> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dwayne Reid [mailto:dwayner@PLANET.EON.NET]=20
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 6:31 PM
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [EE]: mA-H for energizer?
>=20
>=20
> At 05:25 PM 4/14/03 -0500, Alex Kilpatrick wrote:
>=20
> >I had not even thought to look at the manufacturer's=20
> website.  For some=20
> >reason, I thought regular retail battery manufacturers=20
> didn't publish=20
> >specs.  Why don't they put it on the freakin' package?
>=20
> Probably is a good thing that they DON'T mark the rating on=20
> the package: the marketing drones would probably inflate the=20
> numbers just like they do when talking about audio power=20
> amplifiers.  (anyone remember those Zoltrix amplified=20
> computer speakers marked "120 Watts" - but with only a 12V 1A=20
> power transformer inside?)
>=20

Well, something like mA-H could be independently certified.  I don't see
how it could be fudged in a similar manner.

It can't be worse that what we have now, with bunnies and copper and
robots, etc. used to influence what batteries people buy.

Alex

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.