[bookport] Re: Batteries
- From: Chris Hill <chill000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:51:52 -0600
I have a new bearcat scanner out in the car that doesn't know what
kind of batteries are in it. That's what the switch in the battery
compartment is for.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:22:00 -0600, you wrote:
>Not really. All currently available chargers on the market know what kind
>of batteries are inserted and how or whether to charge them. This wasn't
>the case even a very few years ago, but nowadays the problems associated
>with the earlier chargers and their associated batteries are a thing of the
>past. For the most part, and maybe entirely, today's chargers do nothing if
>you insert non-rechargeable cells.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Chris Hill" <chill000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <bookport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:25 AM
>Subject: [bookport] Re: Batteries
>
>
>> Problem is bruce, if you put in a charging circuit then you have to
>> get rid of the option of cheap replacement batteries. Accidentally
>> recharging batteries that aren't rechargable tends to result in leaky
>> or exploding batteries. I'd rather have the option of dropping in a
>> spare set of cheap batteries than be forced to either buy a second
>> rechargable or just have no option at all.
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:59:17 -0600 (CST), you wrote:
>>
>>>First of all, I appreciate the notion of replaceable batteries. But
>>>second, and I'm not picking a fight here, just wondering, how much extra
>>>circuitry would that require, really? I submit to you a cellphone a fifth
>>>the size of the Book Port that includes, among other things, circuitry
>>>capable of recharging the battery in two hours. Again, I am not out to
>>>argue with anyone here, I just wish someone who really knows about this
>>>stuff could clear up the "lot of extra circuitry" question once and for
>>>all.
>>>
>>>Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
