On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:00:17 GMT, "John"
john.plant510@ntlworld.com> wrote:


For the sake of argument, let's say the unit is used very little and
the
receiver does not have a light.




Irrespective of usage, the receiver must be active all the time waiting
for
a call - like leaving a radio switched on - with the volume turned down -
it
will eat the batteries. Plug in ones are better.


I would suspect the receiver battery lasts at least as long
as the transmitter battery. Supposing one with a separate
transformer plug in supply costs $10 more, it may come close
to erasing any cost difference too over the life of the
unit, though the plug in type would reduce # of batteries
going into a landfill.

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:u65ar2tk156857vjj63ku8cufj2uqjt9jl@4ax.com...
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:00:17 GMT, "John"
john.plant510@ntlworld.com> wrote:


For the sake of argument, let's say the unit is used very little and
the
receiver does not have a light.




Irrespective of usage, the receiver must be active all the time waiting
for
a call - like leaving a radio switched on - with the volume turned down -
it
will eat the batteries. Plug in ones are better.


I would suspect the receiver battery lasts at least as long
as the transmitter battery. Supposing one with a separate
transformer plug in supply costs $10 more, it may come close
to erasing any cost difference too over the life of the
unit, though the plug in type would reduce # of batteries
going into a landfill.

The transmitter is only consuming power for a few seconds at a time, when
somebody presses the button. The receiver is on 24/7, and it has to power
the bell/buzzer.

Irrespective of usage, the receiver must be active all the time waiting
for
a call - like leaving a radio switched on - with the volume turned
down -
it
will eat the batteries. Plug in ones are better.


I would suspect the receiver battery lasts at least as long
as the transmitter battery. Supposing one with a separate
transformer plug in supply costs $10 more, it may come close
to erasing any cost difference too over the life of the
unit, though the plug in type would reduce # of batteries
going into a landfill.

The transmitter is only consuming power for a few seconds at a time, when
somebody presses the button. The receiver is on 24/7, and it has to power
the bell/buzzer.



While that is true, that doesn't mean it necessarily
consumes a lot of current. Take an LCD watch for example,
it runs years from a tiny battery. How long do you think it
would run from 2 x C cells? It is an irrelevant question
because the cells will have self discharged faster than the
watch would have drained them.

As a % of time the buzzer isn't running very often and the
rest of the receiver may be using on a few uA. Since I have
one that uses 2 x C cells and they have lasted a little over
a year already, it is already clear it uses significantly
less than 1mA on average.

As a % of time the buzzer isn't running very often and the
rest of the receiver may be using on a few uA. Since I have
one that uses 2 x C cells and they have lasted a little over
a year already, it is already clear it uses significantly
less than 1mA on average.

I stand by my point - the bell unit is acting as a radio receiver all the
time - ready to ring if it receives the correct input. It is bound to use a
significant amount of power. I would only consider having a mains powered
one - as many have a 13 amp plug through facility you are not even losing a
socket.
Battery quality is also an obvious factor.

Not having such a device, why would the *receiver* be battery powered
unless you live somewhere without mains electricity?

You can move them about the house with you if, say you were working in
an upstairs room when expecting a parcel / take them into the
conservatory / out to the barbecue.

Also you can site them on top of
tall cupboards where they are out of the way and inconspicuous without
trailing wires.

Oddly the transmitter unit in my 4 year old Friedland unit has never
had a new battery (presumably a button cell of some kind), whereas the
sounder has had 3 sets of 2 "C" cells.

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:07:16 GMT, "John"
john.plant510@ntlworld.com> wrote:


As a % of time the buzzer isn't running very often and the
rest of the receiver may be using on a few uA. Since I have
one that uses 2 x C cells and they have lasted a little over
a year already, it is already clear it uses significantly
less than 1mA on average.

I stand by my point - the bell unit is acting as a radio receiver all the
time - ready to ring if it receives the correct input. It is bound to use
a
significant amount of power. I would only consider having a mains powered
one - as many have a 13 amp plug through facility you are not even losing
a
socket.
Battery quality is also an obvious factor.



Define "significant amount of power". Since the batteries
in mine are plain old Duracell alkalines rated for 7800mAh,
http://www.duracell.com/oem/Pdf/others/ATB-full.pdf
and since it's already ran for over a year (but let's round
down to 1 year for simplicities' sake), 24/7 constantly,
that's already an absolute maximum possible avg. current of

7800 / [24 * 365] = 0.9mA

... and it only goes lower every day it continues to run off
same pair of cells. It may be that those Duracells can
produce more than 7800mAh at such a slow drain rate, but not
enough to make much of a difference in the calculations,
we're still looking at a sub-1mA range considering those
cells aren't dead yet and may not be any day soon.

I would agree that battery quality is an obvious factor but
why would someone put low quality batteries in (anything?)
except perhaps for those generic NiMH if the device didn't
need run any longer than those can provide before another
recharge cycle is acceptible - definitely not the case in
this context with a door buzzer.


You must be fortunate with your choice of unit and batteries. People I know

In article <Xns98BE80C9F79CC64A18E@127.0.0.1>,
Ziggy <duff@nomail.invalid> wrote:
What is the approximate battery life of the receiver of a wire free door
chime?

For the sake of argument, let's say the unit is used very little and the
receiver does not have a light.

{Here are some sample products from Argos http://tinyurl.com/2sb3r9}

Not having such a device, why would the *receiver* be battery powered
unless you live somewhere without mains electricity?

You can move them about the house with you if, say you were working in
an upstairs room when expecting a parcel / take them into the
conservatory / out to the barbecue.
But I'd expect a mains bell system to be heard throughout the house.

In article <mpver29dh862635h6vckr2n8nv9lu1lj8i@4ax.com>,
Derek Geldard <usenet@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Not having such a device, why would the *receiver* be battery powered
unless you live somewhere without mains electricity?

You can move them about the house with you if, say you were working in
an upstairs room when expecting a parcel / take them into the
conservatory / out to the barbecue.

But I'd expect a mains bell system to be heard throughout the house. The
fact that you have to take a wireless one with you is just one more thing
against it.

But I'd expect a mains bell system to be heard throughout the house.
The fact that you have to take a wireless one with you is just one more
thing against it.

... or for it, not everyone has either a tiny house or wants
a bell system that loud, which tends to be that much louder
in areas adjacent to it.

If you have plaster walls or
teenagers/others with loud stereos you may also find there's
no one bell system that can be heard everywhere without
waking the dead in the next zip code.

In short the ideal bell system is not as loud as possible,
it's only loud enough to be heard reliably. One could wire
up secondary chimes but considering the addt'l time and/or
expense it may not not suit all needs either.

You don't "have" to take anything with you, that's like
claiming it's a negative thing that a notebook is portable.

In article <fg3gr2pvim4ugl0kdp6621ehpmn3kgchha@4ax.com>,
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
But I'd expect a mains bell system to be heard throughout the house.
The fact that you have to take a wireless one with you is just one more
thing against it.

... or for it, not everyone has either a tiny house or wants
a bell system that loud, which tends to be that much louder
in areas adjacent to it.

If you can't hear a bell throughout the house, why bother with one? Just
have a knocker on the door - no batteries to go flat and no running costs.

If you have plaster walls or
teenagers/others with loud stereos you may also find there's
no one bell system that can be heard everywhere without
waking the dead in the next zip code.

In short the ideal bell system is not as loud as possible,
it's only loud enough to be heard reliably. One could wire
up secondary chimes but considering the addt'l time and/or
expense it may not not suit all needs either.

It's such a one time installation worth getting right, IMHO.

You don't "have" to take anything with you, that's like
claiming it's a negative thing that a notebook is portable.

Not a good simile. You find a notebook when you want to refer to it. A
doorbell is needed at random. And it's such a random thing the idea of
carrying it with you strikes me as silly. If you did need such a feature
one which interfaced with your mobile would make more sense. Easy enough
to do with an alarm SDI if you wanted to.