Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
the lie of rapid NiMH self-discharge
"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 |
#42
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
the lie of rapid NiMH self-discharge
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. |
#43
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
the lie of rapid NiMH self-discharge
"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. |
#44
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
the lie of rapid NiMH self-discharge
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. |
#45
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
the lie of rapid NiMH self-discharge
"who where" "William Sommer****** ****wit TROLL" Your grasp of logic is concerning. ** But the grasp he has on his tiny penis is staggering. ..... Phil |
#46
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
the lie of rapid NiMH self-discharge
"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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Rapid and DHL | UK diy | |||
Tek 7904A rapid ticking - no HT... | Electronics Repair | |||
OT? Rapid Prototyping | Metalworking | |||
Is there a difference between dish washer discharge and laundry machine discharge? | Home Repair |