Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.laptops > #2331 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-15 11:33 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-20 14:31 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 90 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.laptops
cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-15 11:33 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2015-10-15 11:40 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-15 11:56 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-15 12:21 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 15:29 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-15 12:36 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 11:42 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 11:43 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-15 11:59 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2015-10-15 14:41 -0500
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-15 12:56 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 16:08 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-15 13:42 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-15 13:21 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-16 08:11 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-16 20:13 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-16 21:05 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 01:07 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 01:00 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-16 23:03 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 08:19 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-17 12:04 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2015-10-18 02:56 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 23:22 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2015-10-18 03:40 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 23:50 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2015-10-18 03:59 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-18 11:14 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-18 11:17 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Godzilla <godzilla@lizardboss.invalid> - 2015-10-18 15:24 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-18 17:06 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Godzilla <godzilla@lizardboss.invalid> - 2015-10-18 22:22 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-18 11:18 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2015-10-18 21:01 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-18 17:10 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-18 13:58 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 01:03 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> - 2015-10-17 09:48 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 10:01 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-20 07:50 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-20 12:21 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-20 11:17 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-20 14:33 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-20 11:54 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2015-10-20 12:54 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-20 16:00 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-20 16:01 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-20 16:03 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2015-10-20 14:32 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-20 19:51 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-20 16:04 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2015-10-20 19:29 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-20 20:03 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2015-10-21 00:10 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2015-10-21 03:31 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 08:40 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-21 14:22 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2015-10-21 18:32 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-21 18:43 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 08:30 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-21 08:30 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-17 09:07 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2015-10-17 10:22 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-17 11:39 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2015-10-17 12:21 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-17 12:36 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2015-10-17 20:43 -0500
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2015-10-16 09:23 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-16 09:37 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2015-10-16 09:39 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2015-10-16 10:19 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2015-10-16 14:47 -0500
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2015-10-16 23:18 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-16 20:17 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2015-10-18 02:29 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 23:07 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2015-10-18 03:42 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 23:52 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2015-10-18 04:02 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-16 20:18 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2015-10-18 02:32 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 23:09 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 23:11 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2015-10-18 03:53 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-17 23:56 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2015-10-18 04:06 +0000
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-18 00:58 -0400
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-10-17 04:01 -0600
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> - 2015-10-20 11:01 -0700
Re: cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2015-10-20 14:31 -0400
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 12:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jfqc2bt4q2nlbff4bng9a1l2bopcgqu330@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2398 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:50:22 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> Gave us: > >"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in message >news:h0l42b9lagljk7affel3lvbcjk4pbjt7ic@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:48:17 -0400, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> Gave >> us: >> >> snip >> >> This one is 135 Watts. Would (may) only need an output plug >> changeout. >> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012HW5A9O >> >> And no, the wattage does not have to match the original. More is >> better. It is just a declaration of what the supply is able to provide. >> Your device still uses only what it uses. It merely has a better >> likelihood of providing a cleaner DC feed, and exhibiting less heat >> while doing so. > >ASUS representative said... > >"A higher wattage AC adapter can cause damage to battery overtime. >Thus, it is not recommended." > >Is this true? > No. A battery is charged by voltage. It requires a voltage greater than the battery's operating voltage. That is usually managed by a watchdog chip/circuit. They operate from within a specific input voltage range and ONLY feed the battery the voltage it needs. And they stop the charging cycle when they are through. You'll notice this same behavior on your smart phone and some laptops when they say "not charging" even though you attached an external source. An adaptor that can put out 65W does so comfortably and without exhibiting heat or feeding a noisy rail (ripple). That means if they get fully loaded to the 65W rating, they are supposed to work at that level 24/7/365, as in "full duty cycle". A higher power, same voltage supply does the same thing and at it rated power when loaded to that level. If you hook it up to a lesser load, it will pull less and run cooler and exhibit less ripple. So essentially he couldn't be more wrong if he tried. It is incorrect to attach a higher voltage supply, but NOT incorrect to attach a higher wattage supply. The wattage rating declares the work which it is capable of doing.. It does not "feed more" if the load has not changed, and it has not. The device acts no differently simply because a more capable, quieter running power unit got attached. As long as the voltage matches, the device will draw no more power than it did on the other power supply device. I can not explain it more concisely, because that covers it completely. You can tell him I said he is wrong, and needs to go back to bullshit salesman school.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 11:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n060nr$jri$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #2399 |
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in message news:jfqc2bt4q2nlbff4bng9a1l2bopcgqu330@4ax.com... > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:50:22 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> Gave us: > >> >>"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in message >>news:h0l42b9lagljk7affel3lvbcjk4pbjt7ic@4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:48:17 -0400, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> Gave >>> us: >>> >>> snip >>> >>> This one is 135 Watts. Would (may) only need an output plug >>> changeout. >>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012HW5A9O >>> >>> And no, the wattage does not have to match the original. More is >>> better. It is just a declaration of what the supply is able to provide. >>> Your device still uses only what it uses. It merely has a better >>> likelihood of providing a cleaner DC feed, and exhibiting less heat >>> while doing so. >> >>ASUS representative said... >> >>"A higher wattage AC adapter can cause damage to battery overtime. >>Thus, it is not recommended." >> >>Is this true? >> > No. A battery is charged by voltage. It requires a voltage greater > than the battery's operating voltage. That is usually managed by a > watchdog chip/circuit. They operate from within a specific input > voltage range and ONLY feed the battery the voltage it needs. And they > stop the charging cycle when they are through. You'll notice this same > behavior on your smart phone and some laptops when they say "not > charging" even though you attached an external source. > > An adaptor that can put out 65W does so comfortably and without > exhibiting heat or feeding a noisy rail (ripple). That means if they > get fully loaded to the 65W rating, they are supposed to work at that > level 24/7/365, as in "full duty cycle". A higher power, same voltage > supply does the same thing and at it rated power when loaded to that > level. If you hook it up to a lesser load, it will pull less and run > cooler and exhibit less ripple. > > So essentially he couldn't be more wrong if he tried. > > It is incorrect to attach a higher voltage supply, but NOT incorrect > to attach a higher wattage supply. The wattage rating declares the work > which it is capable of doing.. It does not "feed more" if the load has > not changed, and it has not. The device acts no differently simply > because a more capable, quieter running power unit got attached. > As long as the voltage matches, the device will draw no more power than > it did on the other power supply device. > > I can not explain it more concisely, because that covers it > completely. > > You can tell him I said he is wrong, and needs to go back to bullshit > salesman school. Thanks (NumeroUno), that makes sense. So, if I stick with a 19V AC adapter that is 90+W, I should be fine. Just FYI, the following items... 90 Watt AC Adapter (New Design) 0A001-00051000 http://us.estore.asus.com/products/0a001-00051000 6-Cell Battery 07G016HJ1875 http://us.estore.asus.com/products/07g016hj1875 were suggested to me by ASUS. This is OT but anyone know how to find a dental hygienist, with whom you've lost touch (because the "new" owner wants that relationship severed)? The previous owner retired. [Alan L. Grimm, DDS, Milpitas, CA] And, I don't know her last name.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 14:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <m42d2bp505mvavfqb1mkob29itf5uoefao@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2401 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:17:01 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> Gave us: snip >This is OT but anyone know how to find a dental hygienist, >with whom you've lost touch (because >the "new" owner wants that relationship severed)? > >The previous owner retired. >[Alan L. Grimm, DDS, Milpitas, CA] >And, I don't know her last name. > Well with a name like Alan, I'll bet she has a pretty low voice an a fairly large clit! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 11:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n062t3$o4h$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #2403 |
"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in message news:m42d2bp505mvavfqb1mkob29itf5uoefao@4ax.com... > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:17:01 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> Gave us: > snip >>This is OT but anyone know how to find a dental hygienist, >>with whom you've lost touch (because >>the "new" owner wants that relationship severed)? >> >>The previous owner retired. >>[Alan L. Grimm, DDS, Milpitas, CA] >>And, I don't know her last name. >> > Well with a name like Alan, I'll bet she has a pretty low voice an a > fairly large clit! :-) No, she's just a very good dental hygienist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mike <ham789@netzero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 12:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n0662b$58e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2399 |
On 10/20/2015 9:21 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:50:22 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> Gave us: > >> >> "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in message >> news:h0l42b9lagljk7affel3lvbcjk4pbjt7ic@4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:48:17 -0400, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> Gave >>> us: >>> >>> snip >>> >>> This one is 135 Watts. Would (may) only need an output plug >>> changeout. >>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012HW5A9O >>> >>> And no, the wattage does not have to match the original. More is >>> better. It is just a declaration of what the supply is able to provide. >>> Your device still uses only what it uses. It merely has a better >>> likelihood of providing a cleaner DC feed, and exhibiting less heat >>> while doing so. >> >> ASUS representative said... >> >> "A higher wattage AC adapter can cause damage to battery overtime. >> Thus, it is not recommended." >> >> Is this true? >> > No. A battery is charged by voltage. It requires a voltage greater > than the battery's operating voltage. That is usually managed by a > watchdog chip/circuit. They operate from within a specific input > voltage range and ONLY feed the battery the voltage it needs. And they > stop the charging cycle when they are through. You'll notice this same > behavior on your smart phone and some laptops when they say "not > charging" even though you attached an external source. > > An adaptor that can put out 65W does so comfortably and without > exhibiting heat or feeding a noisy rail (ripple). That means if they > get fully loaded to the 65W rating, they are supposed to work at that > level 24/7/365, as in "full duty cycle". A higher power, same voltage > supply does the same thing and at it rated power when loaded to that > level. If you hook it up to a lesser load, it will pull less and run > cooler and exhibit less ripple. > > So essentially he couldn't be more wrong if he tried. > > It is incorrect to attach a higher voltage supply, but NOT incorrect > to attach a higher wattage supply. The wattage rating declares the work > which it is capable of doing.. It does not "feed more" if the load has > not changed, and it has not. The device acts no differently simply > because a more capable, quieter running power unit got attached. > As long as the voltage matches, the device will draw no more power than > it did on the other power supply device. > > I can not explain it more concisely, because that covers it > completely. > > You can tell him I said he is wrong, and needs to go back to bullshit > salesman school. > That advice is always correct, except when it isn't. Designers sometimes do stupid things to reduce costs. Sometimes advisers extrapolate their experience to situations where it doesn't apply and express it with arrogance. Check out the schematic for a Compaq Aero 4-25. The only thing between the battery and the charge jack is a FET switch. They use the current limit in the power brick to limit the charge current. If you use a charger with a higher current limit, you overheat the battery. If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire. Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it. Expressing advice concisely and completely with maximum arrogance to a newbie without a voltmeter or the means or understanding to verify the advice is irresponsible... even if it is correct ALMOST all of the time. Sometimes, the advice doesn't apply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 16:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n57d2b9gg25f3ulhf1co3gms85c471f5hp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2405 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us: >That advice is always correct, except when it isn't. You are being an idiot again. A load is a load, and incorporating a more capable supply at the same voltage changes nothing about the consumption rate of the load. >Designers sometimes do stupid things to reduce costs. You are being an idiot again.. No designer can design a device that presents a given supply a specific load which changes when a better supply is attached. >Sometimes advisers extrapolate their experience to situations >where it doesn't apply and express it with arrogance. And some detractors are so stupid they cannot even present a valid argument. That would be you, idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 16:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7b7d2bpaqmemebk54fr7ef0q5s6gsrdipn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2405 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us: >Check out the schematic for a Compaq Aero 4-25. >The only thing between the battery and the charge jack is a FET switch. >They use the current limit in the power brick to limit the charge >current. If you use a charger with a higher current limit, you overheat >the battery. Wrong again. The battery itself has watchdog features in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 16:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc7d2bhdreqjqmg9t45tbarvqinu3r84p3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2405 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us: >If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire. >Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it. Maybe you should learn how to spell 'motherboard' before you go expounding on them. Current is limited already because it is set by the voltage presented, not the capacity of the supply to feed a load. You are an electrical idiot as well, I see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mike <ham789@netzero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 14:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n06bqs$sfv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2408 |
On 10/20/2015 1:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us: > >> If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire. >> Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it. > > Maybe you should learn how to spell 'motherboard' before you go > expounding on them. > > Current is limited already because it is set by the voltage presented, > not the capacity of the supply to feed a load. > > You are an electrical idiot as well, I see. > Perhaps if you read the text instead of snipping it, you'd have seen the example that contradicts your arrogance. So far, three UTI's on this post. Wonder if I can trade 'em in for something useful? I sure have a lot of 'em.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 19:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <phkd2bhtskro2upursdkpb4vfbuis4tle4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2410 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:32:44 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us: >On 10/20/2015 1:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us: >> >>> If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire. >>> Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it. >> >> Maybe you should learn how to spell 'motherboard' before you go >> expounding on them. >> >> Current is limited already because it is set by the voltage presented, >> not the capacity of the supply to feed a load. >> >> You are an electrical idiot as well, I see. >> >Perhaps if you read the text instead of snipping it, you'd have seen the >example that contradicts your arrogance. >So far, three UTI's on this post. >Wonder if I can trade 'em in for something useful? I sure have a lot >of 'em. You are real good at jacking off at the mouth about your petty, retarded non- "acronyms", but not surprisingly devoid of actual content that refutes what I stated. To state someone I hate, You'd be fired. You are ineffectual, at best. You could not debate this with any modicum of technical accuracy if your life depended on it. A pussy like you will try to let it die quietly than actually provide a substantive retort. Come back when you actually have a valid argument, chump. Your FET argument was a basic Ohm's law full tilt failure, and I easily pointed that fact out to you. Run, pussy boy, run!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 16:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mg7d2b5dom7pgn6dq8vg3jj24piihoq4ug@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2405 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us: >Expressing advice concisely and completely with maximum arrogance >to a newbie without a voltmeter or the >means or understanding to verify the advice is irresponsible... You are an idiot. The supply voltage and rating is declared, dumbfuck. >even if it is correct ALMOST all of the time. what I stated is correct ALL the time, idiot. >Sometimes, the advice doesn't apply. Like the shit you just got done spewing into this thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 19:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n06ijr$men$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2405 |
mike wrote:
> That advice is always correct, except when it isn't.
> Designers sometimes do stupid things to reduce costs.
> Sometimes advisers extrapolate their experience to situations
> where it doesn't apply and express it with arrogance.
>
> Check out the schematic for a Compaq Aero 4-25.
> The only thing between the battery and the charge jack is a FET switch.
> They use the current limit in the power brick to limit the charge
> current. If you use a charger with a higher current limit, you overheat
> the battery.
> If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire.
> Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it.
>
> Expressing advice concisely and completely with maximum arrogance
> to a newbie without a voltmeter or the
> means or understanding to verify the advice is irresponsible...
> even if it is correct ALMOST all of the time.
> Sometimes, the advice doesn't apply.
You missed a golden opportunity.
I already provided a link from badcaps.net, with a
*schematic* for the laptop. Apply for a login account,
so you can download the schematic. I already had an account
on badcaps, so could get this immediately.
"ASUS N61JQ won't start"
http://www.badcaps.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42461
You can apply your keen analytical skills to that schematic
and tell us how the unit works.
PDF page 89 has the battery controller (MB39A132).
PDF page 60 has the DC jack with inductive surge (undershoot) protection.
And to help you on your way, this doc gives you an
overview on the MB39A132 feature set.
"DC/DC Converter IC for Charging Li-ion Batteries MB39A132 ..."
http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/EDG/binary/pdf/find/26-3e/7.pdf
What do you notice on Figure 9 Page 5 ? It uses an SMPS
with high side/low side MOSFETs for controlling the charging
of the battery.
What can you feed an SMPS with ? All sorts of stuff.
Very flexible. What may not be flexible, is some of the
voltage thresholds set to work with a 19V adapter.
(The chip detects when the AC adapter is plugged in.)
I got a datasheet for the MB39A132 here. But that
isn't necessary needed right away.
http://master-chip.ru/store/files/b75d64b3-f625-774c-9992-25c047244b48/mb39a132.pdf
*******
Your quoted material, is from a 20 year old laptop,
a laptop with NiMH battery technology. What are
the odds that a current generation laptop is
as crude as that ? You yourself contributed to
this faq.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/pc-hardware-faq/laptops/compaq-aero/
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 20:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cvkd2bda61j48i48plfmitr8alm9b1tco5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2411 |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:29:01 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.com> Gave us: >You missed a golden opportunity. It is basic Ohm's Law. He failed. Period. 19Volts is 19Volts all day long. A 65 watt supply and a 90 watt supply and even the 135 watt supply I gave a link to ALL ONLY provide 19Volts, and their maximum capacity means absolutely NOTHING as they only pump the power needed for the presented load, and that does not change from one supply to another when placed on the same load. If they are at 19Volts, then they ALL three only pump the same load the same way. So, a 65 Watt loads gets 3.421 Amps fed into it by a 65 Watt supply, and that maxes out that supply and it will have the highest ripple of its designed parameters. A 65 watt load only gets 3.421 Amps fed into it by a 90 Watt supply as well, and a 65 watt load only gets 3.421 Amps fed into it by a 135 Watt supply. The higher power capable supplies will have lower ripple figures, guaranteed. See how easy that is? Basic Ohm's Law. The supply ONLY declares what its FULL LOAD potential to operate at is. That means that ALL three supplies will fill the 19 Volt requisite need for this load. The ONLY difference will be that the latter two will do so while running cooler and very likely while presenting less ripple to the load, which BTW, computers like. So mike is absolutely full of shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mike <ham789@netzero.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 00:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n07dmf$li3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2411 |
On 10/20/2015 4:29 PM, Paul wrote: > mike wrote: > >> That advice is always correct, except when it isn't. >> Designers sometimes do stupid things to reduce costs. >> Sometimes advisers extrapolate their experience to situations >> where it doesn't apply and express it with arrogance. >> >> Check out the schematic for a Compaq Aero 4-25. >> The only thing between the battery and the charge jack is a FET switch. >> They use the current limit in the power brick to limit the charge >> current. If you use a charger with a higher current limit, you overheat >> the battery. >> If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire. >> Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it. >> >> Expressing advice concisely and completely with maximum arrogance >> to a newbie without a voltmeter or the >> means or understanding to verify the advice is irresponsible... >> even if it is correct ALMOST all of the time. >> Sometimes, the advice doesn't apply. > > You missed a golden opportunity. > > I already provided a link from badcaps.net, with a > *schematic* for the laptop. Apply for a login account, > so you can download the schematic. I already had an account > on badcaps, so could get this immediately. > > "ASUS N61JQ won't start" > http://www.badcaps.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42461 > > You can apply your keen analytical skills to that schematic > and tell us how the unit works. > > PDF page 89 has the battery controller (MB39A132). > PDF page 60 has the DC jack with inductive surge (undershoot) protection. > > And to help you on your way, this doc gives you an > overview on the MB39A132 feature set. > > "DC/DC Converter IC for Charging Li-ion Batteries MB39A132 ..." > http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/EDG/binary/pdf/find/26-3e/7.pdf > > What do you notice on Figure 9 Page 5 ? It uses an SMPS > with high side/low side MOSFETs for controlling the charging > of the battery. > > What can you feed an SMPS with ? All sorts of stuff. > Very flexible. What may not be flexible, is some of the > voltage thresholds set to work with a 19V adapter. > (The chip detects when the AC adapter is plugged in.) > > I got a datasheet for the MB39A132 here. But that > isn't necessary needed right away. > > http://master-chip.ru/store/files/b75d64b3-f625-774c-9992-25c047244b48/mb39a132.pdf > > > ******* > > Your quoted material, is from a 20 year old laptop, > a laptop with NiMH battery technology. What are > the odds that a current generation laptop is > as crude as that ? You yourself contributed to > this faq. > > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/pc-hardware-faq/laptops/compaq-aero/ > > Paul Well, these newsgroups last forever. Just because you know what you're doing, doesn't mean that everyone else does. I already stated that it's likely that it's OK. I'm merely responding to the knowitalls who state with authority that they have all the answers, when they really don't actually know EVERYTHING. It's very easy to take some experience and extrapolate it to the point where it gets someone else in trouble. Too much typing and not nearly enough thinking. Even 20 years later, there are engineers still fucking up designs. You find out after it's too late.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 03:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n07es3$p59$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2415 |
mike wrote:
>
> Even 20 years later, there are engineers still fucking up
> designs. You find out after it's too late.
The charger industry is proud of abusing electronic
components to come up with cheaper and cheaper
solutions.
This is why my Black and Decker cordless screwdriver
reduced three battery packs to puddles of goo. The
charging solution has absolutely no merit at all
(no charge termination).
On the other hand, I like my car battery charger,
which uses only a transformer and selenium rectifiers
to make a "high impedance" charging circuit. The packaging
claims an amount of current will flow, which is never
achieved. So it's pretty hard to cook a battery (or
charge it quickly) with the charger. But in terms
of construction, they couldn't make it much cheaper -
removing the selenium rectifier thingy would leave
you with only an AC transformer.
If your laptop had NiCd batteries in it, I'm sure they
could have cut a few more corners.
It's the fact that Lithium Ion battery packs are
so dangerous (from a corporate liability point of view),
that a lot more care is put into them. If it wasn't
for Lithium Ion, we might never have seen precision
charging chips.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 08:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tt1f2bht659mmjqpeqflicu4tj9215them@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2416 |
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 03:31:17 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.com> Gave us: >mike wrote: > >> >> Even 20 years later, there are engineers still fucking up >> designs. You find out after it's too late. > >The charger industry is proud of abusing electronic >components to come up with cheaper and cheaper >solutions. > >This is why my Black and Decker cordless screwdriver >reduced three battery packs to puddles of goo. The >charging solution has absolutely no merit at all >(no charge termination). The battery technology in such devices is far less advanced than that used in a portable computing device, not to mention the "chargers" they incorporated. > >On the other hand, I like my car battery charger, >which uses only a transformer and selenium rectifiers >to make a "high impedance" charging circuit. Lead acid batteries merely need a voltage greater than the battery voltage to take on a charge. They do not car about ripple. Device chargers are not only meant to charge the device battery, but the power they feed must be clean enough to power the device as well. >The packaging >claims an amount of current will flow, which is never >achieved. So it's pretty hard to cook a battery (or >charge it quickly) with the charger. Car batteries can literally explode if overcharged. >But in terms >of construction, they couldn't make it much cheaper - They only need to rectify the AC so that it make DC pulses which are higher in voltage than the battery. They are not meant to power a device, nor do they have to provide what is known as 'a clean source'. >removing the selenium rectifier thingy would leave >you with only an AC transformer. No shit. And they usually use a simple diode rectifier or diode bridge, not expensive Selenium. > >If your laptop had NiCd batteries in it, I'm sure they >could have cut a few more corners. Those batteries age and that is why they were phased out for more advanced power storage devices. > >It's the fact that Lithium Ion battery packs are >so dangerous (from a corporate liability point of view), They are dangerous from a real POV as well, not simply some lame liability like lawn darts, or "coffee is hot". >that a lot more care is put into them. More is done because the 'juice' they provide must be CLEAN for the device to not puke all over itself. > If it wasn't >for Lithium Ion, we might never have seen precision >charging chips.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n08vum$58c$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #2416 |
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:n07es3$p59$1@dont-email.me... > mike wrote: > >> >> Even 20 years later, there are engineers still fucking up >> designs. You find out after it's too late. > > The charger industry is proud of abusing electronic > components to come up with cheaper and cheaper > solutions. > > This is why my Black and Decker cordless screwdriver > reduced three battery packs to puddles of goo. The > charging solution has absolutely no merit at all > (no charge termination). > > On the other hand, I like my car battery charger, > which uses only a transformer and selenium rectifiers > to make a "high impedance" charging circuit. The packaging > claims an amount of current will flow, which is never > achieved. So it's pretty hard to cook a battery (or > charge it quickly) with the charger. But in terms > of construction, they couldn't make it much cheaper - > removing the selenium rectifier thingy would leave > you with only an AC transformer. > > If your laptop had NiCd batteries in it, I'm sure they > could have cut a few more corners. > > It's the fact that Lithium Ion battery packs are > so dangerous (from a corporate liability point of view), > that a lot more care is put into them. If it wasn't > for Lithium Ion, we might never have seen precision > charging chips. > > Paul Thanks (Guru Paul, et al), for the clarification. I think everyone is "right" but just saying the same thing in their own unique ways. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Let me rephrase... For laptops (or more valuable equipment nowadays), if I stick with a compatible voltage (19V) AC adapter with sufficient power (90+W), I should be fine since more and more safety measures (like sensors) are designed in to protect valuable equipment. Safety measures designed in is directly proportional to value of equipment (both increase/decrease together). Any recommendations on resources (books, magazines, websites, etc.) on power for newbies?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 18:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n093lt$8bd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2420 |
Adam wrote:
> "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
> news:n07es3$p59$1@dont-email.me...
>> mike wrote:
>>
>>> Even 20 years later, there are engineers still fucking up
>>> designs. You find out after it's too late.
>> The charger industry is proud of abusing electronic
>> components to come up with cheaper and cheaper
>> solutions.
>>
>> This is why my Black and Decker cordless screwdriver
>> reduced three battery packs to puddles of goo. The
>> charging solution has absolutely no merit at all
>> (no charge termination).
>>
>> On the other hand, I like my car battery charger,
>> which uses only a transformer and selenium rectifiers
>> to make a "high impedance" charging circuit. The packaging
>> claims an amount of current will flow, which is never
>> achieved. So it's pretty hard to cook a battery (or
>> charge it quickly) with the charger. But in terms
>> of construction, they couldn't make it much cheaper -
>> removing the selenium rectifier thingy would leave
>> you with only an AC transformer.
>>
>> If your laptop had NiCd batteries in it, I'm sure they
>> could have cut a few more corners.
>>
>> It's the fact that Lithium Ion battery packs are
>> so dangerous (from a corporate liability point of view),
>> that a lot more care is put into them. If it wasn't
>> for Lithium Ion, we might never have seen precision
>> charging chips.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Thanks (Guru Paul, et al), for the clarification.
> I think everyone is "right" but just saying
> the same thing in their own unique ways.
>
> Sorry, I should have been more clear.
> Let me rephrase...
>
> For laptops (or more valuable equipment nowadays),
> if I stick with a compatible voltage (19V) AC adapter with
> sufficient power (90+W), I should be fine since
> more and more safety measures (like sensors) are
> designed in to protect valuable equipment.
> Safety measures designed in is directly proportional to
> value of equipment (both increase/decrease together).
>
> Any recommendations on resources (books, magazines, websites, etc.) on
> power for newbies?
>
>
Most of what I've learned, was by analysing stuff (schematics),
or learning by making mistakes.
To illustrate, there are three kinds of adapters for
consumer electronics. These are general categories.
1) AC adapter (it's just a transformer)
2) Unregulated DC adapter (transformer, rectifiers, filter cap)
DC voltage varies with loading.
3) Regulated DC adapter (SMPS, similar to ATX power supply design,
isolated for shock protection, overcurrent detection with
various behaviors on overcurrent). Complete switch-off being
a common overcurrent behavior). Connect a 2 amp light bulb
to a 2 amp adapter, it will shut off. Why ? The bulb draws
4 amps when it is cold, trips the OC immediately, and the
adapter shuts off.
OK, I bought a label maker one day. It had provision for battery
operation. You were supposed to pour $$$ worth of dry cells into
the thing. An optional adapter was available, at $50 !!!
Well, naturally, being a cheap-skate, I wanted neither dry cells
nor a $50 adapter.
On the housing of the unit, next to the barrel connector for power,
it said "7VDC", and had the symbol for center-positive power. So
I bought a *regulated* 7VDC adapter and plugged it in. I verified
the adapter made exactly 7V, and it did do that. With a fairly high
current rating (so not likely to poop out on OC).
So I try to print a label, and... nothing.
So I eventually break down and buy the optional adapter for $50.
Turns out it is unregulated. At no load, the adapter makes *10V*
and at the instant the motor cranks the label through the print
area, the voltage drops down to 7V due to the increased current
draw.
So it really needed the elevated (unspecified) 10V voltage to make
the keyboard and display and control chip work.
That lesson taught me, that the specification printed on
the housing ("7VDC") could be regulated or unregulated, and
there is no way to know which is appropriate. They kinda got you
by the nuts.
And that's learning by making mistakes.
As for your laptop, I don't see a reason in what I've seen
in the schematic so far, for there to be a dependency on adapter
power rating. Your laptop is the 90W design. A 19V adapter
of 90W or 135W should work. The charging circuit has control
of what it is doing, and is not dependent on external impedance
characteristics. The charger chip has slow start (inrush limit),
so if the adapter is already plugged into the wall and you
shove the barrel into the laptop jack, the adapter doesn't
quit on OC. There is a clamp diode near the jack, so if the
barrel is removed while the adapter is powered, the inductive
kick-back is quenched. The design has a current sampling shunt,
which implies the chip can sense the current. And knows if
too much current is being drawn. And it has a fair number
of MOSFETs to control various things. As long as MOSFETs are
saturated (fully ON or fully OFF), they don't get all that
warm. And that's important. It's easy to burn out a MOSFET
with no heatsink, by turning it half-ON by design. This is
why SMPS circuits take turns with MOSFETs fully ON or fully OFF,
to achieve a desired result. The devices then get warm but
not hot.
There are adapters that have more than two wires, and that
immediately makes me suspicious. It implies some form of
control, or "adapter power rating checking" being done
by the laptop. That tends to happen with stuff above
65W. You're likely to find 65W designs to be pretty simple
and carefree. Anything above that, you should keep your
eyes open, and do a bit of Googling to learn of the
issues.
Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n09far$cju$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #2421 |
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
news:n093lt$8bd$1@dont-email.me...
> Adam wrote:
>> "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
>> news:n07es3$p59$1@dont-email.me...
>>> mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even 20 years later, there are engineers still fucking up
>>>> designs. You find out after it's too late.
>>> The charger industry is proud of abusing electronic
>>> components to come up with cheaper and cheaper
>>> solutions.
>>>
>>> This is why my Black and Decker cordless screwdriver
>>> reduced three battery packs to puddles of goo. The
>>> charging solution has absolutely no merit at all
>>> (no charge termination).
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I like my car battery charger,
>>> which uses only a transformer and selenium rectifiers
>>> to make a "high impedance" charging circuit. The packaging
>>> claims an amount of current will flow, which is never
>>> achieved. So it's pretty hard to cook a battery (or
>>> charge it quickly) with the charger. But in terms
>>> of construction, they couldn't make it much cheaper -
>>> removing the selenium rectifier thingy would leave
>>> you with only an AC transformer.
>>>
>>> If your laptop had NiCd batteries in it, I'm sure they
>>> could have cut a few more corners.
>>>
>>> It's the fact that Lithium Ion battery packs are
>>> so dangerous (from a corporate liability point of view),
>>> that a lot more care is put into them. If it wasn't
>>> for Lithium Ion, we might never have seen precision
>>> charging chips.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Thanks (Guru Paul, et al), for the clarification.
>> I think everyone is "right" but just saying
>> the same thing in their own unique ways.
>>
>> Sorry, I should have been more clear.
>> Let me rephrase...
>>
>> For laptops (or more valuable equipment nowadays),
>> if I stick with a compatible voltage (19V) AC adapter with
>> sufficient power (90+W), I should be fine since
>> more and more safety measures (like sensors) are
>> designed in to protect valuable equipment.
>> Safety measures designed in is directly proportional to
>> value of equipment (both increase/decrease together).
>>
>> Any recommendations on resources (books, magazines, websites, etc.) on
>> power for newbies?
>>
>
> Most of what I've learned, was by analysing stuff (schematics),
> or learning by making mistakes.
>
> To illustrate, there are three kinds of adapters for
> consumer electronics. These are general categories.
>
> 1) AC adapter (it's just a transformer)
> 2) Unregulated DC adapter (transformer, rectifiers, filter cap)
> DC voltage varies with loading.
> 3) Regulated DC adapter (SMPS, similar to ATX power supply design,
> isolated for shock protection, overcurrent detection with
> various behaviors on overcurrent). Complete switch-off being
> a common overcurrent behavior). Connect a 2 amp light bulb
> to a 2 amp adapter, it will shut off. Why ? The bulb draws
> 4 amps when it is cold, trips the OC immediately, and the
> adapter shuts off.
>
> OK, I bought a label maker one day. It had provision for battery
> operation. You were supposed to pour $$$ worth of dry cells into
> the thing. An optional adapter was available, at $50 !!!
> Well, naturally, being a cheap-skate, I wanted neither dry cells
> nor a $50 adapter.
>
> On the housing of the unit, next to the barrel connector for power,
> it said "7VDC", and had the symbol for center-positive power. So
> I bought a *regulated* 7VDC adapter and plugged it in. I verified
> the adapter made exactly 7V, and it did do that. With a fairly high
> current rating (so not likely to poop out on OC).
>
> So I try to print a label, and... nothing.
>
> So I eventually break down and buy the optional adapter for $50.
> Turns out it is unregulated. At no load, the adapter makes *10V*
> and at the instant the motor cranks the label through the print
> area, the voltage drops down to 7V due to the increased current
> draw.
>
> So it really needed the elevated (unspecified) 10V voltage to make
> the keyboard and display and control chip work.
>
> That lesson taught me, that the specification printed on
> the housing ("7VDC") could be regulated or unregulated, and
> there is no way to know which is appropriate. They kinda got you
> by the nuts.
:-)
Thanks, sounds similar to my current trial experience with ac adapters.
I had to return the first laptop charger because, when connected,
the slightest tap of the plug/barrel/jack can cause the battery to
take over as if the ac adapter were "not" connected.
Maybe this all points back to that less than stellar power supply standard?
With another laptop charger, can't get the battery to
take over no matter how hard I wiggle that barrel plug.
>
> And that's learning by making mistakes.
>
> As for your laptop, I don't see a reason in what I've seen
> in the schematic so far, for there to be a dependency on adapter
> power rating. Your laptop is the 90W design. A 19V adapter
> of 90W or 135W should work. The charging circuit has control
> of what it is doing, and is not dependent on external impedance
> characteristics. The charger chip has slow start (inrush limit),
> so if the adapter is already plugged into the wall and you
> shove the barrel into the laptop jack, the adapter doesn't
> quit on OC. There is a clamp diode near the jack, so if the
> barrel is removed while the adapter is powered, the inductive
> kick-back is quenched. The design has a current sampling shunt,
> which implies the chip can sense the current. And knows if
> too much current is being drawn. And it has a fair number
> of MOSFETs to control various things. As long as MOSFETs are
> saturated (fully ON or fully OFF), they don't get all that
> warm. And that's important. It's easy to burn out a MOSFET
> with no heatsink, by turning it half-ON by design. This is
> why SMPS circuits take turns with MOSFETs fully ON or fully OFF,
> to achieve a desired result. The devices then get warm but
> not hot.
>
> There are adapters that have more than two wires, and that
> immediately makes me suspicious. It implies some form of
> control, or "adapter power rating checking" being done
> by the laptop. That tends to happen with stuff above
> 65W. You're likely to find 65W designs to be pretty simple
> and carefree. Anything above that, you should keep your
> eyes open, and do a bit of Googling to learn of the
> issues.
>
> Paul
Thanks (Guru Paul), there's no better way to
know the truth than to go straight to the source/schematic. :-)
It's good to know that my laptop can definitely take
a more powerful (>90W) power supply, but, so far,
the makers of "quality" laptop chargers do not offer
anything more powerful than 90W. Although,
I think I saw some (120W?) at the store by other makers.
I might go back to look more closely at those more powerful laptop chargers.
So far, I've only come across 2-wire laptop chargers but,
now that I know, I'll watch out for non-2-wire laptop chargers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 08:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d61f2b1to8d7ep10h18ncbh9qvavpsv0l9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2415 |
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:10:38 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us: >I'm merely responding to the knowitalls who state with >authority that they have all the answers, when they really >don't actually know EVERYTHING. I NEVER made any such claim. That retarded horseshit ONLY came out of you, dipshit. I spent a decade designing switch mode power supplies, and I know what I know and never claimed to know more. But I certainly know more than a putz who cannot even get Linux, or basic Ohm's Law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.laptops
csiph-web