Low battery indicator
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: linux booting issue
Next: OMAP DSP starting vector
From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker on 24 Jun 2010 16:35 Am 24.06.2010 18:50, schrieb D Yuniskis: > Hans-Bernhard Br�ker wrote: >> Am 24.06.2010 17:46, schrieb D Yuniskis: >> >>> But there is no way to *acknowledge* these alarms OTHER THAN >>> to recharge (in the case of the phone) or replace (in the case >>> of the smoke detector) the battery. >> >> For the smoke alarm, that's the only sensible thing to do. A smoke > I disagree. I would consider a smarter algorithm to begin > periodic "alerts" before the battery is depleted. At some > *long* interval (15+ minutes... maybe even an hour!). > This allows a user to act on the alarm before it becomes > annoying. > > As time progresses, the alerts can become more frequent. And that's what all battery-driven smoke alarms I've seen do. They start out at a most-of-24-hours interval (not exactly, to avoid beeping at exactly the same time when nobody's home every day). If your combined-power devices behave differently, that's, basically, your problem. Buy more sensible ones next time round. ;-p > What happens if the battery dies while you are away for > the weekend? The ones I've seen started beeping way longer than one weekend before they're dead. They'll keep it up for weeks if you let them. > A reminder every 60 seconds is not an "occasional reminder". > It is an annoyance. Security beats annoyance. It might even be said that security _has_ to be annoying to be worth a damn. > There is *no* reason why a cell phone is as stupid as > it is! :-/ There is --- that reason just fails to apply to _your_ cell phone. It all depends on how important it is to their respective owners that they'll be ready-to-go 24/7. You apparently want the smoke-alarms to be primed all the time, but couldn't care less about the phone. Fair enough. But the "typical" user of a cell phone envisioned by their producers may see that differently, and that's who they tune those things for. One other reason cell phones alert more frequently and insistently is that their battery operation time is a whole lot shorter than that of a smoke detector --- by about two orders of magnitude. That also applies to the time between low-battery alarm and total depletion. That time can drop well below that of a good night's sleep, so phones have to alert more often to give people a chance to recharge in time. They also display their charge state all the time, to give users a chance to avoid ever getting into low-battery alarm state. Even owners who very rarely actually use their cell phones (let's call them "what-if" users) usually get into the habit of checking the charge state roughly once a day, or charge every weekend.
From: AZ Nomad on 24 Jun 2010 17:24
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:08:27 +0200, Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker(a)t-online.de> wrote: >Am 24.06.2010 18:33, schrieb AZ Nomad: >> no it's not. airplane mode has to do with connecting to the cell phone >> network. It'll stop ringing, but it'll also stop all incoming and >> outgoing calls as well as any other cellular network access. >... which is exactly the state a phone _should_ be in if its owner's >only reaction to the low-battery alarm is annoyance. Because that >person obviously couldn't care less about whether their phone works or >not, so for the sake of general energy economy and bandwidth >conservation, their phone should be completely off. Arguably, there >shouldn't be a battery in it in the first place. Or they shouldn't even >have a cell phone. airplane mode probably won't disable such a low battery alarm The only way to eliminate such an idiotic alarm is to pull the battery, or keep it charged. Or perhaps in a soundproof box. |