[Truth][Dev info] Do You Know What's in Your Battery -[Pics] Current Protection Chips

tonwarr.the.incredible · Jan 15, 2011

xHausx said:
Those chips are more of a fail safe than over charge protection, it's like a fuse in case something goes very very wrong.

If you read the article below you will see how it is still possible to overcharge the battery.

http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries

I don't care about any current information out there. I'm still gonna run SBC until either my phone melts into a puddle of plastic or it explodes and takes me with it...lol...I've seen you post the same things on several different threads but believe the boundaries of technology are going to be pushed/tested for the benefit of the community. I may not have the "facts" but I've had no problems so I'm going to carry on.

Thank you for your concern though.

xHausx · Jan 15, 2011

tonwarr.the.incredible said:
I don't care about any current information out there. I'm still gonna run SBC until either my phone melts into a puddle of plastic or it explodes and takes me with it...lol...I've seen you post the same things on several different threads but believe the boundaries of technology are going to be pushed/tested for the benefit of the community. I may not have the "facts" but I've had no problems so I'm going to carry on. Thank you for your concern though.

Thats fine, I'm not going to try to stop you. I'm just wondering why you felt the need to tell me that when my reply was directed towards someone else who had a valid question?

To be honest I'm not concerned about you

tonwarr.the.incredible · Jan 15, 2011

xHausx said:
Thats fine, I'm not going to try to stop you. I'm just wondering why you felt the need to tell me that when my reply was directed towards someone else who had a valid question?

To be honest I'm not concerned about you

Because, frankly, I'm sick of seeing you naysayers posting this dribble trying to discredit the hard work of many here on XDA! Information should only be taken at face value because for every article that makes one claim, another will say the opposite! Anyways, good luck with your crusade sir...lol

xHausx · Jan 15, 2011

tonwarr.the.incredible said:
Because, frankly, I'm sick of seeing you naysayers posting this dribble trying to discredit the hard work of many here on XDA! Information should only be taken at face value because for every article that makes one claim, another will say the opposite! Anyways, good luck with your crusade sir...lol

Well bud, there are facts and then there are your claims. If someone asks a question I assume they want to know the truth and not what someones biased opinion is. I'm not on here to discredit anyone's "hard work" but this has the potential to do more than brick someone's phone so I will correct them when they lie to people.

You know if people would quit putting posting about things they know nothing about then none of this would be necessary.

mlin · Jan 15, 2011

xHausx said:
Those chips are more of a fail safe than over charge protection, it's like a fuse in case something goes very very wrong.

If you read the article below you will see how it is still possible to overcharge the battery.

http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries

It seems that from this statement:

"Commercial lithium ion packs contain a protection circuits that limit the charge voltage to 4.30V/cell, 0.10 volts higher than the voltage threshold of the charger. Temperature sensing disconnects the charge if the cell temperature approaches 90°C (194°F), and a mechanical pressure switch on many cells permanently interrupt the current path if a safe pressure threshold is exceeded."

From that same article that overcharging occurs above 4.3 V and that through Li ion tech and charger design that there are many failsafes to PREVENT this from happening.

Besides, overcharging isn't the claimed issue, its maintenance of voltage above a certain threshold.

On another note, I have been comparing the charging habits with the latest CM kernel vs the SBC kernels and I have noticed that the maintained voltage level as reported by Battery Monitoring Widget as almost identical between the two kernels. What differes is that the CM kernel will allow dischargind (not seemingly enough to drop voltage, and also for short periods of time (<5min)), while the SBC kernel seems to never discharge, though gradually approaches 0 mA while maintaining the same level of voltage.

bisby · Jan 15, 2011

nabbed said:
Not impossible.

Collect all reports of battery failures since the Evo launch. Then try to correlate these events with the use of SBC kernels.

Correlation does not make something 100% true. By that argument, 100% of the fire-phones are EVO's. So we can conclude that the EVO is a fiery deathtrap.

Since we don't have access to the fire-phones pre-fire. We have no proof that it was SBC that caused it. Not saying that SBC isn't dangerous. It may cause fires. But these 6 examples aren't necessarily caused by SBC.

I have a BS in EE. I get the difference in voltage and current. I'd put SBC dangers at "likely" based solely on the brief physics explaination despite the fact that I have no idea about how these charging algorithms work (I haven't used or looked into SBC at all).
However, I also understand probablity and statistics. We already said that theres no where near 60,000 SBC users... so the sample size is going to be quite small. Correlations at this point may be just very odd probability.
PROVING the potential dangers of SBC are going to be based on physics and engineering.

The "the truth must be known" argument goes both ways. It's dumb to argue "This kernel is 100% guaranteed safe" for more reasons just beyond this possible way to damage batteries. However, its also dumb to argue "omg this kernel will 100% destroy your phone". Allowing the user to make an informed decision is important, presenting it in a fear-mongering way is not.
Airplanes crash, its part of real life... And therefore on EVERY flight (in america anyway) they are required to go over emergency procedures before the plane takes off. Its presented in a "hey, this can and DOES happen" way. not a "hey, this is GOING to happen" way.

tonwarr.the.incredible · Jan 15, 2011

xHausx said:
Well bud, there are facts and then there are your claims. If someone asks a question I assume they want to know the truth and not what someones biased opinion is. I'm not on here to discredit anyone's "hard work" but this has the potential to do more than brick someone's phone so I will correct them when they lie to people.

You know if people would quit putting posting about things they know nothing about then none of this would be necessary.

Lol.... today's fact is tomorrow's fiction, it's just one great idea away!

tonwarr.the.incredible · Jan 15, 2011

bisby said:
Correlation does not make something 100% true. By that argument, 100% of the fire-phones are EVO's. So we can conclude that the EVO is a fiery deathtrap.

Since we don't have access to the fire-phones pre-fire. We have no proof that it was SBC that caused it. Not saying that SBC isn't dangerous. It may cause fires. But these 6 examples aren't necessarily caused by SBC.

I have a BS in EE. I get the difference in voltage and current. I'd put SBC dangers at "likely" based solely on the brief physics explaination despite the fact that I have no idea about how these charging algorithms work (I haven't used or looked into SBC at all).
However, I also understand probablity and statistics. We already said that theres no where near 60,000 SBC users... so the sample size is going to be quite small. Correlations at this point may be just very odd probability.
PROVING the potential dangers of SBC are going to be based on physics and engineering.

The "the truth must be known" argument goes both ways. It's dumb to argue "This kernel is 100% guaranteed safe" for more reasons just beyond this possible way to damage batteries. However, its also dumb to argue "omg this kernel will 100% destroy your phone". Allowing the user to make an informed decision is important, presenting it in a fear-mongering way is not.
Airplanes crash, its part of real life... And therefore on EVERY flight (in america anyway) they are required to go over emergency procedures before the plane takes off. Its presented in a "hey, this can and DOES happen" way. not a "hey, this is GOING to happen" way.

That is essentially how I feel without the technical knowledge to back it up... not saying something couldn't go wrong but until I'm proven wrong, I'll take my chances. I'd rather get my money's worth out of my extended life battery since, without SBC or an external charger, I'd never get a full charge and therefore would have wasted my hard-earned money...

MikeOD · Jan 15, 2011

I'm just curious...has anyone ever watched how a Touch Pro 2 charges it's battery...is it different than the way the Evo handles it?...it's the same battery.

I wonder because, my TP2, would charge to 100%, and would slowly tick down 99 98 97 and so on through the day off the charger...the Evo does the same with SBC and without SBC automatically drops quite a bit off 100 immediately.