Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote just the
pathetic excuse for a puerile troll thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote just the
pathetic excuse for a puerile troll thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote just the
pathetic excuse for a puerile troll thats all it can ever manage.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote just the
pathetic excuse for a puerile troll thats all it can ever manage.

 

[stan]

Rod Speed wrote:

stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote

It isn't MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.

There's very little evidence that you are capable of a discussion.

Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?

I don't know about perfection, it's hard to grok what a perfect
discussion would refer to but I've demonstrated communication abilities
that you lack.

<snip>

I ACTUALLY rubbed his stupid nose in the FACT that what Galileo did to avoid
getting burnt at the stake was nothing even remotely resembling anything like perjury.

Is that what you think happened? You really do need to have your meds checked.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

Maybe that's your problem; you don't know what an insult is.

Have you tried hooked on phonics?

Have you tried remedial english ? Obviously not.

It's got pictures, don't be so afraid.

It seemed to help my grandchildren with reading.

Wont be long before they have give you the bums rush into the nursing home.

They already exceed your skills at civilized discussion and behavior so
there's no doubt they will have jobs and be very capable of something
other than boorish usenet behavior.

<snip>

There is no evidence you are capable of a discussion.
What you do isn't "discussion" by any definition.

Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?

I know you have some trouble keeping up, especially when you're
frustrated and anxious but should be able to find someone near you that
can help you with the concept of "discussion"

You resorted to juvenile, mindless, insults with
an attempt to sidestep the issue by acting stupid.

You're lying, as always.

Thanks for the prompt proof!

<snip>

Just for the record, The dictionary here simply states "To
deliberately testify falsely under oath"

You need a better dictionary.

I'm sorry

Liar.

I can't find a dictionary with pictures to describe "perjury."

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

Just for the fun of it, what do you think the definition of perjury is?

Try a decent dictionary.

Again I thank you for the prompt and overwhelming evidence that you:
don't read well, don't understand "discussion", and feel some need to
embarrass yourself with juvenile silliness.

Also of note, your statement above could be taken
as saying you believe he was burnt at the stake.

Only by fools that dont have a fucking clue. You qualify.

I'll grant even you with the knowledge that he wasn't

It is clear from what else I have said in this thread that I know he wasnt, fuckwit.

Yet again you miss the point.

Wota stunningly original line...

I admitted you knew better in the statement above, but now I'm
starting to get the feeling that maybe you really don't get it at all.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

I had a parrot once that could repeat things, but it wasn't really a
very smart animal. Apparently I've scared you so badly that you see
everything as an attack. Above I was trying to grant you some
intelligence yet you seem to disagree. I'll have to defer to your
judgement on the matter.

and that you simply weren't as clear, or profane, as normal.

And you get to like that or lump it or shove your opinion where the sun dont shine, as always.

If you could please let me know what I've done that would lead you to
think I am in any way interested or concerned about your postings, I'd
gladly clarify the matter. Truth be told I see you as usenet graffiti.
Nothing more than the acting out of people with such low self esteem
that they feel powerless and struggle to find some cowardly acts to
assert themselves.

Actually it takes so little to hurt your feelings

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

You don't have to be afraid.

<snip>

like zippy the pinhead. Actually zippy is much more imaginative and interesting.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

You certainly have a knack for both missing the point and proving it at
the same time.

 

[Rod Speed]

stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote

It isn't MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.

There's very little evidence that you are capable of a discussion.

Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?

I don't know about perfection, it's hard to grok what a perfect discussion
would refer to but I've demonstrated communication abilities that you lack.

Lying, as always.

I ACTUALLY rubbed his stupid nose in the FACT that what Galileo did to avoid
getting burnt at the stake was nothing even remotely resembling anything like perjury.

Is that what you think happened? You really do need to have your meds checked.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

Maybe that's your problem; you don't know what an insult is.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

Have you tried hooked on phonics?

Have you tried remedial english ? Obviously not.

It's got pictures, don't be so afraid.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

It seemed to help my grandchildren with reading.

Wont be long before they have give you the bums rush into the nursing home.

They already exceed your skills at civilized discussion and
behavior so there's no doubt they will have jobs and be very
capable of something other than boorish usenet behavior.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

There is no evidence you are capable of a discussion.
What you do isn't "discussion" by any definition.

Whereas you are absolutely perfect in that regard eh ?

I know you have some trouble keeping up, especially when
you're frustrated and anxious but should be able to find someone
near you that can help you with the concept of "discussion"

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

You resorted to juvenile, mindless, insults with
an attempt to sidestep the issue by acting stupid.

You're lying, as always.

Thanks for the prompt proof!

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

Just for the record, The dictionary here simply states "To deliberately testify falsely under oath"

You need a better dictionary.

I'm sorry

Liar.

I can't find a dictionary with pictures to describe "perjury."

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

Just for the fun of it, what do you think the definition of perjury is?

Try a decent dictionary.

Again I thank you for the prompt and overwhelming evidence
that you: don't read well, don't understand "discussion", and
feel some need to embarrass yourself with juvenile silliness.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

Also of note, your statement above could be taken
as saying you believe he was burnt at the stake.

Only by fools that dont have a fucking clue. You qualify.

I'll grant even you with the knowledge that he wasn't

It is clear from what else I have said in this thread that I know he wasnt, fuckwit.

Yet again you miss the point.

Wota stunningly original line...

I admitted you knew better in the statement above, but now I'm
starting to get the feeling that maybe you really don't get it at all.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

I had a parrot once that could repeat things, but it wasn't
really a very smart animal. Apparently I've scared you so
badly that you see everything as an attack. Above I was
trying to grant you some intelligence yet you seem to
disagree. I'll have to defer to your judgement on the matter.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

and that you simply weren't as clear, or profane, as normal.

And you get to like that or lump it or shove your opinion where the sun dont shine, as always.

If you could please let me know what I've done that would lead you to
think I am in any way interested or concerned about your postings, I'd
gladly clarify the matter. Truth be told I see you as usenet graffiti.
Nothing more than the acting out of people with such low self esteem
that they feel powerless and struggle to find some cowardly acts to
assert themselves.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

Actually it takes so little to hurt your feelings

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

You don't have to be afraid.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

like zippy the pinhead. Actually zippy is much more imaginative and interesting.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

You certainly have a knack for both missing the point and proving it at the same time.

Wota stunningly original and skillful attempt at an insult.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:ros0c4th7bgmpu5luo3fn1kgff1gnrq43j@4ax.com...

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:18:47 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.

---
Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?

Is that even in question ?
It would be virtually impossible to sell a single PV cell if this were not the case, right ?

Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail. Assume a very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost, then it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I hope.

Rob

JF

 

In sci.physics ohara5.0@mindspring.com wrote:

On Sep 4, 11:41 pm, ohara...@mindspring.com wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:46 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:18:47 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.

---
Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?

JF

Al:

Great snarky answer. Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. What would you use m for?

Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte

Batteries produced by the silk screen printing processes are old
technology long used in niche applications.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Great snarky answer. ???Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. ???Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. ???What would you use m for?

Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte

Batteries produced by the silk screen printing processes are old
technology long used in niche applications.

The sheets roll off the line at 45 mph.

We need to work around _that_ design point.

Why when the things are only usefull in niche applications and a plain
old silk screen press can make all that are needed more than quick
enough?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Great snarky answer. ???Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. ???Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. ???What would you use m for?

Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte

Inject the stuff into an ink jet printer head and everyone can make
his own batteries.

The "stuff" is too thick for that which is why the silk screen
process is used.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Great snarky answer. ???Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. ???Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. ???What would you use m for?

Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte

Inject the stuff into an ink jet printer head and everyone can make
his own batteries.

The "stuff" is too thick for that

Then find thinner stuff.

Why when the problem is solved and conventional silk screen printers
are more than capable of making all such batteries needed, which is
damn few.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics DB <abc@some.net> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Great snarky answer. ???Unfortunately although most of Cahills stuff is
bs, this isnt. ???Printed batteries, hmmm, Cahill oughta do a patent
search. ???What would you use m for?
Batteries normally require some sort of gelled or at least semi-liquid
electrolyte
Inject the stuff into an ink jet printer head and everyone can make
his own batteries.
The "stuff" is too thick for that
Then find thinner stuff.

Why when the problem is solved and conventional silk screen printers
are more than capable of making all such batteries needed, which is
damn few.



Get with it. Bret is as braindead as hashbrains.

Yeah, I know he's an idiot but sometimes I like to tweak him a little.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Some start ups are making claims that their battery is superior in every
aspect, i. e., cost, energy density, efficiency, etc., to every other battery.

And only a fool believes claims like that. You qualify.

From pacemakers to load leveling power plants their technology will not
only dominate the market but effectively eliminate all other technology.

And only a fool believes claims like that. You qualify.

We can always be hopeful but these claims might not pan out,

They never ever do, without exception.

and, like heat engines, a variety of situations will result in a variety of solutions.

You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist desperately wanking trollchildren ?

For example, the cost of power from a grid + battery situation
like EVs or "off the grid" or off peak solar/wind homes is
2/3rds battery using the life time cycling cost of a battery.

You've plucked that number from your arse. We can tell from the smell.

Trying to cut that cost by increasing the efficiency by 10% while allowing
the cost of the battery to rise 20% won't be nearly as effective as cutting
the cost of the battery by half and taking a 20% hit in efficiency.

You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist desperately wanking trollchildren ?

Grid + battery situations could still be cost effective with an inefficient
battery if it was cheap enough as far as the lifetime number of cycles.

You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist desperately wanking trollchildren ?

In contrast, the cost of ICE + battery ( hybrids run entirely on fuel
is much less than 2/5ths battery and the situation is reversed.
Trying to cut that cost by cutting battery cost isn't going to be
nearly as effective as increasing efficiency.

You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist desperately wanking trollchildren ?

In an ICE + battery situation true economy requires spending
a lot of money for a somewhat more efficient battery.

Anyone with a clue just tosses that approach in the bin instead.

Another example is EVs require high energy density batteries.

You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist desperately wanking trollchildren ?

For an off grid or off peak home neither energy nor power density
are significant factors. A battery wouldn't fill an apt. closet.

You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist desperately wanking trollchildren ?

Therefor it would be cost effective to consider lower energy density
as well as lower efficiency in order to get a cheap battery/cycling ratio.

You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist desperately wanking trollchildren ?

The point is to cast as big a net as possible to get as many different batteries as possible.

You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist desperately wanking trollchildren ?

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Some start ups are making claims that their battery is superior in
every aspect, i. e., cost, energy density, efficiency, etc., to
every other battery. ?From pacemakers to load leveling power plants
their technology will not only dominate the market but effectively
eliminate all other technology.

We can always be hopeful but these claims might not pan out, and,
like heat engines, a variety of situations will result in a variety
of solutions.

For example, the cost of power from a grid + battery situation like
EVs or "off the grid" or off peak solar/wind homes is 2/3rds battery
using the life time cycling cost of a battery. ?Trying to cut that
cost by increasing the efficiency by 10% while allowing the cost of
the battery to rise 20% won't be nearly as effective as cutting the
cost of the battery by half and taking a 20% hit in efficiency.
?Grid + battery situations could still be cost effective with an
inefficient battery if it was cheap enough as far as the lifetime
number of cycles.

In contrast, the cost of ICE + battery ( hybrids run entirely on
fuel is much less than 2/5ths battery and the situation is reversed.
Trying to cut that cost by cutting battery cost isn't going to be
nearly as effective as increasing efficiency.

In an ICE + battery situation true economy requires spending a lot
of money for a somewhat more efficient battery.

Another example is EVs require high energy density batteries. ?For
an off grid or off peak home neither energy nor power density are
significant factors. ?A battery wouldn't fill an apt. closet.

Therefor it would be cost effective to consider lower energy density
as well as lower efficiency in order to get a cheap battery/cycling
ratio.

The point is to cast as big a net as possible to get as many
different batteries as possible.

Bret Cahill

I'll bite. Congratulations on your deep observation.

You haven't done much in law or politics, have you?


Bret Cahill

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a
roller at paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV,
and then work backwards from that to develop a battery.

Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will
indicate that the solar cell will output more power, over its
lifetime, than it took to create it?

Is that even in question ?
It would be virtually impossible to sell a single PV cell if this
were not the case, right ?

Not necessarily.

For some applications, like remote unattended data gathering and
transmission, say, payback isn't even a consideration.

Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail. Assume a
very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost, then it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in
about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I hope.

Yup.

He was talking batteries and I somehow read "solar cells" into that
and didn't even bother to run the numbers.

Mea culpa, and thanks for the reality check!

I'm still trying to back calculate the title of the Harliquin romance
novel that gave you the idea that an inventor could brag about having
a single money making patent but he is too modest to talk about his
patent.

The _whole point_ of patenting is to publish so everyone will see your
invention.

Wrong, as always. The whole point of a patent is to attempt to get some protection against others using your approach.

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Some start ups are making claims that their battery is superior in
every aspect, i. e., cost, energy density, efficiency, etc., to
every other battery. ?From pacemakers to load leveling power plants
their technology will not only dominate the market but effectively
eliminate all other technology.

We can always be hopeful but these claims might not pan out, and,
like heat engines, a variety of situations will result in a variety
of solutions.

For example, the cost of power from a grid + battery situation like
EVs or "off the grid" or off peak solar/wind homes is 2/3rds battery
using the life time cycling cost of a battery. ?Trying to cut that
cost by increasing the efficiency by 10% while allowing the cost of
the battery to rise 20% won't be nearly as effective as cutting the
cost of the battery by half and taking a 20% hit in efficiency.
?Grid + battery situations could still be cost effective with an
inefficient battery if it was cheap enough as far as the lifetime
number of cycles.

In contrast, the cost of ICE + battery ( hybrids run entirely on
fuel is much less than 2/5ths battery and the situation is reversed.
Trying to cut that cost by cutting battery cost isn't going to be
nearly as effective as increasing efficiency.

In an ICE + battery situation true economy requires spending a lot
of money for a somewhat more efficient battery.

Another example is EVs require high energy density batteries. ?For
an off grid or off peak home neither energy nor power density are
significant factors. ?A battery wouldn't fill an apt. closet.

Therefor it would be cost effective to consider lower energy density
as well as lower efficiency in order to get a cheap battery/cycling
ratio.

The point is to cast as big a net as possible to get as many
different batteries as possible.

Bret Cahill

I'll bite. Congratulations on your deep observation.

You haven't done much in law or politics, have you?

You havent done anything, have you ?

 

In sci.physics Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote:

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

The "stuff" is too thick for that which is why the silk screen
process is used.

Are you sure it's silk screening? I'd guess stenciling.
Stenciling works better for highly viscous materials, and
it works better for making a thick deposit with highly
controlled thickness.

I do know the silk screen process is used by several makers.

I do not know if anyone uses stenciling.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message news:4525397a-9f1f-4ad8-87c5-ceaa18271c98@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.

Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?

Is that even in question ?
It would be virtually impossible to sell a single PV cell if this were not the case, right ?

Not necessarily.

For some applications, like remote unattended data gathering and
transmission, say, payback isn't even a consideration.

Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail. Assume a very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost, then
it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I hope.

Yup.

He was talking batteries and I somehow read "solar cells" into that and
didn't even bother to run the numbers.

Mea culpa, and thanks for the reality check!

I'm still trying to back calculate the title of the Harliquin romance
novel that gave you the idea that an inventor could brag about having
a single money making patent but he is too modest to talk about his
patent.

Bret,

Why are you setting up a straw man ?
This remark seems to refer to some previous conversation you had. How are we supposed to understand what you are talking about ?
John did not mention anything like this in in this thread.

Rob

The _whole point_ of patenting is to publish so everyone will see your
invention.


Bret Cahill

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message news:1ba7d303-26d8-4bb5-b932-7040a9576eb4@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Assume a plausible solution, battery sheets flying off of a roller at
paper mill speeds similar to Nanosolar's printed PV, and then work
backwards from that to develop a battery.

Assume what you want but, do you have any numbers which will indicate
that the solar cell will output more power, over its lifetime, than it
took to create it?

Is that even in question ?
It would be virtually impossible to sell a single PV cell if this were not the case, right ?

Not necessarily.

For some applications, like remote unattended data gathering and
transmission, say, payback isn't even a consideration.

Very quick calculation : PV costs around $3/Watt retail. Assume a very high 10% of that top be pure production energy cost,
then it
must have cost less than 3 kWh to make it.
With only 4 hours sun/day average, this cell will generate 3 kWh in about 2 years. It surely will last longer than that I
hope.

Yup.

He was talking batteries and I somehow read "solar cells" into that and
didn't even bother to run the numbers.

Mea culpa, and thanks for the reality check!

Just admit it. You aren't interested in tech discussions. If you
were you'ld read the header before you clicked on them

That's another straw man, and almost a direct personal attack.
I would hope that John sees through this tactic and does not respond.

<snip>

 

[Rod Speed]

Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote

Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote

Therefor it would be cost effective to consider lower energy density
as well as lower efficiency in order to get a cheap battery/cycling ratio.

The point is to cast as big a net as possible to get as many different batteries as possible.

Right.

Fraid not. The real world is about a hell of a lot more than just batterys.

You know, the world has lots of problems like the oil crisis.

There is no 'oil crisis'. In spades for those who have enough of a clue
to use a fuel efficient car and only use it when it makes sense to use it.

And we all have a stake in solving these problems in time if we
are not to return to the days of Ox carts when the oil runs out.

Thats never going to happen. Even if oil does run out, and that wont
be any decade soon, we can always use LPG and CNG in our cars
completely trivially and hydrogen from nukes when that makes sense.

That's why I agree with you. When a problem it important, the right
thing to do is always to do SOMETHING, even if it's the WRONG thing.

Mindlessly silly. Those of us with a clue are ALREADY using CNG
and LPG in cars and it makes sense to stop wasting that heating
our houses and heat the houses using electricity from nukes instead.

That way you can feel you are making a contribution however small
to mankind. Me? I'm bouncing a basketball to end the energy crisis!
I've been bouncing for weeks and there are no results yet but you
have to give me credit for trying!

Moron.

Lets just consider the battery "problem" for a second, OK?

1. Lead Acid. Old technology, reasonably reliable for a few years.
MANY years of experience with them. Heavy. Filled with nasty liquid.

2. Lead acid gel cell. Lower ratings, Heavy. Life in the few years at
best (replaced your UPS batteries lately? better think about it!)

3. Nickle Cadmium (liquid). Missile batteries. Not bad but liquid
filled. Not so good for things that move around.

4. Nickle Cadmium (typical cells you buy). Totally worthless as
batteries. Save your money. Go buy "real" batteries.

5. NiMh batteries. Step up in capacity but have a nasty habit of
losing charge while sitting on a shelf. So your camera is always half
charged when you grab it.

6. Li Nice high storage density battery. Wonderful performance that
you'd love to see in ALL your battery-operated devices! One little
catch. In 2-3 years capacity is half and in 5 years the thing needs
replaced and they are NOT cheap! (replaced your laptop battery
lately? Probably needs it. Only couple of hundred bucks. Oh yeah, you
can buy a whole new laptop for almost the price of just the battery.)

7. That "new" technology we are all waiting for. #6 but lasts 50
years. Hell, we'd settle for 20 years! Um, guess what? Nobody's
invented it yet. Maybe if we all start bouncing basketballs that new
battery will be invented. Better to do SOMETHING than to do NOTHING!
Cast that wide net!