From: Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren_at_smiths-aerospace.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:56:57 -0500

[IDC]Dragon wrote:
>>>
>>>Somehow I've hoped we can get away with something a lot more simple.
>>
>>Hey, c'mon, its a simpler than it was! :-) It is smaller too :-).
>
> No offense intended, you know.

None taken, just razzing you a bit ;-)
[snip]

> I'll check it in tonight, it behaved well here, too.
> In a second commit I will remove the trickle+deep options from the UI, I'll
> probably leave the resulting simplifications in the algorithm for you. ;-)

Good. That works well for me.

Doing a deep discharge the way it currently is (constantly cycling the
battery to 10% and then recharging) is going to wear out the battery due
to number of charge cycles sooner than it would wear out due to not
having _any_ deep discharges (IMHO) -- granted we are talking a couple
of years either way :-).

If a user wants to do a deep discharge, they can do it the old fashion
way: manually (play till it dies).

>>Linus Nielsen Feltzing wrote:
>> > I too want to have the charging code as simple as possible. I think we
>> > could combine the trickle/deep discharge into one.
>
> These are unrelated things, with the first being completely useless, and the
> second almost. NiMH cells don't suffer from memory effects. I don't see how
> we can combine something here.
>
> Jörg

Thanks, and thanks to everybody for your kind encouragement and testing.
gvb
_______________________________________________
http://cool.haxx.se/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
Received on 2005-03-02