2500mWh @ 1.65v = ~ 1500mAh, less than a 2000mAh NiMH or similar 1.2v battery.
The batteries all face the same way. Perhaps related to Microsoft’s attempted patent?
Wow that’s some serious voltage. Gotta watch out.
According to most safety guidelines, electricity becomes dangerous at _exactly_ 1.6V.
I am not getting it. The ‘n’ in Zn is capped in one place but not in the other. Is that what you are pointing out?
…er, make that achieved patent with free licensing.
1500mAh… impressive for hmmm maybe 1995?
I hadn’t even heard of NiZn until I read this post. Now I want to get a few to test with…
‘bipolar battery system’?
‘cmon guys, do you have to go straight for the jugular?
m-soft says that it is a
“mechanical invention that does not drain battery power or require expensive electronic circuitry.”
my guess is the little positive nipple closes a switch somewhere. best explanation i could find in 3 minutes online:
quote from smartcompany
“The technology apparently works by using contacts that do not identify whether they are connected to positive or negative poles” -apparently, that statement is rediculous
@Joel: I think the way it works is that on each cell’s holder, the recessed positive terminals are wired together, as are the non-recessed negative terminals. This way, each cell’s holder has a positive and negative terminal. After that, they are just connected in series/parallel/however the product needs them to be connected.
No switches, no electronics, and a neat idea if you ask me.
OK… I don’t get it, but maybe that’s because I was up late then up early…
Aren’t standard AA rechargeable batteries 1.2V / 1500 mAh?
For a rechargeable, 1.6V is a “high voltage” variant and 2500 mAh is very respectable. For circuits expecting 3.0V from two AA batteries rechargeables delivering 2.4V may not cut it. That could justify the extra cost for some uses. Gizmodo did a write-up of these some time back. A bit pricey, but useful in some circumstances.
Am I missing something? Please enlighten, because I am just not seeing it.
Yes. Yes I do see it.
I think that they probably just lined them up the same way so that the brand & product name would be readable in the photo. Have you ever worked with marketing people? They’re like that…
NiZn (Nickle Zinc) batteries don’t use toxic metals. So this Wii remote is non-toxic.
Interesting, might be a go-er for things like remote controls that hate the lower 1.2v of normal rechargeable cells.
High voltage 7.6V
If you’re referring to the fact that the rating of these batteries is listed in mWh instead of mAh, that threw me at first too. It feels a little sneaky, doesn’t it?
However, since these are 1.6V devices that are typically compared to 1.2V devices, I feel that an energy (Wh) rating makes more sense than an electric charge rating (Ah).
Energizer 1.2V NiMH AA cells are rated at 2000mAh = 2400mWh
PowerGenix 1.6V NiZn AA cells are rated at 2500mWh (~ 1560mAh * 1.6V). So they actually hold (slightly) MORE energy than NiMH cells. They also have better self-discharge rates, have low internal impedance, and are easier to recycle.
If PowerGenix quoted “1500mAh” then average users would compare against Energizer’s “2000mAh” rating and naively assume that the NiZn cells held less energy.
It depends on whether your item has a boost converter or an LDO. they probably should put both but its still pretty funny.
I’m not necessarily seeing the significance, but I do notice they are all facing the same way. Someone suggested this could be because it’s a “marketing shot”, but I don’t think marketing shots include crudely cut out pieces of paper.
I guess most batteries are in mAh, but that’s not really useful to people who don’t understand the relation between current and voltage. I’d actually prefer the Wattage method of rating a power source.
They are facing the same way because the picture is taken with them inserted in a battery charger. Have none of the thousand of you making a big deal about this ever used one? The batteries all go in the same direction in every one I’ve seen in my entire life.