45/70
Flashlight Enthusiast
Whew! Ford vs. Chevy, LP's vs. CD's...... now, mindgames? 
Dave
Dave
Anyone prefer AA over 123
- Thread starter tenaciousj
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
I expressed a strong preference for AA vs 123, as the question was posed. As it happens there are no decent secondary 123's for that side, and NiMH AA format batteries own the day in my selection process. All your other logic constructs for sake of argument have little bearing on the original question, "dude".
I am quite pleased with my ancient Surefire 9P and Malkoff M60. But it burns through $5 worth of CR123's in a couple of hours. As a comparison, a 2xAA Fenix L2D is pretty close to the output, longer run time, and the $4 pair of Eneloops will recharge in two hours for almost nothing - a thousand times.
AA's are preferable to many of us, and you can equivocate ad infinitum.
Black Rose
Flashlight Enthusiast
So true. I started out with AA and D alkaline cells, and now look at the mess I have
NiMh: AA, AAA, C, D
Alk: AA, AAA, D, 9V
Lithium: AA, 2016, CR123A
Li-Ion: 16340, 17670, 18650
I'll probably add LiFePO4 and IMR to the mix next year.
No, no, it's MUCH better because it shows common sense and REASON. It does not show dogmatism or elitism, nor narrow thinking. Good stuff that!
Well, I guess I've been told then, haven't I.
I still don't understand why you insist upon paying at least twice as much for good 123's as you need to. Puzzling. :thinking: 😕
Surprisingly enough, some folks have needs and priorities differing from your own, so while your choices work for you, they're clearly not best for everyone.
By the way, I really like Eneloops for many of my lights, so we certainly agree there, and you're sometimes a hard man to agree with ! 😉
Last edited:
Whew! Ford vs. Chevy, LP's vs. CD's...... now, mindgames?
Dave
No kiddin' ! sheesh! Religious discussions!
I like my reasoning a lot more than your offensive labelling. I gave my preference, and the reasons. You descend to diatribe.
If I've offended you in any way, please forgive me, it was not my intention.
If budget is priority, then you buy the cheapest (AA alkaline) or use the cheapest to operate (NiMH/RCR123) in the long-run.
If performance (power to weight, longevity/endurance) is priority, you buy what you need, regardless of price.
Having said that, I do buy my poop (Primary Lithium AA and Primary Lithium CR123) on-sale, always. I find I am too effective at finding sales that for the past two years, I have been buying more batteries than I can use. So my stockpile is growing. Thank goodness for Primary Lithium's 10 to 15 year shelf life.
Last edited:
So true. I started out with AA and D alkaline cells, and now look at the mess I have
NiMh: AA, AAA, C, D
Alk: AA, AAA, D, 9V
Lithium: AA, 2016, CR123A
Li-Ion: 16340, 17670, 18650
I'll probably add LiFePO4 and IMR to the mix next year.
It all depends on usage, needs, technical requirements and budget. Every battery type has pros and cons.
That's why battery types are proliferating.
LightCannon
Enlightened
If you've got too many to use, feel free to ship a few over to me. I'll put them to good use 😀
I really like my Eneloops as well.
But as has been mentioned many times in other threads, sometimes, managing/maintaining rechargeables takes too much time and effort and some people do not have the time nor the organizational skillz for it. Sometimes resulting in rechargeables being tossed out when it should have been sent to the charger.
For these cases, it's easier to grab fresh primaries and toss these out when done. Yes, this is more expensive in the long run but for many people, time is more expensive and better spent doing other things than spent managing rechargebles.
uk_caver
Flashlight Enthusiast
Presumably for lithium (of any size), the killer application mandating them is cold weather, with voltage-per-unit-volume and energy-per-unit-weight (and maybe shelf-life) being important other factors in some circumstances.
For a lot of people (maybe most people?), if they weren't already using 123-based lights, there can be quite a hurdle to get over to start using them, unless there's either a significant driving factor in terms of usage, or a particular light they really want which forces their hand.
Obviously, there's a vicious circle there - if few people use them, cells are likely to be more expensive/less available, which stays as a disincentive for people who don't want to have to mail-order their cells, and also means that stores may be less likely to stock the lights, etc.
Maybe that's more the case over here than in the US?
Is there much of a retail market over there for 123-based lights in physical stores (not mail-order)?
I guess that with lighting, there's also always the subjective side.
Even there were two headtorches/flashlights that were the same price, same weight, tuned for the same runtime, and with the same running costs, but one was 50% or 100% brighter than the other due to its power source, unless someone with the dimmer torch was going out of their way to do brightness comparisons, they might not be meaningfully less happy with the dimmer one than they would have been if they'd bought the other one, even if someone else might think they should be.
If 123 and AA technology are both basically mature, I wonder if there'd be likely to be much of a shift at the bulk consumer end of the market.
Possibly the existence of mail order basically filling the needs of the niche market that does exist makes it less attractive for consumer retail stores to enter the field unless they think they can significantly expand demand?
And if that expansion would be at the expense of other things they currently sell...?
For a lot of people (maybe most people?), if they weren't already using 123-based lights, there can be quite a hurdle to get over to start using them, unless there's either a significant driving factor in terms of usage, or a particular light they really want which forces their hand.
Obviously, there's a vicious circle there - if few people use them, cells are likely to be more expensive/less available, which stays as a disincentive for people who don't want to have to mail-order their cells, and also means that stores may be less likely to stock the lights, etc.
Maybe that's more the case over here than in the US?
Is there much of a retail market over there for 123-based lights in physical stores (not mail-order)?
I guess that with lighting, there's also always the subjective side.
Even there were two headtorches/flashlights that were the same price, same weight, tuned for the same runtime, and with the same running costs, but one was 50% or 100% brighter than the other due to its power source, unless someone with the dimmer torch was going out of their way to do brightness comparisons, they might not be meaningfully less happy with the dimmer one than they would have been if they'd bought the other one, even if someone else might think they should be.
If 123 and AA technology are both basically mature, I wonder if there'd be likely to be much of a shift at the bulk consumer end of the market.
Possibly the existence of mail order basically filling the needs of the niche market that does exist makes it less attractive for consumer retail stores to enter the field unless they think they can significantly expand demand?
And if that expansion would be at the expense of other things they currently sell...?
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
JCup said:
JCup,
kwkarth was responding to someone else here, and not to you. I've read over the dialog here and I didn't see any offensive labelling or a diatribe. You are free to disagree, of course--I have no problem with that. The problem is in redirecting the discussion to the style and language and people instead of the subject matter. If you feel a post is offensive, report it--that's the best approach. Turning the discussion to people and posting style and summary judgments of the same will tend to cause it to degenerate.
Everyone is free to express his or her opinion, including the opinion that the answer depends upon the person and his or her needs.
kwkarth has expressly stated that he was not intending to offend, and has even offered an apology. Please consider that you and he have an honest difference of opinion, and that neither of you is trying to offend or slap offensive labels on each other.
Back to the regularly scheduled discussion.
uk_caver
Flashlight Enthusiast
It can certainly be easier using primaries from that respect.
Even if single-cell-per-channel smart chargers make it very much quicker and easier to recover from a full/part-used/empty rechargeable mix-up than it used to be, there can be a definite issue with the sheer numbers of cells needed if managing multiple devices at the same time.
Also, given that all chargers and cells are definitely not equal, people can have (or have had) bad experiences which put them off the whole idea.
moldyoldy
Flashlight Enthusiast
There is another factor in the NiMH vs Li-Ion debate - that of supply. There have been several threads in the CPF archives on the subject of the world's supply of Lithium. A search on "Lithium supply" returns quite a few hits. Here is one of them:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=212904
The point for this discussion is that the market factors for Lithium for any type of Lithium-xxx cells are only starting to be influenced by car manufacturers looking at high-energy storage sources. By comparison, the market factors for the raw materials in NiMH cells are relatively established.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=212904
The point for this discussion is that the market factors for Lithium for any type of Lithium-xxx cells are only starting to be influenced by car manufacturers looking at high-energy storage sources. By comparison, the market factors for the raw materials in NiMH cells are relatively established.
Lithium is also used in the manufacture of meth 😉
Steet meth prices are going to sky rocket!!!
More reason to stock up now!
How about recycling?
I hear about Nickel recycling all the time, but never about Lithium recycling.
uk_caver
Flashlight Enthusiast
I wonder if people would be more likely to recycle rechargeable cells than primary ones, even if similarly labelled?
Primaries do have more of a disposable feel (no value once flat, just consuming space) whereas at least some fraction of the people who use rechargeables is used to have them hanging around, so might be more amenable to collecting them up for eventual recycling.
If they go flat when away from home, unless someone has a good reason to assume they're also end-of-life, there's a reason (and a habit) to bring rechargeables back home where they might be accumulated for recycling.
Even if it is likely a cell is on its last legs, it may welll be taken home for a quick test to make sure, or relegated to lesser duties until it finally dies, or at least until it ages enough to be included in a future recycling run.
Primaries do have more of a disposable feel (no value once flat, just consuming space) whereas at least some fraction of the people who use rechargeables is used to have them hanging around, so might be more amenable to collecting them up for eventual recycling.
If they go flat when away from home, unless someone has a good reason to assume they're also end-of-life, there's a reason (and a habit) to bring rechargeables back home where they might be accumulated for recycling.
Even if it is likely a cell is on its last legs, it may welll be taken home for a quick test to make sure, or relegated to lesser duties until it finally dies, or at least until it ages enough to be included in a future recycling run.
