Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site trsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!trsvax!mikey
From: mikey@trsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: lifetime of rechargeable batteries
Message-ID: <70900021@trsvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Nov-84 10:18:00 EST
Article-I.D.: trsvax.70900021
Posted: Tue Nov 27 10:18:00 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Nov-84 05:35:57 EST
References: <1789@garfield.UUCP>
Lines: 19
Nf-ID: #R:garfield:-178900:trsvax:70900021:000:948
Nf-From: trsvax!mikey    Nov 27 09:18:00 1984



There is only so much volume available in a 9 volt battery standard package.
If they put the extra cell in the 9 volt ni-cad, the current rating would
probably drop to an un-acceptable level.  Seeing as how most carbon-zinc,
and even alkaline, cells have voltage curves that are smooth slopes and that
they are at their rated voltage only when fairly fresh, I think that the 
20% lower voltage is a very good compromise, especially when you consider 
that a ni-cad retains a discharge voltage very close to its rated voltage up
to right before it goes belly-up.  

As a side note, I've noticed that ni-cads in motorized devices (i.e. cassette
players) tend to have a much shorter life per charge than non motorized 
devices.  Someone once told me that DC motors that pulse the load do something
funny to ni-cads but I really don't know.  I got a book about an inch thick
on ni-cads, I guess I'll have to break down and read it.

mikey at trsvax