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: John Woodgate
Subject: Re: Reducing contact resistance for low volt use?
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 08:37:34 +0000
Organization: JMWA Electronics Consultancy
Reply-To: John Woodgate
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:06:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 <5Z8C9wtxbnpWyFnyfFzqmVF739>
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Muchow wrote (in <firstname.lastname@example.org>) about 'Reducing
contact resistance for low volt use?', on Fri, 13 Dec 2002:
>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's all very frustrating as these cells are all used in constant-load
>applications, but spec'd using constant-current tests.
It seems to me that by accepting this situation you are creating big
problems for your measurements. You obviously have a strong case for
constant-load testing, so I suggest you promote this:
CONSTANT LOAD TESTING! CONSISTENT WITH REAL LIFE! RESULTS THAT TRULY
PREDICT CELL PERFORMANCE IN YOUR ROBOT! ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES! CONSTANT-
CURRENT TESTING DEBUNKED AT LAST!
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup