I need to go back and look at Energizer's data sheets again . . . I must
have found an old "357" when I first looked after finding the 357/303
Energizer started selling a while back. OTOH, I've been using those
Energizers without notable issues . . . but admittedly haven't kept data on
them . . . just anecdotal that I don't seem to be replacing them any faster
than their predecessors. Your remarks wouldn't surprise me much . . . a
cost-cutting measure by Energizer . . . they eliminated a fair number of
cell numbers from their product line at about the same time the 303/357
showed up. If you think about it, it's not in the battery manufacturer's
interest to sell extremely long-life "throw-away" cells . . . other than
maintaining sufficient life that that the public doesn't get upset about
them pooping out too quickly.
[Gratuitous Cynical Rant]
For-profit corporations don't want you to repair anything and they promote
(a) non-repairable "throw-away", (b) "subscription" based, and (c) new
accessories "frequently required" product lines . . . as often as the bulk
of consumers will tolerate. This is straight from MBA 501 . . . these
methods, if accepted by the consumer, are revenue generating cash cows. In
the abstract, it's the same business model the drug pushers use.
That said, I don't risk a wedding shoot with weak cells in an OM-2S . . . I
don't do more than two without replacing the cells in it with new ones . .
. and keep the ones that were in it (still good) in reserve for the OM-4
that I don't use for paid gigs and can afford the risk.
Thanks,
-- John Lind
At 09:49 PM 9/21/04, Moose wrote:
>Well, what can I say? I hate to disagree with you, John, but.....
>
>If you go back in the archives, you will find epistles from me and
>others about all these similar batteries. The issue here is low vs. high
>drain designs. In my 3/26 post, I address this specific issue:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Looking at the data sheets, the 303 is the same size as the 357.
>However, the 303 is "Designed for use on continuous low drain" while the
>357 is "Designed for use on continuous low drain. High pulse on demand"
>
>You can really see the difference in the spec for internal resistance:
>303 - Closed circuit voltage no less than 0.95 volts on a load of 100
>ohms at 21C for 0.1 to 2.0 seconds.
>357 - Closed circuit voltage no less than 1.30 volts on a load of 100
>ohms at 21C for 0.1 to 2.0 seconds.
>
>Clearly the 303 will be problematic in a camera applications where
>called on to operate the shutter. According to the spec., one might
>expect it to lock up with every shot. "
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>According to a lengthy post by Tim Hughes some time ago, when he was
>researching batteries for new product development, some batteries sold
>as 303s may be 357 equivalents internally, thus causing some possible
>confusion as to whether they, in their true form, are adequate to high
>drain camera application. So you could buy a set of 303s, find them to
>be fine, then buy another and have trouble.
>
>My 5/1/04 post on "Battery Question" goes into much more detail about
>why you want 357s
>
>A recent development is that Energizer has started sell ing a battery
>marked "357/303" On 8/29/04 I said about it:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>"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. Perhaps it's some new sort of cheap general
>purpose, replace anything that size thingie. "
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|