Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: Batteries...
From: Chris Holt (amiga2k_at_cox.net)
Date: 2003-02-04


----- Original Message -----
From: "Holger Lembke" <holger_at_hlembke.de>
To: <rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se>
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:10 AM
Subject: RE: Batteries...

> > I'd say go for it. They are priced pretty good, and even if
> > they don't live
> > up to 100% of thier spec, they are probably still better than 1850s.
>
> to put a little math into it:
>
> only looking at the 1700mAh and up (and working ones), you can expect a
> value of 96,6+-2% to meet the values they promise.
>
> for 1800mAh and up its 96,58+-2,3%, for 1850mAh and up its 98,6+-0,7%.
>
> My interpretation: the mid-range wants to palliate their values.
>
> --
> Holger Lembke

Cover, hide? Lessen, abate? Looks more to me like they want to exaggerate
thier values.
Thanks for doing the math. (and making me go to dictionary.com) :P

It's a good sign though that they are rating more conservatively, perhaps
doing tests that more closely approximate real world use. I'm getting great
performance out of my Energizer (Sanyo) 1850s.

Chris



Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa