On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:51:12PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > > Let's name attributes with mWh units as {min_,max_,design_,}energy, > > and attributes with mAh units as {min_,max_,design_,}charge. > > [...] > > > * Yup, I've read last discussion regarding batteries, and I've seen > > objections against "charge" term, quoting Shem Multinymous: > > > > "And, for the reasons I explained earlier, I strongly suggest not using > > the term "charge" except when referring to the action of charging. > > Hence: > > s/charge_rate/rate/; s/charge/capacity/" > > > > But lets think about it once again? We'll make things much cleaner > > if we'll drop "capacity" at all. > > I stand with Shem on this one. The people behind the SBS specification > seems to agree... that specification is aimed at *engineers* and still > avoids the obvious trap of using "charge" due to its high potential for > confusion. > > I don't even want to know how much of a mess the people writing applets > woudl make of it...
:-( Okay, term "charge" is out of scope, I guess. But can we use "capacity" for xAh, and "energy" for xWh? I just trying to separate these terms somehow, and avoid "_units" stuff. > > > > That said, you may need to use uWh and uAh instead of mAh and mWh, though. > > > > Not sure. Is there any existing chip that can report uAh/uWh? That is > > great precision. > > The way things are going, it should be feasible for small embedded systems > quite soon. Refer to the previous thread. I see... is it also applicable to currents and voltages? I.e. should we use uA and uV from the start? -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] backup email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.org/bd2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/