«

I have an MH-C9000 and eight 4 packs of Kodak Pre-Charged batteries.
What's the best way to investigate their capacity and stuff before
putting them to work? Thanks.



--
FWIW. The MH-C9000 did not come factory sealed, looks like maybe it
had been opened but it looks okay. No clear signs of wear, but the
lower row of contacts is somewhat discolored, not shiny The version
code is 0G0KA.

On Dec 5, 7:41*pm, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> I have an MH-C9000 and eight 4 packs of Kodak Pre-Charged batteries.
> What's the best way to investigate their capacity and stuff before
> putting them to work? Thanks.
>
> --
> FWIW. The MH-C9000 did not come factory sealed, looks like maybe it
> had been opened but it looks okay. No clear signs of wear, but the
> lower row of contacts is somewhat discolored, not shiny The version
> code is 0G0KA.

I would charge them and measure each cell voltage to be sure they are
equal, but I have no idea on testing them, doesnt the charger have a
mode to do that.

In article <uLk_k.9399$>, John Doe
<> writes
>
>I have an MH-C9000 and eight 4 packs of Kodak Pre-Charged batteries.
>What's the best way to investigate their capacity and stuff before
>putting them to work? Thanks.

Load them at a current typical of the normal operation, and observer how
the voltage changes from off-load to 30 sec. of load. I do not know the
specification of these particular batteries and therefore can no advise
on specific values, the manufacturer's web site might have details.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

Why not just use them and see. Any test is based on assumptions
about how they will be used. Your use does not equal any of those
sets of assumptions. it is how they work for you that counts, not how
they work in some sort of formal test.

dave <user example.net> wrote:

> First, if one thinks these things should be evaluated prior to use
> which seems to me to imply less than complete confidence in the
> outcome of such tests, why on earth would one purchase 8 sets.

Elementary, my dear Dave. When one is at the store, one
expects/hopes that the batteries are going to function properly, and
one doesn't want to return to the store to buy more if in fact the
batteries do function properly. One might save a trip to the store
that way.

> The Kodaks in question come pre-charged,

In the pack used for testing, two of the Kodak Pre-Charged batteries
in question came completely discharged, the other two were nearly
discharged.

Amazing how experiences differ, dave.

> you open the package, put them in your camera or other device and
> when they are depleted you charge them.

That might be okay, unless I relied on them for something important.
















> Dave Cohen
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
>
> Path: nlpi059.nbdc.sbc.com!nlpi062.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy. com!nlpi057.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.co m!news2!nntpserver.com!zeus.nntpserver.com!pfilter-v0.1!news.teranews.com!not-for-mail
> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:49:39 -0500
> From: dave <user example.net>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> Subject: Re: Testing new batteries?
> References: <uLk_k.9399$c45.3279 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <a5okj4lvjcnk892rndih5knuhqsh4sposj 4ax.com>
> In-Reply-To: <a5okj4lvjcnk892rndih5knuhqsh4sposj 4ax.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <b1287$493c9958$22414 news.teranews.com>
> X-Complaints-To: abuse teranews.com
> Organization: www.TeraNews.com
> Lines: 24
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:49:44 -0500
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.photo.digital:1517069
> X-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:39:18 EST (nlpi059.nbdc.sbc.com)
>

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:30:56 GMT, Our dear Doe wrote:

>> First, if one thinks these things should be evaluated prior to use
>> which seems to me to imply less than complete confidence in the
>> outcome of such tests, why on earth would one purchase 8 sets.
>
> Elementary, my dear Dave. When one is at the store, one
> expects/hopes that the batteries are going to function properly, and
> one doesn't want to return to the store to buy more if in fact the
> batteries do function properly. One might save a trip to the store
> that way.
>
>> The Kodaks in question come pre-charged,
>
> In the pack used for testing, two of the Kodak Pre-Charged batteries
> in question came completely discharged, the other two were nearly
> discharged.
>
> Amazing how experiences differ, dave.

Quite, doe. People here have been buying, using and discussing
Eneloop and other pre-charged AA cells for at least three years. In
all that time yours is the first account of any being nearly or
completely discharged when purchased. What's your point, that
you're account is an outlier or to be expected? Based on my own
experiences I'd vote for outlier or liar, in no particular order.

ASAAR <caught 22.com> wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>> [Jack messed up the introductions]

>>> First, if one thinks these things should be evaluated prior to
>>> use which seems to me to imply less than complete confidence in
>>> the outcome of such tests, why on earth would one purchase 8
>>> sets.
>>
>> Elementary, my dear Dave. When one is at the store, one
>> expects/hopes that the batteries are going to function properly,
>> and one doesn't want to return to the store to buy more if in
>> fact the batteries do function properly. One might save a trip to
>> the store that way.
>>
>>> The Kodaks in question come pre-charged,
>>
>> In the pack used for testing, two of the Kodak Pre-Charged
>> batteries in question came completely discharged, the other two
>> were nearly discharged.

> What's your point, that you're account is an outlier or to be
> expected?

I guess that depends on how long they stay on the shelves at a given
Wal-Mart. Perhaps the Wal-Mart here has a slow market for Kodak
pre-charged batteries.

> Based on my own experiences I'd vote for outlier or liar,

I'd vote for your mother being a whore, Jack. So what?

Being technically oriented, I simply state the facts, Jack. I have
no motive for bashing Kodak. On the other hand, you have a motive
for dissing me. And then there is the fact that you insult people
you don't even know, Jack.












> in no particular order.
>
>
>
> Path: nlpi059.nbdc.sbc.com!nlpi062.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy. com!nlpi057.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.co m!news2!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!core-easynews!easynews.com!easynews!en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: ASAAR <caught 22.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> Subject: Re: Testing new batteries?
> Organization: kimbo
> Message-ID: <56l3k4t0iorjm3lf3j0n2evjaeje9q30np 4ax.com>
> References: <uLk_k.9399$c45.3279 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <a5okj4lvjcnk892rndih5knuhqsh4sposj 4ax.com> <b1287$493c9958$22414 news.teranews.com> <A1k0l.9438$Ei5.2786 flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 27
> X-Complaints-To: abuse easynews.com
> X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:26:48 -0500
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.photo.digital:1517287
> X-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:28:20 EST (nlpi059.nbdc.sbc.com)
>

John Doe wrote:
> ASAAR <caught 22.com> wrote:
> ..
> I guess that depends on how long they stay on the shelves at a given
> Wal-Mart. Perhaps the Wal-Mart here has a slow market for Kodak
> pre-charged batteries.
>
>> Based on my own experiences I'd vote for outlier or liar,
>
> I'd vote for your mother being a whore, Jack. So what?
That's it. Respond like a grown-up and impress everyone...

How's about sticking to facts?

> Being technically oriented, I simply state the facts, Jack.
OK, can you clarify something for me, in technical terms? Earlier you
said that the package had a 2006 copyright notice on it (I am puzzled as
what the significance of that might be), presumably inferring there was
no expiry or use-by date on either the package or the batteries. This
sounds odd - I've just had a quick flick thru my battery collection, and
every single one had a date either on the barrel or the minus terminal.
From ultra cheap and nasty 'Tevion' aa rechargeables to E2 Lithium &
Duracell, rechargeable or not - every single one. Now I happily admit
that none I checked were Kodak.. but I can't recall seeing any undated
battery in recent times (eg last 3 years).

I also don't live in the USA (where the attitude sometimes seems to be
just-accept-you-got-ripped-off) but if it was me, I would be taking
those batteries back in an instant if this parable were true. In fact I
would never *buy* a set of batteries for which I could not see a date.
(I guess I'm 'technical' in a different way...)

So, have you since taken them back?

If you still claim that there is no date on them, may we see a few
pictures, or would you check them thoroughly? I'll check next time I
see them on sale..

> I have
> no motive for bashing Kodak.
How would we know that? FWIW, I've never had a bad battery from kodak,
even though I've bought quite a few near their expiry date from
clearance stores. But that experience is only with alkalines and
perhaps there may be an issue with their others, but you are the only
one I can see who is having it - a quick Google comes up empty, but do
correct me.

> On the other hand, you have a motive
> for dissing me.
Everyone has that motive if they see a story that doesn't quite sound
right... But if you clarify it, all will be happy again.

> And then there is the fact that you insult people
> you don't even know, Jack.
The insults seem to be highly related to the story.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 04:58:55 GMT, John DoeNut wrote:

>> What's your point, that you're account is an outlier or to be
>> expected?
>
> I guess that depends on how long they stay on the shelves at a given
> Wal-Mart. Perhaps the Wal-Mart here has a slow market for Kodak
> pre-charged batteries.

Being ignorant of how long batteries have remained on the shelves
is no excuse, not matter where they are purchased. Virtually all
alkalines have expiration dates, and if I see any for sale today
that show an e.d. of 2011, I'll pass, knowing that they've been aged
for several years. Not all, but some standard rechargeable
batteries have a use by or sell by date. When buying rechargeables
you can recognize age by more than date, since the design or artwork
on the batteries themselves is periodically updated. But the point
remains that even if your account hasn't been fabricated, you would
not have been the only unobservant buyer purchasing pre-charged
batteries that have sat on shelves at Wal-Mart or in warehouses for
extended periods. If that was the case we would have heard of many
complaints by now. In addition, by design the pre-charged NiMH
batteries retain much of their charge for a year or two, and I doubt
that Kodak's pre-charged batteries have been sold for that long.
Sanyo's Eneloops and RayOVac's Hybrids, yes. Kodak, no.


>> Based on my own experiences I'd vote for outlier or liar,
>
> I'd vote for your mother being a whore, Jack. So what?

As you say, so what? This does nothing to bolster your
credibility and if anything reinforces the feeling that the
defective batteries you described are less likely to be outliers
than the fabrication of a pugnacious troll with an axe to grind.


> Being technically oriented, I simply state the facts, Jack.

What you call "facts" appear to be nothing more than the highly
suspect claims of a biased, arrogant, vulgar, technically oriented
simpleton who doesn't know jack, Jack.

Mark Thomas <markt _don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>> ASAAR <caught 22.com> wrote:

>> I guess that depends on how long they stay on the shelves at a given
>> Wal-Mart. Perhaps the Wal-Mart here has a slow market for Kodak
>> pre-charged batteries.
>>
>>> Based on my own experiences I'd vote for outlier or liar,
>>
>> I'd vote for your mother being a whore, Jack. So what?

> That's it. Respond like a grown-up and impress everyone...

I wasn't trying to impress anyone, troll, I was responding in kind.

> How's about sticking to facts?

How about learning to format your USENET posts, troll.



















>
>> Being technically oriented, I simply state the facts, Jack.
> OK, can you clarify something for me, in technical terms? Earlier you
> said that the package had a 2006 copyright notice on it (I am puzzled as
> what the significance of that might be), presumably inferring there was
> no expiry or use-by date on either the package or the batteries. This
> sounds odd - I've just had a quick flick thru my battery collection, and
> every single one had a date either on the barrel or the minus terminal.
> From ultra cheap and nasty 'Tevion' aa rechargeables to E2 Lithium &
> Duracell, rechargeable or not - every single one. Now I happily admit
> that none I checked were Kodak.. but I can't recall seeing any undated
> battery in recent times (eg last 3 years).
>
> I also don't live in the USA (where the attitude sometimes seems to be
> just-accept-you-got-ripped-off) but if it was me, I would be taking
> those batteries back in an instant if this parable were true. In fact I
> would never *buy* a set of batteries for which I could not see a date.
> (I guess I'm 'technical' in a different way...)
>
> So, have you since taken them back?
>
> If you still claim that there is no date on them, may we see a few
> pictures, or would you check them thoroughly? I'll check next time I
> see them on sale..
>
>> I have
>> no motive for bashing Kodak.
> How would we know that? FWIW, I've never had a bad battery from kodak,
> even though I've bought quite a few near their expiry date from
> clearance stores. But that experience is only with alkalines and
> perhaps there may be an issue with their others, but you are the only
> one I can see who is having it - a quick Google comes up empty, but do
> correct me.
>
>> On the other hand, you have a motive
>> for dissing me.
> Everyone has that motive if they see a story that doesn't quite sound
> right... But if you clarify it, all will be happy again.
>
>> And then there is the fact that you insult people
>> you don't even know, Jack.
> The insults seem to be highly related to the story.
>
>
> Path: nlpi102-int.nbdc.sbc.com!flph199.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com! flph200.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!goblin1!goblin.st u.neva.ru!news.motzarella.org!motzarella.org!reade r.motzarella.org!not-for-mail
> From: Mark Thomas <markt _don't_spam_marktphoto.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> Subject: Re: Testing new batteries?
> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:40:57 +1000
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 55
> Message-ID: <ghsthe$qcd$1 reader.motzarella.org>
> References: <uLk_k.9399$c45.3279 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <a5okj4lvjcnk892rndih5knuhqsh4sposj 4ax.com> <b1287$493c9958$22414 news.teranews.com> <A1k0l.9438$Ei5.2786 flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com> <56l3k4t0iorjm3lf3j0n2evjaeje9q30np 4ax.com> <jcm0l.6529$pr6.1208 flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org U2FsdGVkX1+7Mg9rsmCilzWd2VrwnRRbo7jvNiUcOWYF921/67JBx7OM99sj+9lBEFTriwa37m9sMjOilMg5Q7KEe8VSGdYbbq mh83WxjdthMQjK9AMra5lsSvQzSNPPwlhgtbl8uKF7sdxTTVr+ Bg==
> X-Complaints-To: Please send complaints to abuse motzarella.org with full headers
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:41:03 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <jcm0l.6529$pr6.1208 flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com>
> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+l8gQSDdEXyz1g3FfA7eaNhVP562PVj+RKbN3mgP 1t70TWo1KaaY/Z
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:wgh1j40DRygf8SFmEpa+1FQSmJE=
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.photo.digital:1517299
> X-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:42:05 EST (nlpi102-int.nbdc.sbc.com)
>