elgarak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2003
- Messages
- 4,472
I respectfully disagree. Rechargeables work better in high current applications. Classic example is the electronic flash, which charges faster and provides more flashes with rechargeables than with alkalines. Modern regulated LED flashlights typically run longer on rechargeables than alkalines (one example).I think the main reason that rechargeable C and D cells haven't caught on is that they simply don't have the power capacity and longevity of the better disposables. Electronics devices that use AA batteries are typically low-power-drain, so rechargeables will last a useful amount of time. Things like lanterns/flashlights are high-power-drain and will chew through rechargeables at a much higher rate than disposables. Not to mention that rechargeables leak current much more quickly over time than disposables degrade, so are unsuitable for emergency devices.
Correct is the assessment of the high self-discharge making rechargeables unsuitable for emergencies, unless the device is plugged in with an intelligent charger and topped-off until the power fails. However, those devices still recquire regular maintenance and check of the batteries.
Rechargeables (especially Nickel based) are best suited for regular heavy use. For long-term storage and emergencies Lithium based primaries are better.
That's why C/D-rechargeables never catched on: Except for Maglites for police/night guards, few devices running on them see heavy, regular use (though most night workers nowadays switch to better Lithium powered flashlights or dedicated rechargeables; the Mag's light output and size is not up to date to technological advances; they're also taken away from police officers since they can be misused as clubs). Another factor is that C/D-rechargeables seldom provide the higher capacity their larger size could provide; a lot of rechargeable C-cells are just AAs in larger containers (AA and C have the same length).
Last edited: