Re: [IDEA] Poor man's UPS

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 04:04:14PM +0300, Jan Knutar wrote:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 01:40, Christian Trefzer wrote:
> > The logic should at least completely drain the battery before
> > recharging,
> 
> I thought deep discharge cycles were unhealthy for lead batteries?
> 
Guess the chosen terminology was a bit unlucky, with "completely" I
meant in fact "completely, within the constraints implied by the
technology used" ; ) So no deep discharge, but "as far as it gets
without killing the battery".

Kind regards,
Chris

Attachment: pgpaFKCX7X8OL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [IDEA] Poor man's UPS
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [IDEA] Poor man's UPS
    • From: Pau Garcia i Quiles <[email protected]>
  • Re: [IDEA] Poor man's UPS
    • From: Christian Trefzer <[email protected]>
  • Re: [IDEA] Poor man's UPS
    • From: Jan Knutar <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: __vmalloc with GFP_ATOMIC causes 'sleeping from invalid context'
• Next by Date: Re: Is OPROFILE actively maintained?
• Previous by thread: Re: [IDEA] Poor man's UPS
• Next by thread: Re: [IDEA] Poor man's UPS
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]