Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
100 is for a full-power flash.
The flash energy input is probably about 20 joules, ie 330uF
and 350V. Allowing 5 joules for losses, the energy required for
100 flashes is 2500 joules.
A fully charged, 2500mAH NiMH has a capacity of 11,000 joules
(1.2 x 2.5 x 3600). Four of them have a capacity of 44,000 joules.
So, your "magic" Sanyo cells had under 6% of normal capacity.
I can't argue with plausibly-chosen numbers, and I won't.
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.
Why don't you stop by and give it to me?"William Sommerwanker is a TROLLING CUNT "
** This asinine pike needs teaching lesson.
The prick has gotten away with NG murder for
FAR TOO BLOODY LONG !!!!!!
"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:9l3cumFj4pU1@mid.individual.net...
"William Sommerwanker is a TROLLING CUNT "
** This asinine pike needs teaching lesson.
The prick has gotten away with NG murder for
FAR TOO BLOODY LONG !!!!!!
Why don't you stop by and give it to me?
and you shouldn't have jumped off the deep end and used words like "lie""mike" <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jch2n5$n5e$1@dont-email.me...
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.
You have either a mistake or a serendipitous occurrence that you'veThe 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.
The fact that I have at least one set of conventional NiMH cells that satand 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.
I made no mistake. And if something is said to be generally true, oneYou have either a mistake or a serendipitous occurrence that you've
extrapolated to draw unwarranted general conclusions.
I'm not asking you to. The original claim was the NiMH cells repaidlyI'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.
** This asinine pike needs teaching lesson.
The prick has gotten away with NG murder for
FAR TOO BLOODY LONG !!!!!!
Why don't you stop by and give it to me?
No, it is proof that it appears wrong IN ONE CASE."mike" <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jcim3a$6h1$1@dont-email.me...
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.
One exception does NOT disprove some thing said to be generally true.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.
Your grasp of logic is concerning.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.
Which disproves the whole. Where did you learn "logic"?On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:32:58 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
"mike" <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jcim3a$6h1$1@dont-email.me...
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 is exactly the point.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.
Your insistence on ignorant empirical data is frightening.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.
Hmm... My back seems to be covered with duck feathers."William Sommerwanker is a TROLLING CUNT "
** This asinine pike needs teaching lesson.
The prick has gotten away with NG murder for
FAR TOO BLOODY LONG !!!!!!
Why don't you stop by and give it to me?
** I'm doing it right now you fuckwit moron.
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.
I had four counter-anecdotes to his one. His experience with a flash"William Sommerwanker = TROLLING PIG "
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.
** How FUCKING STUPID !!!
Where did you learn "logic"?
"William Sommerwanker = TROLLING PIG "
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.
** How FUCKING STUPID !!!
Where did you learn "logic"?
The issue isn't whether you had the problem, but whether the problem isI had four counter-anecdotes to his one. His experience with
a flash unit doesn't counter mine with phones and motors.
In manufacturing, although we analysed outliers, we focused on how the"spamtrap1888" <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7bc23765-540e-4e16-937a-21472096e970@q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 17, 5:26 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
"William Sommerwanker = TROLLING PIG "
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.
** How FUCKING STUPID !!!
Where did you learn "logic"?
I had four counter-anecdotes to his one. His experience with
a flash unit doesn't counter mine with phones and motors.
The issue isn't whether you had the problem, but whether the problem is
universal. And in that respect, my single experience trumps the experience
of everyone else -- even unto hundreds of thousands of other people.
The original claim was that conventionally designed NiMH cells showed rapid
self-discharge -- supposedly several percent a week.
The claim was not that particular cells from particular manufacturers lost
their charge, or that cells of a certain capacity were subject to this
problem, but that NiMH cells lost their charge significantly more quickly
than nicads.
The claim does not contain the qualifiers "a few", "many", or "most". It's a
generic statement that applies to all NiMH cells. The lack of a qualifier is
equivalent to "all".
My first corporate employer gave me a health insurance card thatHere's an example...
"In the United States, cars made in the past five years are silver-gray."
Is that statement true or false?