Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #52945 > unrolled thread
| Started by | J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-12-04 16:24 -0500 |
| Last post | 2013-12-19 18:59 +1300 |
| Articles | 3 on this page of 83 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-04 16:24 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-04 16:38 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-05 11:01 +1100
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-04 23:38 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? Mike Lane <mike.lane.usenet@ntlworld.co.uk> - 2013-12-05 13:21 +0000
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 09:01 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-05 05:21 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-06 09:07 +1100
Re: Why not NiMH? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-05 18:42 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-06 11:57 +1100
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 18:34 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-06 17:08 +1100
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 19:19 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-06 20:14 +1100
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 13:30 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2013-12-06 12:00 +1100
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 18:24 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-05 19:50 -0600
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 15:11 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 16:15 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-04 19:59 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? Ted Lee <tmplee@mr.net> - 2013-12-04 22:09 -0600
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-04 23:38 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 00:54 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 00:59 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 02:22 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 02:44 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 03:36 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-05 04:21 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 16:24 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-05 18:37 +0000
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 14:19 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-05 13:31 -0600
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 09:07 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 14:36 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-05 22:02 +0000
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 13:26 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-06 00:33 +0000
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 18:36 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-06 21:22 +0000
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-07 11:49 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-07 00:11 +0000
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-07 18:07 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-07 08:37 -0600
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-08 09:52 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-05 19:49 -0600
Re: Why not NiMH? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-12-05 21:55 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-06 18:40 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-06 21:24 +0000
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-07 11:49 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-06 18:43 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-07 08:32 -0600
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-08 09:50 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-07 15:50 -0600
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-08 14:04 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-07 21:02 -0600
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-08 17:45 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-06 17:48 +0000
Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-06 21:25 +0000
Re: Why not NiMH? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-12-05 05:33 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-05 18:35 +0000
Re: Why not NiMH? Zar Zifodow <zarzifodow@mailinator.com> - 2013-12-04 20:14 -0800
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-04 23:38 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2013-12-04 20:46 -0800
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 02:22 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 02:44 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-12-04 23:08 -0800
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 03:08 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-12-05 14:15 +0000
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-05 12:43 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-05 12:54 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-12-05 22:44 -0800
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-06 13:19 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Kiraly) - 2013-12-06 22:35 +0000
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-07 02:27 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-08 00:10 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-14 18:57 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2013-12-17 12:04 -0500
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-18 09:27 +1300
Re: Why not NiMH? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-12-19 18:59 +1300
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-17 12:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fmoore-37DAD6.12040417122013@mx05.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #53333 |
In article <141220131857424155%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > In article <l7o6ih$a9r$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > wrote: > > > I've avoided laptops because of the hassles and expense of lithium > > batteries. > > > > I started using NiMH AA cells for a camera in the 1990s. They were > > quirky. > > > > For several months, I've been using Eneloop AA NiMH cells. They vastly > > better. I can count on them for a device that requires 1500ma. They > > take only an hour to charge and always seem to charge fully, about > > 2,000mah. They're supposed to be good for 1500 cycles and hold a charge > > for years. (I don't use the latest ones, which have slightly more > > capacity but a much shorter service life.) > > > > Why not uses them for a laptop? For a given amount of energy, a battery > > pack would probably have twice the bulk of lithium, but they're cheap > > and foolproof. If you run low, pop in a set of charged cells! > > Rather than AA batteries, why not try brussel sprouts ... > > <http://www.techadvisor.co.uk/news/digital-home/how-power-christmas-tree- > lights-using-brussels-sprouts/> > > Of course, they have to use 1000 brussel sprouts to (supposedly) power > a measly 100 LED Cristmas tree lights ... so you'd likely need a couple > of truck loads to power a laptop. ;-) Wouldn't this work better with lemons? Enquiring minds want to know! -- And It's Just That Easy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-18 09:27 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <181220130927073979%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #53405 |
In article <fmoore-37DAD6.12040417122013@mx05.eternal-september.org>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote: > In article <141220131857424155%YourName@YourISP.com>, > Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: > > In article <l7o6ih$a9r$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > I've avoided laptops because of the hassles and expense of lithium > > > batteries. > > > > > > I started using NiMH AA cells for a camera in the 1990s. They were > > > quirky. > > > > > > For several months, I've been using Eneloop AA NiMH cells. They vastly > > > better. I can count on them for a device that requires 1500ma. They > > > take only an hour to charge and always seem to charge fully, about > > > 2,000mah. They're supposed to be good for 1500 cycles and hold a charge > > > for years. (I don't use the latest ones, which have slightly more > > > capacity but a much shorter service life.) > > > > > > Why not uses them for a laptop? For a given amount of energy, a battery > > > pack would probably have twice the bulk of lithium, but they're cheap > > > and foolproof. If you run low, pop in a set of charged cells! > > > > Rather than AA batteries, why not try brussel sprouts ... > > > > <http://www.techadvisor.co.uk/news/digital-home/how-power-christmas-tree- > > lights-using-brussels-sprouts/> > > > > Of course, they have to use 1000 brussel sprouts to (supposedly) power > > a measly 100 LED Cristmas tree lights ... so you'd likely need a couple > > of truck loads to power a laptop. ;-) > > Wouldn't this work better with lemons? Yeah, but when you're given lemons you're meant to make lemonade ... nobody wants to drink brussel-sprout-ade, so there's a excess of brussel sprouts around. ;-) > Enquiring minds want to know! You could use potatoes as well, as the potato-powered lightbulb of many school child's science experiements proves. Of course, the intelligent person would simply plug their Christmas tree lights into a mains socket. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-19 18:59 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <191220131859489253%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #52945 |
In article <l7o6ih$a9r$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote: > I've avoided laptops because of the hassles and expense of lithium > batteries. > > I started using NiMH AA cells for a camera in the 1990s. They were > quirky. > > For several months, I've been using Eneloop AA NiMH cells. They vastly > better. I can count on them for a device that requires 1500ma. They > take only an hour to charge and always seem to charge fully, about > 2,000mah. They're supposed to be good for 1500 cycles and hold a charge > for years. (I don't use the latest ones, which have slightly more > capacity but a much shorter service life.) > > Why not uses them for a laptop? For a given amount of energy, a battery > pack would probably have twice the bulk of lithium, but they're cheap > and foolproof. If you run low, pop in a set of charged cells! Not a latop, but Spareone in New Zealand sells an (over-priced) "emergency" mobile phone that runs on a single AA battery. http://www.spareone.co.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web