From: SMS on
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> I wouldn't be so sure about that. If it was the same technology licensed from
> Sanyo, I would expect the same capacity ratings after one year, but they are
> different. Further, if it were the same technology, I would expect that Sanyo
> would be selling cells with the same capacity [or higher] than those they
> license too. In short, I do not think they have licensed the technology for
> use in Rayovac [built by Spectrum in China ... as are Hybrio], but rather a
> similar technology developed in parallel.

The technology for lower self-discharge has been around for a long time,
but it reduces the available volume for the battery components that
increase the mAHs. NiMH batteries have been marketed based on mAHs
rather than self-discharge rate (which users probably don't understand
all that well). Logically you'd expect a mass migration to low
self-discharge NiMH batteries, but the typical person selecting
batteries at the store is going mainly by mAH and price, and maybe a
little on brand recognition.
From: SMS on
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> ASAAR <caught(a)22.com> wrote:
>> I'm sure that if you or I had shared
>> SMS's Li-Ion bias and often parroted his statements, we too might
>> have been quoted on his website and been lumped in with all of the
>> other "acknowledged battery experts". Acknowledged by SMS, that is.
>>
>
> I could only hope for so much fame.

You can't just hope for it, you have to do something to achieve it.

When you have a web site where you enter only two or three keywords of
Google then click on "I'm Feeling Lucky" and have your site come up,
then you've achieved some measure of internet fame (as long as the
keywords aren't something like "mass murderer").

Try this on the Google home page:

"nimh versus li-ion" then click on "I'm Feeling Lucky"
"bicycle lighting" then click on "I'm Feeling Lucky"
"bicycle coffee" then click on "I'm Feeling Lucky"

Of course it often helps when you have someone on Usenet that provides
you with tons of incorrect material to correct! Never let it be said
that ASAAR doesn't serve a purpose!

Steve

From: Thomas T. Veldhouse on
SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> ASAAR <caught(a)22.com> wrote:
>>> I'm sure that if you or I had shared
>>> SMS's Li-Ion bias and often parroted his statements, we too might
>>> have been quoted on his website and been lumped in with all of the
>>> other "acknowledged battery experts". Acknowledged by SMS, that is.
>>>
>>
>> I could only hope for so much fame.
>
> You can't just hope for it, you have to do something to achieve it.
>

Of course, you purposely dismissed my sarcasm.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

From: Thomas T. Veldhouse on
SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>

Note that I snipped the topics that I wasn't questioning you on in the first
place.

> Charge/Discharge Cycles
> -----------------------
> See the chart at
> "http://www.buchmann.ca/Article4-Page1.asp" as well as many other
> similar references. Of course you already knew this.
>

This article does not really contrast charge/discharge cycles between LiIon
(or polymer) and NiMH. Further, it is VERY clear that LiIon batteries have a
short useful life [when healthy] of 1 year until decline and often complete
failure in two to three years. Contrast that to NiMH batteries which last
significantly longer and if used similarily you will get more real charge
cycles from NiMH than you will from LiIon unless you approach commmericial
usage levels.

> Accurate Indication of Charge Level
> -----------------------------------
> The battery gauges measure voltage. As you can see on the site in my
> graphs, as well as on
> "http://www.national.com/appinfo/power/files/f19.pdf", the voltage range
> for a NiMH is very narrow, and is almost flat for most of the discharge
> cycle. The voltage range for the Li-Ion pack is wider, and declines
> linearly.
>

There are several devices available now that DO give accurate capacity
indications of NiMH batteries. Your old PDF does nothing but illustrate the
flat discharge curve [which is a good thing as quoted in the article]. It has
been illustrated in this forum several times that a healthy battery is very
easy to show reliable capacity [without load based testing]. My Daughter's
very cheap Kodak Digital is smart enough to know it has NiMH batteries in it
[in fact, it was probably designed for them as it would be hard to supply
enough power with alkalines for any real timeframe]. It does an EXCELLENT job
at indicating remaining capacity. Testing it has shown a very close match to
my load based battery tester mentioned in another thread.

> The rest of the paragraph doesn't need references, as you can just look
> at what cell phones, MP3 players, laptops, PDA's, etc., are using. The
> prices of Li-Ion packs are available to anyone that knows how to use
> Google (use the "Products" section, and don't buy from eBay or from
> unrated sellers or sellers with poor ratings.

We know the reason they use LiIon batteries for these things. They are light.
The drawback is that to fit in small packages, they are proprietary and they
fail over time, no matter the usage. Further, kids are often completely
draining thier "iPod" batteries, which is HORRIBLE for LiIon batteries. In
short, you pay a LOT more for batteries over the life a typical device like an
MP3 player because of typical usage and short life of LiIon. Same goes for
cellphones [and kids]. My daughter's battery for her Motorola 325 lasted only
about 9 months before I had to replace it because it wouldn't last a day.

>
> I certainly hope that you are not becoming another ASAAR, someone who
> knows the facts but just likes to run around demanding references and
> citations for thing that they already know to be true. Maybe I'm the
> chump by spending the time to respond with references to statements that
> you already know to be true.
>

ASAAR is correct that you display a very big bias towards NiMH batteries as if
their is something wrong with them. Rather, you seem to indicate that LiIon
is prefferrable as a generalized statement, which is simply not true. You
can't make such generalized statements. You often throw up pros/cons for NiMH
-vs- LiIon that has outdated information or is simply incorrect [in practical
use]. In particular, you have made claims that, and I paraphrase, "LiIon is
better because changing the AA batteries on a camera will cause the door to
fail rather than charge the batteries in camera". THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM OR
BENEFIT OF EITHER TECHNOLOGY, but you used it anyway. Older cellphones that
used NiMH [proprietary] batteries are a prime example.

In short, quit making conclusions, as they are biased. Present accurate facts
[and complete] and you will be fine.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

From: Thomas T. Veldhouse on
SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>
> The technology for lower self-discharge has been around for a long time,
> but it reduces the available volume for the battery components that
> increase the mAHs. NiMH batteries have been marketed based on mAHs
> rather than self-discharge rate (which users probably don't understand
> all that well). Logically you'd expect a mass migration to low
> self-discharge NiMH batteries, but the typical person selecting
> batteries at the store is going mainly by mAH and price, and maybe a
> little on brand recognition.

Low self-discharge technology has been around a long time? Can you please
supply a citation? We already know that the higher the battery capacity, the
more self-discharge rate, but that is MUCH different than the new layer they
are using on the anode and separator to reduce self-dischage.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.