"William Sommer****** a a LYING **** "


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.


** MASSIVE LIE !!!!!!!!

The spec was for alkaline cells.





.... Phil

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...

Make sure you're comparing apples with apples.
The unloaded voltage of a cell is irrelevant.
I've found it very difficult to get the unloaded voltage of NiMH below
1.2V. Discharge it down to .8V, remove the load and let it sit and
it will creep back up to 1.2V. But it's still dead and can't supply
much current.
A flash is a VERY high current device. Once the LOADED voltage gets
much below 1V, it's too weak for a flash. The ONLY useful voltage
measurement is with the intended load.

A useful measurement is internal resistance. Use a square-wave load from
1/2A to 1A. Measure the P-P amplitude of the cell voltage and use that
to calculate a resistance dV/dI. Try it at different states of charge.

Calculate the voltage drop from your load current and the ISR.
Multiply that by the number of series cells and it's easy to see
why high-current loads quit working long before the open-circuit
voltage gets below 1.2V.

I shouldn't have said anything about the voltage.

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 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.

Unwarranted conclusions are your right. But people here are disagreeing
with you.

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.

"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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

"who where"
"William Sommer****** ****wit TROLL"


Your grasp of logic is concerning.


** But the grasp he has on his tiny penis is staggering.




..... Phil

"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.