Apple blames Beats headphones explosion on third-party batteries

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 85
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,301member
    Soli said:

    2) Has anyone else jumped from disposable batteries to only using Eneloop (or similar rechargeable batteries) for all their needs. I only need AA, AAA, and a few 9-Volts these days. They last considerably longer than disposable batteries and my math says it'll reduce both my cost and waste.
    Your math is correct.
    I've transitioned from disposable to NiMH and Lithium Ion for all my AA, AAA and 9volt needs (18650 too).
    It's great, buy them once and that's it for the next 5-10 years.  One does have to keep a few chargers around, but that beats throwing away 50-100 batteries a year.
    I've done the same. If Eneloop-branded batteries seem too expensive for you (an oddity IMO if you have no issue with paying premiums for Apple-quality gear) Amazon has their own value brand that works very well too. I have both and really don't notice much difference except with my camera gear.
    edited May 2017 Soli
  • Reply 62 of 85
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,301member
    Rayz2016 said:
    RTC said:
    At least Apple should give this poor woman a new pair of their latest and best Beats when the whole lawyer thing is over...good for publicity.


    No, because if they did that then the lawyer thing wouldn't be over, would it?
    Supposedly she only wants her actual physical losses replaced and not "pain and suffering" stuff that's typically demanded in damage cases. If that's accurate she seems fairly reasonable doesn't she? IMHO Apple should simply replace those two items without admitting fault and going forward offer better clarity in their product literature about use of disposable batteries to avoid repeats. 
  • Reply 63 of 85
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,032member
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    RTC said:
    At least Apple should give this poor woman a new pair of their latest and best Beats when the whole lawyer thing is over...good for publicity.


    No, because if they did that then the lawyer thing wouldn't be over, would it?
    Supposedly she only wants her actual physical losses replaced and not "pain and suffering" stuff that's typically demanded in damage cases. If that's accurate she seems fairly reasonable doesn't she? IMHO Apple should simply replace those two items without admitting fault and going forward offer better clarity in their product literature about use of disposable batteries to avoid repeats. 
    Well, not greedy, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to have Apple pay for something that's the fault of defective batteries by another vendor.

    And one could argue that it's not reasonable that she isn't looking to hold the battery company responsible for the faulty batteries. If she doesn't have legal counsel that could be deemed unreasonable as holding vendors accountable for faulty products does help keep them in check. Panasonic just had a massive tablet recall due to potentially bad batteries. Now, if Panasonic's bean counters found that the payout, potential fire risk, physical harm, and other factors, like brand damage, were considerably lower than the cost to recall the tablets then chances are they wouldn't have done it.

    edited May 2017
  • Reply 64 of 85
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,939member
    Soli said:
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    RTC said:
    At least Apple should give this poor woman a new pair of their latest and best Beats when the whole lawyer thing is over...good for publicity.


    No, because if they did that then the lawyer thing wouldn't be over, would it?
    Supposedly she only wants her actual physical losses replaced and not "pain and suffering" stuff that's typically demanded in damage cases. If that's accurate she seems fairly reasonable doesn't she? IMHO Apple should simply replace those two items without admitting fault and going forward offer better clarity in their product literature about use of disposable batteries to avoid repeats. 
    Well, not greedy, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to have Apple Pay for something that's the fault of defective batteries by another vendor.

    And one could argue that it's not reasonable that she isn't looking to hold the battery company responsible for the faulty batteries. If she doesn't have legal counsel that could be deemed unreasonable as holding vendors accountable for faulty products does help keep them in check. Panasonic just had a massive tablet recall due to potentially bad batteries. Now, if Panasonic's bean counters found that the payout, potential fire risk, physical harm, and other factors, like brand damage, were considerably lower than the cost to recall the tablets then chances are they wouldn't have done it.

    Not sure I'm following the logic here. The headphones in question and the customer were apparently damaged by faulty batteries that were not supplied by Apple but were instead selected and purchased by the customer. Unless the customer can prove that the Apple/Beats branded headphones somehow induced the battery failure in otherwise uncompromised batteries, perhaps by creating a dead short circuit across the battery terminals in an ON-OFF switch or power management circuitry if such is present, then Apple is not involved at all. In the Panasonic tablet case the battery packs are supplied by - and brand labeled - as Panasonic components for their tablets.

    If I were looking to "pin this" on Apple I would submit the damaged headphones to an independent forensic investigator to determine whether anything in the headphones power circuitry could induce battery failure. But based on my own experience of seeing many instances of crap quality batteries damaging electronic devices I'd be much more likely to blame the batteries and chalk this one up to lessons learned. I would add that I've never experienced combustion due to the type of batteries indicated in this case, but instead corrosive leakage that damaged electronic components and connectors. However, it's possible that a leakage could have created a short circuit condition while there was still sufficient residual charge in the failing batteries to cause combustion. I suspect Apple has all the failure analysis evidence and data to prove their claim.
  • Reply 65 of 85
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,032member
    dewme said:
    Soli said:
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    RTC said:
    At least Apple should give this poor woman a new pair of their latest and best Beats when the whole lawyer thing is over...good for publicity.


    No, because if they did that then the lawyer thing wouldn't be over, would it?
    Supposedly she only wants her actual physical losses replaced and not "pain and suffering" stuff that's typically demanded in damage cases. If that's accurate she seems fairly reasonable doesn't she? IMHO Apple should simply replace those two items without admitting fault and going forward offer better clarity in their product literature about use of disposable batteries to avoid repeats. 
    Well, not greedy, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to have Apple Pay for something that's the fault of defective batteries by another vendor.

    And one could argue that it's not reasonable that she isn't looking to hold the battery company responsible for the faulty batteries. If she doesn't have legal counsel that could be deemed unreasonable as holding vendors accountable for faulty products does help keep them in check. Panasonic just had a massive tablet recall due to potentially bad batteries. Now, if Panasonic's bean counters found that the payout, potential fire risk, physical harm, and other factors, like brand damage, were considerably lower than the cost to recall the tablets then chances are they wouldn't have done it.

    Not sure I'm following the logic here. The headphones in question and the customer were apparently damaged by faulty batteries that were not supplied by Apple but were instead selected and purchased by the customer. Unless the customer can prove that the Apple/Beats branded headphones somehow induced the battery failure in otherwise uncompromised batteries, perhaps by creating a dead short circuit across the battery terminals in an ON-OFF switch or power management circuitry if such is present, then Apple is not involved at all. In the Panasonic tablet case the battery packs are supplied by - and brand labeled - as Panasonic components for their tablets.

    If I were looking to "pin this" on Apple I would submit the damaged headphones to an independent forensic investigator to determine whether anything in the headphones power circuitry could induce battery failure. But based on my own experience of seeing many instances of crap quality batteries damaging electronic devices I'd be much more likely to blame the batteries and chalk this one up to lessons learned. I would add that I've never experienced combustion due to the type of batteries indicated in this case, but instead corrosive leakage that damaged electronic components and connectors. However, it's possible that a leakage could have created a short circuit condition while there was still sufficient residual charge in the failing batteries to cause combustion. I suspect Apple has all the failure analysis evidence and data to prove their claim.
    What you stated backs up my statement.
  • Reply 66 of 85
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,408member
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    RTC said:
    At least Apple should give this poor woman a new pair of their latest and best Beats when the whole lawyer thing is over...good for publicity.


    No, because if they did that then the lawyer thing wouldn't be over, would it?
    Supposedly she only wants her actual physical losses replaced and not "pain and suffering" stuff that's typically demanded in damage cases. If that's accurate she seems fairly reasonable doesn't she? IMHO Apple should simply replace those two items without admitting fault and going forward offer better clarity in their product literature about use of disposable batteries to avoid repeats. 
    Then again, how is any of it Apple's fault? The perception would be that the company folds when accused of anything.
  • Reply 67 of 85
    It might be wise for Apple to make the batteries of this particular Beats model to be rechargeable and non-user-replaceable to ensure that only they can service the device, if needed.
  • Reply 68 of 85
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,956member
    It might be wise for Apple to make the batteries of this particular Beats model to be rechargeable and non-user-replaceable to ensure that only they can service the device, if needed.
    They will probably do that although it isn't necessary for safety reasons. Alkaline batteries are proven and this case is more of an exception than anything else. Typically, leakage is their main problem when people store products and forget to take the batteries out.

  • Reply 69 of 85
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,062member
    Ironhead said:
    So sue the battery company, which is strangely not called out in the article.
    Maybe because the author didn't know who made the batteries. Not so strange. The only thing strange about this is that there has been almost zero mention of the incident until Apple said they're not paying.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 70 of 85
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,062member

    NY1822 said:
    do you want money for the facial burns and hair loss? "No, just a new pair of headphones and a replacement t-shirt"
    Really? That's your takeaway? You should be posting at 9to5 Mac. Almost every post on this topic is idiocy.
  • Reply 71 of 85
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,062member

    sflocal said:
     If Apple is blaming 3rd-party batteries, does Apple provide Apple-branded AAA batteries?

    This is the problem with mixing and matching stuff. 

    Can trust anything from anyone anymore.
    No, Apple is not blame batteries because they're third-party and not Apple branded. Apple is says the fault is with the batteries which Apple didn't make.

    'Mixing and matching stuff'? WTF are you on about? What was mixed and match and exactly what was the problem? What do you know that wasn't stated in the article?


  • Reply 72 of 85
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,062member
    avon b7 said:
    tundraboy said:
    Headline is inaccurate. The headphones did not explode. The batteries did.
    The headline may be technically inaccurate but I think it is nevertheless fine. Headlines need to be compact and sometimes you need to cut things out. This would possibly be better:

    "Apple blames Beats headphones battery explosion on third-party batteries"

    While being more accurate it raises other issues like repetition and redundancy.

    It's also true that headlines grab your attention so this:

    "Apple blames Beats headphones incident on third-party batteries"

    Turns out to be less attention grabbing and too vague.

    I think that the title looks, fits and feels better just as it is even if the reader has to interpret it.

    A similar thing happens with 'LCD Displays'. No one bats an eyelid at that.
    The headline is fine. Fine for junk journalism, but not for responsible reporting. Being misleading for the sake of compactness is ridiculous and should be unacceptable. But obviously people are willing to accept substandard as 'fine'. So no, it's not fine. It's click bait.

    So many people are stupid and not capable of objective, critical thinking when necessary. As we can see in this thread, such clickbait appeals to biases and objectivity is the second casualty.

    If you can't make an honest, accurate headline, you'e no business writing. That's why there are skilled, educated editors in responsible journalism, so frequently absent in blogging. And yet there are those readers who find this completely acceptable.

    'Write what you want and let the reader puzzle out the truth'. Seriously.

    And saying LCD display and ATM machine is not correct. Nor is it on the same scale as clickbait. But an educated reader would know that.
  • Reply 73 of 85
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,062member
    As is usually the case, there's a big, sometimes huge difference in what is believed and what is known. Threads like this demonstrate that in spades. There is no shortage of those who confuse the two.

    We don't know that the Beats didn't cause an explosion.
    The Beats phones could have malfunctioned and caused the batteries to explode. Apple says their examination show the batteries were the problem. We can believe they're telling the truth but we don't know that. I believe they are.

    We don't know that the batteries didn't cause the explosion.
    Poor manufacturing or a glitch in manufacturing could have made a little bomb just waiting to go off under the wrong circumstances.

    We don't now that it wasn't the woman and not the Beats or batteries that caused the explosion.
    It was a long flight and she fell asleep. She could have trapped the phones, presumably while listening to audio (but we don't know that) between her face and the seat or a pillow which might have allowed the batteries to heat up and explode. Then lawyers on both sides could fight about whether this was unacceptable or foreseeable  use of a product.

    And the converse is true— we don't know who or what did cause the explosion. We can line up and take sides, but we should be smart enough to know why we choose, even though we don't know all if any of the facts. But if we all were objective and critical thinkers, this would probably be a boring place. Luckily we have nothing to fear.

  • Reply 74 of 85
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,373member
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    RTC said:
    At least Apple should give this poor woman a new pair of their latest and best Beats when the whole lawyer thing is over...good for publicity.


    No, because if they did that then the lawyer thing wouldn't be over, would it?
    Supposedly she only wants her actual physical losses replaced and not "pain and suffering" stuff that's typically demanded in damage cases. If that's accurate she seems fairly reasonable doesn't she? IMHO Apple should simply replace those two items without admitting fault and going forward offer better clarity in their product literature about use of disposable batteries to avoid repeats. 
    You mean like how Google paid the $22.5M fine by the FTC and not admitting any guilt and going forward by offering better clarity in their products?

    http://www.itworld.com/article/2725418/enterprise-software/a-voice-of-sanity-at-the-ftc.html

    http://www.computerworld.com/article/2505654/desktop-apps/update--google-to-pay--22-5m-fine-over-privacy-practices.html

    Does anyone believe Google was not guilty?


    In the real World, if a corporation pays up when being sued, without admitting any guilt, then that corporation is seen in the public eyes as being guilty. If Apple had replaced the headphones and other damaged items, the public will see it as Apple must be guilty of causing the damage, otherwise why would Apple replace the damaged items?  It would appear that Apple settled, without admitting any guilt.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/business/neither-admit-nor-deny-settlements-draw-judges-scrutiny.html ;



  • Reply 75 of 85
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,301member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    RTC said:
    At least Apple should give this poor woman a new pair of their latest and best Beats when the whole lawyer thing is over...good for publicity.


    No, because if they did that then the lawyer thing wouldn't be over, would it?
    Supposedly she only wants her actual physical losses replaced and not "pain and suffering" stuff that's typically demanded in damage cases. If that's accurate she seems fairly reasonable doesn't she? IMHO Apple should simply replace those two items without admitting fault and going forward offer better clarity in their product literature about use of disposable batteries to avoid repeats. 
    You mean like how Google paid the $22.5M fine by the FTC and not admitting any guilt and going forward by offering better clarity in their products?

    http://www.itworld.com/article/2725418/enterprise-software/a-voice-of-sanity-at-the-ftc.html

    http://www.computerworld.com/article/2505654/desktop-apps/update--google-to-pay--22-5m-fine-over-privacy-practices.html

    Does anyone believe Google was not guilty?


    In the real World, if a corporation pays up when being sued, without admitting any guilt, then that corporation is seen in the public eyes as being guilty. If Apple had replaced the headphones and other damaged items, the public will see it as Apple must be guilty of causing the damage, otherwise why would Apple replace the damaged items?  It would appear that Apple settled, without admitting any guilt.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/business/neither-admit-nor-deny-settlements-draw-judges-scrutiny.html ;



    That was kinda out of left-field but yeah. Some folks no doubt already see Apple as at least partly at fault no matter what they say. I don't any news outlet had even reported this so almost no one even knew about it... 
    UNTIL Apple decided it was better not to replace her two items. IMO it would have been wiser to quietly appease her before attorneys and the press even got involved. I'll guess it's now not about the money for her but making a point that she feels Apple had some responsibility to better advise users like herself about replaceable battery use. Valid or not she's not after money. But I have no doubt Apple's attorneys are smarter than I am and think fighting it is best. 

    EDIT: BTW I really doubt you have any clue what Google was supposedly "guilty of" in the FTC's action. Yeah I think they were guilty too, but I know what it was about and even kinda-sorta understand what Google's argument against guilt was (which wasn't good enough IMO or the FTC's)
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 76 of 85
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,373member
    Soli said:
    mike1 said:
    clemynx said:
    Soli said:
    1) To me, the title and article make it sound like Apple is blaming the customer on having used 3rd-party batteries at all, but that's silly since Apple doesn't make AAA.

    2) Has anyone else jumped from disposable batteries to only using Eneloop (or similar rechargeable batteries) for all their needs. I only need AA, AAA, and a few 9-Volts these days. They last considerably longer than disposable batteries and my math says it'll reduce both my cost and waste.
    I only use rechargeable batteries, everybody should!
    Why, because it's better for you? Many use cases where rechargeables are not practical or desirable. Smart people usually avoid absolute statements.
    I agree that absolute statements can paint one into a corner, but I am having a hard time seeing how rechargeable batteries have a downside for personal items. If it's a gift, it would be great to include rechargeable batteries—hell, make the gift rechargeable batteries and charger—but it's the one area where I can understand why one wouldn't have to both save money and the environment. What's the counter to, say, having a digital scale that takes 4 AAA batteries that I can now charge once every 6 months instead of replacing every 45 days?
     One place where you do not want to put rechargeable batteries is in your emergency survival kit. Rechargeable batteries only hold a good usable charge for about 4 to 6 months before needing to be recharged back up to full. Unless they're lithium ion. So there's greater need for maintenance in having rechargeable batteries in you emergency survival kit. What if an emergency hit after your rechargeable batteries been sitting there for 5 months and you're without power? Best to place several packs of alkalines in your kit for your battery needs, replace them with new ones every year or so and use the old ones elsewhere. New alkalines have a shelf life of over 5 years. So you it's not that critical to change them out every year.  Just replace them when it times to replace your can food. 

    If you must keep rechargeable batteries in your emergency survival kit, make sure to pack a charger that operates off a car lighter. This way you have a way to recharge them if there's no power.  And while your at it, throw in the cable you need to recharge your mobile phone from a car lighter.
    spinnyd
  • Reply 77 of 85
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,032member
    davidw said:
    Soli said:
    mike1 said:
    clemynx said:
    Soli said:
    1) To me, the title and article make it sound like Apple is blaming the customer on having used 3rd-party batteries at all, but that's silly since Apple doesn't make AAA.

    2) Has anyone else jumped from disposable batteries to only using Eneloop (or similar rechargeable batteries) for all their needs. I only need AA, AAA, and a few 9-Volts these days. They last considerably longer than disposable batteries and my math says it'll reduce both my cost and waste.
    I only use rechargeable batteries, everybody should!
    Why, because it's better for you? Many use cases where rechargeables are not practical or desirable. Smart people usually avoid absolute statements.
    I agree that absolute statements can paint one into a corner, but I am having a hard time seeing how rechargeable batteries have a downside for personal items. If it's a gift, it would be great to include rechargeable batteries—hell, make the gift rechargeable batteries and charger—but it's the one area where I can understand why one wouldn't have to both save money and the environment. What's the counter to, say, having a digital scale that takes 4 AAA batteries that I can now charge once every 6 months instead of replacing every 45 days?
     One place where you do not want to put rechargeable batteries is in your emergency survival kit. Rechargeable batteries only hold a good usable charge for about 4 to 6 months before needing to be recharged back up to full. Unless they're lithium ion. So there's greater need for maintenance in having rechargeable batteries in you emergency survival kit. What if an emergency hit after your rechargeable batteries been sitting there for 5 months and you're without power? Best to place several packs of alkalines in your kit for your battery needs, replace them with new ones every year or so and use the old ones elsewhere. New alkalines have a shelf life of over 5 years. So you it's not that critical to change them out every year.  Just replace them when it times to replace your can food. 

    If you must keep rechargeable batteries in your emergency survival kit, make sure to pack a charger that operates off a car lighter. This way you have a way to recharge them if there's no power.  And while your at it, throw in the cable you need to recharge your mobile phone from a car lighter.
    1) These days, the only rechargeable batteries I've seen are Li-Ion.

    2) One simple solution for a survival kit that has rechargeable batteries is to setup a repeating calendar entry so that ever 4, 6 or x-months you're reminded to swap, charge, and/or test the batteries in the kit. This should be set up anyway even if you have disposable batteries.
  • Reply 78 of 85
    avon b7 said:
    They will probably do that although it isn't necessary for safety reasons. Alkaline batteries are proven and this case is more of an exception than anything else. Typically, leakage is their main problem when people store products and forget to take the batteries out.
    Changing it to something similar to that of BeatsX would at least give them total control of what goes into their products.
  • Reply 79 of 85
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    davidw said:
    Soli said:
    I agree that absolute statements can paint one into a corner, but I am having a hard time seeing how rechargeable batteries have a downside for personal items. If it's a gift, it would be great to include rechargeable batteries—hell, make the gift rechargeable batteries and charger—but it's the one area where I can understand why one wouldn't have to both save money and the environment. What's the counter to, say, having a digital scale that takes 4 AAA batteries that I can now charge once every 6 months instead of replacing every 45 days?
     One place where you do not want to put rechargeable batteries is in your emergency survival kit. Rechargeable batteries only hold a good usable charge for about 4 to 6 months before needing to be recharged back up to full. Unless they're lithium ion. So there's greater need for maintenance in having rechargeable batteries in you emergency survival kit. What if an emergency hit after your rechargeable batteries been sitting there for 5 months and you're without power? Best to place several packs of alkalines in your kit for your battery needs, replace them with new ones every year or so and use the old ones elsewhere. New alkalines have a shelf life of over 5 years. So you it's not that critical to change them out every year.  Just replace them when it times to replace your can food. 

    If you must keep rechargeable batteries in your emergency survival kit, make sure to pack a charger that operates off a car lighter. This way you have a way to recharge them if there's no power.  And while your at it, throw in the cable you need to recharge your mobile phone from a car lighter.
    As Soli mentioned Li-Ion are the bulk of rechargeables today and retain 70% charge after 10 years for the latest Eneloops.  Alkalines leak even before their end date when stored in warm places like your car where you should keep an emergency kit.  Even in a cool environment once they start to run low they can leak before their end date.

    If there is no power your alkalines will die too and it makes no difference.  At least with Eneloops you can recharge them if you have a power source.

    Car lighter?  No.  Pick a charger that will charge from USB.  Then a USB battery pack can recharge either your phone or your flashlight/radio/whatever.  Especially if the "emergency" is a dead car battery.

    Keep one of the emergency jump starter batteries in your car and you can jump start it (maybe, depends on vehicle) or re-charge your phone.

    My "can" food is Mountain House with a 10+ year shelf life.


    Soli
  • Reply 80 of 85
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,373member
    nht said:
    davidw said:
    Soli said:
    I agree that absolute statements can paint one into a corner, but I am having a hard time seeing how rechargeable batteries have a downside for personal items. If it's a gift, it would be great to include rechargeable batteries—hell, make the gift rechargeable batteries and charger—but it's the one area where I can understand why one wouldn't have to both save money and the environment. What's the counter to, say, having a digital scale that takes 4 AAA batteries that I can now charge once every 6 months instead of replacing every 45 days?
     One place where you do not want to put rechargeable batteries is in your emergency survival kit. Rechargeable batteries only hold a good usable charge for about 4 to 6 months before needing to be recharged back up to full. Unless they're lithium ion. So there's greater need for maintenance in having rechargeable batteries in you emergency survival kit. What if an emergency hit after your rechargeable batteries been sitting there for 5 months and you're without power? Best to place several packs of alkalines in your kit for your battery needs, replace them with new ones every year or so and use the old ones elsewhere. New alkalines have a shelf life of over 5 years. So you it's not that critical to change them out every year.  Just replace them when it times to replace your can food. 

    If you must keep rechargeable batteries in your emergency survival kit, make sure to pack a charger that operates off a car lighter. This way you have a way to recharge them if there's no power.  And while your at it, throw in the cable you need to recharge your mobile phone from a car lighter.
    As Soli mentioned Li-Ion are the bulk of rechargeables today and retain 70% charge after 10 years for the latest Eneloops.  Alkalines leak even before their end date when stored in warm places like your car where you should keep an emergency kit.  Even in a cool environment once they start to run low they can leak before their end date.

    If there is no power your alkalines will die too and it makes no difference.  At least with Eneloops you can recharge them if you have a power source.

    Car lighter?  No.  Pick a charger that will charge from USB.  Then a USB battery pack can recharge either your phone or your flashlight/radio/whatever.  Especially if the "emergency" is a dead car battery.

    Keep one of the emergency jump starter batteries in your car and you can jump start it (maybe, depends on vehicle) or re-charge your phone.

    My "can" food is Mountain House with a 10+ year shelf life.




    No, the bulk of the rechargeable batteries are NimH. Eneloops are  NimH. Lithium ion are 3.7v. They do not come in standard 1.5V or 1.2V AAA,  AA, C or D. Though there is a company that makes an AA 1.5v li-on battery. The closest li-on battery to an AA is the 18650. It's about 30% larger. There are many high power LED flashlights that uses them. But it's still a 3.7V battery.

    The bulk of non standard size rechargeable batteries found in cell phones, headphones, digital cameras, laptops, MP3 players, etc. are Li-on. 

    There's a good reason why li-on batteries do not come in standard sizes, many people might mistakenly put them in a standard NimH or NiCad charger. Li-on batteries can explode if not charged correctly. They require special chargers. 

    The 70% after 10 years is how much charge it will still hold after charging, after 10 years of non use, not how long it will hold a full charge. NimH will only hold a charge for about 6 months. The larger the battery the longer it will hold a charge. But most AA and AA will need recharging every 4 months. 

    For a long lasting charge, it's very tough to beat a 12v, seal lead acid, deep cycle battery. I have a friend that has one hooked up to a trickle charger that is plugged into the light socket of his electric garage door opener. Every time he opens his garage door, the battery gets a 5 minute trickle charge when the light turns on. The battery is always ready for an emergency, with very little maintenance.
    avon b7
Sign In or Register to comment.