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

Knowing the cause and having created a practical solution [using your terms we
call it "Low self-discharge technology] is a far different thing. No, it has
not been around for a long time.

>
> 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.

And it was put into practical practice when? Certainly not before 2002 (at
least not at the consumer sub 5Ah level).

--
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:
> 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.

It was stated as a fact, and it is the declaration of fact that prompted the
request for support.

--
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:
> 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.

BTW .. the "working together" was in reference to higher capacity and faster
charging batteries. Oddly, it seems the faster charging batteries that
Rayovac used to sell have largely disappeared and Sanyo has not released a
domestic counter-part in the United States. Further, the Hybrid Rayovacs,
which are the subject of what Dave Cohen indicated was licensed technology,
are not made by Rayovac at all, but by Spectrum Brands. Note in the following
article there is no mention of Sanyo what-so-ever.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=75225&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=946180

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

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

From: ASAAR on
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:28:02 -0700, SMS wrote:

>> 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.

As opposed to your website and many usenet posts, in which is
contained considerably less than the truth.

From: SMS on
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

> BTW .. the "working together" was in reference to higher capacity and faster
> charging batteries.

This is correct, but usually the cross-license agreements are very broad
and cover future products as well. I.e., before the x86 architecture
took over for PCs, Intel signed several cross-license agreements that it
later wished it hadn't signed.