Polaroid Pola-Pack battery chemistry

H

hrhofmann@att.net

Guest
Going thru my pile of old batteries, I discovered 3 1995 Polaroid pola-
pack batteries. They still read above 7.2 V. I think they were 7.5V
when new. Whatever chemistry they used has held up for 16 years. I
am wondering what the chemistry of these batteries is that they
haven't self-discharged after this long period of time. Does anyone
know for sure what Polaroid used?
 
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:37:04 -0800 (PST), "hrhofmann@att.net"
<hrhofmann@att.net> wrote:

Going thru my pile of old batteries, I discovered 3 1995 Polaroid pola-
pack batteries. They still read above 7.2 V. I think they were 7.5V
when new. Whatever chemistry they used has held up for 16 years. I
am wondering what the chemistry of these batteries is that they
haven't self-discharged after this long period of time. Does anyone
know for sure what Polaroid used?
Click to expand...
Google for "Polaroid Polapulse Battery" and you'll find plenty of
photos and references.
The P80 and P100 are 6V at 250ma-hr and Zinc-Manganese dioxide.
The P500 are 6V at 1400ma-hr and Lithium-Manganese dioxide.
Note that they can be recharged successfully a few times.

<http://users.rcn.com/fcohen/Polaroid.htm>

Still available for sale:
<http://users.rcn.com/fcohen/>


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
 
<hrhofmann@att.net> wrote in message
news:dacc68a5-d1f6-480b-938a-43abe32a7d3b@z5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Going thru my pile of old batteries, I discovered 3 1995 Polaroid pola-
pack batteries. They still read above 7.2 V. I think they were 7.5V
when new. Whatever chemistry they used has held up for 16 years. I
am wondering what the chemistry of these batteries is that they
haven't self-discharged after this long period of time. Does anyone
know for sure what Polaroid used?
Click to expand...

what do they read with say 1Kohm over them ?
 
Going thru my pile of old batteries, I discovered 3 1995 Polaroid pola-
pack batteries. They still read above 7.2 V. I think they were 7.5V
when new. Whatever chemistry they used has held up for 16 years.
I'm wondering what the chemistry of these batteries is that they
haven't self-discharged after this long period of time. Does anyone
know for sure what Polaroid used?
Click to expand...
Just because the voltage hasn't dropped much, doesn't mean the cell hasn't
deteriorated. It might have lost a lot of its capacity.


Google for "Polaroid Polapulse Battery" and you'll find plenty of
photos and references.
The P80 and P100 are 6V at 250mAh and Zinc-Manganese dioxide.
The P500 are 6V at 1400mAh and Lithium-Manganese dioxide.
Note that they can be recharged successfully a few times.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the update.

My understanding was that they were originally carbon-zinc. They were
designed and made by Ray-O-Vac, but when they turned out to be unreliable,
failing unexpectedly (I had one fail when I left the camera in a warm -- but
not hot -- car), Polaroid redesigned and manufactured them itself. Polaroid
gave away a cheap AM/FM radio powered by the battery in a discarded film
pack, to take advantage of what would otherwise have been wasted energy.

It's unfortunate there are no standardized rechargeable battery packs for
portable devices. This might have been doable when they were powered by AA
and C cells, but modern devices are so small, and the battery is so tightly
mechanically integrated, it isn't possible.

I recently replaced the battery in my Palm T3 PDA, after seven years of
service. I was surprised at how easy it was to do; I expected a fuss-fest.
 
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 05:11:07 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

It's unfortunate there are no standardized rechargeable battery packs for
portable devices. This might have been doable when they were powered by AA
and C cells, but modern devices are so small, and the battery is so tightly
mechanically integrated, it isn't possible.
Click to expand...
There's a reason why nobody standardizes on battery packs. Battery
packs are a major profit center. It's the razor blade model. Give
away the razors, and sell lots of blades. For example, Motorola makes
it policy of requiring a new battery, microphone, antenna, charger,
and other accessories with every new model handheld radio and cell
phone. Even models that are very similar, have intentional lumps and
holes to make the previous generation of accessories incompatible.
Same with some HP LaserJet cartridges.

There's some hope with the ITU standardizing on the microUSB battery
charger connector for portable devices:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Mobile_Terminal_Platform>
<http://www.wacapps.net>
which are slowly being "embraced", which is doublespeak for being
shoved down the manufacturers throats by various regulatory agencies.

Way back in the early 1990's, there was some effort to standardize on
a single laptop battery. Mallory and others invented a ten C cell
package that just slid into the side of the laptop. It was popular
for a short while, until laptops shrank below the size where it would
fit. Nice try.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
 
It's unfortunate there are no standardized rechargeable battery
packs for portable devices. This might have been doable when
they were powered by AA and C cells, but modern devices are
so small, and the battery is so tightly mechanically integrated,
it isn't possible.

There's a reason why nobody standardizes on battery packs. Battery
packs are a major profit center. It's the razor blade model. Give
away the razors, and sell lots of blades. For example, Motorola makes
it policy of requiring a new battery, microphone, antenna, charger,
and other accessories with every new model handheld radio and cell
phone. Even models that are very similar, have intentional lumps and
holes to make the previous generation of accessories incompatible.
Same with some HP LaserJet cartridges.
Click to expand...
You can still get LaserJet series-4 cartridges with no problem.

Oddly, companies /neglect/ to take advantage of profits they could make on
batteries. Palm no longer provides parts or service for the Tungsten T3 --
which is illegal. Had they charged (no pun intended) $50 to replace the
battery, I would have sent the T3 to them. I replaced it myself for $6. If
it lasts two or three years -- and batteries are still available -- I'll be
happy.

"Unless and until" some "ultimate" battery technology is developed, it's
unlikely there will ever be a universal battery system (or systems).
 
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:34:52 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 05:11:07 -0800, "William Sommerwerck" wrote:

It's unfortunate there are no standardized rechargeable battery packs for
portable devices. This might have been doable when they were powered by AA
and C cells, but modern devices are so small, and the battery is so tightly
mechanically integrated, it isn't possible.

There's a reason why nobody standardizes on battery packs. Battery
packs are a major profit center. It's the razor blade model. Give
away the razors, and sell lots of blades.
Click to expand...
It's also the plumbing model.
Ever replace a rubber washer or bad valve seat in a leaky faucet?

WAY near the top of _my_ pet peeve list.

Jonesy
 
On 1/20/2011 12:59 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
Palm no longer provides parts or service for the Tungsten T3 --
which is illegal.
Click to expand...
How so?

Jeff
 
Palm no longer provides parts or service for
the Tungsten T3 -- which is illegal.

How so?
Click to expand...
There are Federal laws that oblige companies to stock service parts for
three to ten years after a product is discontinued. These laws appear to
have been weakened, but it also seems the Federal government doesn't really
care. I had a case where a company couldn't supply parts for a
current-production product, and I had to threaten that I would go to the
Federal Trade Commission.

The Tungsten T3 is still manufacturerd, though not, apparently, sold by
Palm. Palm is legally obliged to provide parts for it, but refuses to. Even
if it weren't manufactured, it has been less than 10 years since it was
discontinued, and Palm is obligated to provide electrical/electronic parts.
 
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The Tungsten T3 is still manufacturerd, though not, apparently, sold
by Palm. Palm is legally obliged to provide parts for it, but refuses
to. Even if it weren't manufactured, it has been less than 10 years
since it was discontinued, and Palm is obligated to provide
electrical/electronic parts.
Click to expand...
Those laws probably do not say anything about pricing, do they? What good
is forcing compliance if they would say "Fine...How many batteries do you
want? They're $1000 each?"
 
"Steve Kraus" <screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com> wrote in message
news:1oqdnaMvYa4qwKbQnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

The Tungsten T3 is still manufacturerd, though not, apparently, sold
by Palm. Palm is legally obliged to provide parts for it, but refuses
to. Even if it weren't manufactured, it has been less than 10 years
since it was discontinued, and Palm is obligated to provide
electrical/electronic parts.

Those laws probably do not say anything about pricing, do they?
What good is forcing compliance if they would say "Fine...How
many batteries do you want? They're $1000 each?"
Click to expand...
In the two cases where I forced companies to provide service or service
parts, they complied at a reasonable price.

Manufacturers (or importers) often gouge on the price of service parts. But
if they have the parts, they're not going to charge such a huge price that
the item won't sell at all.

In one case where I complained about the cost of a replacement headphone
cable (about 60% of the retail price of the complete headphone!), the
manufacturer was so upset by the ridiculousness of the price that they
simply sent me the cable for free (without my asking)! It was the beginning
of a beautiful friendship.
 
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 05:11:07 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

It's unfortunate there are no standardized rechargeable battery packs for
portable devices. This might have been doable when they were powered by AA
and C cells, but modern devices are so small, and the battery is so tightly
mechanically integrated, it isn't possible.

There's a reason why nobody standardizes on battery packs. Battery
packs are a major profit center. It's the razor blade model. Give
away the razors, and sell lots of blades. For example, Motorola makes
it policy of requiring a new battery, microphone, antenna, charger,
and other accessories with every new model handheld radio and cell
phone. Even models that are very similar, have intentional lumps and
holes to make the previous generation of accessories incompatible.
Same with some HP LaserJet cartridges.

There's some hope with the ITU standardizing on the microUSB battery
charger connector for portable devices:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Mobile_Terminal_Platform
http://www.wacapps.net
which are slowly being "embraced", which is doublespeak for being
shoved down the manufacturers throats by various regulatory agencies.

Way back in the early 1990's, there was some effort to standardize on
a single laptop battery. Mallory and others invented a ten C cell
package that just slid into the side of the laptop. It was popular
for a short while, until laptops shrank below the size where it would
fit. Nice try.
Click to expand...
the rectangular lead acid batteries that were almost standard in video
cameras was nice, while that lasted. I seem to recall some computer used
those too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top