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

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57730 > unrolled thread

charging policy

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#57730 — charging policy

What's the best charging policy for Li-ion batteries, regarding battery life 
span?

- leaving connected to adaptor, even when fully charged? (no overcharging 
because original battery & adaptor switch off automatically at 100% ?

- disconnecting every time after charging time and using until empty?

I heard the more charge / discharge cycles wear out the battery faster...




Samsung Galaxy S4 mini GT-I9195
Android 4.4.2

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#57731

Linea Recta wrote:

> What's the best charging policy for Li-ion batteries

It's not much of an issue with li-ion.

Ten discharges from 100% to 0% and back to 100% uses about as much of 
the batteries "life" as a fifty dips from 100% to 80% and back to 100%

The phone (or battery itself) won't allow overcharging due to the fire risk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57736

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> Wrote in message:
> Ten discharges from 100% to 0% and back to 100% uses about as much of the batteries "life" as a fifty dips from 100% to 80% and back to 100%

This is known to be false, regarding manufacturer testing  data.

It is well known fact
the shallow charging, especially around the half charged state,
leads to several times bigger total charge before reaching the
 end-of-life battery threshold.

But out of the question is that shallow charging is not practical
and may put extra wearing out on the USB connector.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57749

In article <pt46k5$po0$1@dont-email.me>, Libor Striz
<poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:

> > Ten discharges from 100% to 0% and back to 100% uses about as much of the
> > batteries "life" as a fifty dips from 100% to 80% and back to 100%
> 
> This is known to be false, regarding manufacturer testing  data.

it's known to be true, and actually many shallow partial cycles are
preferable than fewer deeper cycles.

> It is well known fact
> the shallow charging, especially around the half charged state,
> leads to several times bigger total charge before reaching the
>  end-of-life battery threshold.

nope. it's actually the opposite, although the difference is minor.

> But out of the question is that shallow charging is not practical
> and may put extra wearing out on the USB connector.

that's a separate issue, and a non-issue with wireless charging.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57735

"Linea Recta" <bleep.bleep@bleep.invalid> Wrote in message:
> What's the best charging policy for Li-ion batteries, regarding battery life span?

The is initial question if it matters, considering expected
 battery versus phone life. Phones are often put away before a
 battery change.

There are generally 3 sources of Li-Ion battery aging.

1/ cycling.  Each charging/discharging cycle  wears out
the battery a little. But full charging/discharging  wears it out
several times more than e.g 3-5 cycles with just 1/3-1/5 capacity.
But there is question of trade off between battery life and
 practicality.
Charging it every few hours would be annoying.

2/Static aging. A Li-Ion cell is aging
typically cca 4% of the capacity
 per year, if kept at 40% charge. This rate increases up to 20%
 per year
if kept  fully charged. (Probably worse if on charger). 
Even worse could be full discharge.

3//Temperature. Aging rate increase dramatically at higher
 temperatures.
The are 3 contributors to the heat.
a/ high ambient temperature
b/ a phone kept busy.
c/ charging

The worst combination ever is the heavy phone usage during the car
  GPS  navigation in hot summer,
While  charging it above 70% of capacity .
Before such a scenario, charge it first fully, the best out if the car,
And then start navigating while on the charger. Or, do not charge
 it, if the ride is not too long.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57739

Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@capitalsgmail.com.invalid> wrote:
[...]

> The worst combination ever is the heavy phone usage during the car
>   GPS  navigation in hot summer,
> While  charging it above 70% of capacity .
> Before such a scenario, charge it first fully, the best out if the car,
> And then start navigating while on the charger. Or, do not charge
>  it, if the ride is not too long.

  Yeah, I had this scenario a few times during our summer holiday in
Austria when most of Europe was having very hot weather.

  The phone complained about the battery getting too hot and the popup
was masking the navigation on the screen (and you're not supposed to
touch it while driving). In the end I did what you advise, fully charge
before use and don't charge it while using it.

  In the end my *car* battery died, but that had a different cause! :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57747

In article <pt4633$obf$1@dont-email.me>, Libor Striz
<poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:

> There are generally 3 sources of Li-Ion battery aging.
> 
> 1/ cycling.  Each charging/discharging cycle  wears out
> the battery a little. But full charging/discharging  wears it out
> several times more than e.g 3-5 cycles with just 1/3-1/5 capacity.

false.

five 1/5th cycles = 1 full cycle.

and actually multiple partial cycles is preferable to deep cycles.

> But there is question of trade off between battery life and
>  practicality.

yep. 

it's not worth worrying about. modern lithium ion batteries are rated
for 500-1000 charge cycles, which will normally outlast the device it's
in.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57772

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> Wrote in message:
>

> false.five 1/5th cycles = 1 full cycle.and actually multiple partial cycles is preferable to deep cycles.

In context of provided charge within 1 full versus 5 1/5 cycles, yes.
In context of the battery life,
the full cycle count is less than 1/5 of 1/5 cycle count.

But we have discussed this already in past,
I am not going to bring the data
for LiCoMnNi + LiFePO4 technology again.

> yep. it's not worth worrying about. modern lithium ion batteries are ratedfor 500-1000 charge cycles, which will normally outlast the device it'sin.

Real tests are rather 300-600 of full cycles, technology dependent, 
or up to 6000-15000 10% cycles.

Battery maintenance is more important for laptops than phones
as their mean usage life is longer than for phones,
replacement of battery is not cheap and cycle time is more critical .

 The most important is not to  keep the battery topped while on AC,
better is cycling between 40-80 % most of the time.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57773

In article <pt5he0$qs6$1@dont-email.me>, Libor Striz
<poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:

> > false.five 1/5th cycles = 1 full cycle.and actually multiple partial cycles
> > is preferable to deep cycles.
> 
> In context of provided charge within 1 full versus 5 1/5 cycles, yes.
> In context of the battery life,
> the full cycle count is less than 1/5 of 1/5 cycle count.

nope. five 1/5th cycles = 1 full cycle.

> But we have discussed this already in past,
> I am not going to bring the data
> for LiCoMnNi + LiFePO4 technology again.

no surprise there, since it shows you to be wrong.

> > yep. it's not worth worrying about. modern lithium ion batteries are
> > ratedfor 500-1000 charge cycles, which will normally outlast the device
> > it'sin.
> 
> Real tests are rather 300-600 of full cycles, technology dependent, 
> or up to 6000-15000 10% cycles.

500-1000 full cycles is the typical rating for modern lithium
batteries, and as i said, that will generally outlast the device in
typical use.

> Battery maintenance is more important for laptops than phones
> as their mean usage life is longer than for phones,
> replacement of battery is not cheap and cycle time is more critical .

not significantly.

>  The most important is not to  keep the battery topped while on AC,
> better is cycling between 40-80 % most of the time.

ideally, but the difference is not worth the trouble.

tl;dr use the device normally and don't worry about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57778

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> Wrote in message:


> In article <pt5he0$qs6$1@dont-email.me>, Libor Striz<poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:> > 

> nope. five 1/5th cycles = 1 full cycle.

Both refuted experimentally
and in contrary to electrochemical model of cells. Deepening the
 charging cycle leads to increasing
of contribution of irreversible chemical processes.

> But we have discussed this already in past,> I am not going to bring the data> for LiCoMnNi + LiFePO4 technology again.

> no surprise there, since it shows you to be wrong.

No, it just shows there is no sense 
in discussions with you,
what was noted with multiple Usenet posters.

I am a graduated chemist.
You will not teach me electrochemistry.

>> better is cycling between 40-80 % most of the time

> .ideally, but the difference is not worth the trouble.tl;dr use the device normally and don't worry about it.

What troubles ? 
it is done automatically, if one knows 
how to do  it.
And it is worth.
The battery in my 2009 Lenovo T400
is in much better shape
than in my other 2014 Lenovo T430,
where the former started to use 40-80 mode much later in its
 battery age.( and was supposed to use more modern cells ;-)
 )



-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57781

In message <pt5oj9$rt8$1@dont-email.me>, Libor Striz 
<poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> writes:
[]
>I am a graduated chemist.
[]
What, someone has engraved little lines on you?
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57786

In article <pt5oj9$rt8$1@dont-email.me>, Libor Striz
<poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:

> > nope. five 1/5th cycles = 1 full cycle.
> 
> Both refuted experimentally
> and in contrary to electrochemical model of cells. Deepening the
>  charging cycle leads to increasing
> of contribution of irreversible chemical processes.

it's well understood that multiple partial cycles = 1 full cycle. 

multiple partial cycles is actually preferable, but the difference is
minor and not worth worrying about.



> >> better is cycling between 40-80 % most of the time
> 
> > .ideally, but the difference is not worth the trouble.tl;dr use the device
> > normally and don't worry about it.
> 
> What troubles ? 
> it is done automatically, if one knows 
> how to do  it.

if it's done automatically then one *doesn't* need to know how because
it's being done by the charger, and that is in fact, what is happening.

chargers are designed to monitor the battery charge and maximize the
life of the battery. 

> And it is worth.

it's not worth the trouble. 

modern lithium ion batteries will normally outlast the useful life of
the device, with or without jumping through hoops, making the hoop
jumping of no benefit.

maybe you can get an extra month or two of use over 3-5 years by
carefully monitoring charging, which is so little that it's clearly in
the who cares category, especially since the device will likely have
been replaced or failed for some other reason before that time.

> The battery in my 2009 Lenovo T400
> is in much better shape
> than in my other 2014 Lenovo T430,
> where the former started to use 40-80 mode much later in its
>  battery age.( and was supposed to use more modern cells ;-)

that's not a controlled experiment and two batteries is far too small
of a sample size to mean anything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57782

In message <221120180150118477%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam 
<nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:
>In article <pt5he0$qs6$1@dont-email.me>, Libor Striz
><poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>> > false.five 1/5th cycles = 1 full cycle.and actually multiple partial cycles
>> > is preferable to deep cycles.
>>
>> In context of provided charge within 1 full versus 5 1/5 cycles, yes.
>> In context of the battery life,
>> the full cycle count is less than 1/5 of 1/5 cycle count.
>
>nope. five 1/5th cycles = 1 full cycle.

Hmm. I find it difficult to believe that discharging to 80% and then 
recharging to 100%, five times, has the _same_ effect on battery life as 
discharging to 0% (well, cutoff point) and charging back to 100%. 
_Which_ shortens battery life the most, I wouldn't hazard a guess.
[]
>> Battery maintenance is more important for laptops than phones
>> as their mean usage life is longer than for phones,
>> replacement of battery is not cheap and cycle time is more critical .
>
>not significantly.
>
>>  The most important is not to  keep the battery topped while on AC,
>> better is cycling between 40-80 % most of the time.

How do you manage that? (I don't mean it's difficult, I mean what is 
your management strategy?)
>
>ideally, but the difference is not worth the trouble.
>
>tl;dr use the device normally and don't worry about it.

Define "normally". (For example, is a laptop that is normally connected 
to the mains "normal"? I suspect that for a lot of people, it is.)

"tl;dr" is all very well (other than that it makes you sound rude and a 
smart-alec), until something comes along that you d'd r.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Have you ever heard about a petition, disagreed with it, but been frustrated
that there's no way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, have a look at
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 - and please pass it on if you
agree, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such forum.

I'm the oldest woman on primetime not baking cakes.
- Anne Robinson, RT 2015/8/15-21

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57785

In article <WwElr2JSbt9bFwPQ@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >> > false.five 1/5th cycles = 1 full cycle.and actually multiple partial
> >> > cycles is preferable to deep cycles.
> >>
> >> In context of provided charge within 1 full versus 5 1/5 cycles, yes.
> >> In context of the battery life,
> >> the full cycle count is less than 1/5 of 1/5 cycle count.
> >
> >nope. five 1/5th cycles = 1 full cycle.
> 
> Hmm. I find it difficult to believe that discharging to 80% and then 
> recharging to 100%, five times, has the _same_ effect on battery life as 
> discharging to 0% (well, cutoff point) and charging back to 100%. 
> _Which_ shortens battery life the most, I wouldn't hazard a guess.

it's about the same. multiple smaller cycles is preferable, but the
difference is minor and not worth worrying about.

> >> Battery maintenance is more important for laptops than phones
> >> as their mean usage life is longer than for phones,
> >> replacement of battery is not cheap and cycle time is more critical .
> >
> >not significantly.
> >
> >>  The most important is not to  keep the battery topped while on AC,
> >> better is cycling between 40-80 % most of the time.
> 
> How do you manage that? (I don't mean it's difficult, I mean what is 
> your management strategy?)
> >
> >ideally, but the difference is not worth the trouble.
> >
> >tl;dr use the device normally and don't worry about it.
> 
> Define "normally". (For example, is a laptop that is normally connected 
> to the mains "normal"? I suspect that for a lot of people, it is.)

some might, but most people buy laptops for portability. if they're
going to leave it plugged in all the time, they would be better served
with a desktop.

in any event, use it however you want and don't worry about the battery.

the charging circuitry in a laptop (or phone or whatever) constantly
monitors the battery charge and stops charging when it's full and tops
it off when needed, and does a much better job than manually doing it.

this is particularly important with lithium ion batteries, which can
explode if improperly charged, or cease working entirely if discharged
too far.

> "tl;dr" is all very well (other than that it makes you sound rude and a 
> smart-alec), until something comes along that you d'd r.

there is nothing rude or smart-alecky about tl;dr. it simply denotes a
brief summary of what is otherwise a lengthy discussion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57788

In message <221120181157503404%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam 
<nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:
[]
>> >tl;dr use the device normally and don't worry about it.
>>
>> Define "normally". (For example, is a laptop that is normally connected
>> to the mains "normal"? I suspect that for a lot of people, it is.)
>
>some might, but most people buy laptops for portability. if they're
>going to leave it plugged in all the time, they would be better served
>with a desktop.

I doubt it; these days, people who want portability buy a tablet. A lot 
of households, also, don't want a "computer" taking up space in the 
living room or whatever, but will tolerate (I'm thinking of partners 
here - and not _necessarily_ female ones, either) the computer 
user/addict using a laptop. Those who have an "office", where it's part 
of a business, are a different matter - though a lot of even businessmen 
use laptops too - but plug them in when they can.
>
>in any event, use it however you want and don't worry about the battery.
>
>the charging circuitry in a laptop (or phone or whatever) constantly
>monitors the battery charge and stops charging when it's full and tops
>it off when needed, and does a much better job than manually doing it.

In which case, why did you say (a few posts ago) better keep it in 
40-80%? I very much doubt most chargers/charge circuitry, if they see 
that it's anything other than at least 95% charged, will do other than 
charge, rather than waiting for it to drop to 40% and then charge.
[]
>> "tl;dr" is all very well (other than that it makes you sound rude and a
>> smart-alec), until something comes along that you d'd r.
>
>there is nothing rude or smart-alecky about tl;dr. it simply denotes a
>brief summary of what is otherwise a lengthy discussion.

When I see it, I think it means "I CBA to read through what you've just 
said/typed". If you meant to apply it to an explanation _you've_ just 
given, then some other expression is required - "to cut a long story 
short", for example, or if that's too long, "in short". "Tl;dr" isn't 
appropriate for your _own_ words. (And it _is_ critical: the "t" is 
negative. "L;dr" would be less so.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Have you ever heard about a petition, disagreed with it, but been frustrated
that there's no way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, have a look at
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 - and please pass it on if you
agree, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such forum.

1. If it's green, it's biology
2. If it smells, it's chemistry
3. If it doesn't work, it's physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57789

In article <pCzKXLONbu9bFw6F@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >> >tl;dr use the device normally and don't worry about it.
> >>
> >> Define "normally". (For example, is a laptop that is normally connected
> >> to the mains "normal"? I suspect that for a lot of people, it is.)
> >
> >some might, but most people buy laptops for portability. if they're
> >going to leave it plugged in all the time, they would be better served
> >with a desktop.
> 
> I doubt it; these days, people who want portability buy a tablet.

tablets are a different use case than laptops. one does not replace the
other. there is some overlap, but they are optimized for different
tasks.

> A lot 
> of households, also, don't want a "computer" taking up space in the 
> living room or whatever, but will tolerate (I'm thinking of partners 
> here - and not _necessarily_ female ones, either) the computer 
> user/addict using a laptop. Those who have an "office", where it's part 
> of a business, are a different matter - though a lot of even businessmen 
> use laptops too - but plug them in when they can.

in other words, portability.

> >in any event, use it however you want and don't worry about the battery.
> >
> >the charging circuitry in a laptop (or phone or whatever) constantly
> >monitors the battery charge and stops charging when it's full and tops
> >it off when needed, and does a much better job than manually doing it.
> 
> In which case, why did you say (a few posts ago) better keep it in 
> 40-80%? I very much doubt most chargers/charge circuitry, if they see 
> that it's anything other than at least 95% charged, will do other than 
> charge, rather than waiting for it to drop to 40% and then charge.

i didn't say that. someone else did.

ideally, it should be in that range, however, the effort to do so is
not worth the small benefit.

just how much effort do you want to expend for an extra month or two
over 3-5 years? 

as i said, just use it normally and don't worry about it. 

in a few years, either you'll replace the laptop/phone/whatever for
*other* reasons, or you'll replace the battery for additional years of
use.

and it may not affect anything anyway. if a phone gets 20 hour standby
time when new and in a few years time gets 12 hour standby, it's still
very usable, still lasting all day, even with a degraded battery. it's
not as much when new, but not short enough to be a problem.

now, if it dropped to 2 hour run time, then the battery has clearly
failed and it's no longer useful, so either replace the battery or the
entire device. for some devices (e.g., laptop) it could remain plugged
in with a very degraded battery.

> >> "tl;dr" is all very well (other than that it makes you sound rude and a
> >> smart-alec), until something comes along that you d'd r.
> >
> >there is nothing rude or smart-alecky about tl;dr. it simply denotes a
> >brief summary of what is otherwise a lengthy discussion.
> 
> When I see it, I think it means "I CBA to read through what you've just 
> said/typed". If you meant to apply it to an explanation _you've_ just 
> given, then some other expression is required - "to cut a long story 
> short", for example, or if that's too long, "in short". "Tl;dr" isn't 
> appropriate for your _own_ words. (And it _is_ critical: the "t" is 
> negative. "L;dr" would be less so.)

cut a long story short is what tl;dr means. it's a quick summary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57794

In message <221120181254418054%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam 
<nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:
>In article <pCzKXLONbu9bFw6F@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
><G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> >tl;dr use the device normally and don't worry about it.
>> >>
>> >> Define "normally". (For example, is a laptop that is normally connected
>> >> to the mains "normal"? I suspect that for a lot of people, it is.)
>> >
>> >some might, but most people buy laptops for portability. if they're
>> >going to leave it plugged in all the time, they would be better served
>> >with a desktop.
>>
>> I doubt it; these days, people who want portability buy a tablet.
>
>tablets are a different use case than laptops. one does not replace the
>other. there is some overlap, but they are optimized for different
>tasks.

Agreed.
>
>> A lot
>> of households, also, don't want a "computer" taking up space in the
>> living room or whatever, but will tolerate (I'm thinking of partners
>> here - and not _necessarily_ female ones, either) the computer
>> user/addict using a laptop. Those who have an "office", where it's part
>> of a business, are a different matter - though a lot of even businessmen
>> use laptops too - but plug them in when they can.
>
>in other words, portability.

You have omitted the tidiness/concealability factor.
[]
>> When I see it, I think it means "I CBA to read through what you've just
>> said/typed". If you meant to apply it to an explanation _you've_ just
>> given, then some other expression is required - "to cut a long story
>> short", for example, or if that's too long, "in short". "Tl;dr" isn't
>> appropriate for your _own_ words. (And it _is_ critical: the "t" is
>> negative. "L;dr" would be less so.)
>
>cut a long story short is what tl;dr means. it's a quick summary.

We have picked up on different meanings. You have picked up on "too 
long, don't read" - in other words, I've just written a long 
explanation, but if you want a shorter version, here it is. I've picked 
up on "too long, _didn't_ read" - in other words a response to something 
someone _else_ has written, saying it's waffle. Which of the two is the 
correct interpretation of the abbreviation, I'm not sure; certainly, if 
I see someone say it immediately after quoting what someone _else_ has 
said, I assume the disdainful meaning is intended.

Since it also makes me think of top-level domains, I don't think I'll 
use it anyway.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Have you ever heard about a petition, disagreed with it, but been frustrated
that there's no way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, have a look at
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 - and please pass it on if you
agree, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such forum.

Quantum particles: the dreams that stuff is made of - David Moser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57803

In article <v7Vb5OUX8x9bFwoL@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >> A lot
> >> of households, also, don't want a "computer" taking up space in the
> >> living room or whatever, but will tolerate (I'm thinking of partners
> >> here - and not _necessarily_ female ones, either) the computer
> >> user/addict using a laptop. Those who have an "office", where it's part
> >> of a business, are a different matter - though a lot of even businessmen
> >> use laptops too - but plug them in when they can.
> >
> >in other words, portability.
> 
> You have omitted the tidiness/concealability factor.

not at all. close the laptop and it's tidy, or put it in a carrying bag
or a large jacket pocket and it won't be noticed at all. a stack of
papers is worse.

> >> When I see it, I think it means "I CBA to read through what you've just
> >> said/typed". If you meant to apply it to an explanation _you've_ just
> >> given, then some other expression is required - "to cut a long story
> >> short", for example, or if that's too long, "in short". "Tl;dr" isn't
> >> appropriate for your _own_ words. (And it _is_ critical: the "t" is
> >> negative. "L;dr" would be less so.)
> >
> >cut a long story short is what tl;dr means. it's a quick summary.
> 
> We have picked up on different meanings. You have picked up on "too 
> long, don't read" - in other words, I've just written a long 
> explanation, but if you want a shorter version, here it is. I've picked 
> up on "too long, _didn't_ read" - in other words a response to something 
> someone _else_ has written, saying it's waffle. Which of the two is the 
> correct interpretation of the abbreviation, I'm not sure; certainly, if 
> I see someone say it immediately after quoting what someone _else_ has 
> said, I assume the disdainful meaning is intended.

bad assumption and you're reading way more into it than necessary. 

it's a common internet idiom to mark a summary of something longer.
that's all. 

> Since it also makes me think of top-level domains, I don't think I'll 
> use it anyway.

nobody said you had to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57805

nospam wrote:

> it's a common internet idiom to mark a summary of something longer.
> that's all.

I see it used both ways, originally a bare 'tl;dr' reply meant

"you wasted your time writing an unnecessarily detailed message because 
I didn't read it"

Over time, it seems to have developed into a pre-emptive way of 
including a terse summary for the benefit of those who might otherwise 
send a 'tl;dr' reply.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57809 — "tl; dr" (was: Re: charging policy)

In message <g5pvhgF46giU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns 
<usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:
>nospam wrote:
>
>> it's a common internet idiom to mark a summary of something longer.
>> that's all.
>
>I see it used both ways, originally a bare 'tl;dr' reply meant
>
>"you wasted your time writing an unnecessarily detailed message because 
>I didn't read it"

Yes, that's how I encountered it.
>
>Over time, it seems to have developed into a pre-emptive way of 
>including a terse summary for the benefit of those who might otherwise 
>send a 'tl;dr' reply.
>
I hadn't realised that. I still think it's at least confusing if used in 
the second way, because of the initial use.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Have you ever heard about a petition, disagreed with it, but been frustrated
that there's no way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, have a look at
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232770 - and please pass it on if you
agree, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such forum.

I'm too lazy to have a bigger ego. - James May, RT 2016/1/23-29

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web