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: jmuchow@SPAMMENOTcamlight.com (John Muchow)
Subject: Re: Reducing contact resistance for low volt use?
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:30:10 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DF7BEB1.703937F@juno.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
X-Server-Date: 13 Dec 2002 19:29:50 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
>>>>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!
LOL...I'm tempted, very tempted. We'll still need to do CC testing
just to verify (disprove?) manufacturers AH ratings as a baseline, so
I think I'm still stuck.
Actually, having both numbers...lets say, the results of a 100A CC
single-cell discharge test and 12-milliohm CL test (ignoring
real-world resistances that mess things up) would be interesting.
Or maybe I'm just trying to make the best of my situation...
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup