Dan Lau wrote:
[snip]
>Now you have done it. The topic of *76 vs. *357 battery types discussion was
>raised by me back in early February and we beat
>it to death (and I am sure it was discussed before that). The conclusion is
>now summarized in the Olympus FAQ. Since these
>are both labeled as SR44 batteries, it would have been much more useful if the
>answer can be boiled down to one of the
[snip]
Didn't mean to open up old wounds, but it can't be any worse than arguing about
which computer type is best. :-) Actually I followed the discussion in February
with great interest. And have piddled with a bit of research on the topic since
then. Interestingly enough, the 357 and the EPX76 are not the same. They have
different mAh ratings and the internal resistance is different. If you check on
Energizer's web site or call their customer service number you will find that
the 357 is NOT listed as a replacement for the SR44, only the EPX76 is. I was
curious why many list members thought it worked better and what Energizer's
opinion was, so I inquired. I'm not sure I learned anything except that they
don't recommend the 357 for the reasons they stated. Their response I included
was their answer to my question of why they didn't recommend the 357 as a
replacement for the SR44. I'm sure that those on the list that are using 357
batteries will continue to do so and those that are using the EPX76 will
continue doing that. I just thought someone might be interested in the official
story line from Energizer. I'm sorry I may have stirred up an old controversy.
Perhaps we can all just let it lie.
Regards,
John Austin
|