On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 12:26:34 -0800, UCLAN
<nomail@thanks.org> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>>>2700mAh and 2900mAh NiMH batteries last just as long (if not longer)
>>>than standard Duracell or Energizer AA batteries (which are ~2700mAh.)
>>>Depends on the application.
>>
>> In this application, NiMH cannot power a mouse as long.
>> NiMH inherantly has a self-discharge propensity that will
>> result in lower usable power over the course of several
>> months time. If the mouse were power hungry enough that it
>> drained the batteries within a month or two, NiMH would be
>> more competitive.
>
>Some cordless mice ARE power hungry, being in the on/active state
>if they are not in the charger. *In these applications*, the 2700-
>3000mAh NiMH rechargeables hold their charge just as long as the
>alkalines do. Using the cradle, well...NiMH is a "no brainer."


It's doubtful those cells actually achieve upwards of
3000mAH. Even the majors are only now achieving 2700mAH,
and only then when batteries are new which can dismiss as
the point of rechargeables IS to keep using them.

Given the context of wanting long runtime, why would anyone
choose a power hungry mouse that doesn't have it's own
charger? I suggest that if it has it's own charger, it
doesn't matter much which batteries one uses, even the old
1100mAH NiCads should last a day or two till it's put back
into that charging cradle. Perhaps traveling with a laptop
is anther story, but there are laptop mice meant for this
use.