i believe they're both still ~ 1.3V, just different capacities. one will stay "on" longer thus requiring less charging. thus lower charge cycle, thus perhaps last longer? something like that...

edit...ime, both suck at wall clocks (low drain devices) coz of their lower voltage. ymmv

This post has been edited by flagstaff: Aug 7 2022, 08:02 PM

yeah, exactly why i migrated to the rechargeables. hate the leaks spoiling the devices...
but, you have no issues with your clocks? hurmmm...i noticed i need to replace the rechargeables more often compared to the conventional ones on the clocks.
i.e. rechargeables might require changing around 6months, whilst the conventional...more than a year.

edit: i believe my clock is sensitive... refuse to work below 1.2V. others might have no issue working at 0,9V

This post has been edited by flagstaff: Aug 7 2022, 08:22 PM

you missed the ymmv?

i was going to give a lengthy, detailed, and elaborate reply. but, quite sure you'd skip over the details anyway. and yes, i'm sure. as sure as i am that you'd just replace the batts without checking the failure voltage, the initial voltage, and the duration it took for the voltage drop...also never compared the result to the conventional batts. so, let's just settle it simply at ymmv.

nothing wrong with changing rechargeable at 6months vs >1year for the conventional. i'm not saying the clock doesn't work with it. jeez... i'd prefer changing more frequently rather than finding it dead, leaking, and spoiling the device...

i'm not against rechargeables. just stating my observation to add into the discussion.

demmit, this long already, might as well add... conventional batts start at 1.5V, rechargeables at 1.2V (1.3V at best)... with the same load/drain... it doesn't take rocket science to figure out which one will reach 0.9V (failure) first.
if you are going to argue that your ladda lasts longer in that situation, i'd love to be educated on it, as long as it's not based on "feelings".

yes, i'm fun at parties...