"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:12:03 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:


No, they were more like $350. I said earphones, not headphones.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between earphones
and headphones? I use the terms interchangeably.

Headphones sit on your head. Earphones go in your ears. Sennheiser 600s are
headphones. Etymotics are earphones.


That's extremely useful information, but I'm still not sure it answers
the
question -- unless you're suggesting that the people who have problems
with rapid self-discharge have damaged their cells.

Nope. A one line summary would be that most users don't remember
how many times they have charged their NiMH cells, don't recall how
old they are, and have no clue as what constitutes normal lifetime. If
someone has a battery killer in the form of a battery charger, they
would just continue to use it, killing battery after battery, without
ever doing the math needed to determine if something is wrong.

That makes sense. However, the question was about rapid self-discharge --
NOT the total number of charge/discharge cycles.


Even simpler... do *YOU* record the number of charge cycles of your
rechargeable batteries? If not, then you have no accurate way to
determine if you're getting the normal number of charge cycles
(400-800) from the NiMH batteries (unless you have a really good
memory).

None of my NiMH cells has had gone through more than 100 cycles -- most a
lot less.

Again, the issue is "rapid" self-discharge. I don't see where the gradual
loss of capacity necessarily results in more-rapid self-discharge.

The complaints about NiMH cells were with respect to nicads. I'm assuming
(perhaps incorrectly) that the plaintiffs were comparing relatively new NiMH
cells with older nicads -- which should have been in worse condition, and
therefore subject to more-rapid self-discharge.