Voyager backplates indicate (with "# 1") that the rightmost battery is to be inserted first. Why so?

IIRC, this one is the RAM backup (or main) power source, so you can change batteries without the risk of memory loss.

Again, IIRC!

Luiz (Brazil)

Ah, another one that forgot what's in the manual ;-)

Hold the calculator vertically so #1 is at the bottom position of the three cells. Using gravity, you stack them vertically starting with #1. It is the same orientation and procedure for the Pioneers as well. The purpose is to reduce the chance of memory loss.

PS for Luiz: This is for the three cell version of the Voyagers, not the later models with the larger cells.

Edited: 10 Aug 2012, 4:52 p.m.

Quote:

---

IIRC, this one is the RAM backup (or main) power source, so you can change batteries without the risk of memory loss.

---

Actually the 3 cells are in series and there are no provisions
for less than three cells to hold up the internal power rail.
The internal 10uF tantalum cap is what functions quite well
(almost to a fault) as a memory "keep alive" during cell replacement.

But I have not seen any reference signifying the relevance of
#1 on the rear bezel plate. I'm leery it is a recommendation
of cell replacement sequence as you'd be fighting with the
positive terminal compression spring if cells were installed
from #1 onward. I find it easier to stack against the spring
which can be compressed in the process and released after the
last cell is dropped in.

If shorting is really a concern in any scenario, use a strip of
paper over the last cell's negative tip during insertion,
pulling it out after the cell is seated.

Oops!

Believe me, I never noticed that those inscriptions were a "#1" mark!

After so many years using Voyagers... Indeed, what do we know!

Thanks for pointing that out. I was sure it was about the new ones with two cells, would never guess.

Luiz (Brazil)

Edited: 10 Aug 2012, 5:19 p.m.

Quote:

---

...But I have not seen any reference signifying the relevance of #1 on the rear bezel plate.

---

It's in the manual. Honest.

Quote:

---

I'm leery it is a recommendation of cell replacement sequence as you'd be fighting with the positive terminal compression spring if cells were installed from #1 onward.

---

You're forgetting about the original design with symmetrical contacts.
When the design changed and the coil spring appeared, they never changed the manual to reflect the different configuration.

I agree: with later units, it is better to invert and stack from the spring end.

Quote:

---

It's in the manual. Honest.

---

The Owners Handbook? I couldn't find any mention of
it most notably in Appendix F. Nor anywhere else
in the mohpc OCR version cd03/manuals/15c_c.pdf
though I certainly may have missed it.

Quote:

---

You're forgetting about the original design with symmetrical contacts.

---

Indeed I was. But I'm admittedly myopic here.

The early mechanical voyager version cost reduced to its
single PCB successor should be studied by engineering
students as an rare example of improving a
design along with a manufacturing cost reduction.

Quote:

---

When the design changed and the coil spring appeared, they never changed the manual to reflect the different configuration.

I agree: with later units, it is better to invert and stack from the spring end.

---

I think both designs can enable cell shorting, but the
positive spring terminal version is likely worse. Not
really a concern as even if a single cell is momentarily
shorted you wouldn't
drop the tantalum cap rail voltage enough at ~3V to lose
memory contents.

Quote:

---

Hold the calculator vertically so #1 is at the bottom position of the three cells. Using gravity, you stack them vertically starting with #1. It is the same orientation and procedure for the Pioneers as well. The purpose is to reduce the chance of memory loss.

---

I always insert the batts with the same hand, so moving the calcs into a position where both springs (Voyagers and Pioneers) are south seems very unergonomic for me, since in your example the Voyagers batt compartment would be on the lower left side, and the Pioneer's batt compartment would be on the mid to upper right side.

Aside from that, the German manual does not mention any insertion order. It only says that the plus pole of each battery has to point to the nearest rubber foot. Relevant pages are 230 - 233 in manual 00011-90002 German Rev. B 2K-7.83 . The photos in the manual are from the first implementation with two 3-finger springs.

Edited: 10 Aug 2012, 9:27 p.m.

Quote:

---

The early mechanical voyager version cost reduced to its single PCB successor should be studied by engineering students as an rare example of improving a design along with a manufacturing cost reduction.

---

BTW: Anyone implemented a 28S machinery into a 19BII back door housing?

Quote:

---

The Owners Handbook? I couldn't find any mention of it most notably in Appendix F. Nor anywhere else in the mohpc OCR version cd03/manuals/15c_c.pdf though I certainly may have missed it.

---

After reading a few posts in this thread I flipped a 16C over and opened the battery compartment.

The one I'm looking at is a 3-battery model (2840A*) and there is a translucent plastic cup at the #3 cell end of the compartment.

If I were to populate slot #3 last, the battery would bend the side of the plastic cup so that it covers the terminal. This means that slot #3 must be filled first or second and #1 must be filled second or last.

I'm not making a point; just sharing an observation.

Cameron

That is exactly the way my 15C of 30 years ago was. Had a plastic cup every bit as big as the battery, so that the battery had to be inserted at that end first.