Use of The Old Battery

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Today, I received my first laptop replacement battery. I've been using the
new battery actively for the past 50 minutes, and the meter reports 1.5
hours left.

My orignal battery is 1.75 years old, and has gone down to a useful time of
about 40 minutes per charge. Should I retain that battery for some extra
battery time if needed? Will it retain that charge for long, etc?

--
Tom McCune
My PGP Page & FAQ: http/www.McCune.cc/PGP.htm

 

[Charlie]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:43:47 GMT, Tom McCune
<news1@DELETE_THISmccune.cc> wrote:

>Today, I received my first laptop replacement battery. I've been using the
>new battery actively for the past 50 minutes, and the meter reports 1.5
>hours left.
>
>My orignal battery is 1.75 years old, and has gone down to a useful time of
>about 40 minutes per charge. Should I retain that battery for some extra
>battery time if needed? Will it retain that charge for long, etc?

I'd keep it for those time when you intend to be "mainly" using the AC
line. some of us believe that constantle leaving the battery inserted
when on AC will eventually ruin it..... others consider it a safety
factor (like when the AC fails), so why endanger the new one.
---
Charlie Hoffpauir
http/freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Charlie <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in
news:4tjvq0der4is1e0mis909ahhq8593ngevl@4ax.com:

> I'd keep it for those time when you intend to be "mainly" using the AC
> line. some of us believe that constantle leaving the battery inserted
> when on AC will eventually ruin it..... others consider it a safety
> factor (like when the AC fails), so why endanger the new one.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I had never before removed the battery, so having it last for 1.75 years,
with extended use seems pretty good to me. Perhaps why my experience seems
so much better than what some others report, is that I always lower the
display when away from the laptop (unless doing something that actually
needs it to be left running), and that places it in standby.

--
Tom McCune
My PGP Page & FAQ: http/www.McCune.cc/PGP.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

1.75 years is terrible. These batteries can last 5-10 years (I have
several that were made in 1997 that are still giving 2 hours of
service). And most of the newere batteries cost over $200. Your
experience, in fact, suggests that you did precisely what Charlie says;
that is, you "ruined" the battery by leaving it in all the time when you
were on AC power.

Lowering the display has nothing to do with it.


Tom McCune wrote:

> Charlie <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in
> news:4tjvq0der4is1e0mis909ahhq8593ngevl@4ax.com:
>
>
>>I'd keep it for those time when you intend to be "mainly" using the AC
>>line. some of us believe that constantle leaving the battery inserted
>>when on AC will eventually ruin it..... others consider it a safety
>>factor (like when the AC fails), so why endanger the new one.
>
>
> Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> I had never before removed the battery, so having it last for 1.75 years,
> with extended use seems pretty good to me. Perhaps why my experience seems
> so much better than what some others report, is that I always lower the
> display when away from the laptop (unless doing something that actually
> needs it to be left running), and that places it in standby.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:41AFE968.2040409@neo.rr.com...
> 1.75 years is terrible. These batteries can last 5-10 years (I have
> several that were made in 1997 that are still giving 2 hours of
> service). And most of the newere batteries cost over $200. Your
> experience, in fact, suggests that you did precisely what Charlie says;
> that is, you "ruined" the battery by leaving it in all the time when you
> were on AC power.
>

If the laptop has a proper charge management circuit, this should never
happen as the charge should reduce to a trickle when the battery is fully
charged.

Note: that if your laptop has a Li-ion type battery, you can leave it
connected and on AC power permanently. If this type of battery were to be
overcharged, it would make the fact known by erupting in a huge ball of
flame.

Ian.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Charlie wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:43:47 GMT, Tom McCune
> <news1@DELETE_THISmccune.cc> wrote:
>
>> Today, I received my first laptop replacement battery. I've been
>> using the new battery actively for the past 50 minutes, and the
>> meter reports 1.5 hours left.
>>
>> My orignal battery is 1.75 years old, and has gone down to a useful
>> time of about 40 minutes per charge. Should I retain that battery
>> for some extra battery time if needed? Will it retain that charge
>> for long, etc?
>
> I'd keep it for those time when you intend to be "mainly" using the AC
> line. some of us believe that constantle leaving the battery inserted
> when on AC will eventually ruin it..... others consider it a safety
> factor (like when the AC fails), so why endanger the new one.
> ---

That's a good idea, BUT...the battery's already deteriorating, and is likely
to be completely shot by the time you actually need it.

jak

> Charlie Hoffpauir
> http/freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:41AFE968.2040409
@neo.rr.com:

> 1.75 years is terrible. These batteries can last 5-10 years (I have
> several that were made in 1997 that are still giving 2 hours of
> service). And most of the newere batteries cost over $200. Your
> experience, in fact, suggests that you did precisely what Charlie says;
> that is, you "ruined" the battery by leaving it in all the time when you
> were on AC power.

I have read a great deal on this, and nearly everything says to expect the
battery to last about one year. Even new, it lasted for not much more than
two hours (using multiple applications and WiFi). For that first year, I
was exhausting it two or three times daily. The cost from Dell for the
replacement is $75.

> Lowering the display has nothing to do with it.

That is how I place the laptop in standby. When in standby, there is not
significant heat generation, which is often part of such theory.

--
Tom McCune
My PGP Page & FAQ: http/www.McCune.cc/PGP.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Are you really so certain it was his actions that caused such short battery
life, and not some change in battery technology or manufacturing between the
time that you bought yours in 97 and he bought his last year?


"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:41AFE968.2040409@neo.rr.com...
> 1.75 years is terrible. These batteries can last 5-10 years (I have
> several that were made in 1997 that are still giving 2 hours of service).
> And most of the newere batteries cost over $200. Your experience, in
> fact, suggests that you did precisely what Charlie says; that is, you
> "ruined" the battery by leaving it in all the time when you were on AC
> power.
>
> Lowering the display has nothing to do with it.
>
>
> Tom McCune wrote:
>
>> Charlie <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in
>> news:4tjvq0der4is1e0mis909ahhq8593ngevl@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>I'd keep it for those time when you intend to be "mainly" using the AC
>>>line. some of us believe that constantle leaving the battery inserted
>>>when on AC will eventually ruin it..... others consider it a safety
>>>factor (like when the AC fails), so why endanger the new one.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion.
>>
>> I had never before removed the battery, so having it last for 1.75 years,
>> with extended use seems pretty good to me. Perhaps why my experience
>> seems so much better than what some others report, is that I always lower
>> the display when away from the laptop (unless doing something that
>> actually needs it to be left running), and that places it in standby.
>>

 

[budgie]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:33:17 -0000, "Electrik Fan Club"
<ian.shorrocks@baeyourclothessystems.com> wrote:

>
>"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:41AFE968.2040409@neo.rr.com...
>> 1.75 years is terrible. These batteries can last 5-10 years (I have
>> several that were made in 1997 that are still giving 2 hours of
>> service). And most of the newere batteries cost over $200. Your
>> experience, in fact, suggests that you did precisely what Charlie says;
>> that is, you "ruined" the battery by leaving it in all the time when you
>> were on AC power.
>>
>
>If the laptop has a proper charge management circuit, this should never
>happen as the charge should reduce to a trickle when the battery is fully
>charged.
>
>Note: that if your laptop has a Li-ion type battery, you can leave it
>connected and on AC power permanently. If this type of battery were to be
>overcharged, it would make the fact known by erupting in a huge ball of
>flame.

Close to correct. Most "intelligent" Li-Ion chargers in fact terminate charge
completely once the charge current drops to a predetermined percentage of
current limit figure. However all bets are off if the machine load is seen by
the pack while charging.

The main causes of Li-Ion pack deterioration are "wear and tear" (i.e.
charge/discharge cycles) and heat. As more and more functionality and computing
grunt are packed into tighter and tighter packages, it becomes progressively
harder for a manuafctiurer to keep the battery bay area cool in a running
machine.

If the O/P was doing 2+ charge/discharge cycles/day he's had good value at 1.75
years. Of course if this was cycles when the AC supply was available but not
used then the O/P can now do a cost/benefit analysis on using battery under such
circumstances.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Barry Watzman wrote:
> 1.75 years is terrible. These batteries can last 5-10 years (I have
> several that were made in 1997 that are still giving 2 hours of
> service). And most of the newere batteries cost over $200. Your
> experience, in fact, suggests that you did precisely what Charlie says;
> that is, you "ruined" the battery by leaving it in all the time when you
> were on AC power.
>
> Lowering the display has nothing to do with it.

A laptop battery made in 1997 is most likely using Nickel technology,
and that experience cannot be compared here.

All LiIon batteries fade within 2 years due to oxidation of the
electrodes. There's plenty of research available (try www.cadex.com for
starters, www.batteryuniversity.com is really good) documenting this
fact. LiIon batteries will die over time regardless of usage patterns.
Of course, an excessive number of charge cycles might accelerate their
death, but no usage pattern will extend their useful life.

--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
http/www.symas.com http/highlandsun.com/hyc
Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support

 

[budgie]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:37:10 -0800, Howard Chu <XYZ.hyc@highlandsun.com> wrote:

>Barry Watzman wrote:
>> 1.75 years is terrible. These batteries can last 5-10 years (I have
>> several that were made in 1997 that are still giving 2 hours of
>> service). And most of the newere batteries cost over $200. Your
>> experience, in fact, suggests that you did precisely what Charlie says;
>> that is, you "ruined" the battery by leaving it in all the time when you
>> were on AC power.
>>
>> Lowering the display has nothing to do with it.
>
>A laptop battery made in 1997 is most likely using Nickel technology,
>and that experience cannot be compared here.

I don't know the basis for that assumption. I have a pair of Acer laptops that
were dual battery technology, and the current Li-Ion battery in one of them is
date-coded 9637 - that's about early September '96.

>All LiIon batteries fade within 2 years due to oxidation of the
>electrodes. There's plenty of research available (try www.cadex.com for
>starters, www.batteryuniversity.com is really good) documenting this
>fact.

Oh, OK - so on your say-so I should just throw out my '96 model that is still
delivering over 2 hours (vs the 3 when new)? Not going to happen.

>LiIon batteries will die over time regardless of usage patterns.

But not as fast as you and some others claim, obviously. And my experience is
far from an orphan. There are many users (who have posted here in the past) to
testify to that.

>Of course, an excessive number of charge cycles might accelerate their
>death, but no usage pattern will extend their useful life.

The clearly if my usage pattern hasn't extended their useful life, we must
presume that their useful life is about a decade.

I think your whole line of argument needs tossing on its head.

1. The "useful life" of half-decent Li-Ion must be approaching a decade (or you
can't explain the experiences of myself and others).

2. The usage pattern is the biggest single determinant of the actual useful
life a user will get. They wear out with cycles, and they degrade with heat in
the machine. Period.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

While most 1997 laptop batteries were NiMH, I was specifically referring
to Toshiba 2487 batteries, which are most definitely Lithium Ion. They
were used in the Satellite 400 series computers in 1997, and the same
battery was used in new computers still being built in 2003
(specifically, the 1400 and 2400 series). It's possible that it's still
being used in some current production today. That battery has been
amazing, there are very few batteries that have been used in production
over a seven year range.

[What is basically the same battery has been sold as both the 2487 and
the 3107, and it's been made in capacities from 3200mah to 4500mah]


budgie wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:37:10 -0800, Howard Chu <XYZ.hyc@highlandsun.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Barry Watzman wrote:
>>
>>>1.75 years is terrible. These batteries can last 5-10 years (I have
>>>several that were made in 1997 that are still giving 2 hours of
>>>service). And most of the newere batteries cost over $200. Your
>>>experience, in fact, suggests that you did precisely what Charlie says;
>>>that is, you "ruined" the battery by leaving it in all the time when you
>>>were on AC power.
>>>
>>>Lowering the display has nothing to do with it.
>>
>>A laptop battery made in 1997 is most likely using Nickel technology,
>>and that experience cannot be compared here.
>
>
> I don't know the basis for that assumption. I have a pair of Acer laptops that
> were dual battery technology, and the current Li-Ion battery in one of them is
> date-coded 9637 - that's about early September '96.
>
>
>>All LiIon batteries fade within 2 years due to oxidation of the
>>electrodes. There's plenty of research available (try www.cadex.com for
>>starters, www.batteryuniversity.com is really good) documenting this
>>fact.
>
>
> Oh, OK - so on your say-so I should just throw out my '96 model that is still
> delivering over 2 hours (vs the 3 when new)? Not going to happen.
>
>
>>LiIon batteries will die over time regardless of usage patterns.
>
>
> But not as fast as you and some others claim, obviously. And my experience is
> far from an orphan. There are many users (who have posted here in the past) to
> testify to that.
>
>
>>Of course, an excessive number of charge cycles might accelerate their
>>death, but no usage pattern will extend their useful life.
>
>
> The clearly if my usage pattern hasn't extended their useful life, we must
> presume that their useful life is about a decade.
>
> I think your whole line of argument needs tossing on its head.
>
> 1. The "useful life" of half-decent Li-Ion must be approaching a decade (or you
> can't explain the experiences of myself and others).
>
> 2. The usage pattern is the biggest single determinant of the actual useful
> life a user will get. They wear out with cycles, and they degrade with heat in
> the machine. Period.