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.
Subject: Re: Reducing contact resistance for low volt use?
Summary: What do you think of these ping times eh?
Reply-To: You can't see me, and I pass right through planets...
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 04:58:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 23:58:03 EST
On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 15:43:12 GMT, email@example.com (John Fields) Gave
>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,
Yes. To anyone but an idiot like you.
>he had/has an interesting
>problem which is REAL and which requires some serious ingenuity to
I'm sorry but contacting a one inch piece of 28 gauge steel (a
battery cap) for a 100 A connection probably isn't all that bright,
regardless of your ability to depart from normal practices.
> 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.
You obviously don't know a fucking thing about me.
>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?
Us? YOU shut the fuck up, jackass!
>>>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.
Fuck off, you jackassed twit. Go tell someone else what to do
>>>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.
Eat shit and die *before* you start telling me what to do.
>>>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.
Putting a small battery in a cardboard box would be sufficient.
They do not explode violently enough to even send any pieces through
THAT. I could give a shit that he built a tank to hold a simple
bursting balloon. STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO DO. AS IN FUCK OFF!
>>>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.
You really need to get your bearing straight as it relates to
refraining from telling other people what to do. Here...
YOU GO FUCK OFF!
There. How does it feel? You dipshit.
>>>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.
You are the pathetic one here. This ranting post you made here
> 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!
No, you are. Internal combustion piston engines have known
lifetimes. Top fuel engines are measured in number of races, and that
number is usually less than ten.
Trashing out expensive motors trying to get them to perform in a way
that they CAN do, but in the wrong manner is just plain ignorant.
Ignoring truths is what you seem to be doing.
>>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.
Your usual drivel.
>You sit there in your bland little environment making pronouncements
>about things about which you have _no_ clue.
Bullshit. I own an electric motorcycle that does zero to sixty in
six seconds. A full cafe racer style bike at $6000.
I also work on RC controller systems as I wanted to make such a bike
myself at one time.
> You need to read the
>original thread or you need to shut up, otherwise you're going to
You mean like your stupid post here has already done to you?
Calm the fuck down, asswipe.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup