Batteries & MP3 players
Mar 11, 2006 at 5:01 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 2

JeroendeV

New Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Posts
20
Likes
0
On dansdata.com i read (regarding AA's):

"Rechargeables are likely to work fine, and cheap 1800mAh or 2000mAh off-brand NiMH cells will give you the roughly 36 and 40 hour run times you'd expect from the above figure. If you're using the device a lot, this will be an OK way to go; a couple of sets of rechargeables and a basic charger will pay for themselves in a non-ridiculous amount of time.

Note, however, that the rapid self-discharge of NiMH cells means that if you leave the device on the shelf for a month after putting freshly charged batteries in it, you may find it's got a surprisingly small amount of run time once you pick it up again. For things you use occasionally, alkaline AAs are a much better choice.

Also note that at this current level, dirt cheap carbon-zinc (or slightly more capacious "zinc chloride") AAs will perform well, and deliver better value per hour of run time than alkalines.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the difference in performance is negligible when using low drain applications such as mp3 players"

I guess one can assume that there is little difference between for instance 850 and 1000 mAh AAA cells if you read the above.

Also, what are good chargers to use?
 
Mar 12, 2006 at 12:41 AM Post #2 of 2

Eagle_Driver

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
6,450
Likes
26
Quote:

Originally Posted by JeroendeV
"...at this current level, dirt cheap carbon-zinc (or slightly more capacious "zinc chloride") AAs will perform well, and deliver better value per hour of run time than alkalines. "


Actually, that's not the case any more. Carbon-zinc batteries are virtually extinct nowadays, and "zinc chloride" batteries are on the brink of becoming so; in fact, Energizer (formerly Eveready Battery Co.) a few years ago had replaced their zinc chloride battery line with a budget-priced alkaline battery line (named Eveready instead of Energizer). And at the prices that such batteries went for when they were last marketed, they were no bargain - as far as value to runtime is concerned (they cost about half as much as alkalines, but last 4 to 10 times less than alkalines, making such "cheapies" actually cost 2 to 5 times more money than alkalines per hour of runtime). And the carbon-zinc and zinc chloride batteries had discharge curves that were similar to that of an alkaline battery - but with much less overall stamina. Those facts make the cheapies ill-suited to high-drain electronic devices.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top