From: SMS on
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> 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?

Yes, the reason for the high self-discharge rate has been known for a
long time, as well as the way to lower the self-discharge.


Can you please
> supply a citation?

Google is your friend. Search for "nimh improved separator self discharge".

Of course "a long time" is all relative, but the way to reduce
self-discharge was known all the way back in the 20th century, even
though the patents for it weren't granted until 2002.
From: SMS on
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

>>> 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.

Yes I did. Often, buried inside a sarcastic comment, is a latent truth.
This is the case in this instance.
From: SMS on
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
"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.

It's a side effect of the physical characteristics of the battery. It is
not related to capacity, density, charging, etc., but it is still a very
real issue, that is widely mentioned in camera reviews, and in forums.

dpreview wrote about the Fuji S6000fd/S6500fd:

"The batteries sit underneath a rather flimsy hinged door that has a
rather annoying habit of pinging open at the slightest knock (there is
no lock). More than once I found myself scrambling on the floor
attempting to retrieve the batteries after the door had 'popped'.
Stupid, stupid design."

While it would not be all that hard to design a better retention system,
broken battery doors remain one of the biggest repair items.

"DigitalCameraPartsDepot.com is the source for those pesky parts like
battery doors, memory card doors, and other small digital camera parts
that are forever breaking.These digital camera parts are easily
replaceable by the owner but are often almost impossible to obtain."

Of course I am very clear that the battery door issue isn't a direct
battery technology issue, stating: "It's been pointed out that this
reliability issue is not related to the actual battery chemistry and
this is a true statement However it's a major side effect of the type of
battery. Most of us have run into this type of issue on battery powered
devices, whether it's on an expensive camera, or on a cheap flashlight.
On some NiMH and Ni-Cad powered devices, the batteries are in packs,
and have solder-tabs rather than pressure contacts, but you're back to
the issue of proprietary battery packs."
From: Bill Tuthill on
Dave Cohen <user(a)example.net> wrote:
> Hybrids by Rayovac, these are same technology licensed from Sanyo.

Are you sure about this?

If true, I do not believe it is public information.

From: SMS on
Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Dave Cohen <user(a)example.net> wrote:
>> Hybrids by Rayovac, these are same technology licensed from Sanyo.
>
> Are you sure about this?
>
> If true, I do not believe it is public information.

It's possible as the two companies do work together on battery technology.

"http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=786"

Usually there are cross-license agreements, which would mean that
Rayovac could use the eneloop technology.