On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 01:41:14PM -0500, STeve Andre' wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 March 2004 09:40 am, you wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 11:20:40AM -0500, STeve Andre' wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 02 March 2004 07:24 am, you wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 06:03:13PM -0500, STeve Andre' wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday 28 February 2004 10:55 am, Kyung Ho Park wrote:
> >
> > I just think we should separate what we know (the battery cycle count can
> > be queried) and what is simply conjecture.
>
> If the counter cycle can be queried from two Windows machines and
> they get the same information, then how can the battery not have that
> information? This seems fairly straightforward to me. If there is a flaw
> in this, please enlighten me.
What I'm refering to by 'conjecture' is the idea that there is a circuit that will refuse to charge the battery once it reaches a certian number of cycles.
> IBM has stated 300 cycles for some battery I've dealt with. It was
> quite a while ago that I got that, on the phone. It might have been
> an A series machine.
300 Cycles for what though? Lion cells? MTBF for the charging circuit or did the specificially mention that there is a circuit that will refuse to charge after 300 cycles. If they didn't then it is also conjecture that the value mentioned is related to the circuit (as it can just as easily be the cells themselves which generally don't survive much more than 300 cycles).
_______________________________________________
Thinkpad mailing list
Thinkpad@stderr.org
http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/thinkpad
Received on Tue Mar 2 15:59:01 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 26 2006 - 16:02:25 EDT