NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 10:18:35 -0600
From: email@example.com (John Fields)
Subject: Re: Reducing contact resistance for low volt use?
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 15:43:12 GMT
Organization: Austin Instruments, Inc.
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 15:19:43 GMT, DarkMatter
>On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 15:25:06 +0100, Roger Johansson
>>>If your discharge rates are of such a nature, you are
>>>stepping outside the specs for the battery's proper use.
>>You have obviously not read the earlier discussion in the same thread.
>>John is not trying to stay within specs, on the contrary, he is using
>>these batteries like no battery manufacturer ever imagined they would
> Which is all but stupid.
What??? Listen, you fucking moron, he had/has an interesting
problem which is REAL and which requires some serious ingenuity to
solve. You, obviously, couldn't help because you don't seem to have
the capability to find your own ass or deviate from the Holy Spec's.
Your application is totally different from the OP's, as is your
arrogant, insolent attitude, so if you can't help why don't you just
shut the fuck up and leave us alone?
>>Maybe you could find and read the earlier messages in the thread, I
>>think it would make you understand what this is all about.
> I do understand. A person is using motors AND batteries in a manner
>that is destructive. I am supposed to help?
It's obvious that you _can't_, so just leave it alone.
>>These battle-robot builders regularly take out 30 A for 6 minutes from
>>3000mAh cells, and 50A for short durations, and they are trying to
>>push performance even further.
> All they need to do is put more batteries in parallel with those
>already in place. More current per pack, not more voltage.
Read the original thread before you start spouting idiotic advice.
>>John is probably not counting on getting 100A out of a D cell, but he
>>wants to have measuring equipment to try it, to see the difference
>>between different cells.
> They all act like they are about to explode at those levels, and
>real data about what Mfgrs are better is probably not possible. ANY
>Mfgr's battery may or may not fail.
Duh... Why do you think he's testing them in an explosion-proof
container? GO READ THE THREAD.
>>When it comes to your statement that batteries in series does not
>>raise the current capacity it seems obvious that you are right, but
>>think about a fixed very low load resistance. If we can raise the
>>voltage it could actually push more current through that load.
>>If the batteies can take it.
> Sounds like a kludged way of performing the work. If the motors are
>low voltage devices, then the batteries would do better to provide
>more current *AT* the working, proper voltage. That would mean more
>batteries in parallel, AT the right voltage. The when the demand goes
>up, the voltage hangs on, and the motor can PERFORM the task the way
>it was meant to. AND BETTER at that.
You have NO clue and yet you insist on making these irrelevant
comments. Go read the thread.
>>That is why he talks about putting batteries in series to raise the
>>Please read the earlier massages in the thread, www.groups.google.com.
> I don't really need to.
Yes, you do. You're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about
what is and isn't proper to do based upon your pathetically limited
frame of reference. Kinda like saying that no one should use
nitromethane at the drag strip because the same performance can be
achieved by proper gearing. You're a fucking idiot!
>I have burn in racks at work that regularly
>test at 1kW and at 4 units at a time. We use fans to heat the lab
>with the heat that the resistor banks exhibit.
> What we do NOT do is ask power supplies OR batteries to do more than
>they are designed to do. It is simply like asking for trouble. If he
>wants more output torque, he should step down the shaft speed with
>gear reduction or chain and sprocket reduction. Motor stalls would
>cease, and higher speed peaks would be possible when loaded down.
> He could get just as much data in attempting to charge one up at
>100A. The data would look very much the same. Heat up until BANG!
> It might sound silly, but so does hitting one that hard on the
Blah, blah, blah.
You sit there in your bland little environment making pronouncements
about things about which you have _no_ clue. You need to read the
original thread or you need to shut up, otherwise you're going to
Professional circuit designer