the lie of rapid NiMH self-discharge

William Sommerwerck · 2011-12-12T12:26:03+00:00

I've never had problems with the supposed rapid self-discharge of NiMHcells. And now I have proof.Almost two years ago, I visited a friend in Gold Bar WA for Christmas. Itook some camera equipment, including freshly charged NiMH cells for theflash. I didn't take any flash pictures, so the cells remained unused in thecamera case -- which I just got around to unpacking yesterday. (Really.)Four of the cells were 2700mAh Sanyo AAs. They all measured about 1.23V,rather lower than the 1.4V NiMH cells commonly charge up to, but close tothe "nominal" 1.25V of NiMH and nicad cells. Contrary to Urban Legend, theywere not completely discharged.I put them in a Canon 580EX II, and the flash fully charged up in less thantwo seconds. I fired off some shots. The first few recycled "instantly". Thelast two took about a half a second. I didn't run down the cells, but it wasobvious that two years of sitting on the shelf had no rendered themunusable.The belief that NiMH cells rapidly self-discharge is utter malarkey. Whereit came from, I don't know.-- "We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the rightquestions." -- Edwin Land

Dec 12, 2011 44 Replies

Rate this thread:

mike 14 years ago

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.

You have either a mistake or a serendipitous occurrence that you've extrapolated to draw unwarranted general conclusions.

Unwarranted conclusions are your right. But people here are disagreeing with you.

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.

Vote

William Sommerwerck 14 years ago

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.

flashes.

I made no mistake. And if something is said to be generally true, one exception disproves it.

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.

Vote

who where 14 years ago

No, it is proof that it appears wrong IN ONE CASE.

One exception does NOT disprove some thing said to be generally true. It only proves it is not universally true.

Your grasp of logic is concerning.

Vote

Phil Allison 14 years ago

"who where" "William Sommerwanker F****it TROLL"

** But the grasp he has on his tiny penis is staggering.

.... Phil

Vote

William Sommerwerck 14 years ago

"lie"

Which disproves the whole. Where did you learn "logic"?

After

Which is exactly the point.

Your insistence on ignorant empirical data is frightening.

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required