LiON battery recharging - what strategy should I use?

In article <r0lb84pgg5h31rvb7qe5g22fhsgmaud1nk@4ax.com>,
ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>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.
>


LiON batteries as we know them will never be sold for general use.
One reason is that with the wrong charger, they can explode.

I once got a batch of genuine Lithium AA batteries, (Eveready L91)
primarily for use in FRS radios and GPS receivers in very cold
conditions. They were great. They weighed nothing when compared to
Alkaline AAs, lasted "forever" and the cold didn't touch them.

OTOH, when I got my Canon D300 I gave it a "cold soak" by leaving it
on the back porch overnight when the temps dropped to low single
digits. Early the next AM, I picked it up and clicked off a bunch of
shots and it worked fine. It didn't occur to me to try the flash.



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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:r0lb84pgg5h31rvb7qe5g22fhsgmaud1nk@4ax.com...
> 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.

Rechargeable Li-Ion batteries are deliberately marketed in a
non standard package because they can be easily damaged or
hazardous if not charged or discharged within a very
specific set of parameters. All Li batteries in standard
packages have a very different chemistry and not
rechargeable.

David

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:59:23 -0500, David wrote:

> Rechargeable Li-Ion batteries are deliberately marketed in a
> non standard package because they can be easily damaged or
> hazardous if not charged or discharged within a very
> specific set of parameters. All Li batteries in standard
> packages have a very different chemistry and not
> rechargeable.

True, but you can't prevent the ignorant from putting alkalines or
lithium batteries in NiCad/NiMH chargers despite warnings from
manufacturers. I'm also sure that some unscrupulous eBay sellers
have Li-Ion chargers that lack good safety features and which will
work with most of the non-standard Li-Ion batteries currently on the
market. It's only a little notch in the plastic shell that prevents
a Nikon Li-Ion battery from being charged in an Olympus charger and
vice-versa.

Right now, some convenience stores sell some cheap alkalines along
with the name brand counterparts, but when it comes to AA
rechargeables, I've only seen name brands such as Duracell, Kodak,
Energizer, etc. The protective circuits in Li-Ion chargers are
cheap, and there should be no real incentive for CVS, RiteAid, etc.
to save pennies per unit by selling cheap, hazardous knock offs.
Adding a few more pennies would allow for safety testing and result
in the addition of something similar to the UL label on Li-Ion
batteries and chargers. Actually, there's already a UL label on my
Nikon MH-18a Li-Ion charger, but none on the EN-EL3e batteries that
are used with it.

ASAAR wrote:
> 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.
>
The LIthium-ion batteries are also great for the very small cameras.
However, I have Lithium-ion batteries ONLY in my GPS and cell phone.
Given that they work well in those applications where space, and weight
are important, I still prefer AA batteries for my cameras.

Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <r0lb84pgg5h31rvb7qe5g22fhsgmaud1nk@4ax.com>,
> ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> LiON batteries as we know them will never be sold for general use.
> One reason is that with the wrong charger, they can explode.
>
> I once got a batch of genuine Lithium AA batteries, (Eveready L91)
> primarily for use in FRS radios and GPS receivers in very cold
> conditions. They were great. They weighed nothing when compared to
> Alkaline AAs, lasted "forever" and the cold didn't touch them.
>
> OTOH, when I got my Canon D300 I gave it a "cold soak" by leaving it
> on the back porch overnight when the temps dropped to low single
> digits. Early the next AM, I picked it up and clicked off a bunch of
> shots and it worked fine. It didn't occur to me to try the flash.
>
>
>
You should have shot some really low-light shots at high ISO to see just
how much better the pictures look when the sensor is quite cold.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:02:56 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> The LIthium-ion batteries are also great for the very small cameras.
> However, I have Lithium-ion batteries ONLY in my GPS and cell phone.
> Given that they work well in those applications where space, and weight
> are important, I still prefer AA batteries for my cameras.

Li-Ion batteries do allow weight savings, but that advantage is
most useful for large cameras or heavy equipment which would require
large battery packs, such as what many of Canon and Nikon DSLRs once
used.

Extremely small and lightweight cameras have been made that used a
pair of AAA batteries. With today's technology it should be
possible for them to be able to take hundreds of pictures per set of
alkalines or per charge. Fewer shots if many of them would require
full power flash, but that's nothing new. Such a camera would
probably weigh 1/2 as much as the smallest, lightest camera you're
currently using. A tiny Li-Ion battery would save some weight, but
it would hardly be a big deal for most people unless the camera was
designed to be worn disguised as earrings by spies.

Canon's DSLRs only recently switched to using Li-Ion batteries.
Kodak supplied DSLRs for Canon and Nikon going back at least to the
early 1990's and the first battery pack I've found appears to be
made from 8 AA NiCd cells. Battery life wasn't particularly good, I
think, but increased to up to 1,000 shots per charge in 1994 in the
newer DCS420.
http://www.nikonweb.com/dcs420/

The DCS520 (aka Canon D2000) changed that to a 6 AA cell 7.2v NiCd
battery pack that was now only good for 300 shots per charge (1998).
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs520/page6.asp

Canon's EOS-1D (2001) used the NP-E3 battery pack which appears to
have been made from 10 NiMH AA cells (1,650mAh, 12V). Battery life
must have been better (although this predates CIPA testing), with
DPReview indicating that they'd be able to get much more than 400
shots per charge.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS1D/page12.asp

Canon's EOS-1Ds Mark II (2005) used the same NP-E3 battery pack.
DPReview remarked that while they were surprised that Canon hadn't
switched to using Li-Ion batteries, the NP-E3 battery life
(according to DPReview and other users) was very good.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...kII/page12.asp

It's interesting to note that based on Nikon's info. for the
D300's high speed frame rate using different batteries in the MB-D10
grip, the 10 AA cell battery pack and the EN-EL4a Li-Ion battery
(normally used in the D3) can reach 8 frames/sec outperforming the
D300's standard EN-EL3e Li-Ion battery which can only reach 6 fps.
In this case the 10 AA cells weigh *much* more than either Li-Ion
battery, so even if the EN-EL3e packs less punch, it's a much better
choice, as those AA cells would add enough size and weight to make
the D300 a much less attractive camera. Relegating them to the
battery grip where they'd only be used when 8fps is actually needed
was a good decision on Nikon's part, even though I'm normally
partial to using AA cells in cameras.

ASAAR wrote:

<heavily edited for brevity>

> Kodak supplied DSLRs for Canon and Nikon going back at least to the
> early 1990's and the first battery pack I've found appears to be
> made from 8 AA NiCd cells.

<edited>

Hello, ASAAR:

Huh? In reality, it was the other way around -- Nikon and Canon
provided the SLR bodies, and Kodak installed its digital image
sensors, to the cameras.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:28:36 -0500, John Turco wrote:

> Huh? In reality, it was the other way around -- Nikon and Canon
> provided the SLR bodies, and Kodak installed its digital image
> sensors, to the cameras.

Oops. I actually knew that but somehow got it backwards. I
remember writing here about some of the last efforts several years
ago, when Canon (not Nikon) bailed from their agreement and the new
bodies had to be supplied by Sigma. Oh, wait. It was really an
intentional mistake, designed to keep you on your toes. Yeah,
that's the ticket!

ASAAR wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:28:36 -0500, John Turco wrote:
>
> > Huh? In reality, it was the other way around -- Nikon and Canon
> > provided the SLR bodies, and Kodak installed its digital image
> > sensors, to the cameras.
>
> Oops. I actually knew that but somehow got it backwards. I
> remember writing here about some of the last efforts several years
> ago, when Canon (not Nikon) bailed from their agreement and the new
> bodies had to be supplied by Sigma. Oh, wait. It was really an
> intentional mistake, designed to keep you on your toes. Yeah,
> that's the ticket!


Hello, ASAAR:

That's quite ironic, is it not? Mighty Kodak (inventor of the
ubiquitous Bayer filter), being forced to turn to puny Sigma
(champion of Foveon's dubious X3 image sensor), in order to
fulfill its hardware requirements!


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>