Battery charge tests - running a battery to 0 frequently - checking re-charge times...

[ohg...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 3:12:11 PM UTC-4, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2022-05-05 19:19, Andy Burnelli wrote:
I am testing if it takes _longer_ to \"fast charge\" a phone if you
_frequently_ let the battery run down to zero - and it seems to be.
Somewhat related, I saw this past Saturday an article about a study
testing charging batteries to full (of electric cars), or only a percent.

The article is in Spanish, but you can use google translate to read it.
It points to a study in German, but I do not see its link.

Seems that the best is to limit the battery cycle to 20%/80%.

That is true. My Tesla allows me to program the charging to whatever level I want. I plug in twice a week and it stops charging at 80%. 80% gives me about 250 miles of useful range. Most manufacturers limit the amount of charge to a specific percentage of the pack\'s capacity to prevent owners from charging to 100% every single night.

 

[Andy Burnelli]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Oops. Wrong app. The one I was using is:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.liuzh.deviceinfo

To add more to that suggestion, personally I install only apps that are GSF
free and that don\'t contain ads and which have high\'ish ratings & installs.

*DevCheck Hardware and System Info* by flar2
Free + inapp, ad free, google free, gsf free, rated 4.8, 1M+ installs
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=flar2.devcheck>

*Inware* by evowizz
Free, ad free, google free, gsf free, rated 4.4, 100K+ installs
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.evo.inware>

*Device Info HW* by Andrey Efremov
Free, ad free, google free, gsf free, rated 4.7, 1M+ installs
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ru.andr7e.deviceinfohw>

My FOSS google play store client sets filters to only show such apps.
<https://i.postimg.cc/RF06HBB3/aurora05.jpg> Only high ratings & installs
<https://i.postimg.cc/RhpcFLbH/aurora16.jpg> Filter out all Google apps
<https://i.postimg.cc/PrvDyT8Y/aurora03.jpg> Spoof hardware & geolocation
<https://i.postimg.cc/SQ2DS1wd/aurora18.jpg> Spoof any device & OS version
<https://i.postimg.cc/V6tyDpNd/aurora17.jpg> Do NOT delete APK postinstall
<https://i.postimg.cc/7PdGfdQ6/aurora08.jpg> Save search filter settings

Such that the files are saved from Android directly to a drive on Windows.
<https://i.postimg.cc/cJK9rbjn/update03.jpg> APKs saved into Windows drive
<https://i.postimg.cc/Y0wQWVJn/update08.jpg> Android system on Windows

Although for some reason, moving from Android 11 to 12 removed hundreds!
<https://i.postimg.cc/FHJ16nvF/update01.jpg> Android 11->12 screwed up!
<https://i.postimg.cc/0QN3z96f/update13.jpg> Hundreds of apps are gone.

Where a few hundred apps did NOT get deleted (but even Zoom disappeared)
<https://i.postimg.cc/15m2YzgR/update15.jpg> Where did they go?
<https://i.postimg.cc/brtpv9T1/update17.jpg> Even Zoom disappeared!
<https://i.postimg.cc/fy7P3bJR/update18.jpg> Updates in 3 locations

Luckily Android is tied directly to Windows so you can slide them all back.
<https://i.postimg.cc/N0G1TXcZ/scrcpy01.jpg> Mirror Android on any PC
<https://i.postimg.cc/hjkVFyqJ/scrcpy07.jpg> Android mnt as drive letter
<https://i.postimg.cc/9FJMKYch/scrcpy21.jpg> Windows Drive: === Android
<https://i.postimg.cc/c4Wq5x9j/scrcpy22.jpg> Vysor IP address option

Even iOS is tied directly to Windows using the same tools Android does.
<https://i.postimg.cc/QNwjsCDM/vysor01.jpg> Vysor Android/iOS PC mirror

Where the Windows mouse & keyboard work over Wi-Fi to the Android phone.
<https://i.postimg.cc/mrz6gJpC/scrcpy23.jpg> Android SMS/MMS on Window

And you can just drag and drop an APK from Windows to Android over Wi-Fi.
<https://i.postimg.cc/wvsbcNBz/scrcpy05.jpg> Drag APK from Windows

So it\'s not hard to recover even with hundreds of apps gone AWOL.

But what you see here are the adfree hardware device info apps I suggest:
*DevCheck Hardware and System Info* by flar2
*Inware* by evowizz
*Device Info HW* by Andrey Efremov

 

[sms]

On 5/6/2022 7:53 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 6 May 2022 07:57:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com
wrote:

Interesting to see it born out in practice, but it is a known fact. Fast
charging heats up the battery and heat damages the battery, therefore fast
charging will reduce the battery life.

Nope, or at least not what I\'ve seen with my testing (and screwing
around). A few decades ago, I decided that NiCd cells would only
become warm if over charged past 100%. Well, I was off a little but
my thermocouple tests showed that up to about 75% of full charge, I
could literally charge the NiCd cell at whatever sky high rate I found
amusing. The problem was that if I missed and went over about 85% of
full charge at the ridiculous rates I was using, the cell would
generate enough gas and heat to blow the end out and generally make a
mess.

Ni-cad cells are less efficient when slow-charged (see
<https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-407-charging-nickel-cadmium>).

NiMH cells are best charged using the \"step-differential\" method (see
<https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-408-charging-nickel-metal-hydride>).

It seems like many people want to believe that slow-charging batteries
has some benefit in longevity and/or capacity, so you see statements
like \"it is a known fact...,\" even when the statements are really not true.

If the choice is only between a) \"fast charge at high-current to 100%
capacity\" versus b) slow-charge at low current to 100% capacity\" then
yes, slow charging is better, but that\'s not how modern smart phones, or
modern electric vehicles, with lithium-based batteries actually are charged.

 

[nospam]

In article <t53kkp$kjq$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Ni-cad cells are less efficient when slow-charged (see

your link states that the charge efficiency is better at faster rates,
not battery health. you\'re moving the goalposts, as usual.

also, nicad isn\'t used in consumer products anymore, nor are the
batteries even available (other than special purpose).

> NiMH cells are best charged using the \"step-differential\" method (see

step-differential is proof that fast charging can be a problem,
otherwise it wouldn\'t step down when it reaches a certain threshold.

although nimh is still used in some devices, it\'s nowhere near as
common as lithium ion, the topic of the thread.

you\'re grasping at straws.

It seems like many people want to believe that slow-charging batteries
has some benefit in longevity and/or capacity, so you see statements
like \"it is a known fact...,\" even when the statements are really not true.

it seems like you are trolling again.

If the choice is only between a) \"fast charge at high-current to 100%
capacity\" versus b) slow-charge at low current to 100% capacity\" then
yes, slow charging is better, but that\'s not how modern smart phones, or
modern electric vehicles, with lithium-based batteries actually are charged.

straw man.

 

[Wade Garrett]

On 5/6/22 11:43 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2022-05-06, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 5/6/2022 12:57 AM, Chris wrote:

snip

Interesting to see it born out in practice, but it is a known fact.
Fast charging heats up the battery and heat damages the battery,
therefore fast charging will reduce the battery life.

Actually there is no evidence that \"fast charging,\" at the rates we\'re
currently seeing on most phones, damages batteries.

Wrong. There\'s plenty of evidence that fast charging increases heat
which is damaging to batteries.

I worry about heat too. Wireless charging my iPhone on the Qi pad in my
car warms the phone...and more so if I leave it in its case.

And it warms even more if I also rest it on the sticky pad I sometimes
keep on the car\'s charge pad to prevent the phone from sliding when
turning corners.

--
There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the
sword, the other is by debt.
- John Adams

 

[Jolly Roger]

On 2022-05-06, Wade Garrett <Wade@cooler.net> wrote:

On 5/6/22 11:43 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2022-05-06, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 5/6/2022 12:57 AM, Chris wrote:

snip

Interesting to see it born out in practice, but it is a known fact.
Fast charging heats up the battery and heat damages the battery,
therefore fast charging will reduce the battery life.

Actually there is no evidence that \"fast charging,\" at the rates
we\'re currently seeing on most phones, damages batteries.

Wrong. There\'s plenty of evidence that fast charging increases heat
which is damaging to batteries.

I worry about heat too. Wireless charging my iPhone on the Qi pad in
my car warms the phone...and more so if I leave it in its case.

And it warms even more if I also rest it on the sticky pad I sometimes
keep on the car\'s charge pad to prevent the phone from sliding when
turning corners.

Quod sequitur. Wireless charging is generally less efficient than using
a physical connection, and the greater the distance between the coils,
the less efficient the transfer of energy is and the more heat gets
generated. A case will increase the distance and lessen the efficiency.

Since I use an old iPhone SE as a dash cam in my car, and I don\'t smoke,
I have a Lightning to USB charge cable semi-permanently connected to the
cigarette lighter port in the center console. So I just use that same
cable in the extremely rare instances I need to charge my daily-driver
iPhone in the car (can\'t actually remember the last time that was though
- probably on a road trip).

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

 

[sms]

On 5/6/2022 11:29 AM, Wade Garrett wrote:

On 5/6/22 11:43 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2022-05-06, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 5/6/2022 12:57 AM, Chris wrote:

snip

Interesting to see it born out in practice, but it is a known fact.
Fast charging heats up the battery and heat damages the battery,
therefore fast charging will reduce the battery life.

Actually there is no evidence that \"fast charging,\" at the rates we\'re
currently seeing on most phones, damages batteries.

Wrong. There\'s plenty of evidence that fast charging increases heat
which is damaging to batteries.

I worry about heat too. Wireless charging my iPhone on the Qi pad in my
car warms the phone...and more so if I leave it in its case.

And it warms even more if I also rest it on the sticky pad I sometimes
keep on the car\'s charge pad to prevent the phone from sliding when
turning corners.

Inductive charging is not the same as wired charging.

For wired charging, there is no downside to proper fast charging that
charges at a higher rate when the battery is very discharged then
reducing the charge rate as the battery fills.

From
<https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/does-fast-charging-affect-battery-life-6-phone-battery-questions-answered/>:

\"Unless there\'s some technical flaw with your battery or charger
electronics, however, using a fast charger won\'t do your phone\'s battery
any long-term damage.

Here\'s why. Fast-charging batteries work in two phases. The first phase
applies a blast of voltage to the empty or nearly empty battery. This
gives you that blazing charge of from 50% to 70% in the first 10, 15 or
30 minutes. That\'s because during the first phase of charging, batteries
can absorb a charge quickly without major negative effects on their
long-term health.\"

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 17:44:09 +0100, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Oops. Wrong app. The one I was using is:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.liuzh.deviceinfo

To add more to that suggestion, personally I install only apps that are GSF
free and that don\'t contain ads and which have high\'ish ratings & installs.

What\'s a GSF? All I could find was Golden State Foods.

My criteria for apps is no adds and the ability to do at least the one
thing that I need very well. I don\'t care about the rest.

>Although for some reason, moving from Android 11 to 12 removed hundreds!

Ummm... How many apps do you have on your Android phone? See:
Settings -> Apps and Notifications
and look for something like \"See all 202 apps\". Mine has 202 apps,
which I consider to be an overdose.

> <https://i.postimg.cc/FHJ16nvF/update01.jpg> Android 11->12 screwed up!

I\'m still on Android 11 and am now at end of life with the last
security update on Apr 22, 2022.
<https://motorola-global-portal.custhelp.com/app/software-security-page/g_id/6806#gs=eyJndWlkZUlEIjo2ODA2LCJxdWVzdGlvbklEIjo0LCJyZXNwb25zZUlEIjoyMSwiZ3VpZGVTZXNzaW9uIjoiSjFJZ2huRXAiLCJzZXNzaW9uSUQiOiJKMUlnaG5FcCJ9>
That\'s a 2 year useful life from date of Apr 2020 release. Part of
the problem is that Motorola has too many models to maintain:
\"Evolution of Motorola Moto G 2013 - 2021\"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8d2tUYjn0U>

>So it\'s not hard to recover even with hundreds of apps gone AWOL.

I would think that the Android 12 update did you a favor. Time for a
spring cleaning. Wipe everything and start over from scratch.

But what you see here are the adfree hardware device info apps I suggest:
*DevCheck Hardware and System Info* by flar2
*Inware* by evowizz
*Device Info HW* by Andrey Efremov

Ok, I\'ll give them a try but will probably add them to my \"run once\"
app collection. Thanks for including the author\'s name. Apps with
duplicated names are becoming all too common.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 10:07:35 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

On 5/6/2022 7:53 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2022 07:57:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com
wrote:

Interesting to see it born out in practice, but it is a known fact. Fast
charging heats up the battery and heat damages the battery, therefore fast
charging will reduce the battery life.

Nope, or at least not what I\'ve seen with my testing (and screwing
around). A few decades ago, I decided that NiCd cells would only
become warm if over charged past 100%. Well, I was off a little but
my thermocouple tests showed that up to about 75% of full charge, I
could literally charge the NiCd cell at whatever sky high rate I found
amusing. The problem was that if I missed and went over about 85% of
full charge at the ridiculous rates I was using, the cell would
generate enough gas and heat to blow the end out and generally make a
mess.

Ni-cad cells are less efficient when slow-charged (see
https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-407-charging-nickel-cadmium>).

\"Where does it say that on the URL you mentioned? All I find is:
To achieve a reliable voltage signature, the charge rate must be 0.5C
and higher. Slower charging produces a less defined voltage drop,
especially if the cells are mismatched in which case each cell reaches
full charge at a different time point.\"
In other words, the dip in terminal voltage that defines EOC
(end-of-charge) is less obvious for a slow charge than for a faster
charge. If the charge controller misses this dip, it could easily
overcharge the NiCd battery and ruin it. There\'s nothing in there
about \"efficiency\".

NiMH cells are best charged using the \"step-differential\" method (see
https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-408-charging-nickel-metal-hydride>).

I think we have different definitions of what is \"best\". From the
above URL:

\"Chargers utilizing the step-differential or other aggressive charge
methods achieve a capacity gain of about 6 percent over a more basic
charger. Although a higher capacity is desirable, filling the battery
to the brim adds stress and shortens the overall battery life. Rather
than achieving the expected 350 - 400 service cycles, the aggressive
charger might exhaust the pack after 300 cycles.\"

I read that as a 6% theoretical gain, at the cost of 100 service
cycles or about 30% of the useful life of the battery. As I vaguely
recall, the justification for step-differential charging was that it
was less likely to overcharge a battery when the battery was being
\"topped off\" near the EOC. The 30% loss of useful life was considered
justifiable compared to killing the battery from overcharging.

It seems like many people want to believe that slow-charging batteries
has some benefit in longevity and/or capacity, so you see statements
like \"it is a known fact...,\" even when the statements are really not true.

It is a known fact that most known facts are wrong.

Please note that until you brought up the term \"battery\", which means
more than one \"cell\", the discussion was about cell phones, which
currently favor one LiIon cell and do not use a \"battery\" of cells.
With a single cell, the complexities of a BMS (battery management
system), cell balancing, over/under voltage, over/under current, etc
are not quite as complexicated as with a battery of cells.

If the choice is only between a) \"fast charge at high-current to 100%
capacity\" versus b) slow-charge at low current to 100% capacity\" then
yes, slow charging is better, but that\'s not how modern smart phones, or
modern electric vehicles, with lithium-based batteries actually are charged.

True. Again, we started this discussion with single LiIon cells as
found in smartphones. It would be nice if your could limit the
discussion to this arrangement.

Note that the common dictionary definition of battery is \"consisting
of one or more cells\". It wasn\'t always like that, but since
literally everyone uses battery when they should be using call, the
official definition was mutilated to accommodate an expanded
definition.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[AJL]

On 5/6/2022 2:53 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Note that the common dictionary definition of battery is \"consisting
of one or more cells\". It wasn\'t always like that, but since
literally everyone uses battery when they should be using call, the
official definition was mutilated to accommodate an expanded
definition.

Language changes. Always has. Battery is a correct usage for cell phones
these days according to several dictionaries. Just as doing things you
really really enjoy makes you gay. Well at least it did in my youth...

 

[Phil Allison]

AJL wrote:
===========

Jeff Liebermann = pedant wrote:

Note that the common dictionary definition of battery is \"consisting
of one or more cells\". It wasn\'t always like that, but since
literally everyone uses battery when they should be using call, the
official definition was mutilated to accommodate an expanded
definition.

Language changes. Always has. Battery is a correct usage for cell phones
these days according to several dictionaries.

** That \"battery\" refers to one or more cells has been the norm for over 70 years.
Technical docs and people use the word \"cell\" to refer to one example or the particular type.
Not hard to accommodate both meanings.



...... Phil

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 16:43:41 +0100, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Please not that I didn\'t write the following quote, you did. Please
watch your attributions.

I am testing if it takes _longer_ to \"fast charge\" a phone if you
_frequently_ let the battery run down to zero - and it seems to be.

Why?

That\'s like asking a chemistry teacher why there\'s a chemistry lab.
Or asking a physics professor why she bothers to run the lab.
Or asking why a microbiology class bothers to grow bacterial cultures.

No, it\'s not. I guess I should be more specific. I would like to
know why you find it necessary to test a LiIon cell in a charge range
of zero to 20%, where literally every recommendation by the
manufacturers declare that to be an RBI (really bad idea)? Looks that
specs for any BMS (battery management system) found inside most LiIon
battery packs. There is a feature that literally disconnects the cell
if the terminal voltage goes below some value which usually works out
to about 20% charge. Maybe this will help you understand the problem
you\'re creating for yourself:
\"Lithium Ion Cell Operating Window\"
<https://www.mpoweruk.com/lithium_failures.htm>
Notice that the \"operating area\" is between 20% and 90% SOC.

>So it\'s not just me who is curious what happens in the real world.

Yes, but you are not the entire real world. Your currently
undisclosed operating criteria is not the same as every user and
certainly not the same as the cell phone manufacturer. The
manufacturer wants big numbers because big number sell phones.
Whatever it takes to produce big numbers balanced by cost and safety
issues. Big numbers are rather useless if the phone catches fire in
the owners pocket. So, the game of battery specmanship degenerates
into squeezing as many watt-hours out of the battery as possible by
any means deemed economical (and maybe reliable). Do it wrong, and
you have a situation like Apple, where the phone had to be slowed down
to produce a reasonable runtime as the battery aged. At that point,
the user gets involved and tries to squeeze out as much power as
possible. However, they can\'t because the manufacturer has already
done that with a complexicated BMS algorithm. So the user looks to
see what can be gained by breaking the safety rules. Good luck. If
you are actually able to run the phone at extremely low SOC, then the
manufacturer has screwed up and is selling an unsafe phone, battery,
or both. What phone and battery are you using and I\'ll be sure to
blacklist it.

I\'ve always been curious about the best way to do almost any thing.
And destructive testing is a fantastic way to figure out what really
happens in the real world under real world conditions, even as you can\'t
hope to run a \"consumers report\" style full-fledged scientific
investigation with basic home equipment.

Please note my domain name, LearnByDestroying.com. The intent is
slightly different from yours. It\'s my contention that one does not
understand how something works without first breaking it, and
subsequently fixing it. Destructive testing, without subsequent
understanding (and enlightenment) is useless.

>Still... I try to learn... and destructive testing is part of learning.

It\'s a tiny part but admittedly the fun part. It\'s lots of fun to
blow things up. It\'s less fun, but more educational to understand how
the device you just destroyed functions. When you destroy something
(like your phone battery), do you take or record measurements? Do you
record a video for an instant replay? Have you worked out in advance
what you expect to happen? Do you look for anomalies? Do you own a
data logger? How would blowing up a cell phone battery demonstrate
anything if you don\'t know at what voltage (or SOC) and temperature it
blew up? Did you put a plastic bag over the phone to capture any
gasses (and flying glass) produced? Do you have a new battery or
phone available for comparisons? Without these, all you\'ve \"learned\"
is how to blow up a battery or phone.

>When I was a kid, my dad kept a box of old \"stuff\" for me to take apart.

Hint: I still act like I\'m kid. I even take things apart BEFORE I
try operating them.

>Why does anyone run any experiment?

Usually because they are suspicious of the established theories of
operation and have reason to suspect that parts of the theories are
wrong or badly understood.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[sms]

On 5/6/2022 2:53 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

\"Where does it say that on the URL you mentioned? All I find is:
To achieve a reliable voltage signature, the charge rate must be 0.5C
and higher. Slower charging produces a less defined voltage drop,
especially if the cells are mismatched in which case each cell reaches
full charge at a different time point.\"

\"Fast charging improves the charge efficiency. At 1C charge rate, the
efficiency of a standard NiCd is 91 percent and the charge time is about
an hour (66 minutes at 91 percent). On a slow charger, the efficiency
drops to 71 percent, prolonging the charge time to about 14 hours at 0.1C.\"

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 15:04:21 -0700, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

On 5/6/2022 2:53 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Note that the common dictionary definition of battery is \"consisting
of one or more cells\". It wasn\'t always like that, but since
literally everyone uses battery when they should be using call, the
official definition was mutilated to accommodate an expanded
definition.

Language changes. Always has. Battery is a correct usage for cell phones
these days according to several dictionaries. Just as doing things you
really really enjoy makes you gay. Well at least it did in my youth...

The original definition of battery referred to a collection of
artillery for military purposes.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_battery>
\"Historically the term \"battery\" referred to a cluster of cannon in
action as a group, either in a temporary field position during a
battle or at the siege of a fortress or a city.\"

Ok. Let\'s say you have exactly one cannon. Would you call it a
\"battery\"? Or would you call it a \"battery of cannon\"? Methinks not.
So why would you call a single cell, as found in a cell phone, a
\"battery\"?

What do you call a collection of cells? A gallery of cells such as
celery?

Drivel:
One mouse, two mice.
One house, two hice?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Wade Garrett]

On 5/6/22 2:44 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:

On 2022-05-06, Wade Garrett <Wade@cooler.net> wrote:
On 5/6/22 11:43 AM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2022-05-06, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 5/6/2022 12:57 AM, Chris wrote:

snip

Interesting to see it born out in practice, but it is a known fact.
Fast charging heats up the battery and heat damages the battery,
therefore fast charging will reduce the battery life.

Actually there is no evidence that \"fast charging,\" at the rates
we\'re currently seeing on most phones, damages batteries.

Wrong. There\'s plenty of evidence that fast charging increases heat
which is damaging to batteries.

I worry about heat too. Wireless charging my iPhone on the Qi pad in
my car warms the phone...and more so if I leave it in its case.

And it warms even more if I also rest it on the sticky pad I sometimes
keep on the car\'s charge pad to prevent the phone from sliding when
turning corners.

Quod sequitur. Wireless charging is generally less efficient than using
a physical connection, and the greater the distance between the coils,
the less efficient the transfer of energy is and the more heat gets
generated. A case will increase the distance and lessen the efficiency.

Since I use an old iPhone SE as a dash cam in my car, and I don\'t smoke,
I have a Lightning to USB charge cable semi-permanently connected to the
cigarette lighter port in the center console. So I just use that same
cable in the extremely rare instances I need to charge my daily-driver
iPhone in the car (can\'t actually remember the last time that was though
- probably on a road trip).

Just curious- do you leave the phone sitting on the dash when parking
the car in the street or parking lot?

--
If an old dude ever gives you advice while peeling an apple with a
pocket knife and eating the pieces right off the blade, you should
probably take it.

 

[AJL]

On 5/6/2022 3:43 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 6 May 2022 15:04:21 -0700, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

On 5/6/2022 2:53 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Note that the common dictionary definition of battery is
\"consisting of one or more cells\". It wasn\'t always like that,
but since literally everyone uses battery when they should be
using call, the official definition was mutilated to accommodate
an expanded definition.

Language changes. Always has. Battery is a correct usage for cell
phones these days according to several dictionaries. Just as doing
things you really really enjoy makes you gay. Well at least it did
in my youth...

The original definition of battery referred to a collection of
artillery for military purposes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery_battery> \"Historically the
term \"battery\" referred to a cluster of cannon in action as a group,
either in a temporary field position during a battle or at the siege
of a fortress or a city.\"

And the original definition of gay was happy. I repeat, language
changes. Dictionaries usually give the current meaning, though they
sometimes disagree as well.

Ok. Let\'s say you have exactly one cannon. Would you call it a
\"battery\"? Or would you call it a \"battery of cannon\"?

I\'d call it a cannon. That\'s current usage. Language is not always
logical...

Methinks not. So why would you call a single cell, as found in a cell
phone, a \"battery\"?

Because it\'s the current common usage.

> What do you call a collection of cells?

A battery. My 9 volt battery contains a collection of cells. Likewise my
car battery. Current usage...

> A gallery of cells such as celery?

That may be the usage someday, you never know... 8-O

> Drivel: One mouse, two mice. One house, two hice?

One Usenet post is a post, several Usenet posts are a fence??

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 6 May 2022 15:42:02 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

On 5/6/2022 2:53 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

snip

\"Where does it say that on the URL you mentioned? All I find is:
To achieve a reliable voltage signature, the charge rate must be 0.5C
and higher. Slower charging produces a less defined voltage drop,
especially if the cells are mismatched in which case each cell reaches
full charge at a different time point.\"

\"Fast charging improves the charge efficiency. At 1C charge rate, the
efficiency of a standard NiCd is 91 percent and the charge time is about
an hour (66 minutes at 91 percent). On a slow charger, the efficiency
drops to 71 percent, prolonging the charge time to about 14 hours at 0.1C.\"

Oops. I missed that part. However, it\'s still wrong. 1C is a fast
charge for a NiCD. 0.1C is a normal charge rate. 0.05C to 0.1C is a
trickle charge:
<https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/electronic_components/battery-technology/nicad-nicd-nickel-cadmium-recharging.php>
\"Normally cells are charged at a rate of around C/10.\"

C/10 is maintained to where the NiCd is charged to about 70% SOC:
\"It is found that during the first stage of charging, up to about 70%
of full charge, the charging process is nearly 100% efficient. After
this it falls.\"

So, C/10 is considered a normal charge.

\"It is found that a fast charge for NiCd cells also improves charge
efficiency. At a 1C charge rate, the overall charge efficiency of a
standard NiCd is about 90%\"

So, 1C is considered a fast charge.

That leaves a trickle charge:
\"This trickle charge can be achieved safely by applying a small
current to the cell or cells at a level between about 0.05C and 0.1C.\"

So, 0.05C and 0.1C are considered a trickle.

Incidentally, my NiCd fast charge testing was mostly done at 10C with
ocassional excursions up to 25C. Using 800ma-hr AA NiCd cells, 25C is
20Amps charge current.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Phil Allison]

sms wrote:
===========
>
\" Ni-cad cells are less efficient when slow-charged (see
<https://batteryuniversity.com/article/bu-407-charging-nickel-cadmium>).\"

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

\"Where does it say that on the URL you mentioned? All I find is:
To achieve a reliable voltage signature, the charge rate must be 0.5C
and higher. Slower charging produces a less defined voltage drop,
especially if the cells are mismatched in which case each cell reaches
full charge at a different time point.\"

\"Fast charging improves the charge efficiency.

** Shame that is NOT what YOU wrote earlier.

snip, snip snip snip ......


...... Phil

 

[nospam]

In article <t53ssf$ogt$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

For wired charging, there is no downside to proper fast charging that
charges at a higher rate when the battery is very discharged then
reducing the charge rate as the battery fills.

false.

<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/12/211202153918.htm>
When a battery is charged too quickly, however, intercalation
becomes a trickier business. Instead of smoothly getting into the
graphite, the lithium ions tend to aggregate on top of the anode\'s
surface, resulting in a \"plating\" effect that can cause terminal
damage -- no pun intended -- to a battery.
....
\"The faster we charge our battery, the more atomically disordered
the anode will become, which will ultimately prevent the lithium ions
from being able to move back and forth,\" Abraham said. \"The key
is to find ways to either prevent this loss of organization or to
somehow modify the graphite particles so that the lithium ions can
intercalate more efficiently.\"

<https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/fast-charging-can-damage-elect
ric-car-batteries-in-just-25-cycles>
Fast-charging of electric batteries can ruin their capacity after
just 25 charges, researchers have said, after they ran experiments
on batteries used in some popular electric cars.

....

Here\'s why. Fast-charging batteries work in two phases. The first phase
applies a blast of voltage to the empty or nearly empty battery. This
gives you that blazing charge of from 50% to 70% in the first 10, 15 or
30 minutes. That\'s because during the first phase of charging, batteries
can absorb a charge quickly without major negative effects on their
long-term health.\"

\'without major negative effects\' is very different than *no* negative
effects.

 

[nospam]

In article <9t2b7hpv47g0flnoi6uu0uemaupkfkil47@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

To add more to that suggestion, personally I install only apps that are GSF
free and that don\'t contain ads and which have high\'ish ratings & installs.

What\'s a GSF? All I could find was Golden State Foods.

google services framework