In message <201048ea81ba0745aca78e4cc8839001c8b...@desmdswms201.des.grplnk.net>, dated Tue, 10 Apr 2007, "Haynes, Tim (SELEX) (UK Capability Green)" <[email protected]> writes:
>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.... Unfortunately, no. It's user-friendly as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. By providing such a facility, phone manufacturers would be tacitly telling users that ALL cheap batteries were safe in ALL respects, e.g. that they didn't contain metal particles that could cause internal short-circuits with potentially dire results. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 ______________________________________________________________________
