Interesting Battery Story
- Thread starter Dawg
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Canuke
Enlightened
The linked article is BS propaganda that plays on anti-capitalist bias to steer people towards the author's own website selling -- you guessed it, "true" D-size rechargeables.
What is real is that Energizer does indeed sells rechargeable AA's in spacers for C and D-size applications. But the rest of it is bunk, in particular the paranoid conspiracy theory that Energizer's motive is to make rechargeables look bad so that consumers will stick to the disposable alkalines. What rot :thumbsdow If that were really the case, we'd see 500mAh AA's that are really AAA's inside spacers, and so on.
The truth is more likely that AA cells outsell C and D by some huge ratio per-cell, so the latter market is a lot smaller -- we don't see very many "true" C and D-size rechargeables industry-wide, let alone from just Energizer. Being a consumer-oriented mass market company, they figured that market segment was too small to warrant doing the R&D to develop true C and D cells on their own, and AFAIK their partners (like Sanyo) believe similarly, as they also lack true C and D cells. So, they simply decided to take the cheap route, and rely on their name to sell an otherwise inferior product in a market segment they barely care about. They certainly do see a lot of profit per unit, but I doubt they sell enough for it to make much of a bottom-line difference. They could skip C's and D's entirely and hardly notice.
Next up is his claim that the Energizer D's are selling them for $25 a pack. Where? No link. How could a reporter writing for a website that trumpets its credibility ("What makes us different? Read our Declaration of Journalistic Independence.") fail to do something as simply as check online? Amazon has the D's in a 3 pack of 2 (6 cells total) at list price of $27.04; that's about $4.50 each. Fry's has them at $5 each ($9.99 for the 2-pack).
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000HLY7GU/?tag=cpf0b6-20
http://shop2.outpost.com/search;jsessionid=lCBHW9PczP-RmoA2mRszLg**.node2?cat=-45378&pType=pDisplay
It's not until later that we find out what he's up to -- the site with the Powerex D's that he keeps pimping, is his own:
"Want to buy an honest "D" battery? Check out Powerex. These are the best rechargeable batteries I could find. Click here to learn more. I liked them so much that I bought several hundred of them and decided to offer them through my company, --omitted--.com".
Can you say "conflict of interest"?
I say, by all means look for true "C" and "D" cells, including the Powerex. Just don't buy them from this fraudmeister. It might be a good idea to treat everything on that Web site with a healthy does of skepticism too, now that we know what "journalistic independence" really means there.
What is real is that Energizer does indeed sells rechargeable AA's in spacers for C and D-size applications. But the rest of it is bunk, in particular the paranoid conspiracy theory that Energizer's motive is to make rechargeables look bad so that consumers will stick to the disposable alkalines. What rot :thumbsdow If that were really the case, we'd see 500mAh AA's that are really AAA's inside spacers, and so on.
The truth is more likely that AA cells outsell C and D by some huge ratio per-cell, so the latter market is a lot smaller -- we don't see very many "true" C and D-size rechargeables industry-wide, let alone from just Energizer. Being a consumer-oriented mass market company, they figured that market segment was too small to warrant doing the R&D to develop true C and D cells on their own, and AFAIK their partners (like Sanyo) believe similarly, as they also lack true C and D cells. So, they simply decided to take the cheap route, and rely on their name to sell an otherwise inferior product in a market segment they barely care about. They certainly do see a lot of profit per unit, but I doubt they sell enough for it to make much of a bottom-line difference. They could skip C's and D's entirely and hardly notice.
Next up is his claim that the Energizer D's are selling them for $25 a pack. Where? No link. How could a reporter writing for a website that trumpets its credibility ("What makes us different? Read our Declaration of Journalistic Independence.") fail to do something as simply as check online? Amazon has the D's in a 3 pack of 2 (6 cells total) at list price of $27.04; that's about $4.50 each. Fry's has them at $5 each ($9.99 for the 2-pack).
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000HLY7GU/?tag=cpf0b6-20
http://shop2.outpost.com/search;jsessionid=lCBHW9PczP-RmoA2mRszLg**.node2?cat=-45378&pType=pDisplay
It's not until later that we find out what he's up to -- the site with the Powerex D's that he keeps pimping, is his own:
"Want to buy an honest "D" battery? Check out Powerex. These are the best rechargeable batteries I could find. Click here to learn more. I liked them so much that I bought several hundred of them and decided to offer them through my company, --omitted--.com".
Can you say "conflict of interest"?
I say, by all means look for true "C" and "D" cells, including the Powerex. Just don't buy them from this fraudmeister. It might be a good idea to treat everything on that Web site with a healthy does of skepticism too, now that we know what "journalistic independence" really means there.
Last edited:
65535
Flashlight Enthusiast
The guy is a tool, I agree chances are for most peoples uses, a lighter lower capacity D cell is a better idea, most people that use rechargeable expect to charge them often enough, or they will learn to with high self discharge, no matter the size of the cell it will die if it's rechargeable, smaller cells faster charges.
Are you on drugs? I want to charge batteries MORE OFTEN?!?!?! Like I have nothing better to do?
An average person may very well be frustrated with these batteries failing all the time BECAUSE of a low capacity and need to recharge all the time and will very well switch to alkies.
That is possible. Still he has a good point.
Or we might see "claimed" 2500 mAh AAs that develop high SD after less than 100 cycles (instead of claimed hundreds of cycles) and become useless. We might see a super-quick 15 min charger that further damages AA to develop high SD sooner rather than later. Hmmm, sounds familiar. Oh wait, IT IS HAPPENING FOR REAL!!!!!!
It is no secret that Energizer DOES develop fragile AA cells that have shorter lifespan and tend to fail often for any reason. It is also very well known that many users of Energizer AAs become very frustrated very quickly from poor performance. I don't know if Energizer is doing this on purpose or is simply using cheaper design/material to lower thei production costs. The end result is some people may still avoid NiMH and stick with alkies.
Show me some sales numbers. Look at toys market. My experience so far is that at least half the toys require Cs and Ds. There are also many other electronics that use Cs and Ds. I am pretty sure that AAs are dominant, no question there. However, is C/D market so small???? Then why are so many C/D alkies sold in every store? They are not that hard to find.
This makes no sense. What R&D????? It is the exact same design, just different dimensions. I don't see any siginifiacnt differences in construction that would require a lot of R&D. Now you could argue that they don't want a dedicated production line for C/D format due to low volume. Today they simply package AAs differently, which is a small section of an existing production line.
As for bottom line, depends on the sales numbers. It is entriely possible that consumers avoid them due to double whammy of poor performance AND inferior capacity. In that case indeed they would not be making much.
The basic claim that these C/D packaged AAs are costing at least 2x more is true. I bought some so I know. You can generally get a package of 2 Ds for about the same price as 4 AAs. Cs are not much cheaper either. So his basic claim that you are paying more for AAs is correct.
For instance, I purchased the palstic spacers alone for about $2-$3 which I can use with any AA for ever. Why should I pay more money for spacers that are packed/tied to a single specific AA cell, and one of the worst quality on the market as well???? Why is Energizer not being honest and informing us on the package that you are getting AA cell in a spacer? I had no clue.
It comes down to how much you want to trust ANY company, especially a big one like Energizer. How much did you trust Andersen Consulting or Enron, etc.? How much do you trust mortgage brokers today? I see no problem with a closer examination of products to see what is really going on.
His promotion of Maha could be a conflict of interest. However, he is doing us a service by pointing that there are alternatives which are not offered in most stores. Why not bring in some competition and raise public awarness? Do you want Energizer monopoly?
You are free to take Powerex cells apart and show that they are no better than Energizer's products. Go for it.
I have some experience with Cs and Ds in toys. Due to safety issues, battery compartment cover usually has a tiny screw to keep in firmly closed. It is a real pain and annoyance to open it to remove/insert batteries. My suspicion is that most parents are far too busy with kids and don't want to bother with rechargables. You REALLY don't want a failing rechargable battery when you baby is screaming and the music box doesn't work. You DON'T want to be chasing a screwdriver, changing rechargables, etc.
Or imagine your baby monitor fails!?!?!
A higher capacity D NiMH cell, say around 7 Ah, would last a long time and require less charging, thus would replace alkies just fine. Especially if you build a LSD C/D cell of a proper capacity - Nirvana
Decent quality and decent capacity C/D NiMH cells would sell just fine, would make plenty of money. Why they are not built today is a mystery to me. So far the claim that Energizer wants to sell more alkies the only one that makes remote sense.
Therefore, if I do have to use C/D spacers with AAs I wish companies would sell them properly, as multi-use with any AA cell. I had a hell of a time finding decent spacers. The demand is there, again, yet they are not sold. Radio Shack (The Source) just doesn't bother selling them. One store told me they sell out any time they get them. Again, you wonder about a conspiracy. After all it is just a simple piece of plastic!!!!
So I can easily see there is something odd going on here.
Or imagine your baby monitor fails!?!?!
A higher capacity D NiMH cell, say around 7 Ah, would last a long time and require less charging, thus would replace alkies just fine. Especially if you build a LSD C/D cell of a proper capacity - Nirvana
Decent quality and decent capacity C/D NiMH cells would sell just fine, would make plenty of money. Why they are not built today is a mystery to me. So far the claim that Energizer wants to sell more alkies the only one that makes remote sense.
Therefore, if I do have to use C/D spacers with AAs I wish companies would sell them properly, as multi-use with any AA cell. I had a hell of a time finding decent spacers. The demand is there, again, yet they are not sold. Radio Shack (The Source) just doesn't bother selling them. One store told me they sell out any time they get them. Again, you wonder about a conspiracy. After all it is just a simple piece of plastic!!!!
So I can easily see there is something odd going on here.
The truth is, larger rechargeable cells just aren't a big market right now, no matter how many flashaholics purchase them.
C and D rechargeable cells are more difficult to manufacture than smaller cells, due to the nature of the NiMH spiral-wound design. The lower capacity C and D cells contain sub-C cells (NOT AA cells) because they are a commodity item that the big manufacturers (Duracell, Energizer, Rayovac) don't have to make for themselves.
There's no conspiracy to sell more alkaline cells. There's no conspiracy to make cells that reach end of life sooner. The increasing fragility of certain NiMH AA cells is due to the effect of pressures to reduce manufacturing costs and to match the ever higher capacity claims of the competition. We don't see "real" C and D rechargeables because it's not cost effective for them to be offered. Not enough consumers would buy them at this point in time. That's all there is to it.
C and D rechargeable cells are more difficult to manufacture than smaller cells, due to the nature of the NiMH spiral-wound design. The lower capacity C and D cells contain sub-C cells (NOT AA cells) because they are a commodity item that the big manufacturers (Duracell, Energizer, Rayovac) don't have to make for themselves.
There's no conspiracy to sell more alkaline cells. There's no conspiracy to make cells that reach end of life sooner. The increasing fragility of certain NiMH AA cells is due to the effect of pressures to reduce manufacturing costs and to match the ever higher capacity claims of the competition. We don't see "real" C and D rechargeables because it's not cost effective for them to be offered. Not enough consumers would buy them at this point in time. That's all there is to it.
Could you elaborate or point to an article that describes the problems. I am really ignorant of this issue.
Sub-C cells are mass produced and use for all sorts of power equipment. Older tools used NiCd and some newer use NiMH. I just rebuilt my Roomba robot pack, 12x sub-Cs. The original cells were 3 Ah and I upgraded to 4 Ah. These NiMH cells worked under heavy load, as robot's different components and sensors end up pulling a lot of juice. The pack still lasted for 200-300 cycles at which point it was down to about 60% of original capacity.
Now if such solid robust sub-Cs are available at 3 Ah and more, why can't Energizer use them for their C/D cells? I would expect sub-C to be easily 50% higher capacity than AAs. Yet Energizer C/Ds are the exact same capacity as AAs. How come?
Again, they are being very cheap, yet still charging average prices.
No real news about Energizer - over a year back I noticed the same Mah ratings of the AA & D cells - I ask Energizer about it and they said that there was more demand for AA batteries and the D recharge market they did not think was very big - no conspiracy just they did not care about the D size market - and yes they said they put the AA battery inside the D shell -
mb
mb
As spiral would cells get larger, they just become more difficult to manufacture. There are more points of possible failure along the length of the wound material, line speeds must be lowered from that used in AA and AAA production, etc.
Energizer simply chooses to use the lower capacity sub-C cells, probably for cost reasons. I'm saying sub-C based on the pictures from the original link; I've never pulled an Energizer NiMH D apart, personally.
If demand is low, as it is for C and D NiMH cells, then companies have little pressure to improve their products. It's just the nature of the beast.
Nubo
Enlightened
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2004
- Messages
- 461
I think it is somewhat misleading for Energizer to package the cells in this manner. I almost got caught myself when I was in the market for C NiMH. I was actually walking to the checkout when I noticed the "2500 mAH" rating.:shakehead
I think it is natural that most consumers would expect that the larger batteries will naturally store more power. And also natural to expect that many of them aren't savvy enough to be comparing mAH ratings and probably largely purchasing on availability and brand-name. In that light I think you can make an argument that Energizer is being deceptive in practice, whether or not it is intentional. It would be more honest, and better for the consumer I think, if they simply marketed the AA cells and also packages of adapter shells, just as Sony does with the Eneloop. That way the consumer knows what they are getting and also have the flexibility of using the cell in different devices.
I think it is natural that most consumers would expect that the larger batteries will naturally store more power. And also natural to expect that many of them aren't savvy enough to be comparing mAH ratings and probably largely purchasing on availability and brand-name. In that light I think you can make an argument that Energizer is being deceptive in practice, whether or not it is intentional. It would be more honest, and better for the consumer I think, if they simply marketed the AA cells and also packages of adapter shells, just as Sony does with the Eneloop. That way the consumer knows what they are getting and also have the flexibility of using the cell in different devices.
Misleading would be to label them "3000mAh" when they deliver 1000mAh, for example...
Personally, I find "Super Heavy Duty" (where the real meaning is something like: for super-light duty only) more misleading than 3000mAh D-size nimh cells
Personally, I find "Super Heavy Duty" (where the real meaning is something like: for super-light duty only) more misleading than 3000mAh D-size nimh cells
BB
Flashlight Enthusiast
This is not a "new" issue...
Back around 1975, I needed to get some rechargeable cells (NiCAD at the time) for some sort automotive test gear...
I forgot if I needed AA's and the store was out, or C's... But in either case, I noticed the next "larger" sized battery only cost a few cents more (and seemed kind of light, and had the same mAh ratings)....
Bought a set, and tore one open, and I found just what I wanted--the next smaller sized cell in all of its consumer glory (markings--inside a cardboard tube spring contacts to the outer battery sleeve). Popped the rest of the cells opened and went on with my job...
The store--Radio Shack. And, at least, the "larger" batteries were fairly priced on actual costs--not some perceived non-increase in battery capacity.
-Bill
Back around 1975, I needed to get some rechargeable cells (NiCAD at the time) for some sort automotive test gear...
I forgot if I needed AA's and the store was out, or C's... But in either case, I noticed the next "larger" sized battery only cost a few cents more (and seemed kind of light, and had the same mAh ratings)....
Bought a set, and tore one open, and I found just what I wanted--the next smaller sized cell in all of its consumer glory (markings--inside a cardboard tube spring contacts to the outer battery sleeve). Popped the rest of the cells opened and went on with my job...
The store--Radio Shack. And, at least, the "larger" batteries were fairly priced on actual costs--not some perceived non-increase in battery capacity.
-Bill
Canuke
Enlightened
His point is sales. Not bad in itself, but his means are dishonest.
It's even less of a secret that that was Sanyo's goof, not theirs; all Energizer R&D'd on that one was the label
. I suspect that Energizer may not do any rechargeable R&D at all, though others would know more if that is the case.No, they aren't, and I don't have access to the numbers. What I see is that the companies selling true C and D rechargeables to the consumer market, like CTA, Maha/Powerex and Accupower, are smaller niche players whose products simply don't have the shelf presence of the big consumer labels. That tells me it's a much smaller market. You could ask a store manager what the turnover is on the larger sizes versus smaller, if you are curious. I do know that AA's vastly outnumber C and D at Costco.
OK, now I know you don't have an engineering background. I do (albeit a really old one) and not all designs scale cleanly or in a linear fashion. You don't build a hundred-story tower by simply scaling up the tech from a one-room shack
You'd be amazed at how just one thing that doesn't scale up can domino across the whole design, necessitating a return to the drawing board.What are you referring to here -- regular alkalines or the Energizer NiMH's? He is claiming (with no grounds) that the Energizer D's are 4.2x more ($25 for the D's to $6 for a pair for AA's. Even here he engages in a bit of subtle misdirection, quoting the price for a *pair* of D's followed by the *single* price for an AA, just so those two contrasting numbers -- $25 to $3 -- stand out.)
His "basic claim" is true if you ignore the numbers, but that's like saying that my "basic claim" is true if I say I'm taller than six inches. It's true, but obvious and useless.
Well, that's the sort of thinking he's preying on. I don't distrust companies because they are companies. I distrust politicians and anti-capitalists for good reason, but "innocent until proven guilty" is still otherwise a good general rule to follow.
He objectively DOES have a conflict of interest -- the sort that all dishonest people do. His tactics are a DISservice to anyone who buys from him. People who engage in "closer examination" are not the ones he is targetting, as they would Google the cells and beat his prices -- if they didn't pick up on the manipulation and stop reading outright.
The one solid fact he provides is readily available from other sources without the BS (and is on the label for the knowledgeable), so even that "service" is overpriced.
Canuke
Enlightened
That's reasonable enough. All I'm saying is that it simply makes no sense for a huge company to risk fraud charges and/or lawsuits -- not to mention lost consumer trust -- for the sake of what is a paltry total profit compared to overall revenue. If people raised a big stink about these, they would simply yank them and be done with it.
It does make sense for the slickster who wrote that article though.
As for spacers, there's a thread in here somewhere about contact issues with those; an integral package like the Energizers probably has some reliability advantages.
HWman
Newly Enlightened
Wow! Wow! Wow!
I see such vitriol here! [Look up that word!]
Concerning the retail packaging labels found in retail stores:
1.) There are no energy data to compare chemistry differences for batteries such as "Heavy Duty" versus Alkaline versus "Professional" Alkaline versus Lithium, etc.).
2.) There are, usually, no data for amperage for primary batteries of sizes that are somewhat interchangeable (such as AA, AAA, C, D) in any one chemistry.
3.) What about the odd size batteries? Someone said that larger size implies more power? Does a AA battery have forty times more power than an LR-44 button battery? That LR-44 costs $3; does it have 15 times more energy than a $0.20 AA battery?
4.) Are there warning labels on primary batteries stating that "You will get more energy from rechargeable batteries if you replace your primary batteries: AA batteries every 33 days, AAA batteries every 17 days, C batteries..."?
On the other hand, Eveready NiMh batteries (commonly packaged in AAA, AA, C, and D sizes) clearly show the capacity in mAh on the front of the package and on each individual battery. Without touching the packaging on the rack, you can easily see AAA 800 mAh, AA 2500 mAh, C 2500 mAh, and D 2500 mAh. How evil!
#####
Let's compare prices for high capacity NiMh batteries. One web site offers AA for $1.60 and D for $8.00 each. That's four AA for $6.40 (about 33% below discounted retail prices of "$9.60").
My applications seem to use small numbers of AA batteries. A package of Eveready 4AA NiMh batteries and charger is $25-30 or so.
However, my most demanding application (boom box) uses six D batteries. So, that would be $48 (six times $8.00 each), plus a compensation for being 33% below retail... That's $72 for my rechargeables plus another $20 to $30 for a cheap charger (that only chargers 2 or maybe 4 batteries at a time). We're talking about $100 here. My boom box cost $50...
Needless to say, most people will forgo the $100 "savings" offered by the rechargeables and buy 11 sets of D alkalines for that $100 (66 batteries at $1.50 each) each year.
Don't forget, using rechargeable batteries is the inverse concept of credit card purchases. Rechargeables have a high initial cost but save money over five years. The credit cards at 20% interest rate will double the cost in a few years. Most consumers can't understand either concept.
#####
One last thing. I hate Eveready alkaline batteries. I have had them leak (at room temperature) two years before the "expiration date" on the package. Recent Duracell batteries have not leaked before the expiration date (only one did, but four years past date). YMMV.
A previous poster claimed no leakage problems after thousands of batteries per year... [Try storing those same batteries for the shelf life date... Also, try those same years in a hot car!] That's like saying a McDonalds soda cup doesn't leak after half an hour. The cup bottom is ready to drop out on the next day.
======================================
Let's call for government truth in advertising standards! Such as...
A food product can be labeled as having "0 grams of transfat" in the package if it contains less than 0.5 grams of transfat per serving. A container of candy could have 32 grams (more than one ounce) of transfat if a serving is one-half ounce!
.
I see such vitriol here! [Look up that word!]
Concerning the retail packaging labels found in retail stores:
1.) There are no energy data to compare chemistry differences for batteries such as "Heavy Duty" versus Alkaline versus "Professional" Alkaline versus Lithium, etc.).
2.) There are, usually, no data for amperage for primary batteries of sizes that are somewhat interchangeable (such as AA, AAA, C, D) in any one chemistry.
3.) What about the odd size batteries? Someone said that larger size implies more power? Does a AA battery have forty times more power than an LR-44 button battery? That LR-44 costs $3; does it have 15 times more energy than a $0.20 AA battery?
4.) Are there warning labels on primary batteries stating that "You will get more energy from rechargeable batteries if you replace your primary batteries: AA batteries every 33 days, AAA batteries every 17 days, C batteries..."?
On the other hand, Eveready NiMh batteries (commonly packaged in AAA, AA, C, and D sizes) clearly show the capacity in mAh on the front of the package and on each individual battery. Without touching the packaging on the rack, you can easily see AAA 800 mAh, AA 2500 mAh, C 2500 mAh, and D 2500 mAh. How evil!
#####
Let's compare prices for high capacity NiMh batteries. One web site offers AA for $1.60 and D for $8.00 each. That's four AA for $6.40 (about 33% below discounted retail prices of "$9.60").
My applications seem to use small numbers of AA batteries. A package of Eveready 4AA NiMh batteries and charger is $25-30 or so.
However, my most demanding application (boom box) uses six D batteries. So, that would be $48 (six times $8.00 each), plus a compensation for being 33% below retail... That's $72 for my rechargeables plus another $20 to $30 for a cheap charger (that only chargers 2 or maybe 4 batteries at a time). We're talking about $100 here. My boom box cost $50...
Needless to say, most people will forgo the $100 "savings" offered by the rechargeables and buy 11 sets of D alkalines for that $100 (66 batteries at $1.50 each) each year.
Don't forget, using rechargeable batteries is the inverse concept of credit card purchases. Rechargeables have a high initial cost but save money over five years. The credit cards at 20% interest rate will double the cost in a few years. Most consumers can't understand either concept.
#####
One last thing. I hate Eveready alkaline batteries. I have had them leak (at room temperature) two years before the "expiration date" on the package. Recent Duracell batteries have not leaked before the expiration date (only one did, but four years past date). YMMV.
A previous poster claimed no leakage problems after thousands of batteries per year... [Try storing those same batteries for the shelf life date... Also, try those same years in a hot car!] That's like saying a McDonalds soda cup doesn't leak after half an hour. The cup bottom is ready to drop out on the next day.
======================================
Let's call for government truth in advertising standards! Such as...
A food product can be labeled as having "0 grams of transfat" in the package if it contains less than 0.5 grams of transfat per serving. A container of candy could have 32 grams (more than one ounce) of transfat if a serving is one-half ounce!
.
Canuke
Enlightened
That's probably a big reason why C and D's are so expensive and relatively rare.
A lot of things go into the price of something. On the one hand, there is the "hard floor" of costs; this is the price of R&D, materials, and manufacturing. As R&D costs are usually large and incurred at the beginning of manufacturing, it is most dominant at the beginning of a product lifecycle and becomes a smaller and smaller slice of the cost as more and more of the product are sold (this is roughly what it means to "amortize" R&D costs). This "bias" of R&D costs towards the early days is a big part of why prices tend to be high at the outset, and then drop over time, for R&D intensive products (such as pharmaceuticals and electronics).
On the other side, is demand, which is a function of the product's value as perceived by the end user. Demand can also motivate higher prices at product release, as people tend to prefer "new" stuff. Normally, if the consumer thinks the price of something is too high, demand will fall off; prices tend to drop in response, but *only to a point*; that point is determined by the hard costs.
If the hard costs of making something are high enough such that merely breaking even still yields a price that most prospective customers think is too high, then that product's volume will drop below a critical point where "economy of scale" stops working; the cost per unit starts rising when the quantities being sold are too small. When that happens, either the product eventually disappears from the market because nobody thinks it's worth making or buying at that cost -- or it finds a niche where a small but still large enough customer base, perhaps with unusual needs, willingly pays the high price to sustain th small-scale manufacturing of that product. Such markets are usually served not by the big companies, but by smaller ones that are geared to it.
That is what we are seeing so far with rechargeable C and D cells. The hard costs of making the larger cells do not permit a company like Energizer or Sanyo to sell them at prices low enough to make enough sales -- or at least that's what their market research tells them. They see what you describe -- nobody's going to pay $100 to power a $50 boom box. That boom boxes go for $50 probably explains why they don't make those with built-in rechargeable power, as anything other than sealed lead-acid is going to really boost the price.
Energizer tried an end run around the problem by selling AA's in spacers, which IMO was a dumb move given that D's tend to be used in more demanding applications, like your boom box. I'm all in favor of seeing more true C/D rechargeables on the market. I just don't see the need to imagine corporate malfeasance where mere corporate blundering or simple market dynamics is at hand.
[
If we are going to have government-mandated food labelling, I wouldn't object to improving on that. I am told that the best way to keep your eye out for "hidden"trans fats is to look for the words "partially hydrogenated" in the ingredients.
I just find the entire situation ridiculous. Given all you said about low volume and the need to pay for R&D with higher proces on low volume C/D cells, then why are electronics designed to use C/D cells as opposed to smaller/cheaper AAs????? After all the use less space, so you'd think it would be easier to design smaller battery compartments for AAs.
As it is now, we have devices like many toys designed for C/D sizes thinking that they'll last longer (higher capacity) only to discover that it is cheaper to make AAs in C/D shells which in fact DO NOT have a higher capacity despite bigger size, which in turn forces us to seek reusable C/D spacers/shells to stuff our standard/cheaper AA's into.
All these stupid games and deception just to end up back where we started from, the good old mass produced AAs. Seems like a lot of wasted effort to no purpose?!?!?!
As it is now, we have devices like many toys designed for C/D sizes thinking that they'll last longer (higher capacity) only to discover that it is cheaper to make AAs in C/D shells which in fact DO NOT have a higher capacity despite bigger size, which in turn forces us to seek reusable C/D spacers/shells to stuff our standard/cheaper AA's into.
All these stupid games and deception just to end up back where we started from, the good old mass produced AAs. Seems like a lot of wasted effort to no purpose?!?!?!
Most consumer devices that use replaceable cells are designed with alkaline cells in mind. Alkaline C and D cells have considerably more capacity than alkaline AA cells. As far as battery compartment design, would you rather change 4 alkaline D cells, or 24 alkaline AA cells? Imagine all those springs in a 24 cell AA compartment...
Toys designed for C and D sizes do last longer when run with alkaline C and D cells, which is what they were most likely designed for. Blame the toy manufacturers for for making toys that are designed to use C and D cells, instead of the battery manufacturers for not making C and D rechargeables that are up to your standards. As has been mentioned, it's not a big enough market to be profitable.
Clearly stating the capacity of the C and D rechargeable cells on the package is not deception. There is no "corporate conspiracy" at work here. Just simple economics.
