Most devices & gadgets are rechargeable nowadays. The only thing I have that still requires batteries is a headlamp but even those are available in rechargeable varieties. House smoke detectors need a battery too.

  • neidu3@sh.itjust.worksM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    You can’t just mix and match battery chemistry and call one superior. If you could, they’d all be inferior to a nuclear reactor in the right packaging anyway. But since you absolutely have to be pedantic about it, I’ll make this revision specially for you with emphasis in the right place:

    Primary cells hold much more charge than an equivalent rechargeable battery with the same battery chemistry.

    And you can’t just allow for different voltage ranges without all the electronics also being adjusted for that.

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 minutes ago

      You can’t just mix and match battery chemistry and call one superior.

      Superior is a value judgment I wasn’t making there. You made a claim about cost and capacity between different chemistries (unless you meant something else by “rechargeable equivalents”), and I said it only holds up for cheap (alkaline) primaries under light loads.

      you absolutely have to be pedantic about it

      I’m trying to share additional information, not win an argument on a technical point.

      And you can’t just allow for different voltage ranges without all the electronics also being adjusted for that.

      That’s true. The broader topic of long-term obsolescence ought to include device design though. Someone designing a device today that could potentially use AA batteries should think about whether they’re obsolete for the use case.