@DesElms - You're coming across as rude, condescending, and insulting in some cases. Best watch how you say what you're saying. You can say pretty much anything you want if you say it correctly (within in the confines of the rules of course). I'm pretty sure this is why people are taking issue with what you're saying.
I think you need to go back through the history of my postings in this place and see how I'm routinely reacted to; and how I never give it back until and unless it's thrown at me, first; and if you truly take the time to do what I just suggested, you'll see that it normally takes almost nothing to make it get thrown at me, first. If you cannot recognize a sort of culture, around here, of generally resenting expertise -- especially when it's coming from an old man like me (and so, ageism is rampant, here, as well) -- then perhaps you're not paying as much attention as you think. Seriously, go back through my history of posts here... with an open mind, I mean. Consider it
all, in context.
@DesElms - Your seven step process is bump charging. I don't care what other people have told you. It is.
No, it isn't... at least not with regard to the kind of damage you're saying "bump charging" can cause. "Bump charging," in order to be harmful, must be habitual. If one drives drunk only once, then, yes, technically he drove drunk that once; and so was a drunk driver, that once. But it's functionally and fairly inaccurate to then characterize him as a "drunk driver," just generally (and, by the way, I'm a charter member of a
MADD chapter from way back in '83; and so I don't condone drunk driving... nor have ever done it... I'm merely using the labeling of it to make a point). It all turns on characterization, borne of habit.
A mechanic repairing an engine will do all manner of things to it, to test, or to achieve a setting, etc., which should never be done routinely or habitually... like, for example, goosing the engine beyond redline for a moment or something. Only if such things are done habitually will they cause harm. And only if it were done habitually would it be fair to characterize it as "redlining" of the sort that can cause damage. Nothing about what I prescribed was habitual; and so it is simply not correct to characterize the procedure as "bump charging" any more than it would be accurate to characterize what the mechanic does as "redlining"... at least -- and, again, this is the critical part -- not in the habitual sort of way that's absolutely essential in order for such as eiither redlining or bump charging to be harmful.
It's harmful to give your dog arsenic, too, but there are several pet medicines for various parasite infestations which use precisely that. And ask any oncologist: One need nearly kill the patient in order to kill the cancer. Should we, then, not do it, anyway, just because the process involves harm?
As with all things in life, it's about reasonableness and moderation. Go back and read what I originally herein wrote: It's about nothing
but moderation and resonableness. I'm prescribing the procedure
one time for a battery only after its initial insertion into the phone; and then not again until and unless it has subsequently been removed from the phone, such that its electrical connection to said phone is broken, and then re-established by reinsertion into said phone... be said reinsetion immediately, or weeks or months later. I further prescribed using any given battery for only three straight months (having, during that time, gone through the procedure only once, when it was first installed), and then swapping it out with another battery (which also endures the procedure only once when it's first inserted), and then letting the removed battery sort of "rest" for three months; and repeating that swapping/recalibrating procedure all year long so that each battery ends-up enduring the procedure only twice per year... at least ideally. Granted, if the phone is battery-removal/power-reset because it froze, or something; and if the battery is then recalibrated upon its reinsertion, then, yes, it ends-up happening more often; but if that's the case, then the reason for the phone's freezing needs to be fixed first: battery-removal-resetting is a workaround, and workarounds have no place in sound device usage.
Look at my signature on the desktop and tell me that I don't have access to specifically the types of engineers that would know.
Then bygod
produce one, and let's finally put an end to all this speculation, once and for all. I think you've gotten so used to most of the posters, here, not really being technological heavyweights that you just assume none of them could possibly be. I am one. Until you can produce someone to prove that wrong, how 'bout I get the benefit of the doubt. Lord knows I've earned it; and note that I use my real name and location on this planet; and mine is the first website that shows-up in Google search results on my name, which website has all my contact information. I have a name and image and credibility at stake! Do you
really think I'd come into a place like this and risk a reputation I've taken longer to build than you've almost certainly even been alive; and then just throw it all away by talking out my youknowwhat in places like this which become part of the
permanent record of my very exisitence? Everything on the Internet is permanent. People will be reading this, somehow, for some reason, long after I'm dead... heck, long after
you're dead! You really think I want it part of the permanent record that I don't know what I'm talking about? That's part of what people posting using their real names helps to ensure; and my so doing should be a signal to you that I'm serious, and should be given the benefit of the doubt. All others, around here, hide behind aliases, and from the comfort and security of anonimity, cast aspersions with impunity.
Who, then, has more credibility? Hmm?
Routinely, potentially yes, as I've just covered.
...and can cause an overvolt situation in the battery.
Again, Ohm's Law. It cannot possibly cause an "overvolt" situation. That's just incorrect, I'm sorry. The voltage remains the same, regardless. It's amperage -- current -- about which you're talking.
Why? Because it forces an ever so small amount of current...
And there it is, as I just wrote: Current -- amperage -- not voltage. Again, Ohm's Law. Over-voltage is bad. Over-amperage, not necessarilty... at least when that into which the current is flowing is inherently capacitive; and with capacitance comes variability; and with variability comes tolerances. There is little or no variability and/or tolerance when it comes to voltage when it comes to these batteries; but there is all manner of variability and tolerance when it comes to current... amperage. And so the only salient engineering question then becomes whether or not what one's doing exceeds tolerance for sufficiently long to cause harm.
...to enter the battery when you first start charging it until the device realizes it's already at 100%. That's not good for a battery of any kind.
Indeed, if done
habitually. Again, the terminology turns on
characterization, borne out of
habit.
However, as it turns out, even if done more or less habitually, the damage you describe is simply not as possible as you think... not with modern phones and their modern Lithium Ion batteries. The circuitry which regulates the amount of current allowed to enter the battery does what it does in thousandths of a second; and since the real enemy of any battery is heat, and since no amount of heat sufficient to harm the battery can possibly be generated in said thousandths of a second (or, what the heck, even if it were hundredths of a second, or even one or two seconds; remember, we're talking
low voltage, here), it would take not just seconds, but
many seconds of over-amperage -- which is what you really meant, rather than over-voltage -- to even
begin to cause the kind of damage you're describing.
Seriously, if modern Lithium Ion batteries were as persnickety as you're suggesting, do you realize how many phones would be lighting-up on fire in people's purses and pockets? The Consumer Product Safety Commission, or the FCC, or the FTC, or all three wouldn't even let them into the same
room as humans, much less in their phones!
Do you have any idea what it really and truly takes to make a Lithium Ion battery swell-up, for example, as so many people talk about their batteries doing? It's usually from too rapid a discharge (though, obviously, other things can cause it), hence the reason that most people who experience the battery swelling problem tend to be those who've experienced a bad OS upgrade using something like KIES, and their phone has become squirrely, and so the OS and/or apps keep polling, and the processor keeps thrashing, and battery life goes stright south; and the heat from the battery can be felt in one's pocket right through one's phone's case and one's pants...
...that is, until one can get the phone into a Device Support Center where the tech can properly re-flash the upgrade, at which point the phone starts behaving itself again.
Even if someone bump-charged a modern Lithium Ion battery once per day (which I never even came
close to prescribing), it would never even
begin to approach the kind of abuse that a battery which finally swells experiences; and even swollen batteries can continue to work in the very phone that caused them to swell in the first place, once said phone is fixed and stops doing what it was doing that so rapidly discharged it. A
swollen battery is not necessarily a
bad battery (though, yes, once a battery swells, it's best to just replace it, as a matter of best practice... I agree with that); and testing it
under load will often reveal that despite its having become swollen (which, trust me, takes a
LOT of heat) it's nevertheless still performing to -- or at least nearly to -- specs. Not always, mind you: usually a swollen battery is truly damaged, and performs at far from spec; but no small number of swollen ones are fine, other than they
look bad. That's a testament to the resilience of modern Lithium Ion cell phone batteries. They're not the delicate flowers that you seem to think they are.
Batteries have a rated capacity.
Agreed. But it's far from carved in granite... at least if it's only exceeded very rarely, and only slightly, as my seven-step precedure, and all else I wrote in that post, prescribes. It is
habitual "bump charging" that flies in the face of that.
That capacity CAN be exceeded, though (again, this is the case with any battery of any kind). Exceeding the capacity is not good for the cells inside the battery.
Yes, agreed... if
habitually. Again with everyone ignoring that word.
It all turns on that word! For the rest of my response to what you just wrote, see my immediately above swollen battery and accompanying discourse.
It is
precisely to meet and even slightly (albeit only briefly) exceed the battery's capacity that my (re)calibration procedure seeks to achieve; and
precisely so that when the phone is finally booted-up that last time in my procedure, what its battery monitoring and on-screen percentage display circuitry is "seeing" is a really-and-truly 100% charged battery. And it will "remember" what that looks like for as long as said battery's electrical connection to the phone is not broken by its removal. And, no, letting it discharge to 0% (or whatever level above that at which the phone finally actually shuts-off... it's different for every phone model) does not break the connection in the way I'm talking about. The phone, once it "sees" what a 100% charge for a given battery really and truly looks like, will use that information to far more accurately display battery percentage than if the (re)calibration procedure is not performed; and it will "remember" that information for as long as the battery remains in (and electronically connected to) the phone... regardless of battery charge level.
Occasionally (and I mean very rarely, as my procedure, if followed, will ensure) exceeding the capacity of a modern cell phone Lithium Ion battery for anywhere from only fractions of a second, to even
several seconds, will do no appreciable harm to said battery. If that's all it would take, then, again, trust me, none of said batteries would be safe in our pockets and/or purses; and if they were allowed in them, trust me, further: we'd be seeing more cell phones setting themselves ablaze (or at least getting so hot that no one can tolerate them in their pockets, and the backs and solder joints inside, and other stuff would either warp or melt); and nearly every battery would eventually swell from heat.
The battery regulating circuitry in our phones -- whether on or off -- is
more than adequate to protect both us and our phones' batteries.
More than adequate! And your engineer friends with whom you say you can get in touch will quickly verify that. So please
do so, so I can finally be put out of this subjective and conjecture-ridden mysery.
I also have no doubt that in some cases you absolutely know what you're talking about.
I'm sorry, but that offends me. You are obviously unfamiliar with my personal code of professional ethics. If I say I know something, then, trust me, I
do. If I don't know something for certain, then I will appropriately couch it in terminology which makes that clear... using phrases like "I think" and/or "I could be wrong, but," and stuff like that. I'm very careful about that; have disciplined myself for four long decades of professional consulting... just as I've disciplined myself to never remember anyone's password, even if they're sitting next to me at their computer and I reboot the machine or logout and need to know their password again. It's common for them, after a while, to ask me why I can't remember it (yet I can remember their login) given that they've only told me what it is ten times by that point. They often don't believe me when I explain that after 40 years, I've actually disciplined my mind to not remember people's passwords... er.. well.. unless I
want to, of course: I mean, I'm not saying I have a mental block or brain dysfunction about it. I'm simply saying that under normal circumstances, when I'm routinely working with people, I intentionally block remembering their passwords... as an ethical practice; and after 40 years, I've gotten darned good at it! I do that because I have integrity...
...which I define, in part, as doing the right thing, even when no one is looking...
...and that integrity won't allow me to proffer that I actually
know something unless I really and truly
do. You're communicating, here, with someone who actually bothers to research; and who routinely disabuses people of their mythical beliefs (not that it's bad for people to have mythical beliefs; all I mean is that if such beliefs are foisted-off on others as fact, then, and only then, do I make sure the provable
real facts are presented instead... or at least in addition to). I do that for the same reason that I do all my other consumer protection activism.
I've spent not just 40 hours per week, but closer to 60 and 70 hours per week, for four long decades -- even lost a marriage over it -- making sure that I bygod know what I'm talking about; or, if I don't, I so label it and happily wear it (after all, there's certainly no shame in not knowing everything, as so many of your forum members seem not to appreciate, else they'd not so fear it). That's my ethic and integrity. I've work hard, and paid a high price in life for it; and I'm sorry, but I'd like just a little respect...
...certainly more than suggested by that you "have no doubt that in
some cases
absolutely know what [I'm] talking about." Trust me, if I say I do, I do. If others refuse to believe that, then they're simply projecting onto me their own shortcomings... as people tend to do. That's where the old saying "you can never cheat an honest man" comes from.
I appreciate your position, here; and I trust you'll be man enough to not use it to shut me down just because I've had the temerity to call you on some of what you're saying, here. If not, then that will say far more about you than me. Let's hope my having spoken truth to power, here, will not result in its abuse.
Everyone else - Try not to write off what's been said in this thread so quickly. Surely there are some knowledgable folks posting in here, and while not everything is accurate (bump charging for sure)...
Again, bump charging habitually, maybe. Not "for sure." Rather, "maybe"... and that's for sure. And that's because, as I've painfully clearly explained, modern Lithium Ion batteries can take way more abuse than you apparently think; and modern cell phone circuitry (on a phone running an OS wherein neither are otherwise defective; and there are no misbehaving apps) simply won't allow any more abuse than the battery can take...
...and by that, I mean without damaging it. That's just a fact. Consult with any engineer you want (er... you know... who's actually qualified -- and whose qualifications I can verify -- and knows what s/he's talking about), and s/he'll both quickly and happily verify that.
...even some of the not-so-accurate stuff won't hurt anything.
I'd have to go back, now, and re-read everything that's been proffered, here, to fully agree with that. As I age -- something clearly not respected, around here... but that's okay, all your times will come -- I find that I can't always remember new things as well as I'd like; and so I rely on re-reading and notes much more than when I was a young man. But I'm already way weary of this, so I'll just defer to you on that...
...except, of course, that, just categorically, doing something someone recommends which is known to be inaccurate is a facially bad idea, just generally. And so while whatever's in this thread that may be "not-so-accurate" may or may not actually "hurt anything," why do it? Just askin' (rhetorically, of course).
Here's when you charge your phone (and how to charge it). Whenever you want. Dead. Not dead. Somewhere in between. Plug it in, let it go until the indicator is green.
I could not more strongly agree; and nothing I've written here in any way contravenes that.
Ok. Can we all move on please?
I dunno... you tell me. I've only been trying around this thread to move on pretty much since right after I made my first posting in it, which I had intended to be my only one, here, unless someone had a question (speaking of which, please go find in other threads how I answer honest questions). But, despite that, just look what happened. No, seriously... really look... being fair, I mean; and without using political correctness as your criteria. You really believe @meyerweb's opening volley had even the slightest thing to do with well handling the thread? Really? We're both reading the same thread, right?
I didn't cause this. Yes, I got knee-deep in it once it started -- and I think that's really what so irritates you, and that's fine, I'll wear that -- but I didn't cause it. Be fair. Your thread-starter, here, apparently signed-up for the sole purpose of effectively spamming some nearly 20 threads with essentially the same language (which, in many forums, alone, is prima facie evidence of spam, hence the reason many anti-spam algorithms specifically look for that, and just presume, out of hand, that spamming is what's going on), pointing others to misinformation here. In response, I made sure that others in all those however many other threads knew, without even coming here, that that information, here, was wrong. Then, here, I made a record of the correct information so that no reader -- your readers, whom I value as much as do you -- would be harmed. And I defy either you or your engineers to show that anything I wrote -- anything -- is inaccurate. Anything.
I ask, again, that you seriously examine the entire body of my posts, in this place, and all which surround them; and then ask yourself, given what you learn from it, and what I've here written, if you would not feel much as I do, were you in my shoes.
Also, I additionally ask that you do not allow that you, personally, like so many young people, may not like long postings (if, in fact, that's the case; and, if so, then so may be stifling the urge to say TLDR) to influence you. Please appreciate that we come from two different worlds regarding such things. Young people think that the world can be covered in 140-characters, and/or that such as The Daily Show is actually news. A New Yorker Magazine-length article would just about kill such as they. I, on the other hand, come from a generation where reading was valued, and completeness and accuracy were the coin of the realm. It's not like my long posts are printed on paper, and wasting trees. Anyone who doesn't wish to read them need only scroll past them, done and done. It's like Corporal Klinger once observed, in an episode of M*A*S*H, that people, when they say things like, "oh, you're calling all the way from Korea?" treat long-distance calls as if they had to walk the distance. People complain about my long posts as if they had a gun to their heads and were forced to read them. What... the scroller/slider on their phone or tablet screens or notebook touchpads (or the srcoll wheels on their desktop computer's mouse) suddenly stopped working? Be fair. If you didn't want long posts, then your forum wouldn't allow the number of characters necessary to create them. And while you may now respond to that by reducing the number of characters allowed, take a lesson from Facebook, which tried that and has since reversed every bit of it. Some things take a lot of words in order to be both complete and accurate; and all of the world's TLDR-oriented young people's wishing won't change that. Reduce the number of words people can write, and all you'll get are the words of TLDR-oriented young people who are still green and wet behind the ears, and don't even know what they don't even know.
Second-to-lastly, the attempt by forum owners/operators to sanitize them must be tempered with that debate -- at least of the sort whicht actually means anything in life -- is often not pretty. So what? Forums are half-duplex: it's not like people can out-yell one another; or even talk over them. Everybody gets their turn, and what they write, they write. As long as it doesn't break the law, or go so far overboard in terms of some kind of abuse, where's the harm? Life is hard; and such as the children raised by soccer moms who believed no one should keep score so that their childrens' tender sensibilities wouldn't be damaged (or, worse, who always told said children they were perfect), never learn any of that; and so then they grow-up to enter forums like this where the very nature of the paradigm is at least supposed to ensure that all voices -- even the hard-to-listen-to ones -- are heard, and all that anyone who doesn't want to read any of it need do is not...
...but then, because they were raised to value such over-the-top political correctness, they complain that someone like me wrote something that disturbed their tender sensibilities. Notice that no matter how anyone upset me, in any world, cyber or otherwise, I never called for their silence. As Voltaire keeps getting blamed for saying (but which it was actually his biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who put into his mouth): "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Is it it not a country which values that in which both you and I were told in high school we live?
Finally, please bear in mind that the whole reason emoticons were invented in the first place, in the earliest days of the Internet (to which, incidentally, I harken back), was because we are all deprived, in the solely written word, like this, of all the audible and visual cues we humans use to figure out, during in-person communications (or only the audible ones, during telephonic communication), if s/he with whom we're communicating is happy or sad or angry or joking or whatever; and so it's inordinately easy for there to be misunderstandings and hurt feelings in the written word. But sanitization is never the solution. Rather, completeness and accuracy, and not trying to convey it in as few characters as possible because they'd rather use Tapatalk on a smart phone instead of using a real computer -- for which forums like is, incidentally, were created; and nothing about them, then, has yet "caught-up" with the small-screen/touch-screen paradigm -- are the solution.
[sigh] Oy. I'm tired of this. I guess it really is true what they say: No good turn goes unpunished. [shakes head in disbelief]
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram