On 17 Feb 2007 14:01:35 -0800, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
> Eneloop (according to this theory) is simply the same old NiMH
> technology used less aggressively, going back to thicker separators so
> capacity suffers, but the leakage goes away and self-discharge slows
> down a lot.
>
> I do know that the 1600 mAH NiMH cells that came with the Olympus
> E-100RS that I bought in 2001 are still going strong and I often let
> that camera sit for months between uses without having to recharge the
> batteries.
Something has changed, at least since the first couple of years
NiMH was sold. The 900mAh and 1,000 mAh AA cells didn't have very
good self-discharge rates, and it was quite a concern, at least
among those using the HP100lx and 200lx handheld computers. It's
not just a matter of whether the cells retain any charge, but how
much. How much of their initial charge do your 1,600 mAh cells
retain after 6 or 9 months? If they are comparable to Eneloops,
they should be able to retain much more than 50% after sitting for
about 2 years. None of my old NiMH cells retained much of anything
if they sat unused for a year. Thicker, better separators sounds
reasonable, since it would explain the reduced capacity, and
manufacturers are all saying not only that old NiMH chargers can be
used, but that these "new" batteries are still NiMH, so whatever has
changed is slight, but seems to have had a profound effect on the
usability of NiMH cells.
>> Stay informed about: Eneloop follow up