well the C9000 test failed and that's probably the reason why nobody on the WWW ever did a thorough technical analysis of the Maha: the tin foil (or aluminum foil) method increases the total resistance between the C9000 metal contacts by such an amount that the C9000 returns the infamous "HI6H" error message and stops the program. with the UT61E connected in series to the C9000 neither an Eneloop CHARGE nor DISCHARGE program can be executed. premature ejac ejection yikes!
did anyone on the WWW ever measure the C9000 current as displayed on the LCD? well i tried to measure its current with my UT61E but the C9000 wouldn't let me. that's disappointing and frustrating. and it reveals a clear disadvantage of C9000: it has serious difficulties with handling slightly poor cells (e.g. VARTA ACCUCELL 1.5yrs old) and it can absolutely not handle poor cells (any old NiMH's other than Eneloop), especially not charge them. Discharge should be possible with poor cells but still remains a challenge: premature ejac is typical in such cases, meaning C9000 is not able to evaluate their discharge capacities (nor are other charger-analyzers btw).
I am still doing the "without UT61E on the new charger"-test to get an indication if the inclusion of a DMM in the system influences the (discharge test) results. Hopefully not.
So far i cannot claim that, if C9000 displays "399mA" current, the actual current really is 0.399A, and tbh the 4h24min discharge time for "795mAh" sounds a bit fishy, but the charger returns plausible, consistent, realistic, reproducible, accurate mAh-readings and that's more important than discrepancies between displayed and actual currents. The latter just makes it harder to verify the mAh-measurements.
nobody asked you kreisl to post all this so why you're writing, whom are you talking to?
erh .. haha. never mind ;)
:shy: