Good People, If the spec actually requires that the charger respond to a battery insertion that it does not 'recognize', a good charger design will monitor the di/dt and or the dv/dt during charge, employ temperature sensors, and use various other clever sensing/monitoring. But if the designer chooses this route, the compliance engineer (YOU) will probably have to demonstrate that an exploding or flaming battery will not allow the spread of fire to other parts of the charger, and not expose the user to a haz V resulting from a malfunctioning battery,
My employer has produced chargers that meet the requirements of 60950-1, 60335-2-29, and UL1310, AND accomplish the above, and are able to charge ANY battery chemistries (all Nickels and Lithiums). But it was not cheap and the customer was willing to bear the cost. While practical for military/police/emergency comm devices, the typical laptop/cell phone/MP3 player customer would not be willing to bear the cost of an "universal charger". My experience with battery chargers has led to these conclusions: 1. A more sensible approach is a charger that must be able to identify the battery. 2. There is no such thing as a well-defined 'nominal "safe" level of charge'. luck, Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Haynes, > Tim (SELEX) (UK Capability Green) > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 12:45 AM > To: John Woodgate; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Product Safety - "Smart Batteries" > > Following on from... > > In message > <[email protected]>, > dated Wed, 4 Apr 2007, "James, Chris" <[email protected]> writes: > > >That really sums up everything wrong about the current > consumer market > >and goes totally against the "sustainability" philosophy we are now > >being driven to adopt...............it's as bad as changing your car > >when the ash tray is full........ :) > > To which John Woodgate replied. > > No, that's green; the campaigns against smoking ensure that it will > never be full. (;-) > > ====== > > Hey, we will not be able to afford to drive a car soon, with > road taxes > by the mile, fuel costs and the preference to talk on mobile phones > rather than pay attention to the road (that will get most motorists > banned from driving!)... > > But - on topic - isn't the solution to the "smart battery" option, to > allow a "non-smart" battery to charge at a nominal "safe" level of > charge? > We all acknowledge that the cheap alternatives will have a market - > isn't it then ethical and sensible to make the phone "safe" with these > alternative batteries - even though the thing takes 2 days to > charge.... > > Thanks for the opinions - > > Regards > Tim - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
