Reply to comment
Both could be right
May 8, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 28 weeks ago
Comment id: 29699
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
I think that you are correct, in that it is a chemical process where the recharger simple applies an electrical current to run the chemical process in reverse.
However, it really comes down to what the recharger is pulling over those 15 minutes. It actually may be drawing more current in fewer amount of time. So it may be greener, but not by much. So your dad could be correct also.
It would be interesting to test how much power it uses in 15 minutes vs a regular charger.