Joerg wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:47:37 -0700, Joerg
wrote:


Joel Kolstad wrote:


"Joerg" wrote in message
. net...


Clever it is indeed. The usefulness depends on how long that rechargeable
holds enough charge. If it's the usual three months or so I'd give it a
thumbs down.


If they were *really* clever they'd just suck power from the other batteries
in series to give themselves 1.5V. (Essentially a 1.5-4.5V boost coverter.)

Although obviously that doesn't work for Michael's one-cell remotes.

Are N-type cells the same diameter as AA's? Then you could just go back to
using primary cells.


No idea. However, the main challenge is that any batteries for such
mundane tools must be available at the local grocery. It's pathetic but
nowadays people consider it a major inconvenience when the remote quits
and, gasp, they have to get off the couch to switch the channel.


Yeah. Next thing ya know they'll be wanting electric starters and
windows on their cars instead of hand cranks.

My first car had a hand crank. Worked fine :-)

It's windows were semi-automatic though: Curve to the left, right window
opens a bit. Curve to the right, left window opens. But they never fell
off while driving (the trunk lid did once ...).


Trunk lid? That's better than the hood at 55 MPH.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida