iPhone charging again...

[Laszlo Lebrun]

Yesterdays' experience: An iPhone with less than 5% charge and no
charger, excepted a notebook available.
OK, "this device is not supported"..., let's ignore it and see...

After one night at permanent Computer-USB charge (with black screen and
in airplane mode) it had gained a whopping 17% charge!
In the middle of the night, the computer started to popup iTunes
(apparently from them moment that the iPhone had enough juice to report
some life).

On the same USB port, I use to charge my HD2 in 4 hours to 100%


--
One computer and three operating systems, not the other way round.
One wife and many hotels, not the other way round ! ;-)

[Sandman]

In article <kmdn2b$m3u$1...@tota-refugium.de>,

Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:

> Yesterdays' experience: An iPhone with less than 5% charge and no
> charger, excepted a notebook available.
> OK, "this device is not supported"..., let's ignore it and see...
>
> After one night at permanent Computer-USB charge (with black screen and
> in airplane mode) it had gained a whopping 17% charge!
> In the middle of the night, the computer started to popup iTunes
> (apparently from them moment that the iPhone had enough juice to report
> some life).
>
> On the same USB port, I use to charge my HD2 in 4 hours to 100%

I guess Michel finally learned what "Not supported" means, huh?
English lessons are progressing!

--
Sandman[.net]

[Gary]

On 2013-05-08 14:22:21 +0000, Laszlo Lebrun said:

> Yesterdays' experience: An iPhone with less than 5% charge and no
> charger, excepted a notebook available.
> OK, "this device is not supported"..., let's ignore it and see...
>
> After one night at permanent Computer-USB charge (with black screen and
> in airplane mode) it had gained a whopping 17% charge!
> In the middle of the night, the computer started to popup iTunes
> (apparently from them moment that the iPhone had enough juice to report
> some life).
>
> On the same USB port, I use to charge my HD2 in 4 hours to 100%

Remember your charger, thats what it's for.

[Nashton]

On 5/8/2013 6:08 PM, Gary wrote:
>
> Remember your charger, thats what it's for.

Oh, for crying out loud, can you stop being such a little sissy for *once*?

Did Laszlo's original theme go over your head?

[Laszlo Lebrun]

I didn't see the post from Gary, although he isn't on my KF.
Of course a charger is for ... charging.
But I miss the convenience of being able to use pretty much every USB
socket available as well and have one device less to lose and to carry
with me.
AFAIK every smartphone on the market has got that feature, (by the way
a mandatory requirement for smartphones in Europe.)
Excepted Apple's iPhones.

[-hh]

On May 9, 8:53 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> ...

> But I miss the convenience of being able to use pretty much
> every USB socket available as well and have one device less
> to lose and to carry with me.

So you're claiming that you can insert *any* USB cord into your device
and have it be charged? Does this mean that your device has USB plug
interfaces Standard (A), Mini, Micro *and* E6? Or do you have an
adaptor you carry that does this?

> AFAIK every smartphone on the market has got that feature, (by the way
> a mandatory requirement for smartphones in Europe.)

Oh, so you're actually referring to the EU's "Mini-USB" cellphone
requirement? Well, that does make some more sense.

> Excepted Apple's iPhones.

Not quite: Apple has a small adaptor; I believe I've heard reports
that it is currently included 'in the box' for EU sales.


-hh

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 09.05.2013 16:08, -hh wrote:
> So you're claiming that you can insert*any* USB cord into your device

> and have it be charged?

No, the other other way around:
The USB cable can be plugged into any USB *socket* available to charge.
With non-Apple devices, even that cable is now standardized to micro-usb.

But the real point is that every USB socket can deliver enough power to
charge reasonably any smartphone in 4 to 6 hours.
Excepted Apple devices?
Is that normal or has Apple included a circuit to *prevent* that?

[Nashton]

On 05-09-13 11:32 AM, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 09.05.2013 16:08, -hh wrote:
>> So you're claiming that you can insert*any* USB cord into your device
>> and have it be charged?
>
> No, the other other way around:
> The USB cable can be plugged into any USB *socket* available to charge.
> With non-Apple devices, even that cable is now standardized to micro-usb.
>
> But the real point is that every USB socket can deliver enough power to
> charge reasonably any smartphone in 4 to 6 hours.
> Excepted Apple devices?
> Is that normal or has Apple included a circuit to *prevent* that?
>
>
>

Whatever Apple does is a mystery, as long as they're making huge profit
margins, which dropped considerably, even the fangurls are happy, no
matter what a device is capable of and how it stacks up against the
competition.

[-hh]

On May 9, 10:32 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> On 09.05.2013 16:08, -hh wrote:
>
> > So you're claiming that you can insert*any*  USB cord into your device
> > and have it be charged?
>
> No, the other other way around:
> The USB cable can be plugged into any USB *socket* available to charge.
> With non-Apple devices, even that cable is now standardized to micro-usb.

Ah, so you're focused in on the max power ratings of various USB
outputs.

> But the real point is that every USB socket can deliver enough power to
> charge reasonably any smartphone in 4 to 6  hours.

A Standard USB port is only required to deliver 1 unit (5V * 100mA) of
power.

With some devices having upwards of a 2000 mA-hr battery pack, it is
simplistically easy to say that this is 4 hours @ 5V & 100mW equals
2000mW and thus should be the charge time. However, this requires
assumption of zero overhead factors and a 100% end-to-end system
efficiency. The next layer of the onion would be to account for the
known major losses in the budget, such as the charger's electronic
efficiency (80-90%), the battery chemistry transformation efficiency
(~85%) and overhead of the charger's control system (50mW?), etc.

> Excepted Apple devices?
> Is that normal or has Apple included a circuit to *prevent* that?

Not necessarily. It has already been shown that Apples will actually
charge (albeit slowly) on a minimal connection. What's more likely is
that there's a much higher overhead expenditure which is preventing
the (low) available power from going into the battery - - some of this
could be the trade-off convenience factor of the device automatically
downloading iTunes/email/etc when it had adequate core power, or it
could be "more" overhead budgeting going into battery management...we
do not really know.

If you wanted to try to reduce the variables, you could take a 'mostly
discharged' iPhone which has already done all of the applicable "phone
home" bits, disable all wireless connections and then manually turn it
off (hopefully to not re-wake) and see how well it does in 4, 6, 8,
etc hours. This would best be done on a USB host source which is
known to not tolerate devices sucking more power than the 100mW that
they've been allocated.


-hh

[Nashton]

On 05-09-13 2:16 PM, -hh wrote:
> On May 9, 10:32 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>> On 09.05.2013 16:08, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> So you're claiming that you can insert*any* USB cord into your device
>>> and have it be charged?
>>
>> No, the other other way around:
>> The USB cable can be plugged into any USB *socket* available to charge.
>> With non-Apple devices, even that cable is now standardized to micro-usb.
>
> Ah, so you're focused in on the max power ratings of various USB
> outputs.
>
>
>> But the real point is that every USB socket can deliver enough power to
>> charge reasonably any smartphone in 4 to 6 hours.
>
>
> A Standard USB port is only required to deliver 1 unit (5V * 100mA) of
> power.
>
> With some devices having upwards of a 2000 mA-hr battery pack, it is
> simplistically easy to say that this is 4 hours @ 5V & 100mW equals
> 2000mW and thus should be the charge time. However, this requires
> assumption of zero overhead factors and a 100% end-to-end system
> efficiency. The next layer of the onion would be to account for the
> known major losses in the budget, such as the charger's electronic
> efficiency (80-90%), the battery chemistry transformation efficiency
> (~85%) and overhead of the charger's control system (50mW?), etc.

Must have Googled quite a bit to come up with this.
What do you think you are, an electrical engineer?

>
>
>> Excepted Apple devices?
>> Is that normal or has Apple included a circuit to *prevent* that?
>
> Not necessarily. It has already been shown that Apples will actually
> charge (albeit slowly) on a minimal connection.

The point to all this, in case it eluded you (surprise), is that in
spite of the fact that an external device will charge via a USB port on
a computer, the GUI spurts out a message that has nothing to do with
reality, i.e. something to the effect that this charger is not
compatible with this device.

Dear God, can you not pay attention and at least try to focus?

<snip unnecessary verbose crap>

>
> -hh
>

[jay birdsong]

"Nashton" wrote in message news:kmgnnb$n2d$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

He's trying to emulate that other dick, Baker.

From "The Baker List of Defects":

Exaggerating own importance, achievements, and talents

Being obsessed with self

Imagining unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power,
intelligence, or romance

Requiring constant attention and positive reinforcement from others

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 09.05.2013 19:16, -hh wrote:

> A Standard USB port is only required to deliver 1 unit (5V * 100mA) of
> power.
>

That is one unit load, after digital negotiation,appropriate periphery
might draw up to 5 unit loads.

> With some devices having upwards of a 2000 mA-hr battery pack, it is

> simplistically easy to say that this is 4 hours @ 5V & 100mA equals
> 2000mA and thus should be the charge time.
More or less, yes.
A LiIon battery has 3,7 V voltage, the difference to the 5 V delivery by
USB can be roughly accounted to the conversion losses so the 1:1
approximation should be valid.

>
>> Excepted Apple devices?
>> Is that normal or has Apple included a circuit to *prevent* that?
>
> Not necessarily. It has already been shown that Apples will actually
> charge (albeit slowly) on a minimal connection.

Yes, but having gained only 17% charge after one night at 100mA ( taking
only one unit load into consideration) is definitely something that
cannot be accounted to conversion overheads.
There is something else preventing the charge...

[-hh]

On May 9, 2:31 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> On 09.05.2013 19:16, -hh wrote:
>
> > A Standard USB port is only required to deliver 1 unit (5V * 100mA) of
> > power.
>

> That is one unit load, after digital negotiation, appropriate periphery

> might draw up to 5 unit loads.

Sure, but not on a USB port whose controls say to limit to only being
a Standard ... ie, 1 unit. The whole point of your discussion is the
"What Happens?" question for when a device is _not_ hooked up to a
Charging Port, where there can be 500mA (5 units) available.

> > With some devices having upwards of a 2000 mA-hr battery pack, it is
> > simplistically easy to say that this is 4 hours @ 5V & 100mA equals
> > 2000mA and thus should be the charge time.
>
> More or less, yes.

Well, "more", never less :-)

> A LiIon battery has 3,7 V voltage, the difference to the 5 V delivery by
> USB can be roughly accounted to the conversion losses so the 1:1
> approximation should be valid.

DC-DC converters are usually quite efficient, so this simplification
is reasonable.

> >> Excepted Apple devices?
> >> Is that normal or has Apple included a circuit to *prevent* that?
>
> > Not necessarily.  It has already been shown that Apples will actually
> > charge (albeit slowly) on a minimal connection.
>
> Yes, but having gained only 17% charge after one night at 100mA ( taking
> only one unit load into consideration) is definitely something that
> cannot be accounted to conversion overheads.
> There is something else preventing the charge...

Because at the low power supply limitation, the "fast charging" option
isn't available, which leaves just the slow 'trickle' charger. What
design trade-off do you want to have on the trickle charger circuit?
The higher the permitted setting, the faster it will top off a charge,
but doing so will also increase battery mortality caused by
overcharging.


-hh

[Laszlo Lebrun]

to

On 09.05.2013 21:07, -hh wrote:

>> Yes, but having gained only 17% charge after one night at 100mA ( taking
>> only one unit load into consideration) is definitely something that
>> cannot be accounted to conversion overheads.
>> There is something else preventing the charge...
>
> Because at the low power supply limitation, the "fast charging" option
> isn't available, which leaves just the slow 'trickle' charger.

100mA (the minimum assumption) should be plainly enough to charge the
1500mA battery of an iPhone in standby and airplane mode to at least 50%
after eight hours.
17% is just odd, you would not get an electrical explanation for that.

I already mentioned that the computer woke up in the middle of the night
to jettison iTunes, which is a clear indication that the iPhone had had
enough juice to start a power negotiation and ask for 500mA, if it had "
wanted" to.

My explanation -it is just a supposition- is that Apple was legally
constrained to accept an USB charge from non-Apple hardware, so they
have done just the minimum to avoid being sued, (the phone will charge)
and the maximum to discourage their customers to use charging facilities
from their competitors.

What
> design trade-off do you want to have on the trickle charger circuit?
> The higher the permitted setting, the faster it will top off a charge,
> but doing so will also increase battery mortality caused by
> overcharging.
>
>
> -hh
>

[-hh]

On May 9, 3:30 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> to
> On 09.05.2013 21:07, -hh wrote:
>
> >> Yes, but having gained only 17% charge after one night at 100mA ( taking
> >> only one unit load into consideration) is definitely something that
> >> cannot be accounted to conversion overheads.
> >> There is something else preventing the charge...
>
> > Because at the low power supply limitation, the "fast charging" option
> > isn't available, which leaves just the slow 'trickle' charger.
>
>   100mA (the minimum assumption) should be plainly enough to charge the
> 1500mA battery of an iPhone in standby and airplane mode to at least 50%
> after eight hours.

I agree that it _sounds_ like it should be okay, but the evidence says
otherwise.

> 17% is just odd, you would not get an electrical explanation for that.

On the contrary: one can get any arbitrarily low value you want,
simply by tuning down the trickle charger.

> I already mentioned that the computer woke up in the middle of the night
> to jettison iTunes, which is a clear indication that the iPhone had had
> enough juice to start a power negotiation and ask for 500mA, if it had "
> wanted" to.

Yes, and this 'wake up' would consume power and thus be part of a
generic summary of "overhead" power consumption.

> My explanation -it is just a supposition- is that Apple was legally
> constrained to accept an USB charge from non-Apple hardware, so they
> have done just the minimum to avoid being sued, (the phone will charge)
> and the maximum to discourage their customers to use charging facilities
> from their competitors.

Another supposition is that a one legged ventriloquest predicted the
exact day & time of death of Steve Jobs during his stand-up routine in
Vegas back on May 17th, 1974.

Is the real beef here that the iPhone never shifts a USB host port
into the high power mode?

Try plugging your iPhone into a powered USB hub that's not connected
to any PC whatsoever and see what happens.

> >  What
> > design trade-off do you want to have on the trickle charger circuit?
> > The higher the permitted setting, the faster it will top off a charge,
> > but doing so will also increase battery mortality caused by
> > overcharging.

The reason I mentioned this is because if you really want to be
cynical, Apple could have chosen to go with a very low trickle charge
setting because they wanted to minimize warranty claims on the non-
user-replacable battery.


-hh

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 09.05.2013 22:21, -hh wrote:
>> 100mA (the minimum assumption) should be plainly enough to charge the
>> >1500mA battery of an iPhone in standby and airplane mode to at least 50%
>> >after eight hours.

> I agree that it_sounds_ like it should be okay, but the evidence says
> otherwise.
>
The evidence is that other brands have got no problems to charge fast on
that source...

>> >17% is just odd, you would not get an electrical explanation for that.
> On the contrary: one can get any arbitrarily low value you want,
> simply by tuning down the trickle charger.
>

If Apple wanted to discourage their customers to do so...

[Sandman]

In article <kmgnnb$n2d$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.ca>
wrote:

> > With some devices having upwards of a 2000 mA-hr battery pack, it is
> > simplistically easy to say that this is 4 hours @ 5V & 100mW equals
> > 2000mW and thus should be the charge time. However, this requires
> > assumption of zero overhead factors and a 100% end-to-end system
> > efficiency. The next layer of the onion would be to account for the
> > known major losses in the budget, such as the charger's electronic
> > efficiency (80-90%), the battery chemistry transformation efficiency
> > (~85%) and overhead of the charger's control system (50mW?), etc.
>
> Must have Googled quite a bit to come up with this.
> What do you think you are, an electrical engineer?

Nashton is impressed by common knowledge.

> > Not necessarily. It has already been shown that Apples will actually
> > charge (albeit slowly) on a minimal connection.
>
> The point to all this, in case it eluded you (surprise), is that in
> spite of the fact that an external device will charge via a USB port on
> a computer, the GUI spurts out a message that has nothing to do with
> reality, i.e. something to the effect that this charger is not
> compatible with this device.

Incorrect. There is no such "message". Nashton is incorrect... once
again.

> Dear God, can you not pay attention and at least try to focus?

Ironic.

> <snip unnecessary verbose crap>

Nashton and parsing simple English? Nah, just snip it!




--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <kmgtg7$nsu$1...@tota-refugium.de>,

Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:

> My explanation -it is just a supposition- is that Apple was legally
> constrained to accept an USB charge from non-Apple hardware, so they
> have done just the minimum to avoid being sued, (the phone will charge)
> and the maximum to discourage their customers to use charging facilities
> from their competitors.

Hahaha!


--
Sandman[.net]

[Tim Adams]

In article <mr-0C4239.07...@News.Individual.NET>,

What I find interesting is that the original post had "this device is not
supported" in it, yet the trolls can't seem to understand it.

[-hh]

On May 9, 4:49 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> On 09.05.2013 22:21, -hh wrote:>>   100mA (the minimum assumption) should be plainly enough to charge the
> >> >1500mA battery of an iPhone in standby and airplane mode to at least 50%
> >> >after eight hours.
> > I agree that it_sounds_  like it should be okay, but the evidence says
> > otherwise.
>
> The evidence is that other brands have got no problems to charge fast on
> that source...

No, you do not have that evidence. What you have is evidence that
other brands are willing to charge their batteries faster ... that
alone does not constitute proof that they're not doing so in a fashion
which risks higher damage to the battery pack.

> >> >17% is just odd, you would not get an electrical explanation for that.
> > On the contrary:  one can get any arbitrarily low value you want,
> > simply by tuning down the trickle charger.
>
> If Apple wanted to discourage their customers to do so...

Sorry, does not pass muster: a slower charge is arguably a degrading
of their customer experience, so there has to be a damn good reason
why they're willing to do this. Simply trying to force people from
PCs to Macs isn't one ... Apple learned that a decade ago with the
iPod.


-hh

[jay birdsong]

"Tim Adams" wrote in message
news:teadams$2$0$0$3-13EAC8.07...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...

What I find interesting is how you snipped and edited. Are you just
plain stoopid, or a lying scumbag?

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 10.05.2013 14:03, -hh wrote:
> On May 9, 4:49 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>> On 09.05.2013 22:21, -hh wrote:>> 100mA (the minimum assumption) should be plainly enough to charge the
>>>>> 1500mA battery of an iPhone in standby and airplane mode to at least 50%
>>>>> after eight hours.
>>> I agree that it_sounds_ like it should be okay, but the evidence says
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> The evidence is that other brands have got no problems to charge fast on
>> that source...
>
> No, you do not have that evidence. What you have is evidence that
> other brands are willing to charge their batteries faster ... that
> alone does not constitute proof that they're not doing so in a fashion
> which risks higher damage to the battery pack.
>

Huh?
Please explain, why charging a battery in 4 hours should be a risk?
The electronic has got no problem in limiting the current to
technologically reasonable value.
>
>>>>> 17% is just odd, you would not get an electrical explanation for that..

>>> On the contrary: one can get any arbitrarily low value you want,
>>> simply by tuning down the trickle charger.
>>
>> If Apple wanted to discourage their customers to do so...
>
> Sorry, does not pass muster: a slower charge is arguably a degrading
> of their customer experience, so there has to be a damn good reason
> why they're willing to do this. Simply trying to force people from
> PCs to Macs isn't one ... Apple learned that a decade ago with the
> iPod.
>

The frustration of not being able to charge his device at all is a good
customer experience now?
ROTFL.!

Don't you fanguurls feel being stupid, upon trying to defend the
undefendable against all odds?

[Laszlo Lebrun]

...especially in the light of the thread "please tell me why" when I
have got the answers:
<1834109847388773515....@news.individual.net>
"That's what happens with my phone. Warning and then it charges anyway."
<1334977549388782830....@news.individual.net>
"Charging is not supported != Will not charge."

So the answer is now obvious: "This device is not supported" means in
clear text:
"Apple does not agree that you are trying to use non-Apple hardware to
charge our device; while we are forced by European law to accept that
charging way, we will reticently do so, but will ensure with every
technological effort that this will be an extremely bad user experience."

[-hh]

On May 10, 9:02 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> On 10.05.2013 14:03, -hh wrote:> On May 9, 4:49 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> >> On 09.05.2013 22:21, -hh wrote:>>   100mA (the minimum assumption) should be plainly enough to charge the
> >>>>> 1500mA battery of an iPhone in standby and airplane mode to at least 50%
> >>>>> after eight hours.
> >>> I agree that it_sounds_  like it should be okay, but the evidence says
> >>> otherwise.
>
> >> The evidence is that other brands have got no problems to charge fast on
> >> that source...
>
> > No, you do not have that evidence.   What you have is evidence that
> > other brands are willing to charge their batteries faster ... that
> > alone does not constitute proof that they're not doing so in a fashion
> > which risks higher damage to the battery pack.
>
> Huh?
> Please explain, why charging a battery in 4 hours should be a risk?
> The electronic has got no problem in limiting the current to
> technologically reasonable value.

It isn't just current which has to be controlled to manage a Li-Ion
battery pack, for both safety and longevity.

Consider some of just the past year's examples of companies that have
gotten it wrong:

Boeing ... battery fires which grounded their 787 Dreamliner fleet

Tesla Roadster ... "Bricking" of batteries & Journalist 'test drive'
strandings


The implications of this are that some companies have certainly been
tempted to disregard certain engineering design constraints,
particularly since some of these can result in a product which by some
metrics is 'better' (eg, faster recharging) while also being cheaper
(eg, less 'management' circuitry).

However, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and such choices can
have hidden (delayed) problems, which may for example result in their
product not having a 3 year useful lifespan, but on average only a 2
year useful lifespan.

YMMV on if this is really then a "better" product or not, because
we're getting into how to weigh lifecycle management consideration
versus initial performance - not a trivial task.


-hh

[jay birdsong]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:61ed5eb8-aa60-4a82...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

So maybe you can tell us what else must be "controlled" when charging
a Li-lon?

QUICK - GOOGLE!

[Sandman]

In article <kmitdt$jp2$1...@tota-refugium.de>,

Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:

> >>> My explanation -it is just a supposition- is that Apple was legally
> >>> constrained to accept an USB charge from non-Apple hardware, so they
> >>> have done just the minimum to avoid being sued, (the phone will charge)
> >>> and the maximum to discourage their customers to use charging facilities
> >>> from their competitors.
> >>
> >> Hahaha!
> >
> > What I find interesting is that the original post had "this device is not
> > supported" in it, yet the trolls can't seem to understand it.
> >
> ...especially in the light of the thread "please tell me why" when I
> have got the answers:
> <1834109847388773515....@news.individual.net>

What "answers" do you have there about there being, hehe, "legal
contraints"?

> "That's what happens with my phone. Warning and then it charges anyway."
> <1334977549388782830....@news.individual.net>
> "Charging is not supported != Will not charge."
>
> So the answer is now obvious: "This device is not supported" means in
> clear text:

Ah, some Michel English is about to follow:

> "Apple does not agree that you are trying to use non-Apple hardware to
> charge our device; while we are forced by European law to accept that
> charging way, we will reticently do so, but will ensure with every
> technological effort that this will be an extremely bad user experience."

And I repeat: "Hahaha!"


--
Sandman[.net]

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 10.05.2013 15:58, -hh wrote:
> The implications of this are that some companies have certainly been
> tempted to disregard certain engineering design constraints,
> particularly since some of these can result in a product which by some
> metrics is 'better' (eg, faster recharging) while also being cheaper
> (eg, less 'management' circuitry).
>
> However, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and such choices can
> have hidden (delayed) problems, which may for example result in their
> product not having a 3 year useful lifespan, but on average only a 2
> year useful lifespan.
>
> YMMV on if this is really then a "better" product or not, because
> we're getting into how to weigh lifecycle management consideration
> versus initial performance - not a trivial task.

Blah Blah Blah...

You have got as much Apple batteries taking fire as other brands.
That is pure anticompetitive behaviour, nothing else.
Every major brand *excepted Apple* has got absolutely not problem to
comply with European regulations while maintaining safety and user
experience.

[-hh]

On May 10, 11:54 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com>
wrote:

> On 10.05.2013 15:58, -hh wrote:
>
> > The implications of this are that some companies have certainly been
> > tempted to  disregard certain engineering design constraints,
> > particularly since some of these can result in a product which by some
> > metrics is 'better' (eg, faster recharging) while also being cheaper
> > (eg, less 'management' circuitry).
>
> > However, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and such choices can
> > have hidden (delayed) problems, which may for example result in their
> > product not having a 3 year useful lifespan, but on average only a 2
> > year useful lifespan.
>
> > YMMV on if this is really then a  "better" product or not, because
> > we're getting into how to weigh lifecycle management consideration
> > versus initial performance - not a trivial task.
>
> Blah Blah Blah...

Sorry. I've just been talking about some of the technical trades that
we've been working through on a design using Saft's "VLP" series Li-
Ion batteries.

> You have got as much Apple batteries taking fire as other brands.

Statistics on this? Cites please.

BTW, please do make sure to check your data source for if it tracks
whose charger(s) were being used...and do be aware that there's been
counterfeits out there too...because if it doesn't, you may have
problems in your causality claims.

> That is pure anticompetitive behaviour, nothing else.

YA unsubstantiated claim. Cites please.

> Every major brand *excepted Apple* has got absolutely not problem to
> comply with European regulations while maintaining safety and user
> experience.

Just which EU regulations are you referring to? Cite please.

And when you're done there, please explain how this "user experience"
claim is quantified objectively for the metrics that I've been
referring to, which includes useful product life and warranty claim
rates.


-hh

[Laszlo Lebrun]

You will not begin to copy Alan, will you?

>> Every major brand *excepted Apple* has got absolutely not problem to
>> comply with European regulations while maintaining safety and user
>> experience.
>
> Just which EU regulations are you referring to? Cite please.
>

Oh yes you will copy Alan.

> And when you're done there, please explain how this "user experience"
> claim is quantified objectively for the metrics that I've been
> referring to, which includes useful product life and warranty claim
> rates.
>

Definitely, you are copying Alan!
You are at the end of your biased argumentation and try to obfuscate...

So after having found thousands of incongruous arguments to try to
defend the indefendable anticompetitive position of Apple *without
having submitted any substantiation of your claims*, you are now
massively requiring those from me?

The facts are as simple as that:
Only Apple makes such trouble about charging from USB.
All others get it easily, Apple not and that is *intentional*.
Nothing else matters.
EOD.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 10.05.2013 20:37, -hh wrote:

> Just which EU regulations are you referring to? Cite please.

Since you appear to ignore it, you will get that one.
Meanwhile the EU regulation has been adopted worldwide by the IEC:

http://www.iec.ch/newslog/2011/nr0311.htm

n.b. Apple has signed it as well, but keeps refusing to "support" USB
charging. Shame on them!

[Nashton]

Dear God you're obtuse!

[Nashton]

What the f^ck are you talking about, you UTTERLY inadequate, irrelevant
and moronic twit?

[-hh]

On May 10, 3:50 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> On 10.05.2013 20:37, -hh wrote:
>
> > Just which EU regulations are you referring to?  Cite please.
>
> Since you appear to ignore it, you will get that one.
> Meanwhile the EU regulation has been adopted worldwide by the IEC:
>
> http://www.iec.ch/newslog/2011/nr0311.htm

That is a single regulation ... you said regulation**s**.

> n.b. Apple has signed it as well, but keeps refusing to "support" USB
> charging. Shame on them!

Frankly, I don't really know what you're talking about, becuse I've
plugged in iOS devices into a PC based USB port and had it 'quick
charge' without any "unsupported" warning messages. Granted this is
personal anecdote, so perhaps it is something on just my end being
lucky, or something.

FWIW, have you personally ever tried plugging in your iOS device into
a powered USB hub that's *not* plugged into a computer?


-hh

[-hh]

Since when is requesting citations to substantiate a claim copying
anyone?

[...]

In the meantime, you've not substantiated any of the claims you've
just made - - well, except that you did provide ONE of your "EU
regulations" (but note the plural; followed-up in your other post).

> The facts are as simple as that:
> Only Apple makes such trouble about charging from USB.
> All others get it easily, Apple not and that is *intentional*.
> Nothing else matters.
> EOD.

Yes, Apple is doing *something* on purpose. However, precisely what
it is (and why) is not known - - all we have is our personal
speculation. To that end, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide
me with some insight as to how familiar you are with the engineering
of power storage technologies? I've already extended the courtesy to
allude to some of where mine has applicability; perhaps you didn't
recognize it?

Hopefully, you're not "copying" Nicholas and trying to speak in an
area where you have zero education -or- professional experience ;-)


-hh

[-hh]

Stuff that's way, way above your head. Now go "massage" another fat
client.


-hh

[jay birdsong]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:61ed5eb8-aa60-4a82...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

No? I didn't think so.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 10.05.2013 22:30, -hh wrote:

>> You will not begin to copy Alan, will you?
>
> Since when is requesting citations to substantiate a claim copying
> anyone?
>

since Baker begun with asking for proofs of every sentence to mask his
own incompetence!

> [...]
>
> In the meantime, you've not substantiated any of the claims you've
> just made -

did you do so?

>> The facts are as simple as that:
>> Only Apple makes such trouble about charging from USB.
>> All others get it easily, Apple not and that is *intentional*.
>> Nothing else matters.
>> EOD.
>
> Yes, Apple is doing *something* on purpose. However, precisely what
> it is (and why) is not known - - all we have is our personal
> speculation.

Given the coalescent indices of anticompetitive practices, it's not hard
to extrapolate. A technical reason to refuse charging on an USB port
where all others do is largely unplausible.

> To that end, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide
> me with some insight as to how familiar you are with the engineering
> of power storage technologies?

Oh! I am carrying -incidentally- two engineer diplomas (in industrial
electronics and in process control engineering) and have got more than
35 years of experience working for one of the big five electrical
multinational...
;-)

I've already extended the courtesy to
> allude to some of where mine has applicability; perhaps you didn't
> recognize it?
>

Given the stupidities you have written, I have very strong doubts about
that.

> Hopefully, you're not "copying" Nicholas and trying to speak in an
> area where you have zero education -or- professional experience ;-)
>

;-) bad strike...

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 10.05.2013 22:30, -hh wrote:

> Yes, Apple is doing*something* on purpose. However, precisely what

> it is (and why) is not known - - all we have is our personal
> speculation. To that end, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide
> me with some insight as to how familiar you are with the engineering
> of power storage technologies? I've already extended the courtesy to
> allude to some of where mine has applicability; perhaps you didn't
> recognize it?
>

No, i didn't and believe to have got good reasons for that.
Let's see your abilities Nicholas by a very simple test, that should not
take more than 5 minutes:

Take a look at this extremely simple schematic diagram:
http://circuit-zone.com/ediy_blog/98/li-ion-battery-charger-for-mobile-phone-by-tl431.gif

Would you mind to explain:
- the purpose of transistor T3?
- What is it's influence on T5?
- What is it's influence on T2?

N.b. these questions are extremely easy, every person with a year or
less of education in electronics can answer them.

[jay birdsong]

"Laszlo Lebrun" wrote in message
news:kmjrki$ua7$1...@tota-refugium.de...

On 10.05.2013 22:30, -hh wrote:
> Yes, Apple is doing*something* on purpose. However, precisely what
> it is (and why) is not known - - all we have is our personal
> speculation. To that end, perhaps you could be so kind as to
> provide
> me with some insight as to how familiar you are with the engineering
> of power storage technologies? I've already extended the courtesy
> to
> allude to some of where mine has applicability; perhaps you didn't
> recognize it?
>
No, i didn't and believe to have got good reasons for that.
Let's see your abilities Nicholas by a very simple test, that should
not
take more than 5 minutes:

>Take a look at this extremely simple schematic diagram:
>http://circuit-zone.com/ediy_blog/98/li-ion-battery-charger-for-mobile-phone-by-tl431.gif

>Would you mind to explain:
>- the purpose of transistor T3?
>- What is it's influence on T5?
>- What is it's influence on T2?

>N.b. these questions are extremely easy, every person with a year or
>less of education in electronics can answer them.

This - should be interesting.

[Sandman]

In article <kmjk7u$9p1$3...@speranza.aioe.org>, Nashton <na...@na.com>
wrote:

Nashton, still struggling with English :)

--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <kmjpj9$n73$1...@tota-refugium.de>,

Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:

> > Since when is requesting citations to substantiate a claim copying
> > anyone?
>
> since Baker begun with asking for proofs of every sentence to mask his
> own incompetence!

Haha! Asking YOU for proof is unmasking YOUR incompetence. Your
inability to substantiate EVERY claim you make is showing YOUR
incompetence. Role reversal isn't going to help you here.



--
Sandman[.net]

[Nashton]

On 5/10/2013 7:16 PM, Laszlo Lebrun wrote:
> On 10.05.2013 22:30, -hh wrote:
>> Yes, Apple is doing*something* on purpose. However, precisely what
>> it is (and why) is not known - - all we have is our personal
>> speculation. To that end, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide
>> me with some insight as to how familiar you are with the engineering
>> of power storage technologies? I've already extended the courtesy to
>> allude to some of where mine has applicability; perhaps you didn't
>> recognize it?
>>
> No, i didn't and believe to have got good reasons for that.
> Let's see your abilities Nicholas by a very simple test, that should not
> take more than 5 minutes:

Nicholas? I believe you have mistaken me for that flatulent clown.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 11.05.2013 13:55, Nashton wrote:

>> No, i didn't and believe to have got good reasons for that.
>> Let's see your abilities Nicholas by a very simple test, that should not
>> take more than 5 minutes:
>
> Nicholas? I believe you have mistaken me for that flatulent clown.
>

Ouch!
<shame>
<blush>
My apologies.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 10.05.2013 22:19, -hh wrote:
> FWIW, have you personally ever tried plugging in your iOS device into
> a powered USB hub that's*not* plugged into a computer?

Frankly why should I ever want to do THAT?
Charging from USB is the convenience beinge able use any existing
computer to charge your device anywhere without having to carry a charger.

If you now require a USB hub, on the top of it a POWERED one, you may as
well get the original power supply isn't it?

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 10.05.2013 22:19, -hh wrote:

> That is a single regulation ... you said regulation**s**.

Chopping hairs now?
How do you feel about it?

[Tim Adams]

In article <kmiqn8$7ku$1...@dont-email.me>, "jay birdsong" <jaybi...@aol.com>
wrote:

> "Tim Adams" wrote in message
> news:teadams$2$0$0$3-13EAC8.07...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
>
> In article <mr-0C4239.07...@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <kmgtg7$nsu$1...@tota-refugium.de>,
> > Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My explanation -it is just a supposition- is that Apple was
> > > legally
> > > constrained to accept an USB charge from non-Apple hardware, so
> > > they
> > > have done just the minimum to avoid being sued, (the phone will
> > > charge)
> > > and the maximum to discourage their customers to use charging
> > > facilities
> > > from their competitors.
> >
> > Hahaha!
>
> >What I find interesting is that the original post had "this device is
> >not
> >supported" in it, yet the trolls can't seem to understand it.
>
> What I find interesting is how you snipped and edited. Are you just
> plain stoopid, or a lying scumbag?
>
> "this device is not supported"..., let's ignore it and see...

And after 15 minutes the computer went to sleep and killed power to it's usb
ports. What part of "not supported" do you still not understand michael?

[Tim Adams]

In article <kmjj2c$u3e$1...@tota-refugium.de>,

Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:

> On 10.05.2013 20:37, -hh wrote:
> > Just which EU regulations are you referring to? Cite please.
>
> Since you appear to ignore it, you will get that one.
> Meanwhile the EU regulation has been adopted worldwide by the IEC:
>
> http://www.iec.ch/newslog/2011/nr0311.htm
>
> n.b. Apple has signed it as well, but keeps refusing to "support" USB
> charging. Shame on them!

yet I charge ALL my apple devices via USB. Guess you're statement is just
another lie.

[Tim Adams]

and another idiot that doesn't understand what 'not supported' means.

[-hh]

On May 10, 6:16 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> On 10.05.2013 22:30, -hh wrote:
> > Yes, Apple is doing*something*  on purpose.  However, precisely
> > what it is (and why) is not known - - all we have is our personal
> > speculation.  To that end, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide
> > me with some insight as to how familiar you are with the engineering
> > of power storage technologies?  I've already extended the courtesy to
> > allude to some of where mine has applicability; perhaps you didn't
> > recognize it?
>
> No, i didn't and believe to have got good reasons for that.

"believe to have"?

In any case, all that's being illustrated is that many technical
disciplines are very broad overall before one delves into
specializations which aren't necessarily familiar or easily recognized
by others within the same technology field, even when one of the main
players has been mentioned by company name.

> Let's see your abilities Nicholas by a very simple test, that should not
> take more than 5 minutes:
>

> Take a look at this extremely simple schematic diagram:http://circuit-zone.com/ediy_blog/98/li-ion-battery-charger-for-mobil...

>
> Would you mind to explain:
> - the purpose of transistor T3?
> - What is it's influence on T5?
> - What is it's influence on T2?

Sent offline.

-hh

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 13.05.2013 18:45, -hh wrote:
> On May 10, 6:16�pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>> On 10.05.2013 22:30, -hh wrote:
>>> Yes, Apple is doing*something* �on purpose. �However, precisely
>>> what it is (and why) is not known - - all we have is our personal
>>> speculation. �To that end, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide
>>> me with some insight as to how familiar you are with the engineering
>>> of power storage technologies? �I've already extended the courtesy to
>>> allude to some of where mine has applicability; perhaps you didn't
>>> recognize it?
>>
>> No, i didn't and believe to have got good reasons for that.
>
> "believe to have"?
>

"believe to have got good reasons", yes!

> In any case, all that's being illustrated is that many technical
> disciplines are very broad overall before one delves into
> specializations which aren't necessarily familiar or easily recognized
> by others within the same technology field, even when one of the main
> players has been mentioned by company name.
>
>> Let's see your abilities Nicholas by a very simple test, that should not
>> take more than 5 minutes:
>>
>> Take a look at this extremely simple schematic diagram:http://circuit-zone.com/ediy_blog/98/li-ion-battery-charger-for-mobil...
>>
>> Would you mind to explain:
>> - the purpose of transistor T3?
>> - What is it's influence on T5?
>> - What is it's influence on T2?
>
> Sent offline.
>

Don't be shy, tell us publicly,

[jay birdsong]

"Laszlo Lebrun" wrote in message

news:kmr6jv$7ur$1...@tota-refugium.de...

He's trying to locate a free electronics engineer to get the answers.
When he doe,s I'm sure he will parrot them to you.

[-hh]

On May 13, 1:07 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> On 13.05.2013 18:45, -hh wrote:> On May 10, 6:16 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10.05.2013 22:30, -hh wrote:
> >>> Yes, Apple is doing*something* on purpose. However, precisely
> >>> what it is (and why) is not known - - all we have is our personal
> >>> speculation. To that end, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide
> >>> me with some insight as to how familiar you are with the engineering
> >>> of power storage technologies? I've already extended the courtesy to
> >>> allude to some of where mine has applicability; perhaps you didn't
> >>> recognize it?
>
> >> No, i didn't and believe to have got good reasons for that.
>
> > "believe to have"?
>
> "believe to have got good reasons", yes!

Sorry, still isn't parsing. Are you saying that you did not recognize
and you believe that *you* have good reasons for why you didn't
recognize what I wrote ... ?

.... or are you saying that you did not recognize and you believe that
*I* have good reasons for why you didn't recognize what I wrote?

> > In any case, all that's being illustrated is that many technical
> > disciplines are very broad overall before one delves into
> > specializations which aren't necessarily familiar or easily recognized
> > by others within the same technology field, even when one of the main
> > players has been mentioned by company name.
>
> >> Let's see your abilities Nicholas by a very simple test, that should not
> >> take more than 5 minutes:
>
> >> Take a look at this extremely simple schematic diagram:http://circuit-zone.com/ediy_blog/98/li-ion-battery-charger-for-mobil...
>
> >> Would you mind to explain:
> >> - the purpose of transistor T3?
> >> - What is it's influence on T5?
> >> - What is it's influence on T2?
>
> > Sent offline.
>
> Don't be shy, tell us publicly,

Too late - the email had already been sent before I posted: did you
not receive it?


-hh

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 13.05.2013 23:44, -hh wrote:
> On May 13, 1:07 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>> On 13.05.2013 18:45, -hh wrote:> On May 10, 6:16 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10.05.2013 22:30, -hh wrote:
>>>>> To that end, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide
>>>>> me with some insight as to how familiar you are with the engineering
>>>>> of power storage technologies? I've already extended the courtesy to
>>>>> allude to some of where mine has applicability; perhaps you didn't
>>>>> recognize it?
>>
>>>> No, i didn't and believe to have got good reasons for that.
>>
>>> "believe to have"?
>>
>> "believe to have got good reasons", yes!
>
> Sorry, still isn't parsing. Are you saying that you did not recognize
> and you believe that *you* have good reasons for why you didn't
> recognize what I wrote ... ?
>

I did not recognize any familiarity with engineering of power storage
technologies in the weird stuff you have posted and I believe that I

have got good reasons for that.

>>>> Let's see your abilities Nicholas by a very simple test, that should not
>>>> take more than 5 minutes:
>>
>>>> Take a look at this extremely simple schematic diagram:http://circuit-zone.com/ediy_blog/98/li-ion-battery-charger-for-mobil...
>>
>>>> Would you mind to explain:
>>>> - the purpose of transistor T3?
>>>> - What is it's influence on T5?
>>>> - What is it's influence on T2?
>>
>>> Sent offline.
>>
>> Don't be shy, tell us publicly,
>
> Too late - the email had already been sent before I posted: did you
> not receive it?
>

No PM please! Here in the NG. Publicly.
Too late? Can't you cut and paste it here?

[-hh]

On May 13, 9:05 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> On 13.05.2013 23:44, -hh wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 1:07 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> >> On 13.05.2013 18:45, -hh wrote:> On May 10, 6:16 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 10.05.2013 22:30, -hh wrote:
> >>>>> To that end, perhaps you could be so kind as to provide
> >>>>> me with some insight as to how familiar you are with the engineering
> >>>>> of power storage technologies? I've already extended the courtesy to
> >>>>> allude to some of where mine has applicability; perhaps you didn't
> >>>>> recognize it?
>
> >>>> No, i didn't and believe to have got good reasons for that.
>
> >>> "believe to have"?
>
> >> "believe to have got good reasons", yes!
>
> > Sorry, still isn't parsing.  Are you saying that you did not recognize
> > and you believe that *you* have good reasons for why you didn't
> > recognize what I wrote ... ?
>
> I did not recognize any familiarity with engineering of power storage
> technologies in the weird stuff you have posted and I believe that I
> have got good reasons for that.

Well, then I'll take our 80kW-hr pack and go home. bye.

> >>>> Let's see your abilities Nicholas by a very simple test, that should not
> >>>> take more than 5 minutes:
>
> >>>> Take a look at this extremely simple schematic diagram:http://circuit-zone.com/ediy_blog/98/li-ion-battery-charger-for-mobil...
>
> >>>> Would you mind to explain:
> >>>> - the purpose of transistor T3?
> >>>> - What is it's influence on T5?
> >>>> - What is it's influence on T2?
>
> >>> Sent offline.
>
> >> Don't be shy, tell us publicly,
>
> > Too late - the email had already been sent before I posted:  did you
> > not receive it?
>
> No PM please! Here in the NG. Publicly.

Nope, sorry. PM only. AFAIC, you're just another sockpuppet of the
usual suspects and aren't worth my time otherwise.


-hh

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 14.05.2013 04:33, -hh wrote:
> On May 13, 9:05 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>> On 13.05.2013 23:44, -hh wrote:

> Well, then I'll take our 80kW-hr pack and go home. bye.
>

Yes do it.

>>>>>> Would you mind to explain:
>>>>>> - the purpose of transistor T3?
>>>>>> - What is it's influence on T5?
>>>>>> - What is it's influence on T2?

>> No PM please! Here in the NG. Publicly.
>

> Nope, sorry. PM only...
>
Test failed.
So now a am sure that you are just a plain conman, not worth the discussion.

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 14.05.2013 04:33, -hh wrote:
> On May 13, 9:05 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
>> On 13.05.2013 23:44, -hh wrote:

>>> On May 13, 1:07 pm, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com> wrote:

>> I did not recognize any familiarity with engineering of power storage
>> technologies in the weird stuff you have posted and I believe that I
>> have got good reasons for that.
>
> Well, then I'll take our 80kW-hr pack and go home. bye.
>

Oh! your warehouse manager won't let you drive home with the Fenwick.
you will lose your conman job.
;-)

>>>>>> Would you mind to explain:
>>>>>> - the purpose of transistor T3?
>>>>>> - What is it's influence on T5?
>>>>>> - What is it's influence on T2?
>>>>> Sent offline.
>>>> Don't be shy, tell us publicly,
>>> Too late - the email had already been sent before I posted: did you
>>> not receive it?
>> No PM please! Here in the NG. Publicly.
> Nope, sorry. PM only. AFAIC, you're just another sockpuppet of the
> usual suspects and aren't worth my time otherwise.
>

You should not waste your time with me, you have got so many crates
to pile up in the warehouse.

[Sandman]

In article <kmshfb$rs5$1...@tota-refugium.de>,

Michel loses again. :)


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article
<333c8271-7963-44ad...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Voltage variation response

> > - What is it's influence on T5?

User feedback

> > - What is it's influence on T2?

None.

> Sent offline.
>
> -hh




--
Sandman[.net]

[-hh]

On May 14, 3:30 am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <kmshfb$rs...@tota-refugium.de>,

And we've now confirmed another loser troll sockpuppet with an invalid
email address, who jumps to insults when he loses.

Perhaps if T3 didn't provide gate control to T2 or if it did have an
effect on T5, he would have picked up on my comments about thermal
management, or the name of the company we're working with for the
aforementioned pack.


-hh

[Sandman]

In article
<0a0be61c-5122-4e1a...@z14g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,

-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> > > You should not waste your time with me, you have got so many crates
> > > to pile up in the warehouse.
> >
> > Michel loses again. :)
>
> And we've now confirmed another loser troll sockpuppet with an invalid
> email address, who jumps to insults when he loses.

I'm not sure whose sock puppet you think he is? His name is Michel
Firholz and he's from Germany, and as far as I can determine he lives in
Munich, or at least have an apartment there.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Laszlo Lebrun]

On 14.05.2013 12:26, -hh wrote:
> Perhaps if T3 didn't provide gate control to T2 or if it did have an
> effect on T5, he would have picked up on my comments about thermal
> management, or the name of the company we're working with for the
> aforementioned pack.

T3 is sensing the charging current over the voltage drop at R1.
It shunts the base current to T2 (which has by the way no gate to
control ) coming from R3 and so limits the battery charging current
controlled by T1.
That is a typical current limiting circuitry, you didn't recognize it.

T3 has no effect at all on T5, which is only driven by the charging current.

The "thermal management" you spoke about does not apply here at all.

All that confirms that your alleged skills are limited to picking up
some keywords that you don't really understand and throw them in the
thread to fake some competency.

Sorry, but to impress me, you need to provide more, guy!

[-hh]

On May 14, 10:08 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com>
wrote:

> On 14.05.2013 12:26, -hh wrote:
>
> > Perhaps if T3 didn't provide gate control to T2 or if it did have an
> > effect on T5, he would have picked up on my comments about thermal
> > management, or the name of the company we're working with for the
> > aforementioned pack.
>
> T3 is sensing the charging current over the voltage drop at R1.
> It shunts the base current to T2 (which has by the way no gate to
> control ) coming from R3 and so limits the battery charging current
> controlled by T1.

It doesn't matter if you want to call it a "Base" instead of a "Gate",
but it must have such a control, or else it isn't a transistor.

> That is a typical current limiting circuitry, you didn't recognize it.

No, you asked questions that could be answered narrowly.

The fact remains that T3 does indeed influence T2...and the general
nature of that influence is that because T2 is of a 'Normally Open'
configuration, as the feed from T3 increases, it will serve to close
T2's output.


> T3 has no effect at all on T5...

Correct, and is also what I said.

> The "thermal management" you spoke about does not apply here at all.

As you said, this was a simple circuit.

Now are you going to try to claim that its absence here mean that
thermal management is never a design factor for anyone?

> All that confirms that your alleged skills are limited to picking up
> some keywords that you don't really understand and throw them in the
> thread to fake some competency.

Did I claim to be a ditch-digging circuit designer? Cite,
please.

> Sorry, but to impress me, you need to provide more, guy!

Translation: I got nothing wrong, but didn't "impress" you by
volunteering additional information...which means you're perpetrating
yet another Goal Post dragging attempt.


-hh

[-hh]

Offline note being sent.


-hh

[Nashton]

You sleazy, slime bucket.
This is definitive proof that you're a liar, just like your boss, bakr.

[Nashton]

You lying rat.
If you had any clue as to what was depicted in the diagram, you would be
proclaiming it far and loud, you pathetic little nobody.

All you're good for is twisting the truth, lying about everything (such
as the incident with my automobile, where you still go around
proclaiming that it isn't even mine), stalking children and
demonstrating your ignorance.

And there is nothing wrong with selling toilets.

[Nashton]

On 5/14/2013 11:52 AM, -hh wrote:
> On May 14, 10:08 am, Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_leb...@laszlomail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 14.05.2013 12:26, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps if T3 didn't provide gate control to T2 or if it did have an
>>> effect on T5, he would have picked up on my comments about thermal

>

>> Sorry, but to impress me, you need to provide more, guy!
>
> Translation: I got nothing wrong, but didn't "impress" you by
> volunteering additional information...which means you're perpetrating
> yet another Goal Post dragging attempt.
>
>
> -hh
>

Post what you PM'ed to Laszlo, you lying scum-bag or shut it.

[Nashton]

Offline note being sent?

The scum-bucket keeps the flame alive.
I pegged you the first minute I had a conversation with you.
You're nothing but a fake poser.

[jay birdsong]

"Laszlo Lebrun" wrote in message

news:kmtggo$2du$1...@tota-refugium.de...

On 14.05.2013 12:26, -hh wrote:
> Perhaps if T3 didn't provide gate control to T2 or if it did have an
> effect on T5, he would have picked up on my comments about thermal
> management, or the name of the company we're working with for the
> aforementioned pack.

T3 is sensing the charging current over the voltage drop at R1.
It shunts the base current to T2 (which has by the way no gate to
control ) coming from R3 and so limits the battery charging current
controlled by T1.
That is a typical current limiting circuitry, you didn't recognize it.

T3 has no effect at all on T5, which is only driven by the charging
current.

The "thermal management" you spoke about does not apply here at all.

All that confirms that your alleged skills are limited to picking up
some keywords that you don't really understand and throw them in the
thread to fake some competency.

Sorry, but to impress me, you need to provide more, guy!

*******************************************************

I told you it was going to be interesting.

[jay birdsong]

"Nashton" wrote in message news:kmua95$nki$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

You must understand, these guys love to be hated. It's a mental
disorder - it's called Masochistic Narcissism.

[Sandman]

In article <kmuo2a$e9$1...@dont-email.me>,

"jay birdsong" <jaybi...@aol.com> wrote:

> You must understand, these guys love to be hated. It's a mental
> disorder - it's called Masochistic Narcissism.

Hated by whom?


--
Sandman[.net]

[-hh]

On May 15, 1:44 am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <kmuo2a$e...@dont-email.me>,

>  "jay birdsong" <jaybirds...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > You must understand,  these guys love to be hated.  It's a mental
> > disorder - it's called Masochistic Narcissism.
>
> Hated by whom?

Other sockpuppet incarnations from the same person...?

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2007/despair_CSMA.jpg

Perhaps the OP will be back soon from other threads and we'll be told
how soon just a transistor can exist with only two wires :-)



-hh

[jay birdsong]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:9821a0e5-099c-40d7...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

On May 15, 1:44 am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <kmuo2a$e...@dont-email.me>,
> "jay birdsong" <jaybirds...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > You must understand, these guys love to be hated. It's a mental
> > disorder - it's called Masochistic Narcissism.
>
> Hated by whom?

Hmmmm........ so familiar.

>Other sockpuppet incarnations from the same person...?

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2007/despair_CSMA.jpg

>Perhaps the OP will be back soon from other threads and we'll be told

>how soon just a transistor can exist with only two wires, and I will
>weave even more BS into my story:-)



Give it up. You have successfully made yourself look like an even
bigger fool than we gave you credit for.

You are pathetic, Punjab.

[-hh]

On May 16, 8:20 am, "jay birdsong" <jaybirds...@aol.com> wrote:
> "-hh"  wrote in message
>
> news:9821a0e5-099c-40d7...@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> On May 15, 1:44 am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <kmuo2a$e...@dont-email.me>,
> >  "jay birdsong" <jaybirds...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > You must understand,  these guys love to be hated.  It's a mental
> > > disorder - it's called Masochistic Narcissism.
>
> > Hated by whom?
>
> Hmmmm........ so familiar.

"Fish on," which is hardly surprising. Obviously, this sock's easy
availability to rise to the bait means that claims of "too busy
counting [his] money" were YA fiction ;-)

> >Other sockpuppet incarnations from the same person...?
>
> http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2007/despair_CSMA.jpg
>
> >Perhaps the OP will be back soon from other threads and we'll be told
> >how soon just a transistor can exist with only two wires,  and I will
> >weave even more BS into my story:-)

Original text was:

"Perhaps the OP will be back soon from other threads and we'll be
told

how soon just a transistor can exist with only two wires :-)"

and nothing more.

> Give it up.  You have successfully made yourself look like an even
> bigger fool than we gave you credit for.

Since you just stooped to purposefully alter a quote, that's quite a
hilariously transparent "damage control" spin attempt.


> You are pathetic, Punjab.

So a sockpuppet weakly sputters...

Sorry, but people aren't as stupid as you so desperately need them to
be.

Now go fetch a cup of coffee! ;-)


-hh

[jay birdsong]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:a33482e9-448f-4026...@d6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

Errrm .. no. You did the altering. Cute try though.

> You are pathetic, Punjab.

>So a sockpuppet weakly sputters...

Says the man with a bunch of socks.

>Sorry, but people aren't as stupid as you so desperately need them to
>be.

Yes, we know how stupid you are. More than needed to meet your goal
of loser.

>Now go fetch a cup of coffee! ;-)

Yes, I'll sip it while I watch you scrub the shit streaks from a
couple of toilet bowls.

[Nashton]

So where did that blurry pic go, -hh?

Are you going to...PM me?

[-hh]

Golly, do you mean this one?
http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/paris/armor_hole.jpg

Apparently it is very much like you: it has gone nowhere ;-)

> Are you going to...PM me?

So in round numbers, just how much does 100ft worth of conveyor belt
cost these days?


-hh