"who where" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:32:58 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"mike" wrote in message
...

and you shouldn't have jumped off the deep end and used words like
"lie"
and "proof"
It's not a lie and you disclosed no proof.

The fact that I have at least one set of conventional NiMH cells that sat
for two years, yet still correctly powered a device is proof that what is
said about rapid self-discharge is wrong.

No, it is proof that it appears wrong IN ONE CASE.

Which disproves the whole. Where did you learn "logic"?


The point is that the cells "should" have been dead, but weren't.
After
nearly two years, they powered the flash to its spec's number of
flashes.

You have either a mistake or a serendipitous occurrence that you've
extrapolated to draw unwarranted general conclusions.

I made no mistake. And if something is said to be generally true, one
exception disproves it.

One exception does NOT disprove some thing said to be generally true.
It only proves it is not universally true.

Which is exactly the point.


I'm unlikely to use old technology NiMH cells in an application
where I expect full functionality after two years of storage.
Repeating your anecdote is unlikely to change that.

I'm not asking you to. The original claim was the NiMH cells repaidly
self-discharged over a period of several weeks. It simply isn't true.

Your grasp of logic is concerning.

Your insistence on ignorant empirical data is frightening.