Matt Boland wrote:
>Ahhh, I had a look at the silver oxides I have and they are Energizer
>EPX76's. On the Energizer site I found 3 references to 357's. One was a
>picture of a battery with 357/EPX76 written underneath, the other two
>were links to data sheets with "303/357" and plain "357" as the links.
>The data sheets for the EPX76 and the 303/357 had relatively bad
>discharge curves, while the discharge curve for the plain 357 was flat
>as a pancake.
>
>The link was
>
>http://data.energizer.com/datasheets/frames.htm
>
That's where I did my research, but I don't recall a 357/303, just the
separate 357 and 303. In any case, you don't want it, as the discharge
curve is bad, like the EPX76 - and it has a lower capacity than the 357
or 303, very strange junk. Perhas it's some new sort of ceap general
purpose, replace anything that size thingie.
>I'll give the plain 357s a go. Does anybody know if the 303/357s are
>marked as such?
>
I sure hope so!! The Energizer 357s are marked "High Drain" rather
prominently on the package.
> Just so I don't buy them by accident. Is the marking on
>the good 357's packet just "357"?
>
Here are pics of the Energizer 357 packaging, with some Sony ones thrown
in just 'cause I have them <http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/bat357.JPG>.
Note the commonality of 357 and SR44W on the packaging, with the US made
ones actually marked 357 on the battery and the Sonys marked SR44W on
the battery. I think these are essentially identical specs from
different numbering systems.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
