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.
From: Roger Johansson
Subject: Re: Reducing contact resistance for low volt use?
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 05:22:10 +0100
References: <email@example.com> <3DF7BEB1.703937F@juno.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-sto-hc-38-224.direct2internet.com (18.104.22.168)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
jmuchow@SPAMMENOTcamlight.com (John Muchow) wrote:
>A very, very, VERY attractive solution but we need to spec the "true"
>AH rating of these cells by using a constant-current load. It's how
>the cells are rated by most manufacturers and third-party testers and
>the users of these cells are accustomed to interpreting and comparing
It would be easy to translate a constant load curve into a constant
current curve, using a computer based translation table for example.
The result would, for all practical purposes, be accurate enough to
compare to other testers constant current specs.
You will probably want a computer based logging anyhow, so the
translation could be automatically added to the logging procedure.
It is a bit of cheating, but the results would be just as reliable as
the constant current tests others make. We just need to translate the
measuring values from a constant load test into a constant current
The translation can be theoretically computed and/or achieved through
practical comparisons between constant current tests and constant load
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup