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