[IMAGE] Recharge before you shut down.Submitted by tburns1469 t3_11h9y9p in GetMotivated
GodOfPlutonium t1_jaus3p0 wrote
Reply to comment by Halowary in [IMAGE] Recharge before you shut down. by tburns1469
> I never said that discharging your battery causes it to explode.
You never claimed that it actually would, you claimed that other people claimed it would, here
> is dispel this myth that it's catastrophically damaging to your phone battery to discharge it to 0%.
Once again this belief does not exist. Furthermore
> You can pretty safely discharge your battery well below the 40% level and still expect amazing longevity, you're really making the very most gains in your battery by not charging to 100%. The "Don't discharge below this level" gang is talking about miniscule battery life gains, and here I am trying to promote massive multi-year gains.
Once again your own source doesnt actually prove your point and in part argues against it. Since as you note, table 6 does not test discharge to 0%, it is impossible to actually use it to determine if not charging fully or not discharging fully is better if you had to decide between only doing one. In order to do so would require testing 75-0% in order to compare against 100%-25%
However it does completely and definitively disprove your claim that
> "Don't discharge below this level" gang is talking about miniscule battery life gains
As previously stated the typical 100%-0% lifespan to 80% of original capacity is 500 cycles. Per table 6, the 100%-25% lifespan to 80% was 3500 cycles while the 100-40% lifespan was 5000 cycles. This translates to a 7 times and 10 times extension in battery life respectively.
This is exactly the massive multi year gain that you claimed it did not bring. Furthermore it suggests that the reason that limited maximum charge was not tested in the first place is since it was obviously the first step one would take to extend battery life.
> however phone batteries are super well protected against this type of damage and often stop battery draw well before the battery actually loses all charge.
If you actually go look at a lithium ion discharge graph, as current draw decreases, the voltage curve shifts upward and rightwards. This means that as discharge reduces , the state of charge that a voltage represents is lower and lower. Phones are a low power, high energy application, which means that even if you set the lvp to 3v, a full 0.5v over 2.5v, it represents very little remaining energy. And once again, I did initially ask for a source that showed that phones have some extra protection that normal batteries dont have, which you have not posted.
Halowary t1_jauv6h3 wrote
I'm not going to sit here and argue that the belief itself exists as it's obvious that it does. Lots of people believe a lot of things, to argue otherwise is nonsensical. I've argued against this stuff myself before so I'm not going to take your word for it that it doesn't exist.
What the source I cited does for sure show is that NMC batteries (used in phones) do in fact last for about 300 cycles to 70% if you discharge 100% every time, not your 500 cycles to 80% claim.
Table 6 also shows that the figure I cited as closest to what I'm arguing for (which is 60-10%) 75-25%, had 88% capacity at 5000 cycles as opposed to the 80% for 100-40, with the line definitely trending much more heavily down the Y axis than the 75-25. By 9000 cycles, 75-25% would have 84% capacity while 100-40 would have 69% (nice) 100-25% would have 62% proving that the maximum you allow your battery to charge is truly the main deciding factor here. The depth of discharge for 100-25 is 75, 100-40 is 60, 100-50 is 50 and 75-25 is 50. So comparing apples to apples, the 100-50 has about 74% capacity remaining while the 75-25 range has 84%, a 10% capacity difference over 9000 cycles which is pretty incredible. It proves beyond a doubt that the lower discharge of 25% does not negatively effect the battery nearly as much as how HIGH you charge it does. I'm insanely confident that my 60-10 I use for my own phone is more efficient than the 75-25 they use in table 6, and likely even more efficient than the 75-65 even though I'm able to use 50% of my batteries capacity as opposed to 10%.
As for the extra protection phones have.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutoff_voltage which cites http://www.ibt-power.com/Battery_packs/Li_Ion/Lithium_ion_tech.html as it's source. This shows a cutoff of 3v, although it also says manufacturers set this limit themselves which is kind of obvious. I doubt they set the limit just above what kills the phone, otherwise we'd hear of phones being replaced every few months instead of every 2 years as normal. I also never did claim phones have extra protection, just that they have a BMS that protects them from full discharges. Again with the strawman arguments...
GodOfPlutonium t1_jauxq7j wrote
this is patently ridiculous. In your original comment you you replied to me saying not to deep discharge with
> but you can discharge as low as you want.
Only now have you shifted your argent to '25% is ok'.
> 500 cycles to 70% if you discharge 100% every time, not your 500 cycles to 80% claim.
I used 500 to 80% instead of 300 to 70% because the better number for standard discharge is better for your position not mine lmao, if you try to recalculate with the worse standard numbers, it just increases the amount that avoiding full discharge saves.
The point being It does not prove anything about discharging to 0%. If you want to tell people not to discharge below 25% instead of below 40% that is one thing, but you have explicitly claimed multiple times that you can discharge as far as you want , which as I have previously explained is demonstrably false using your own data.
> As for the extra protection phones have.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutoff_voltage which cites http://www.ibt-power.com/Battery_packs/Li_Ion/Lithium_ion_tech.html as it's source. This shows a cutoff of 3v, although it also says manufacturers set this limit themselves which is kind of obvious. I doubt they set the limit just above what kills the phone, otherwise we'd hear of phones being replaced every few months instead of every 2 years as normal. I also never did claim phones have extra protection, just that they have a BMS that protects them from full discharges. Again with the strawman arguments...
There is no strawman argument, you explcitly stated
>super well protected against this type of damage and often stop battery draw well before the battery actually loses all charge.
The term "super well" implies additional protection beyond what is normal. Furthermore you have again linked to a source disproves your own argument. Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that the low voltage protection will shut down the battery with a significant buffer before 0 charge. The graph in your own second link that at a 0.2c discharge rate (which translates to a 5 hour battery life, so in a phone itd be even lower discharge rate), there is 3% energy left at a 3v cutoff. This literally proves what I said in the previous comment
> If you actually go look at a lithium ion discharge graph, as current draw decreases, the voltage curve shifts upward and rightwards. This means that as discharge reduces , the state of charge that a voltage represents is lower and lower. Phones are a low power, high energy application, which means that even if you set the lvp to 3v, a full 0.5v over 2.5v, it represents very little remaining energy.
Furthermore,
> Lots of people believe a lot of things, to argue otherwise is nonsensical
In this very thread there are plenty of people arguing that memory effect needs to be avoided, and 0 people arguing that it is as you put it " catastrophically damaging", only more wear. Even battery myth articles commonly address the memory effect idea, not whatever youre saying.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments