Sanyo eneloop at Costco

SMS <> 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.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> SMS <> 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.

SMS

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.

SMS

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."

SMS

Dave Cohen <> 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.

Bill Tuthill

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Dave Cohen <> 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.

SMS

SMS <> wrote:
> 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."
>

Problem is not the battery technology, the problem is the flimsy door. If a
device handles AA alkaline, but you chose to use AA NiMH, is it somehow a
fault of AA alkaline batteries if the door wears out? No, it is an
under-engineered door.

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

And that is NOT a fault of battery technology and complete a fault of
engineering [or perhaps executive imposed constraints on engineering].

> "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."

It is not related at all to chemistry, period. Form factor and engineering
only have a bearing. In fact, the only two reasons that I am aware of that
LiIon is chosen more often for higher end cameras, multimedia devices, etc,
are their low weight [compared to NiMH] and low self-discharge rate. In fact,
the latter has been very notably addressed.

My point ... you should have NEVER have brought the subject up as a supporting
point for the use of LiIon battery technology. It is completely unrelated.
Hell, the cheaper NiMH battery offers enough savings to build a better door
The real problem of course is all the cheap Chinese **** they sell.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

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

Thomas T. Veldhouse

SMS <> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>> SMS <> 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.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

SMS <> wrote:
> Bill Tuthill wrote:
>> Dave Cohen <> 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.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

SMS <> wrote:
> Bill Tuthill wrote:
>> Dave Cohen <> 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....icle&ID=946180

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

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

Thomas T. Veldhouse