideal for use in very cold weather, NiMH AA
batteries are an acceptable inexpensive substitute that perform
pretty well in low temperatures. Good enough so that on a frigid
February day several years ago, my camera was used for several hours
and could have gone for several more on the same charge. I
couldn't, though. Even with decent gloves my hands were quite cold
and I still recall briefly removing the one from my right (shutter
finger) hand to take a shot or two and then quickly putting it back
on. Li-Ion batteries could probably work reliably in temperatures
about 10 to 15 degrees colder, but not nearly as much as lithium AA
batteries, which could have operated 50 to 60 degrees below the
temperature those NiMH batteries were used in. I like that
flexibility, as well as being able to use the same batteries in
multiple cameras, speedlights and other devices. Li-Ion batteries
work well in DSLRs and aren't as objectionable since they represent
a much smaller fraction of the total cost.