Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before
you recharge and if you leave it on the charger too long it could also ruin
it. However, I simply cannot manage to do that, I have two cordless phones
and I don't want them to die in the middle of a call, so I do charge them
before they run out, also I don't remove them from the charger as soon as
they are done, I sometimes leave them on the charger too long.

I have purchased new replacement batteries and they work for a few months
and then back to not holding charge again.

Are there cordless phones out there that will hold charges? I am ready to
toss my two phones into the garbage!

MC

Just look for a phone that does NOT use nicad batteries. Those are the ones
with memory problems.


"MiamiCuse" wrote in message
...
Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries
that will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3
to 4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and
charging/recharging, they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse
and worse until the charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before
you recharge and if you leave it on the charger too long it could also
ruin it. However, I simply cannot manage to do that, I have two cordless
phones and I don't want them to die in the middle of a call, so I do
charge them before they run out, also I don't remove them from the charger
as soon as they are done, I sometimes leave them on the charger too long.

I have purchased new replacement batteries and they work for a few months
and then back to not holding charge again.

Are there cordless phones out there that will hold charges? I am ready to
toss my two phones into the garbage!

MC

"Art" wrote in message
...
Just look for a phone that does NOT use nicad batteries. Those are the
ones with memory problems.


"MiamiCuse" wrote in message
...
Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries
that will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3
to 4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and
charging/recharging, they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets
worse and worse until the charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die
before you recharge and if you leave it on the charger too long it could
also ruin it. However, I simply cannot manage to do that, I have two
cordless phones and I don't want them to die in the middle of a call, so
I do charge them before they run out, also I don't remove them from the
charger as soon as they are done, I sometimes leave them on the charger
too long.

I have purchased new replacement batteries and they work for a few months
and then back to not holding charge again.

Are there cordless phones out there that will hold charges? I am ready
to toss my two phones into the garbage!

MC




My Panasonic cordless phones use Nickel-Hydride batteries with no memory
issues......

On Jul 8, 10:25*pm, "MiamiCuse" wrote:
Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before
you recharge and if you leave it on the charger too long it could also ruin
it. *However, I simply cannot manage to do that, I have two cordless phones
and I don't want them to die in the middle of a call, so I do charge them
before they run out, also I don't remove them from the charger as soon as
they are done, I sometimes leave them on the charger too long.

I have purchased new replacement batteries and they work for a few months
and then back to not holding charge again.

Are there cordless phones out there that will hold charges? *I am ready to
toss my two phones into the garbage!

MC

Consumer Reports probably rates battery life

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:47:07 -0700, Evan Platt wrote:

Any batteries, short of sealed lead acid, will start to hold less of a
charge over time. How old are the phones? The newer the technology,
the better they'll be at holding a charge, but still after a year or
so, it may be time to buy new batteries.

No phone weighing less than 15 pounds uses a lead acid battery. About the
last phone to use a lead acid battery were bagphones of the early 80's.

Cordless phones used to use NiCads but now use NIMH batteries or Lithium Ion.

The usuall failure occurs as a result of running the battery after one of the
individual cells has completely discharged. The other cells will force
current through the discharged cell therby charging it in reverse and shorting
it out.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:25:20 -0400, "MiamiCuse"
wrote:

Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before
you recharge and if you leave it on the charger too long it could also ruin
it. However, I simply cannot manage to do that, I have two cordless phones
and I don't want them to die in the middle of a call, so I do charge them
before they run out, also I don't remove them from the charger as soon as
they are done, I sometimes leave them on the charger too long.

I have purchased new replacement batteries and they work for a few months
and then back to not holding charge again.

Are there cordless phones out there that will hold charges? I am ready to
toss my two phones into the garbage!


My uniden system holds a charge for several days. I have several
handsets, so I just charge the one that is dying and grab another when
when I need to. I've had the same batteries in them for years. I
generally have to buy a new battery for one about every two or three
years.

Piggybacking
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:25:20 -0400, "MiamiCuse"
wrote:

Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before

memory effect is mostly a myth. Best strategy is to ignore the concept.
Letting the batterys run all the way down is far far more harmfull.

you recharge and if you leave it on the charger too long it could also ruin
it.
no it won't. Unless the phone is defective and allowing the batteries to
overheat.

I have purchased new replacement batteries and they work for a few months
and then back to not holding charge again.

I typically get 4-5 years out of set. I haven't seen any serious reduction
in battery life. They last at least 2 days at which point I've returned the
phone to the charger, before the battery is discharged.

Try leaving the phone in the charger overnight every night. I guarantee you'll
get better battery life than your current strategy.

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

Piggybacking
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:25:20 -0400, "MiamiCuse"
wrote:

Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before

memory effect is mostly a myth. Best strategy is to ignore the concept.
Letting the batterys run all the way down is far far more harmfull.


This the same with laptop batteries? I use my laptop more as a
desktop, so it is almost always plugged in. A couple times a month, I
may run it on batteries for awhile mostly to make sure the batteries are
working should I need them. But I don't really need to run them down to
nothing? Is there maybe some minimum I should run them down or is just a
few minutes off house power to confirm they are working is okay

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:14:30 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Letting the batterys run all the way down is far far more harmfull.


This the same with laptop batteries? I use my laptop more as a
desktop, so it is almost always plugged in. A couple times a month, I
may run it on batteries for awhile mostly to make sure the batteries are
working should I need them. But I don't really need to run them down to
nothing? Is there maybe some minimum I should run them down or is just a
few minutes off house power to confirm they are working is okay

I don't think so. Laptop's use lithium ion batteries and generally have
fairly high quality charge controllers and shut down before the cells get
fully discharged.

Cheap cordless phones with NIMH batteries are a totally different story. They
don't shutdown before the batter is fully discharged.

For laptops, I don't like losing power in the middle of a session. I
typically set my laptop to 'hibernate' (save to disk and power off) when
power gets below 15% or so. I also set them to hibernate if I close the lid
when runing on battery power.

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:


I don't think so. Laptop's use lithium ion batteries and generally have
fairly high quality charge controllers and shut down before the cells get
fully discharged.

So, running down the laptops won't hurt, but doing on a structured
basis as a maintenance function isn't needed?

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:25:20 -0400, "MiamiCuse"
wrote:

Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

If you spend a lot of time talking on the cordless phone, this might
not be true, but otherwise, if you can get an old phone with an on/off
switch, you'll be better off.

On current phones the switch goes from standby to on, but the phone is
always in receive mode, running down the battery.

On old phones, when the switch was Off, the phone was off. No current
was used from the battery. It wouldn't ring, but you can still hear
one of the wired phones ringing, pick up the phone and turn it on to
talk.

Getting rid of the on-off switch strikes me as stupid. If new phones
use so much less battery power that they stay charged for 5 days
without the on-off switch, instead of one day some time ago, the new
phones would stay charged for 20 with an on/off switch.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before
you recharge and if you leave it on the charger too long it could also ruin
it. However, I simply cannot manage to do that, I have two cordless phones
and I don't want them to die in the middle of a call, so I do charge them
before they run out, also I don't remove them from the charger as soon as
they are done, I sometimes leave them on the charger too long.

I have purchased new replacement batteries and they work for a few months
and then back to not holding charge again.

Are there cordless phones out there that will hold charges? I am ready to
toss my two phones into the garbage!

MC

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:14:30 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

Piggybacking
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:25:20 -0400, "MiamiCuse"
wrote:

Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before

memory effect is mostly a myth. Best strategy is to ignore the concept.
Letting the batterys run all the way down is far far more harmfull.

How do you know this when the phone manufacturers say otherwise?


This the same with laptop batteries? I use my laptop more as a

No. They use Li-ion batteries, the ones famous for bursting into
flames (on rare occasions), and they don't have that trait. Why they
don't make cordless phones that use the same kind of batteries, I
don't know.

I see nickle-hydride batteries, a third type that someone recommended,
for sale for some cordless phones, but I don't know much about their
traits.

desktop, so it is almost always plugged in. A couple times a month, I
may run it on batteries for awhile mostly to make sure the batteries are
working should I need them. But I don't really need to run them down to
nothing? Is there maybe some minimum I should run them down or is just a
few minutes off house power to confirm they are working is okay

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:51:18 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:


I don't think so. Laptop's use lithium ion batteries and generally have
fairly high quality charge controllers and shut down before the cells get
fully discharged.

So, running down the laptops won't hurt, but doing on a structured
basis as a maintenance function isn't needed?

Running all the way down can severly hurt your file system if write operations
were in progress at the point of powerloss.

I don't know what you mean by "doing on a structured basis....".
Are you talking about precautions against the so called 'memory effect'?
Doesn't apply to Lithium Ion batteries. Maybe applied to early NiCads
although the jury is still out and it may simply be a myth.

A different effect is that Lithium Ion batteries have a limited number of
charge/discharge cycles. If you run on batteries and then reconect the charger 20
times a week instead of 4 times a week, you'll get 1/5th the battery life.
Leave it on the charger, or let it run most of the way down.

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:


I don't know what you mean by "doing on a structured basis....".
Are you talking about precautions against the so called 'memory effect'?
Doesn't apply to Lithium Ion batteries. Maybe applied to early NiCads
although the jury is still out and it may simply be a myth.
That is what I meant. So, don't need to run the batteries on my
laptop down every month to avoid having them memory and only hold
partial charges?


A different effect is that Lithium Ion batteries have a limited number of
charge/discharge cycles. If you run on batteries and then reconect the
charger 20
times a week instead of 4 times a week, you'll get 1/5th the battery life.
Leave it on the charger, or let it run most of the way down.

So, I should leave it on the charger except for maybe 10 minutes or
so when I know I am going to have to use the batteries to test to make
sure they are working properly.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:24:22 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:


I don't know what you mean by "doing on a structured basis....".
Are you talking about precautions against the so called 'memory effect'?
Doesn't apply to Lithium Ion batteries. Maybe applied to early NiCads
although the jury is still out and it may simply be a myth.
That is what I meant. So, don't need to run the batteries on my
laptop down every month to avoid having them memory and only hold
partial charges?


A different effect is that Lithium Ion batteries have a limited number of
charge/discharge cycles. If you run on batteries and then reconect the
charger 20
times a week instead of 4 times a week, you'll get 1/5th the battery life.
Leave it on the charger, or let it run most of the way down.

So, I should leave it on the charger except for maybe 10 minutes or
so when I know I am going to have to use the batteries to test to make
sure they are working properly.

Pretty much. Leave it on the charger except when you want portability.
I prefer running on batteries as the power management usually has the laptop
run cooler even though I have cpu throttling set for both AC and batteries.

On Jul 8, 10:25*pm, "MiamiCuse" wrote:
Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before
you recharge and if you leave it on the charger too long it could also ruin
it. *However, I simply cannot manage to do that, I have two cordless phones
and I don't want them to die in the middle of a call, so I do charge them
before they run out, also I don't remove them from the charger as soon as
they are done, I sometimes leave them on the charger too long.

I have purchased new replacement batteries and they work for a few months
and then back to not holding charge again.

Are there cordless phones out there that will hold charges? *I am ready to
toss my two phones into the garbage!

MC

Like someone else in this thread mentioned Uniden (http://
www.uniden.com) . I've had nothing but good luck with them.
Planning on purchasing a new set of four. Separate chargers on all of
them, running from the same base unit.

Previously had Panasonic and General Electric. Both died an early
death.

On Jul 9, 11:08*am, AZ Nomad wrote:
Piggybacking

...

I typically get 4-5 years out of set. *I haven't seen any serious reduction
in battery life. *They last at least 2 days at which point I've returned the
phone to the charger, before the battery is discharged.

Try leaving the phone in the charger overnight every night. *I guarantee you'll
get better battery life than your current strategy.

That is about the same for me. I believe most cordless phones (Not
cell phones) are designed to be in the charger most of the time when
they are not in use. The choice of batteries will reflect that.
Leaving them out of the charger for days at a time is not within the
normal expected use, so you get less battery life.

MiamiCuse wrote:

Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries
that will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3
to 4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and
charging/recharging, they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse
and worse until the charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before
you recharge and if you leave it on the charger too long it could also
ruin
it. However, I simply cannot manage to do that, I have two cordless
phones and I don't want them to die in the middle of a call, so I do
charge them before they run out, also I don't remove them from the charger
as soon as they are done, I sometimes leave them on the charger too long.

I have purchased new replacement batteries and they work for a few months
and then back to not holding charge again.

Are there cordless phones out there that will hold charges? I am ready to
toss my two phones into the garbage!

MC

Those batteries probably only need reconditioning and are not dead. Too bad
they dont make the plain old AA batteries. Likely because they want you to
keep buying from the... Plenty of reconditioning devices for AA and AAA
batteries, I dont know any for phone batteries though.

Most newer phones should not have too much of a problem. Anyway, why are
you trying to get batteries to last 4 days? Is there no charger around? I
would change my brand of phone. My panasonic I have had for about 5 years
and the batteries will last at least 4 hours. i dont talk that much
though.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:17:43 -0400, Claude Hopper
wrote:

MiamiCuse wrote:
Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before
you recharge and if you leave it on the charger too long it could also ruin
it. However, I simply cannot manage to do that, I have two cordless phones
and I don't want them to die in the middle of a call, so I do charge them
before they run out, also I don't remove them from the charger as soon as
they are done, I sometimes leave them on the charger too long.

I have purchased new replacement batteries and they work for a few months
and then back to not holding charge again.

Are there cordless phones out there that will hold charges? I am ready to
toss my two phones into the garbage!

MC


I had nicad batteries in my cordless phone that lasted for many years. I
leave them on the charger all the time. One cordless phone I put away
for a few years while I had cell only. Took it out of storage, plugged
it in and back in business again, batteries at least 7 years old. It's
back in storage again, I'm back to cell only again. I can no longer have
a phone that I can't take with me everywhere I go.

I wish I could do that. However, the cellular reception is real bad
here. About .3 of the time, there's no signal. The rest of the time,
calls are full of dropouts. The situation outside is only SLIGHTLY
better.

BTW, this is in town and the signal is very good miss than a mile
north, and less than a mile south of here (business areas).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word
in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
--Bertrand Russell

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
Piggybacking
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:25:20 -0400, "MiamiCuse"
wrote:

Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before

memory effect is mostly a myth. Best strategy is to ignore the concept.
Letting the batterys run all the way down is far far more harmfull.


REALLY!


I thought that was what you were supposed to do -- let 'em run
all the way down to zero, and only then recharge them.


Like with electric toothbrushes, razors, etc.

Question: was that EVER true?

Question: are there different recharge-rules for different
products, kinds of things, etc?

Thanks!


David

In article ,
mm wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:25:20 -0400, "MiamiCuse"
wrote:

Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

If you spend a lot of time talking on the cordless phone, this might
not be true, but otherwise, if you can get an old phone with an on/off
switch, you'll be better off.

On current phones the switch goes from standby to on, but the phone is
always in receive mode, running down the battery.

On old phones, when the switch was Off, the phone was off. No current
was used from the battery. It wouldn't ring, but you can still hear
one of the wired phones ringing, pick up the phone and turn it on to
talk.

Getting rid of the on-off switch strikes me as stupid. If new phones


Yeah, but this way "they" can *always* know where you are. Might
that be the reason for no more switch?


David

In article ,
Brent Bolin wrote:

Like someone else in this thread mentioned Uniden (http://
www.uniden.com) . I've had nothing but good luck with them.
Planning on purchasing a new set of four. Separate chargers on all of
them, running from the same base unit.

Previously had Panasonic and General Electric. Both died an early
death.



Aren't these the guys who make (or used to make) a "two-line" phone?

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 00:25:56 +0000 (UTC), David Combs wrote:
I thought that was what you were supposed to do -- let 'em run
all the way down to zero, and only then recharge them.

Absolutely not! There's always a weakest cell and when you run the
battery all the way down, there's a point where the weakest cell is
completely discharged and the other cells are forcing current through
it, effective charging it in reverse and leading to a shorted out cell.

Like with electric toothbrushes, razors, etc.

Question: was that EVER true?
no. It's good to run it almost all the way, but *never* keep running
once the battery starts to lose voltage.


Question: are there different recharge-rules for different
products, kinds of things, etc?

Not really. Lithium ion cells tend to have much smarter charge
controllers and won't let the battery fully discharge. They have a
limited number of cycles; if you discharge them half as much and recharge
twice as often, you'll effectively half the total overall lifespan.

David Combs wrote:
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
Piggybacking
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:25:20 -0400, "MiamiCuse"
wrote:
Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before
memory effect is mostly a myth. Best strategy is to ignore the concept.
Letting the batterys run all the way down is far far more harmfull.


REALLY!


I thought that was what you were supposed to do -- let 'em run
all the way down to zero, and only then recharge them.


Like with electric toothbrushes, razors, etc.

Question: was that EVER true?

Question: are there different recharge-rules for different
products, kinds of things, etc?

Thanks!


David


Hi,
I'd go for DECT 6 phones with lithium ion batteries.
Ni-Cad batteries have been known for memory effect for sure.

In article MKNlk.160677$gc5.91017@pd7urf2no,
Tony Hwang wrote:

I'd go for DECT 6 phones with lithium ion batteries.

Some time ago I purchased a 4-handset, Panasonic DECT 6.0 (1.6 gHz)
system. They are equipped with NiMH (Nickle Metal Hydride) cells.

Two days ago I went shopping again for a cordless phone for a friend. I
learned that virtually all DECT 6.0 models are NiMH-equipped. I believe
5.8 gHz systems are, too.

Ni-Cad batteries have been known for memory effect for sure.

Agreed, and there are probably a dozen, different recommendations for
their "care and feeding" - none of which seems to provide long life.
--

JR

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:09:00 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote:
David Combs wrote:
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
Piggybacking
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:25:20 -0400, "MiamiCuse"
wrote:
Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before
memory effect is mostly a myth. Best strategy is to ignore the concept.
Letting the batterys run all the way down is far far more harmfull.


REALLY!


I thought that was what you were supposed to do -- let 'em run
all the way down to zero, and only then recharge them.


Like with electric toothbrushes, razors, etc.

Question: was that EVER true?

Question: are there different recharge-rules for different
products, kinds of things, etc?

Thanks!


David


Hi,
I'd go for DECT 6 phones with lithium ion batteries.
Ni-Cad batteries have been known for memory effect for sure.
I've heard conflicting findings. I may very well be a myth.

"David Combs" wrote in message
...
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:
Piggybacking
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:25:20 -0400, "MiamiCuse"
wrote:

Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries
that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3
to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until
the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die
before

memory effect is mostly a myth. Best strategy is to ignore the concept.
Letting the batterys run all the way down is far far more harmfull.

If the batteries are NiCad's, the memory effect is NOT a myth. Ask anyone
who flies radio control aircraft and uses or used to use NiCad's.

I used to use NiCad batteries with my aircraft and regular "cycling" of the
batteries with a battery cycler extended the useful life of the batteries
and kept the capacity of the batteries to near new condition.

REALLY!


I thought that was what you were supposed to do -- let 'em run
all the way down to zero, and only then recharge them.

Unless there are protective circuits in the device being used, running a
battery down to zero is not a very good idea and could actually kill a
rechargeable battery very quickly.

Like with electric toothbrushes, razors, etc.

Question: was that EVER true?

Question: are there different recharge-rules for different
products, kinds of things, etc?

Thanks!

Follow the instructions that came with your device regarding batteries. My
electric shaver has an auto shut down so that the battery doesn't go to zero
before charging and it is recommended to let the shaver discharge to auto
shutdown regularly before recharging.

The instructions given will depend upon the type of batteries you are using.

On Aug 4, 8:25*pm, (David Combs) wrote:
In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:





Piggybacking
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:25:20 -0400, "MiamiCuse"
wrote:

Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting batteries that
will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries last 3 to
4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and charging/recharging,
they no longer hold charge as long, and it gets worse and worse until the
charge will hold for only about 15 minutes.

I understand those batteries have memory and you have to let it die before

memory effect is mostly a myth. *Best strategy is to ignore the concept.

David Combs wrote:
In article ,
mm wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:25:20 -0400, "MiamiCuse"
wrote:

Can someone recommend a cordless phone that has long lasting
batteries that will not "degrade" a lot over time?

I have two cordless phones, and when they were new, the batteries
last 3 to 4 days, then after a few months or so of usages and
charging/recharging, they no longer hold charge as long, and it
gets worse and worse until the charge will hold for only about 15
minutes.

If you spend a lot of time talking on the cordless phone, this
might
not be true, but otherwise, if you can get an old phone with an
on/off switch, you'll be better off.

On current phones the switch goes from standby to on, but the phone
is always in receive mode, running down the battery.

On old phones, when the switch was Off, the phone was off. No
current was used from the battery. It wouldn't ring, but you can
still hear one of the wired phones ringing, pick up the phone and
turn it on to talk.

Getting rid of the on-off switch strikes me as stupid. If new
phones


Yeah, but this way "they" can *always* know where you are. Might
that be the reason for no more switch?

If you read the fine print there's generally a way to power down the
phone, if you're talking cellular, rather than putting it in standby.
But I believe the discussion was of the kind of phone that has a
hard-wired base unit and a handset that can be used within a few
hundred feet of the base. The only people who are going to track you
with one of those would be your parents.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
"Worn Out Retread" wrote:

If the batteries are NiCad's, the memory effect is NOT a myth. Ask anyone
who flies radio control aircraft and uses or used to use NiCad's.

Real men fly gas.

The memory effect isn't really a myth, but it's so widely misunderstood
that is might as well be. AIUI, less than perfect charge/discharge
cycles lead to a reduction in fully-charged voltage. That reduction is
approximately 5%.

So a device that uses four 1.2 volt cells, i.e. 4.8 volts, would charge
to approximately 4.56 volts.

The problem arose because early engineers tried to substitute NiCad
cells (1.2 v) for alkaline cells (1.5 v) one for one, so they were
already working at minimum voltage. Battery operated devices were barely
above the working threshold, and losing another 5% was enough to kill
them.

After NiCads had been out for a while, engineers wised up, and started
building a more reasonable margin of safety into their products.

The myth is that memory effect destroys amp-hour capacity. It doesn't,
to any significant degree. It will cause a device to quit operating if
that device is designed to quit with a 5% reduction in voltage. That
isn't finicky batteries, that's ****ty engineering.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:33:18 -0700, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Worn Out Retread" wrote:

If the batteries are NiCad's, the memory effect is NOT a myth. Ask anyone
who flies radio control aircraft and uses or used to use NiCad's.

Real men fly gas.

The memory effect isn't really a myth, but it's so widely misunderstood
that is might as well be. AIUI, less than perfect charge/discharge
cycles lead to a reduction in fully-charged voltage. That reduction is
approximately 5%.

So a device that uses four 1.2 volt cells, i.e. 4.8 volts, would charge
to approximately 4.56 volts.

The problem arose because early engineers tried to substitute NiCad
cells (1.2 v) for alkaline cells (1.5 v) one for one, so they were
already working at minimum voltage. Battery operated devices were barely
above the working threshold, and losing another 5% was enough to kill
them.

After NiCads had been out for a while, engineers wised up, and started
building a more reasonable margin of safety into their products.

The myth is that memory effect destroys amp-hour capacity. It doesn't,
to any significant degree. It will cause a device to quit operating if
that device is designed to quit with a 5% reduction in voltage. That
isn't finicky batteries, that's ****ty engineering.

That makes sense. I've think I've seen the "memory effect" in devices
that operate right at the voltage a fully charged set offers: ie: 4
1.2V cells almost providing 5V to a circuit requiring 5v. I've seen
no such "memory effect" in circuits operating a motor, lamp, or
anything but a poorly designed electronic circuit.

I used weasel words talking about the memory effect, that if "might"
be myth simply because it hasn't been well understood.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:33:18 -0700, Smitty Two wrote:
The memory effect isn't really a myth, but it's so widely misunderstood
that is might as well be. AIUI, less than perfect charge/discharge
cycles lead to a reduction in fully-charged voltage. That reduction is
approximately 5%.

Here's another one for you: I've noticed at least 4 times in my
lifetime, that when a nicad/nimh set isn't in regular use, that it
gets ruined. I can have a set of 8 nicads, 2 batteries of 4 cells,
that I can be swapping into a digital camera for 2-3 years, and if
that digital camera gets retired and the batteries sit in a drawer,
self-discharged for 6 months, they're mostly ruined. Is just being
self-discharged that deadly? I've gotten in the habbit of recharging
the batteries at least every other month even if I don't use them.
Otherwise they might as well go straight into the trash.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Worn Out Retread" wrote:

If the batteries are NiCad's, the memory effect is NOT a myth. Ask
anyone who flies radio control aircraft and uses or used to use
NiCad's.

Real men fly gas.

Where can one obtain one of these gas powered radios?

The memory effect isn't really a myth, but it's so widely
misunderstood that is might as well be. AIUI, less than perfect
charge/discharge cycles lead to a reduction in fully-charged
voltage.
That reduction is approximately 5%.

So a device that uses four 1.2 volt cells, i.e. 4.8 volts, would
charge to approximately 4.56 volts.

The problem arose because early engineers tried to substitute NiCad
cells (1.2 v) for alkaline cells (1.5 v) one for one, so they were
already working at minimum voltage. Battery operated devices were
barely above the working threshold, and losing another 5% was enough
to kill them.

After NiCads had been out for a while, engineers wised up, and
started
building a more reasonable margin of safety into their products.

The myth is that memory effect destroys amp-hour capacity. It
doesn't,
to any significant degree. It will cause a device to quit operating
if
that device is designed to quit with a 5% reduction in voltage. That
isn't finicky batteries, that's ****ty engineering.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Worn Out Retread" wrote:

If the batteries are NiCad's, the memory effect is NOT a myth. Ask
anyone who flies radio control aircraft and uses or used to use
NiCad's.

Real men fly gas.

Where can one obtain one of these gas powered radios?


LOL. Oh, *those* batteries. D'oh. Not into RC anymore but when I was, I
went several years with no transmitter or receiver battery issues. I
never used a battery cycler, didn't care how much or little charge
remained at the end of the day, just put everything on the charger the
night before. Never had any problems.

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:33:18 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:
In article ,
"Worn Out Retread" wrote:

If the batteries are NiCad's, the memory effect is NOT a myth. Ask anyone
who flies radio control aircraft and uses or used to use NiCad's.

Real men fly gas.

The memory effect isn't really a myth, but it's so widely misunderstood
that is might as well be. AIUI, less than perfect charge/discharge
cycles lead to a reduction in fully-charged voltage. That reduction is
approximately 5%.

So a device that uses four 1.2 volt cells, i.e. 4.8 volts, would charge
to approximately 4.56 volts.

The problem arose because early engineers tried to substitute NiCad
cells (1.2 v) for alkaline cells (1.5 v) one for one, so they were
already working at minimum voltage. Battery operated devices were barely
above the working threshold, and losing another 5% was enough to kill
them.

After NiCads had been out for a while, engineers wised up, and started
building a more reasonable margin of safety into their products.

The myth is that memory effect destroys amp-hour capacity. It doesn't,
to any significant degree. It will cause a device to quit operating if
that device is designed to quit with a 5% reduction in voltage. That
isn't finicky batteries, that's ****ty engineering.

That makes sense. I've think I've seen the "memory effect" in devices
that operate right at the voltage a fully charged set offers: ie: 4
1.2V cells almost providing 5V to a circuit requiring 5v. I've seen
no such "memory effect" in circuits operating a motor, lamp, or
anything but a poorly designed electronic circuit.

'Zactly.

In article ,
AZ Nomad wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:33:18 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:
The memory effect isn't really a myth, but it's so widely misunderstood
that is might as well be. AIUI, less than perfect charge/discharge
cycles lead to a reduction in fully-charged voltage. That reduction is
approximately 5%.

Here's another one for you: I've noticed at least 4 times in my
lifetime, that when a nicad/nimh set isn't in regular use, that it
gets ruined. I can have a set of 8 nicads, 2 batteries of 4 cells,
that I can be swapping into a digital camera for 2-3 years, and if
that digital camera gets retired and the batteries sit in a drawer,
self-discharged for 6 months, they're mostly ruined. Is just being
self-discharged that deadly?

Yep.

I've gotten in the habbit of recharging
the batteries at least every other month even if I don't use them.
Otherwise they might as well go straight into the trash.

And that's why I don't have cordless tools at home. I don't use 'em
often enough to make battery maintenance worth my while.

They only make gas powered cordless phones, sorry.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Worn Out Retread" wrote:

If the batteries are NiCad's, the memory effect is NOT a myth. Ask
anyone who flies radio control aircraft and uses or used to use
NiCad's.

Real men fly gas.

Where can one obtain one of these gas powered radios?

Stormin Mormon wrote:
They only make gas powered cordless phones, sorry.


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Worn Out Retread" wrote:

If the batteries are NiCad's, the memory effect is NOT a myth. Ask
anyone who flies radio control aircraft and uses or used to use
NiCad's.

Real men fly gas.

Where can one obtain one of these gas powered radios?

Did somebody actually get those methanol fuel cell jobbies into
production?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:46:29 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
They only make gas powered cordless phones, sorry.


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"Worn Out Retread" wrote:

If the batteries are NiCad's, the memory effect is NOT a myth. Ask
anyone who flies radio control aircraft and uses or used to use
NiCad's.

Real men fly gas.

Where can one obtain one of these gas powered radios?

Did somebody actually get those methanol fuel cell jobbies into
production?

Cool. With one of those, you could have a fart powered cellphone.
Never need to recharge except by eating lots of beans.