The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
Subject: Re: Difference between AC adapter and charger?
References: <0001HW.B9D43FDF0325BBB11662EAD0@news.covad.net> <0001HW.B9D4EE870344BA681662EAD0@news.covad.net> <3DB01FBB.EAF744F9@usa.net> <0001HW.B9D572FB034E39101662EAD0@news.covad.net> <3DB02E27.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DB42BB1.EC27E431@bellatlantic.net> <3DB4C57E.B06B96D5@bellatlantic.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 03:11:36 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:11:36 EDT
Phil Allison wrote:
> Well golly - I didn't know that I had never done that. In fact,
> I've done it often, with both current regulated and voltage regulated
> ** So, what happened when you did ??
No cell problem, no supply problem, good charge with
both the constant current supply, and the voltage regulated
supply. Every time, except when attempting to restore
shorted cells by zapping, then charging. I'm only about
30% successful - regardless of how I charge them in that
> ** Then that includes 95% of all wall warts.
I haven't mentioned wall warts.
> That has nothing to do with the issue of
> > whether you are charging the cells with voltage regulation
> > versus current regulation, however.
> ** It has *everything" to do with it. The term "constant voltage"
> implies NO current limit.
I've repeatedly mentioned current limiting, yet you choose
to respond to a nonexistent implication. I was specific
and strong in describing a constant voltage supply that
would push enough current through a NiCd cell to make it
explode as an insane design. So you are arguing with something
I not only never said, but specifically and strongly denounced.
> If there is a current limit included to make
> things safe then why is everyone failing to mention it ?? A wall wort is
> an unregulted DC (or maybe AC) supply - the output voltgae is a function of
> the load and the AC supply at the time.
I can't answer for everyone. But you are dead wrong to say
"everyone". I mentioned it in both posts I made. You simply
> ** I make no such presumptions. You seem to have redefined the topic
> here with a verbal slight of hand. A wall wart PSU 9 regulated or
> otherwise) is NOT a Ni-Cd charger at all.
No verbal slight of hand, no re-definition, and I never mentioned
wall warts. Talk about verbal slight of hand - you ignored what
I wrote and argued with a non existent implication.
> > But can you tell us what you have in mind by "explode"?
> > Is it blowing the cell to smithereens, or venting, or
> > somewhere in between?
> ** Venting, going bang, becoming useless.
> > You may have missed the part of the post that mentions current
> > limiting. The fact that a supply is voltage regulated does not
> > preclude a current limiting resistance between the supply and
> > the load. Ohms law. :-)
> ** What? 0.27 ohms worth - gimme a break.
What are you talking about? Where did you come up with .27
ohms resistance? Try 150 ohms between a 7.2 volt pack consisting
of 6 1600 mah cells and a 13.8 volt regulated supply. Worst
case - 92 ma. With the cells fully charged, 36 ma. It makes
a real nice trickle charger.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup