Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57823

Re: charging policy

From Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.mobile.android
Subject Re: charging policy
Date 2018-11-23 21:29 +0000
Organization NOYB
Message-ID <pt9v0g.bbk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <pt6okf$7uh$1@dont-email.me> <pt70nn.dsc.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> <i7IYp1Uj$x9bFwJC@255soft.uk> <pt9cf2.b6s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> <pt9p57.deo.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

Earlier today, I wrote:
> Eralier today, I wrote:
> > "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:
> > > In message <pt70nn.dsc.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg 
> > > <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
> > > []
> > > >  N.B. In the off chance that some of you didn't, ignore nospam's
> > > >comments that limiting charging to between XX and 80/90% "is not worth
> > > >the small benefit"/"an extra month or two over 3-5 years". His nonsense
> > > >has been debunked several times before, but of course, being the
> > > >compulsive arguer that he is, he denies that fact and just starts yet
> > > >another loop of non-discussion.
> > > 
> > > What difference do _you_ say it makes? Leaving laptop permanently 
> > > plugged in has what effect on battery capacity after 3-5 years - 20%? 
> > > 50%? 80%? 95% (i. e. kills it)?
> > 
> >   I thought I kept some pointers to the past discussions, but maybe I
> > didn't or at least I can't re-find them.
> 
>   I couldn't stand that I hadn't kept/remembered any pointers, so I
> checked my Posted file for clues.
> 
>   This led to the following recent history:
> 
> - DDJUN2018 thread "Advice on maximising lifetime (charge cycles) of
>   laptop battery" in alt.comp.os.windows-10.
> 
> - 16MAR2018 thread "charging to 80 or 90%" (122 articles!) in
>   comp.mobile.android.
> 
>   In this latter thread, Libor Striz posted many times on this subject.
> 
>   I didn't check all his posts, but I think this was one of the most
> important references:
> 
> 'BU-808: How to Prolong Lithium-based Batteries'
> <https://batteryuniversity.com/index.php/en/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_based_batteries>
> 
>   And specifically the Table 2 'Depth of Discharge':
> 
> <quote>
> 
> Depth of discharge      Discharge cycles
>                         (NMC / LiPO4)
> 
> 100% DoD                  ~300 /   600 
>  80% DoD                  ~400 /   900 
>  60% DoD                  ~600 / 1,500 
>  40% DoD                ~1,000 / 3,000 
>  20% DoD                ~2,000 / 9,000 
>  10% DoD                ~6,000 / 15,000 
> 
> Table 2: Cycle life as a function of
> depth of discharge.*  A partial discharge
> reduces stress and prolongs battery life,
> so does a partial charge. Elevated
> temperature and high currents also affect
> cycle life.
> 
> Note: 100% DoD is a full cycle; 10% is
> very brief. Cycling in mid-state-of-charge
> would have best longevity.
> 
> </quote>
> 
>   This reference describes it much better than my explanation
> (quoted below).
> 
>   So you can see that for a 40% DoD, you get upto five times as many
> cycles.
>   Normalized to full (100% cycles) that means (40/100)*(3000/600) = 2
> times as many full/100% cycles. Or IOW, 2 times as much total power (in
> Ah) over the life of the battery.

  Oops! That part addresses partial discharge/recharge, but does not
specifically address limiting maximum charge below 100%.

  That - not charging to 100% - is addressed in other parts of the
article and in articles referenced by the article.

  For example (but not limited to only those parts):

BU-415 How to Charge and When to Charge?
"Li-ion is maintenance-free and the battery lasts longest when operating
 between 30 and 80 percent SoC.
 ...
 Partial charge better than a full charge"

BU-706: Summary of Do's and Don'ts
"Best way to charge ... lower voltage limit [FS: means less than 100%
 charge] preferred;"

[Back to:]'

'BU-808: How to Prolong Lithium-based Batteries'

  See Table 4 about number of Discharge cycles versus maximum charge
voltage/percentage. For example charging to 90% instead of 100% gives
*twice* the number of cycles, i.e. 1.8 times total energy.

  I.e. despite nospam's foot-stamping, this - again, for the umpteenth
time - specifically debunks the claim that limiting charging to between
XX and 80/90% "is not worth the small benefit"/"an extra month or two
over 3-5 years".

  QED.

>   So take your pick: (For example) Battery University's expertise versus
> nospam's.
> 
> [My explanation left for reference:]
> 
> >   So this is from memory. AFAIR, the total number of charge-discharge
> > cycles - recalculated to normal full/empty cycles - can be increased by
> > a factor of two or more, when charging-discharging between XX and YY%,
> > where XX is (substantially) more than 0 and YY is 90 or less.
> > 
> >   Let's say a normal cycle is 10-100% and back and the battery would
> > last 1000 cycles, then using a cycle of say 35-80%, the battery would
> > last at least 4000 cycles, i.e. 90,000% versus 180,000% total charge.
> > 
> >   I'm sure Libor Striz has some authoritative references readily
> > available.

Back to comp.mobile.android | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

charging policy "Linea Recta" <bleep.bleep@bleep.invalid> - 2018-11-21 18:24 +0100
  Re: charging policy Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-21 17:36 +0000
    Re: charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-21 19:02 +0100
      Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500
  Re:charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-21 18:53 +0100
    Re: Re:charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-21 18:42 +0000
    Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500
      Re: charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-22 07:13 +0100
        Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 01:50 -0500
          Re: charging policy Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-22 09:15 +0100
            Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 16:09 +0000
            Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 11:57 -0500
          Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 16:18 +0000
            Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 11:57 -0500
              Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 17:26 +0000
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 12:54 -0500
                Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 21:26 +0000
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 01:14 -0500
                Re: charging policy Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-23 09:28 +0000
                "tl; dr" (was: Re: charging policy) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 15:28 +0000
                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700
            Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 10:22 -0700
              Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-22 18:45 +0000
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-22 13:47 -0500
                Re: charging policy "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-11-22 20:40 +0000
                Re: charging policy David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2018-11-22 21:29 +0000
                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700
                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700
                Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-22 21:30 +0000
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 01:14 -0500
                Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 15:26 +0000
                Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-23 16:13 +0000
                Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-23 19:52 +0000
                Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-23 21:29 +0000
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 16:40 -0500
                Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 21:48 +0000
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 17:06 -0500
                Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-23 22:09 +0000
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-23 17:23 -0500
                Re: charging policy The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-23 21:00 -0800
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 09:05 -0500
                Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-24 15:46 +0000
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 10:51 -0500
                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 10:01 -0700
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 12:55 -0500
                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 13:07 -0700
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-24 16:33 -0400
                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 18:52 -0700
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 00:42 -0500
                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 11:33 -0700
                Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-25 19:06 +0000
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 14:46 -0500
                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 19:37 -0700
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 22:07 -0500
                Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-26 04:46 +0000
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-26 00:32 -0500
                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 22:37 -0700
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 14:46 -0500
                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-25 19:37 -0700
                Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-26 15:45 +0000
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-26 10:49 -0500
                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-26 16:04 -0700
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-26 19:11 -0500
                Re: charging policy Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-24 20:14 +0000
                Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-24 18:52 -0700
                Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-25 00:42 -0500
    Re: charging policy Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2018-11-26 10:36 +0200
      Re: charging policy "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-26 16:37 +0000
  Re: charging policy nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-21 15:10 -0500
  Re: charging policy 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-21 15:01 -0700

csiph-web