Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57730 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Linea Recta" <bleep.bleep@bleep.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-21 18:24 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-11-21 15:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 70 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pt7lon$d0f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57789 |
On 11/22/2018 10:54 AM, nospam wrote: > 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. Course there's those bend-around Windows (and Chromebook) laptops that turn into a very heavy tablet. And now I see where there's a dual boot Android/Windows laptop/tablet available. But I agree, they have a ways to go...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 10:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pt6okf$7uh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57782 |
On 11/22/2018 9:18 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <221120180150118477%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam >> 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.) My GUESS is that most people leave their often used laptops and tablets plugged in because they like the instant-on sleeping feature and that puts a constant drain on the battery. Depending on the device mine lose 5 to 10% a day. On my W10 laptop I can hibernate and that brings the battery drain to zip. My laptop resumes from hibernation in only 5-10 seconds (YMMV). So that is an option for those who don't want to leave their laptop plugged in all the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pt70nn.dsc.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57787 |
123456789 <12345@12345.com> wrote: > On 11/22/2018 9:18 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > > In message <221120180150118477%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam > > >> 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.) > > My GUESS is that most people leave their often used laptops and tablets > plugged in because they like the instant-on sleeping feature and that > puts a constant drain on the battery. Depending on the device mine lose > 5 to 10% a day. Indeed. If their laptop is their only/main computer, instant-on is important, especially if the laptop is used several/many times during the day. That's my (and SWMBO's) usage model and I think that's the case for many/most laptop-only/mainly users. > On my W10 laptop I can hibernate and that brings the battery drain to > zip. My laptop resumes from hibernation in only 5-10 seconds (YMMV). So > that is an option for those who don't want to leave their laptop plugged > in all the time. My laptop hibernates/unhibernates somewhat slower, but in any case it's of no use/help, because I would have to plug it in (or have it on a switch) every time I'm using in and disconnect it (or flip the switch) every time I hibernate it. If I wouldn't do that, it would quickly run out while I'm using it. So it *would* be nice if laptops would have a setting to allow charging/discharging between say XX and 80/90% in order to increase battery lifetime. But very, very few laptops have such a feature. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 13:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <221120181347549660%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57790 |
In article <pt70nn.dsc.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > So it *would* be nice if laptops would have a setting to allow > charging/discharging between say XX and 80/90% in order to increase > battery lifetime. But very, very few laptops have such a feature. because it's of little benefit. > 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. it hasn't been debunked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 20:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fOCdnazguqfEiWrGnZ2dnUU78eHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #57790 |
"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message news:pt70nn.dsc.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net... >> My GUESS is that most people leave their often used laptops and tablets >> plugged in because they like the instant-on sleeping feature and that >> puts a constant drain on the battery. Depending on the device mine lose >> 5 to 10% a day. > > Indeed. If their laptop is their only/main computer, instant-on is > important, especially if the laptop is used several/many times during > the day. That's my (and SWMBO's) usage model and I think that's the case > for many/most laptop-only/mainly users. I think the main reason for leaving *any* rechargeable device connected to the mains whenever you don't need it to be portable, is to make sure the battery is always as full as possible so that at a moment's notice it can be used off-mains for as long as possible. It's just a shame that with current battery technology this still seems to shorten the battery lifetime (ie it stores progressively less and less charge over a period of usage). Every laptop I have owned has gradually had a shorter and shorter battery life, even though I religiously unplug it from the power once it's fully charged and I'm not using it, and even when I *am* using it in reach of mains, I sometimes let it run off battery until the battery is about 30% full before recharging it. I'm lucky if I get a couple of years' life out of a laptop's battery before it will no longer hold any charge and the laptop can only be used on mains (or else a new battery is needed). I've never managed to find a definitive statement of how to keep the battery as full as possible while not knackering the battery's ability to hold its full capacity of charge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <74ce215b57.DaveMeUK@my.inbox.com> |
| In reply to | #57792 |
In message <fOCdnazguqfEiWrGnZ2dnUU78eHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
"NY" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> I think the main reason for leaving *any* rechargeable device connected to
> the mains whenever you don't need it to be portable, is to make sure the
> battery is always as full as possible so that at a moment's notice it can
> be used off-mains for as long as possible. It's just a shame that with
> current battery technology this still seems to shorten the battery
> lifetime (ie it stores progressively less and less charge over a period of
> usage).
Going back 30-odd years, I looked at an Uher portable real-to-reel tape
recorder for an acqauintance. The battery (a NiCad) would no longer
store a charge. I removed the battery's seal strip and looked into
the cells through the rubber vents. The cells had dried out, and
crystals of electrolyte were visible. I took a hypodermic syringe
and filled the cells with water. When I tested the battery, its
capacity was about 105% of nominal.
So the water in the electrolyte had been dissociated into hydrogen and
oxygen as a result of the charging regime he had applied.
Whether that has any relevance to today's battery technologies, I
don't know. (I'm sure water is not involved, but whether any other
constituent can be similarly destroyed...)
All batteries gradually lose their capacity over time and use.
Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pt7lop$d0f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57795 |
On 11/22/2018 2:29 PM, David Higton wrote: > The battery (a NiCad) would no longer store a charge. I removed the > battery's seal strip and looked into the cells through the rubber > vents. The cells had dried out, and crystals of electrolyte were > visible. I took a hypodermic syringe and filled the cells with > water. When I tested the battery, its capacity was about 105% of > nominal. > Whether that has any relevance to today's battery technologies, I > don't know. Messing with the insides of today's batteries can be dangerous. Best left alone...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 18:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pt7lor$d0f$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57792 |
On 11/22/2018 1:40 PM, NY wrote: > I think the main reason for leaving *any* rechargeable device > connected to the mains whenever you don't need it to be portable, is > to make sure the battery is always as full as possible so that at a > moment's notice it can be used off-mains for as long as possible. Agreed. My laptop joins my phone for an overnight charge every night. By the end of the next day it's usually down at worst to 50% depending on how long the Netflix movie is... ;) > I'm lucky if I get a couple of years' life out of a laptop's battery > before it will no longer hold any charge and the laptop can only be > used on mains (or else a new battery is needed). The batteries in many (most?) laptops are relatively easy to change. And many are priced quite reasonably, although watch out for the 'too cheap' ones. Some even come with toolkits. Compared to recently changing the battery in the wife's iPhone, my past laptop battery changes have been a piece of cake... ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-22 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i7IYp1Uj$x9bFwJC@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57790 |
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)? -- 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]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-23 01:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <231120180114302086%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57796 |
In article <i7IYp1Uj$x9bFwJC@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > > N.B. In the off chance that some of you didn't, ignore nospam's > >comments that limiting charging to between XX and 80/90% "is not worth > >the small benefit"/"an extra month or two over 3-5 years". His nonsense > >has been debunked several times before, but of course, being the > >compulsive arguer that he is, he denies that fact and just starts yet > >another loop of non-discussion. > > What difference do _you_ say it makes? Leaving laptop permanently > plugged in has what effect on battery capacity after 3-5 years - 20%? > 50%? 80%? 95% (i. e. kills it)? it's minor, if any.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-23 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8mkPuyhdwB+bFwyJ@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57804 |
In message <231120180114302086%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >In article <i7IYp1Uj$x9bFwJC@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) ><G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> > 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)? > >it's minor, if any. I was asking the person who wrote the first paragraph; we all know your view (which may be correct; I wanted his view). -- 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]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-23 16:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pt9cf2.b6s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57796 |
"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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-23 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pt9p57.deo.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57811 |
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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-23 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pt9v0g.bbk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57817 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-23 16:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <231120181640378302%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57823 |
In article <pt9v0g.bbk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > 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". if the difference was as big as you claim, why do nearly all device makers *not* limit charging, especially in devices with internal batteries?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-23 21:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <E2lB6K4YWH+bFwUs@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57824 |
In message <231120181640378302%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >In article <pt9v0g.bbk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg ><this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > >> 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". > >if the difference was as big as you claim, why do nearly all device >makers *not* limit charging, especially in devices with internal >batteries? Perhaps because there's little incentive for them to do 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. 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-23 17:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <231120181706573091%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57825 |
In article <E2lB6K4YWH+bFwUs@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> 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". > > > >if the difference was as big as you claim, why do nearly all device > >makers *not* limit charging, especially in devices with internal > >batteries? > > Perhaps because there's little incentive for them to do so? greatly extending battery lifetime would result in happier customers, increasing business, which is a rather large incentive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-23 22:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rGYKmF5vqH+bFwTL@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57827 |
In message <231120181706573091%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >In article <E2lB6K4YWH+bFwUs@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) ><G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> >> 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". >> > >> >if the difference was as big as you claim, why do nearly all device >> >makers *not* limit charging, especially in devices with internal >> >batteries? >> >> Perhaps because there's little incentive for them to do so? > >greatly extending battery lifetime would result in happier customers, >increasing business, which is a rather large incentive. So why don't they then? -- 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. 782.55 - The Number of The Beast (including VAT)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-23 17:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <231120181723292639%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57828 |
In article <rGYKmF5vqH+bFwTL@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> >> 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". > >> > > >> >if the difference was as big as you claim, why do nearly all device > >> >makers *not* limit charging, especially in devices with internal > >> >batteries? > >> > >> Perhaps because there's little incentive for them to do so? > > > >greatly extending battery lifetime would result in happier customers, > >increasing business, which is a rather large incentive. > > So why don't they then? because the real world difference (i.e., not lab tests) isn't as much as frank is claiming, and that people prefer having 100% full charge, versus maintaining it within a narrow, more ideal range. it's a tradeoff, and as i said, the benefits are not worth it for the vast majority of people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-23 21:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ptalsp$agr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57828 |
On 11/23/2018 02:09 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <231120181706573091%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>In article <E2lB6K4YWH+bFwUs@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)
>><G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> >> 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".
>>> >
>>> >if the difference was as big as you claim, why do nearly all device
>>> >makers *not* limit charging, especially in devices with internal
>>> >batteries?
>>>
>>> Perhaps because there's little incentive for them to do so?
>>
>>greatly extending battery lifetime would result in happier customers,
>>increasing business, which is a rather large incentive.
>
> So why don't they then?
Because people tend to want new phones before the batteries in their old
one die? I've used 6 cell phones, and not a single one was replaced
because of battery failure. And I'm the kind of person who keeps a
rotten car for 5 years after it tries to kill me the first time!
--
Cheers, Bev
If god had wanted me to bend over he would
have sprinkled the floor with diamonds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web