• cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage

    From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 18 17:10:46 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:01:36 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
    (Computer Nerd Kev) Gave us:

    Defecant_Linux_Luser_Numero_Uno is a very angry person with some serious
    mental issues. He needs to make an appointment with a good shrink.
    It seems to be common in the Linux community for some odd reason.

    Thanks for the explanation.

    You're both retarded and he is worse than Donald Trump. And look at
    you touting his words as "explanations"..

    You are beyond stupid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Godzilla@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 18 22:22:18 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On 2015-10-18, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno, published this proof of the Infinite Monkey Theorem:
    On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:24:19 +0000 (UTC), Godzilla
    <godzilla@lizardboss.invalid> Gave us:

    It appears that trip would only be a couple inches, however.

    Disappointing Decadumper, not even 3 inches.
    Must be a bitch to break a Viagra into 6 pieces.

    It is a reference to how far your head is up your ass, such that your asshole and your mouth are only a couple inches apart..

    Nice try, though, punk.

    It wasn't a reference to me at all, you trinket gathering poof.

    --
    ♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ ♘ ♖

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno on Tue Oct 20 07:50:22 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in message news:h0l42b9lagljk7affel3lvbcjk4pbjt7ic@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:48:17 -0400, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> Gave
    us:

    snip

    This one is 135 Watts. Would (may) only need an output plug
    changeout.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012HW5A9O

    And no, the wattage does not have to match the original. More is
    better. It is just a declaration of what the supply is able to provide.
    Your device still uses only what it uses. It merely has a better
    likelihood of providing a cleaner DC feed, and exhibiting less heat
    while doing so.

    ASUS representative said...

    "A higher wattage AC adapter can cause damage to battery overtime.
    Thus, it is not recommended."

    Is this true?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 20 12:21:10 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:50:22 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> Gave us:


    "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in message >news:h0l42b9lagljk7affel3lvbcjk4pbjt7ic@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:48:17 -0400, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> Gave
    us:

    snip

    This one is 135 Watts. Would (may) only need an output plug
    changeout.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012HW5A9O

    And no, the wattage does not have to match the original. More is
    better. It is just a declaration of what the supply is able to provide.
    Your device still uses only what it uses. It merely has a better
    likelihood of providing a cleaner DC feed, and exhibiting less heat
    while doing so.

    ASUS representative said...

    "A higher wattage AC adapter can cause damage to battery overtime.
    Thus, it is not recommended."

    Is this true?

    No. A battery is charged by voltage. It requires a voltage greater
    than the battery's operating voltage. That is usually managed by a
    watchdog chip/circuit. They operate from within a specific input
    voltage range and ONLY feed the battery the voltage it needs. And they
    stop the charging cycle when they are through. You'll notice this same behavior on your smart phone and some laptops when they say "not
    charging" even though you attached an external source.

    An adaptor that can put out 65W does so comfortably and without
    exhibiting heat or feeding a noisy rail (ripple). That means if they
    get fully loaded to the 65W rating, they are supposed to work at that
    level 24/7/365, as in "full duty cycle". A higher power, same voltage
    supply does the same thing and at it rated power when loaded to that
    level. If you hook it up to a lesser load, it will pull less and run
    cooler and exhibit less ripple.

    So essentially he couldn't be more wrong if he tried.

    It is incorrect to attach a higher voltage supply, but NOT incorrect
    to attach a higher wattage supply. The wattage rating declares the work
    which it is capable of doing.. It does not "feed more" if the load has
    not changed, and it has not. The device acts no differently simply
    because a more capable, quieter running power unit got attached.
    As long as the voltage matches, the device will draw no more power than
    it did on the other power supply device.

    I can not explain it more concisely, because that covers it
    completely.

    You can tell him I said he is wrong, and needs to go back to bullshit salesman school.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Big Bad Bob@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 20 11:01:53 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On 10/15/15 11:33, Adam so wittily quipped:
    System: ASUS N61JQ (laptop)
    Host OS: Ubuntu 12.04 LTS


    After a power outage yesterday, pressing the power button of
    ASUS laptop does nothing. The laptop was/is connected to
    an APC battery backup (surge protection only) outlet (via AC adapter).
    AC adapter's green light is "on".

    Any ideas?



    try removing all power (including the battery). Wait a minute, put the
    battery back in, and try powering off of the battery. Then try powering
    off of both battery AND charger. And finally, with the battery removed,
    try running it JUST on the charger. If all 3 of these fail, your
    hardware is probably FUBAR.

    you might also see if the power cable on the charger is messed up. Give
    the wires a wiggle, see if it does something.

    it's also possible that whatever power event caused the outage might
    have damaged your laptop charger. it _might_ happen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 20 14:31:05 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:01:53 -0700, Big Bad Bob <BigBadBob-at-mrp3-dot-com@testing.local> Gave us:

    try removing all power (including the battery).

    Try reading the thread. It was half a month ago and was solved.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 20 14:33:00 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:17:01 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> Gave us:
    snip
    This is OT but anyone know how to find a dental hygienist,
    with whom you've lost touch (because
    the "new" owner wants that relationship severed)?

    The previous owner retired.
    [Alan L. Grimm, DDS, Milpitas, CA]
    And, I don't know her last name.

    Well with a name like Alan, I'll bet she has a pretty low voice an a
    fairly large clit! :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno on Tue Oct 20 11:54:04 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in message news:m42d2bp505mvavfqb1mkob29itf5uoefao@4ax.com...
    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:17:01 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> Gave us:
    snip
    This is OT but anyone know how to find a dental hygienist,
    with whom you've lost touch (because
    the "new" owner wants that relationship severed)?

    The previous owner retired.
    [Alan L. Grimm, DDS, Milpitas, CA]
    And, I don't know her last name.

    Well with a name like Alan, I'll bet she has a pretty low voice an a
    fairly large clit! :-)

    No, she's just a very good dental hygienist.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 20 16:00:20 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us:

    That advice is always correct, except when it isn't.

    You are being an idiot again.

    A load is a load, and incorporating a more capable supply at the same
    voltage changes nothing about the consumption rate of the load.

    Designers sometimes do stupid things to reduce costs.

    You are being an idiot again.. No designer can design a device that
    presents a given supply a specific load which changes when a better
    supply is attached.

    Sometimes advisers extrapolate their experience to situations
    where it doesn't apply and express it with arrogance.

    And some detractors are so stupid they cannot even present a valid
    argument. That would be you, idiot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 20 16:01:20 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us:

    Check out the schematic for a Compaq Aero 4-25.
    The only thing between the battery and the charge jack is a FET switch.
    They use the current limit in the power brick to limit the charge
    current. If you use a charger with a higher current limit, you overheat
    the battery.

    Wrong again. The battery itself has watchdog features in it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 20 16:03:17 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us:

    If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire.
    Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it.

    Maybe you should learn how to spell 'motherboard' before you go
    expounding on them.

    Current is limited already because it is set by the voltage presented,
    not the capacity of the supply to feed a load.

    You are an electrical idiot as well, I see.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 20 16:04:39 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us:

    Expressing advice concisely and completely with maximum arrogance
    to a newbie without a voltmeter or the
    means or understanding to verify the advice is irresponsible...

    You are an idiot. The supply voltage and rating is declared,
    dumbfuck.

    even if it is correct ALMOST all of the time.

    what I stated is correct ALL the time, idiot.

    Sometimes, the advice doesn't apply.

    Like the shit you just got done spewing into this thread.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mike@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno on Tue Oct 20 14:32:44 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On 10/20/2015 1:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us:

    If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire.
    Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it.

    Maybe you should learn how to spell 'motherboard' before you go
    expounding on them.

    Current is limited already because it is set by the voltage presented,
    not the capacity of the supply to feed a load.

    You are an electrical idiot as well, I see.

    Perhaps if you read the text instead of snipping it, you'd have seen the example that contradicts your arrogance.
    So far, three UTI's on this post.
    Wonder if I can trade 'em in for something useful? I sure have a lot
    of 'em.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul@21:1/5 to mike on Tue Oct 20 19:29:01 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    mike wrote:

    That advice is always correct, except when it isn't.
    Designers sometimes do stupid things to reduce costs.
    Sometimes advisers extrapolate their experience to situations
    where it doesn't apply and express it with arrogance.

    Check out the schematic for a Compaq Aero 4-25.
    The only thing between the battery and the charge jack is a FET switch.
    They use the current limit in the power brick to limit the charge
    current. If you use a charger with a higher current limit, you overheat
    the battery.
    If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire.
    Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it.

    Expressing advice concisely and completely with maximum arrogance
    to a newbie without a voltmeter or the
    means or understanding to verify the advice is irresponsible...
    even if it is correct ALMOST all of the time.
    Sometimes, the advice doesn't apply.

    You missed a golden opportunity.

    I already provided a link from badcaps.net, with a
    *schematic* for the laptop. Apply for a login account,
    so you can download the schematic. I already had an account
    on badcaps, so could get this immediately.

    "ASUS N61JQ won't start"
    http://www.badcaps.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42461

    You can apply your keen analytical skills to that schematic
    and tell us how the unit works.

    PDF page 89 has the battery controller (MB39A132).
    PDF page 60 has the DC jack with inductive surge (undershoot) protection.

    And to help you on your way, this doc gives you an
    overview on the MB39A132 feature set.

    "DC/DC Converter IC for Charging Li-ion Batteries MB39A132 ..." http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/EDG/binary/pdf/find/26-3e/7.pdf

    What do you notice on Figure 9 Page 5 ? It uses an SMPS
    with high side/low side MOSFETs for controlling the charging
    of the battery.

    What can you feed an SMPS with ? All sorts of stuff.
    Very flexible. What may not be flexible, is some of the
    voltage thresholds set to work with a 19V adapter.
    (The chip detects when the AC adapter is plugged in.)

    I got a datasheet for the MB39A132 here. But that
    isn't necessary needed right away.

    http://master-chip.ru/store/files/b75d64b3-f625-774c-9992-25c047244b48/mb39a132.pdf

    *******

    Your quoted material, is from a 20 year old laptop,
    a laptop with NiMH battery technology. What are
    the odds that a current generation laptop is
    as crude as that ? You yourself contributed to
    this faq.

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/pc-hardware-faq/laptops/compaq-aero/

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 20 19:51:37 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:32:44 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us:

    On 10/20/2015 1:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us:

    If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire.
    Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it.

    Maybe you should learn how to spell 'motherboard' before you go
    expounding on them.

    Current is limited already because it is set by the voltage presented,
    not the capacity of the supply to feed a load.

    You are an electrical idiot as well, I see.

    Perhaps if you read the text instead of snipping it, you'd have seen the >example that contradicts your arrogance.
    So far, three UTI's on this post.
    Wonder if I can trade 'em in for something useful? I sure have a lot
    of 'em.

    You are real good at jacking off at the mouth about your petty,
    retarded non- "acronyms", but not surprisingly devoid of actual content
    that refutes what I stated. To state someone I hate, You'd be fired.
    You are ineffectual, at best.

    You could not debate this with any modicum of technical accuracy if
    your life depended on it. A pussy like you will try to let it die
    quietly than actually provide a substantive retort. Come back when you actually have a valid argument, chump. Your FET argument was a basic
    Ohm's law full tilt failure, and I easily pointed that fact out to you.

    Run, pussy boy, run!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno on Tue Oct 20 11:17:01 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in message news:jfqc2bt4q2nlbff4bng9a1l2bopcgqu330@4ax.com...
    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:50:22 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> Gave us:


    "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in message >>news:h0l42b9lagljk7affel3lvbcjk4pbjt7ic@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:48:17 -0400, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> Gave
    us:

    snip

    This one is 135 Watts. Would (may) only need an output plug
    changeout.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012HW5A9O

    And no, the wattage does not have to match the original. More is
    better. It is just a declaration of what the supply is able to provide. >>> Your device still uses only what it uses. It merely has a better
    likelihood of providing a cleaner DC feed, and exhibiting less heat
    while doing so.

    ASUS representative said...

    "A higher wattage AC adapter can cause damage to battery overtime.
    Thus, it is not recommended."

    Is this true?

    No. A battery is charged by voltage. It requires a voltage greater
    than the battery's operating voltage. That is usually managed by a
    watchdog chip/circuit. They operate from within a specific input
    voltage range and ONLY feed the battery the voltage it needs. And they
    stop the charging cycle when they are through. You'll notice this same behavior on your smart phone and some laptops when they say "not
    charging" even though you attached an external source.

    An adaptor that can put out 65W does so comfortably and without
    exhibiting heat or feeding a noisy rail (ripple). That means if they
    get fully loaded to the 65W rating, they are supposed to work at that
    level 24/7/365, as in "full duty cycle". A higher power, same voltage
    supply does the same thing and at it rated power when loaded to that
    level. If you hook it up to a lesser load, it will pull less and run
    cooler and exhibit less ripple.

    So essentially he couldn't be more wrong if he tried.

    It is incorrect to attach a higher voltage supply, but NOT incorrect
    to attach a higher wattage supply. The wattage rating declares the work which it is capable of doing.. It does not "feed more" if the load has
    not changed, and it has not. The device acts no differently simply
    because a more capable, quieter running power unit got attached.
    As long as the voltage matches, the device will draw no more power than
    it did on the other power supply device.

    I can not explain it more concisely, because that covers it
    completely.

    You can tell him I said he is wrong, and needs to go back to bullshit salesman school.


    Thanks (NumeroUno), that makes sense. So, if I stick with
    a 19V AC adapter that is 90+W, I should be fine.

    Just FYI, the following items...

    90 Watt AC Adapter (New Design) 0A001-00051000 http://us.estore.asus.com/products/0a001-00051000

    6-Cell Battery 07G016HJ1875
    http://us.estore.asus.com/products/07g016hj1875

    were suggested to me by ASUS.


    This is OT but anyone know how to find a dental hygienist,
    with whom you've lost touch (because
    the "new" owner wants that relationship severed)?

    The previous owner retired.
    [Alan L. Grimm, DDS, Milpitas, CA]
    And, I don't know her last name.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 20 20:03:51 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:29:01 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.com> Gave us:

    You missed a golden opportunity.

    It is basic Ohm's Law. He failed. Period.

    19Volts is 19Volts all day long.

    A 65 watt supply and a 90 watt supply and even the 135 watt supply I
    gave a link to ALL ONLY provide 19Volts, and their maximum capacity
    means absolutely NOTHING as they only pump the power needed for the
    presented load, and that does not change from one supply to another when
    placed on the same load.

    If they are at 19Volts, then they ALL three only pump the same load
    the same way.

    So, a 65 Watt loads gets 3.421 Amps fed into it by a 65 Watt supply,
    and that maxes out that supply and it will have the highest ripple of
    its designed parameters.

    A 65 watt load only gets 3.421 Amps fed into it by a 90 Watt supply as
    well, and a 65 watt load only gets 3.421 Amps fed into it by a 135 Watt
    supply. The higher power capable supplies will have lower ripple
    figures, guaranteed.

    See how easy that is? Basic Ohm's Law. The supply ONLY declares what
    its FULL LOAD potential to operate at is. That means that ALL three
    supplies will fill the 19 Volt requisite need for this load. The ONLY difference will be that the latter two will do so while running cooler
    and very likely while presenting less ripple to the load, which BTW,
    computers like.

    So mike is absolutely full of shit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mike@21:1/5 to DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno on Tue Oct 20 12:54:19 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On 10/20/2015 9:21 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
    On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:50:22 -0700, "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> Gave us:


    "DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote in message >> news:h0l42b9lagljk7affel3lvbcjk4pbjt7ic@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:48:17 -0400, Caver1 <caver1@inthemud.org> Gave
    us:

    snip

    This one is 135 Watts. Would (may) only need an output plug
    changeout.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012HW5A9O

    And no, the wattage does not have to match the original. More is
    better. It is just a declaration of what the supply is able to provide. >>> Your device still uses only what it uses. It merely has a better
    likelihood of providing a cleaner DC feed, and exhibiting less heat
    while doing so.

    ASUS representative said...

    "A higher wattage AC adapter can cause damage to battery overtime.
    Thus, it is not recommended."

    Is this true?

    No. A battery is charged by voltage. It requires a voltage greater
    than the battery's operating voltage. That is usually managed by a
    watchdog chip/circuit. They operate from within a specific input
    voltage range and ONLY feed the battery the voltage it needs. And they
    stop the charging cycle when they are through. You'll notice this same behavior on your smart phone and some laptops when they say "not
    charging" even though you attached an external source.

    An adaptor that can put out 65W does so comfortably and without
    exhibiting heat or feeding a noisy rail (ripple). That means if they
    get fully loaded to the 65W rating, they are supposed to work at that
    level 24/7/365, as in "full duty cycle". A higher power, same voltage
    supply does the same thing and at it rated power when loaded to that
    level. If you hook it up to a lesser load, it will pull less and run
    cooler and exhibit less ripple.

    So essentially he couldn't be more wrong if he tried.

    It is incorrect to attach a higher voltage supply, but NOT incorrect
    to attach a higher wattage supply. The wattage rating declares the work which it is capable of doing.. It does not "feed more" if the load has
    not changed, and it has not. The device acts no differently simply
    because a more capable, quieter running power unit got attached.
    As long as the voltage matches, the device will draw no more power than
    it did on the other power supply device.

    I can not explain it more concisely, because that covers it
    completely.

    You can tell him I said he is wrong, and needs to go back to bullshit salesman school.

    That advice is always correct, except when it isn't.
    Designers sometimes do stupid things to reduce costs.
    Sometimes advisers extrapolate their experience to situations
    where it doesn't apply and express it with arrogance.

    Check out the schematic for a Compaq Aero 4-25.
    The only thing between the battery and the charge jack is a FET switch.
    They use the current limit in the power brick to limit the charge
    current. If you use a charger with a higher current limit, you overheat
    the battery.
    If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire.
    Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it.

    Expressing advice concisely and completely with maximum arrogance
    to a newbie without a voltmeter or the
    means or understanding to verify the advice is irresponsible...
    even if it is correct ALMOST all of the time.
    Sometimes, the advice doesn't apply.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul@21:1/5 to mike on Wed Oct 21 03:31:17 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    mike wrote:


    Even 20 years later, there are engineers still fucking up
    designs. You find out after it's too late.

    The charger industry is proud of abusing electronic
    components to come up with cheaper and cheaper
    solutions.

    This is why my Black and Decker cordless screwdriver
    reduced three battery packs to puddles of goo. The
    charging solution has absolutely no merit at all
    (no charge termination).

    On the other hand, I like my car battery charger,
    which uses only a transformer and selenium rectifiers
    to make a "high impedance" charging circuit. The packaging
    claims an amount of current will flow, which is never
    achieved. So it's pretty hard to cook a battery (or
    charge it quickly) with the charger. But in terms
    of construction, they couldn't make it much cheaper -
    removing the selenium rectifier thingy would leave
    you with only an AC transformer.

    If your laptop had NiCd batteries in it, I'm sure they
    could have cut a few more corners.

    It's the fact that Lithium Ion battery packs are
    so dangerous (from a corporate liability point of view),
    that a lot more care is put into them. If it wasn't
    for Lithium Ion, we might never have seen precision
    charging chips.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 21 08:30:03 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 00:10:38 -0700, mike <ham789@netzero.net> Gave us:

    I'm merely responding to the knowitalls who state with
    authority that they have all the answers, when they really
    don't actually know EVERYTHING.

    I NEVER made any such claim. That retarded horseshit ONLY came out of
    you, dipshit.

    I spent a decade designing switch mode power supplies, and I know what
    I know and never claimed to know more.

    But I certainly know more than a putz who cannot even get Linux, or
    basic Ohm's Law.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 21 08:40:31 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 03:31:17 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.com> Gave us:

    mike wrote:


    Even 20 years later, there are engineers still fucking up
    designs. You find out after it's too late.

    The charger industry is proud of abusing electronic
    components to come up with cheaper and cheaper
    solutions.

    This is why my Black and Decker cordless screwdriver
    reduced three battery packs to puddles of goo. The
    charging solution has absolutely no merit at all
    (no charge termination).

    The battery technology in such devices is far less advanced than that
    used in a portable computing device, not to mention the "chargers" they incorporated.

    On the other hand, I like my car battery charger,
    which uses only a transformer and selenium rectifiers
    to make a "high impedance" charging circuit.

    Lead acid batteries merely need a voltage greater than the battery
    voltage to take on a charge. They do not car about ripple. Device
    chargers are not only meant to charge the device battery, but the power
    they feed must be clean enough to power the device as well.

    The packaging
    claims an amount of current will flow, which is never
    achieved. So it's pretty hard to cook a battery (or
    charge it quickly) with the charger.

    Car batteries can literally explode if overcharged.

    But in terms
    of construction, they couldn't make it much cheaper -

    They only need to rectify the AC so that it make DC pulses which are
    higher in voltage than the battery. They are not meant to power a
    device, nor do they have to provide what is known as 'a clean source'.

    removing the selenium rectifier thingy would leave
    you with only an AC transformer.

    No shit. And they usually use a simple diode rectifier or diode
    bridge, not expensive Selenium.

    If your laptop had NiCd batteries in it, I'm sure they
    could have cut a few more corners.

    Those batteries age and that is why they were phased out for more
    advanced power storage devices.

    It's the fact that Lithium Ion battery packs are
    so dangerous (from a corporate liability point of view),

    They are dangerous from a real POV as well, not simply some lame
    liability like lawn darts, or "coffee is hot".

    that a lot more care is put into them.

    More is done because the 'juice' they provide must be CLEAN for the
    device to not puke all over itself.

    If it wasn't
    for Lithium Ion, we might never have seen precision
    charging chips.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam@21:1/5 to Paul on Wed Oct 21 14:22:08 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
    news:n07es3$p59$1@dont-email.me...
    mike wrote:


    Even 20 years later, there are engineers still fucking up
    designs. You find out after it's too late.

    The charger industry is proud of abusing electronic
    components to come up with cheaper and cheaper
    solutions.

    This is why my Black and Decker cordless screwdriver
    reduced three battery packs to puddles of goo. The
    charging solution has absolutely no merit at all
    (no charge termination).

    On the other hand, I like my car battery charger,
    which uses only a transformer and selenium rectifiers
    to make a "high impedance" charging circuit. The packaging
    claims an amount of current will flow, which is never
    achieved. So it's pretty hard to cook a battery (or
    charge it quickly) with the charger. But in terms
    of construction, they couldn't make it much cheaper -
    removing the selenium rectifier thingy would leave
    you with only an AC transformer.

    If your laptop had NiCd batteries in it, I'm sure they
    could have cut a few more corners.

    It's the fact that Lithium Ion battery packs are
    so dangerous (from a corporate liability point of view),
    that a lot more care is put into them. If it wasn't
    for Lithium Ion, we might never have seen precision
    charging chips.

    Paul

    Thanks (Guru Paul, et al), for the clarification.
    I think everyone is "right" but just saying
    the same thing in their own unique ways.

    Sorry, I should have been more clear.
    Let me rephrase...

    For laptops (or more valuable equipment nowadays),
    if I stick with a compatible voltage (19V) AC adapter with
    sufficient power (90+W), I should be fine since
    more and more safety measures (like sensors) are
    designed in to protect valuable equipment.
    Safety measures designed in is directly proportional to
    value of equipment (both increase/decrease together).

    Any recommendations on resources (books, magazines, websites, etc.) on
    power for newbies?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mike@21:1/5 to Paul on Wed Oct 21 00:10:38 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    On 10/20/2015 4:29 PM, Paul wrote:
    mike wrote:

    That advice is always correct, except when it isn't.
    Designers sometimes do stupid things to reduce costs.
    Sometimes advisers extrapolate their experience to situations
    where it doesn't apply and express it with arrogance.

    Check out the schematic for a Compaq Aero 4-25.
    The only thing between the battery and the charge jack is a FET switch.
    They use the current limit in the power brick to limit the charge
    current. If you use a charger with a higher current limit, you overheat
    the battery.
    If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire.
    Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it.

    Expressing advice concisely and completely with maximum arrogance
    to a newbie without a voltmeter or the
    means or understanding to verify the advice is irresponsible...
    even if it is correct ALMOST all of the time.
    Sometimes, the advice doesn't apply.

    You missed a golden opportunity.

    I already provided a link from badcaps.net, with a
    *schematic* for the laptop. Apply for a login account,
    so you can download the schematic. I already had an account
    on badcaps, so could get this immediately.

    "ASUS N61JQ won't start"
    http://www.badcaps.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42461

    You can apply your keen analytical skills to that schematic
    and tell us how the unit works.

    PDF page 89 has the battery controller (MB39A132).
    PDF page 60 has the DC jack with inductive surge (undershoot) protection.

    And to help you on your way, this doc gives you an
    overview on the MB39A132 feature set.

    "DC/DC Converter IC for Charging Li-ion Batteries MB39A132 ..." http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/EDG/binary/pdf/find/26-3e/7.pdf

    What do you notice on Figure 9 Page 5 ? It uses an SMPS
    with high side/low side MOSFETs for controlling the charging
    of the battery.

    What can you feed an SMPS with ? All sorts of stuff.
    Very flexible. What may not be flexible, is some of the
    voltage thresholds set to work with a 19V adapter.
    (The chip detects when the AC adapter is plugged in.)

    I got a datasheet for the MB39A132 here. But that
    isn't necessary needed right away.

    http://master-chip.ru/store/files/b75d64b3-f625-774c-9992-25c047244b48/mb39a132.pdf


    *******

    Your quoted material, is from a 20 year old laptop,
    a laptop with NiMH battery technology. What are
    the odds that a current generation laptop is
    as crude as that ? You yourself contributed to
    this faq.

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/pc-hardware-faq/laptops/compaq-aero/

    Paul
    Well, these newsgroups last forever. Just because you know what
    you're doing, doesn't mean that everyone else does.

    I already stated that it's likely that it's OK.

    I'm merely responding to the knowitalls who state with
    authority that they have all the answers, when they really
    don't actually know EVERYTHING.
    It's very easy to take some experience and extrapolate it to
    the point where it gets someone else in trouble.
    Too much typing and not nearly enough thinking.

    Even 20 years later, there are engineers still fucking up
    designs. You find out after it's too late.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul@21:1/5 to Adam on Wed Oct 21 18:32:29 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    Adam wrote:
    "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:n07es3$p59$1@dont-email.me...
    mike wrote:

    Even 20 years later, there are engineers still fucking up
    designs. You find out after it's too late.
    The charger industry is proud of abusing electronic
    components to come up with cheaper and cheaper
    solutions.

    This is why my Black and Decker cordless screwdriver
    reduced three battery packs to puddles of goo. The
    charging solution has absolutely no merit at all
    (no charge termination).

    On the other hand, I like my car battery charger,
    which uses only a transformer and selenium rectifiers
    to make a "high impedance" charging circuit. The packaging
    claims an amount of current will flow, which is never
    achieved. So it's pretty hard to cook a battery (or
    charge it quickly) with the charger. But in terms
    of construction, they couldn't make it much cheaper -
    removing the selenium rectifier thingy would leave
    you with only an AC transformer.

    If your laptop had NiCd batteries in it, I'm sure they
    could have cut a few more corners.

    It's the fact that Lithium Ion battery packs are
    so dangerous (from a corporate liability point of view),
    that a lot more care is put into them. If it wasn't
    for Lithium Ion, we might never have seen precision
    charging chips.

    Paul

    Thanks (Guru Paul, et al), for the clarification.
    I think everyone is "right" but just saying
    the same thing in their own unique ways.

    Sorry, I should have been more clear.
    Let me rephrase...

    For laptops (or more valuable equipment nowadays),
    if I stick with a compatible voltage (19V) AC adapter with
    sufficient power (90+W), I should be fine since
    more and more safety measures (like sensors) are
    designed in to protect valuable equipment.
    Safety measures designed in is directly proportional to
    value of equipment (both increase/decrease together).

    Any recommendations on resources (books, magazines, websites, etc.) on
    power for newbies?



    Most of what I've learned, was by analysing stuff (schematics),
    or learning by making mistakes.

    To illustrate, there are three kinds of adapters for
    consumer electronics. These are general categories.

    1) AC adapter (it's just a transformer)
    2) Unregulated DC adapter (transformer, rectifiers, filter cap)
    DC voltage varies with loading.
    3) Regulated DC adapter (SMPS, similar to ATX power supply design,
    isolated for shock protection, overcurrent detection with
    various behaviors on overcurrent). Complete switch-off being
    a common overcurrent behavior). Connect a 2 amp light bulb
    to a 2 amp adapter, it will shut off. Why ? The bulb draws
    4 amps when it is cold, trips the OC immediately, and the
    adapter shuts off.

    OK, I bought a label maker one day. It had provision for battery
    operation. You were supposed to pour $$$ worth of dry cells into
    the thing. An optional adapter was available, at $50 !!!
    Well, naturally, being a cheap-skate, I wanted neither dry cells
    nor a $50 adapter.

    On the housing of the unit, next to the barrel connector for power,
    it said "7VDC", and had the symbol for center-positive power. So
    I bought a *regulated* 7VDC adapter and plugged it in. I verified
    the adapter made exactly 7V, and it did do that. With a fairly high
    current rating (so not likely to poop out on OC).

    So I try to print a label, and... nothing.

    So I eventually break down and buy the optional adapter for $50.
    Turns out it is unregulated. At no load, the adapter makes *10V*
    and at the instant the motor cranks the label through the print
    area, the voltage drops down to 7V due to the increased current
    draw.

    So it really needed the elevated (unspecified) 10V voltage to make
    the keyboard and display and control chip work.

    That lesson taught me, that the specification printed on
    the housing ("7VDC") could be regulated or unregulated, and
    there is no way to know which is appropriate. They kinda got you
    by the nuts.

    And that's learning by making mistakes.

    As for your laptop, I don't see a reason in what I've seen
    in the schematic so far, for there to be a dependency on adapter
    power rating. Your laptop is the 90W design. A 19V adapter
    of 90W or 135W should work. The charging circuit has control
    of what it is doing, and is not dependent on external impedance characteristics. The charger chip has slow start (inrush limit),
    so if the adapter is already plugged into the wall and you
    shove the barrel into the laptop jack, the adapter doesn't
    quit on OC. There is a clamp diode near the jack, so if the
    barrel is removed while the adapter is powered, the inductive
    kick-back is quenched. The design has a current sampling shunt,
    which implies the chip can sense the current. And knows if
    too much current is being drawn. And it has a fair number
    of MOSFETs to control various things. As long as MOSFETs are
    saturated (fully ON or fully OFF), they don't get all that
    warm. And that's important. It's easy to burn out a MOSFET
    with no heatsink, by turning it half-ON by design. This is
    why SMPS circuits take turns with MOSFETs fully ON or fully OFF,
    to achieve a desired result. The devices then get warm but
    not hot.

    There are adapters that have more than two wires, and that
    immediately makes me suspicious. It implies some form of
    control, or "adapter power rating checking" being done
    by the laptop. That tends to happen with stuff above
    65W. You're likely to find 65W designs to be pretty simple
    and carefree. Anything above that, you should keep your
    eyes open, and do a bit of Googling to learn of the
    issues.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam@21:1/5 to Paul on Wed Oct 21 18:43:00 2015
    XPost: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus, alt.os.linux.ubuntu

    "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
    news:n093lt$8bd$1@dont-email.me...
    Adam wrote:
    "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
    news:n07es3$p59$1@dont-email.me...
    mike wrote:

    Even 20 years later, there are engineers still fucking up
    designs. You find out after it's too late.
    The charger industry is proud of abusing electronic
    components to come up with cheaper and cheaper
    solutions.

    This is why my Black and Decker cordless screwdriver
    reduced three battery packs to puddles of goo. The
    charging solution has absolutely no merit at all
    (no charge termination).

    On the other hand, I like my car battery charger,
    which uses only a transformer and selenium rectifiers
    to make a "high impedance" charging circuit. The packaging
    claims an amount of current will flow, which is never
    achieved. So it's pretty hard to cook a battery (or
    charge it quickly) with the charger. But in terms
    of construction, they couldn't make it much cheaper -
    removing the selenium rectifier thingy would leave
    you with only an AC transformer.

    If your laptop had NiCd batteries in it, I'm sure they
    could have cut a few more corners.

    It's the fact that Lithium Ion battery packs are
    so dangerous (from a corporate liability point of view),
    that a lot more care is put into them. If it wasn't
    for Lithium Ion, we might never have seen precision
    charging chips.

    Paul

    Thanks (Guru Paul, et al), for the clarification.
    I think everyone is "right" but just saying
    the same thing in their own unique ways.

    Sorry, I should have been more clear.
    Let me rephrase...

    For laptops (or more valuable equipment nowadays),
    if I stick with a compatible voltage (19V) AC adapter with
    sufficient power (90+W), I should be fine since
    more and more safety measures (like sensors) are
    designed in to protect valuable equipment.
    Safety measures designed in is directly proportional to
    value of equipment (both increase/decrease together).

    Any recommendations on resources (books, magazines, websites, etc.) on
    power for newbies?


    Most of what I've learned, was by analysing stuff (schematics),
    or learning by making mistakes.

    To illustrate, there are three kinds of adapters for
    consumer electronics. These are general categories.

    1) AC adapter (it's just a transformer)
    2) Unregulated DC adapter (transformer, rectifiers, filter cap)
    DC voltage varies with loading.
    3) Regulated DC adapter (SMPS, similar to ATX power supply design,
    isolated for shock protection, overcurrent detection with
    various behaviors on overcurrent). Complete switch-off being
    a common overcurrent behavior). Connect a 2 amp light bulb
    to a 2 amp adapter, it will shut off. Why ? The bulb draws
    4 amps when it is cold, trips the OC immediately, and the
    adapter shuts off.

    OK, I bought a label maker one day. It had provision for battery
    operation. You were supposed to pour $$$ worth of dry cells into
    the thing. An optional adapter was available, at $50 !!!
    Well, naturally, being a cheap-skate, I wanted neither dry cells
    nor a $50 adapter.

    On the housing of the unit, next to the barrel connector for power,
    it said "7VDC", and had the symbol for center-positive power. So
    I bought a *regulated* 7VDC adapter and plugged it in. I verified
    the adapter made exactly 7V, and it did do that. With a fairly high
    current rating (so not likely to poop out on OC).

    So I try to print a label, and... nothing.

    So I eventually break down and buy the optional adapter for $50.
    Turns out it is unregulated. At no load, the adapter makes *10V*
    and at the instant the motor cranks the label through the print
    area, the voltage drops down to 7V due to the increased current
    draw.

    So it really needed the elevated (unspecified) 10V voltage to make
    the keyboard and display and control chip work.

    That lesson taught me, that the specification printed on
    the housing ("7VDC") could be regulated or unregulated, and
    there is no way to know which is appropriate. They kinda got you
    by the nuts.

    :-)

    Thanks, sounds similar to my current trial experience with ac adapters.
    I had to return the first laptop charger because, when connected,
    the slightest tap of the plug/barrel/jack can cause the battery to
    take over as if the ac adapter were "not" connected.

    Maybe this all points back to that less than stellar power supply standard?

    With another laptop charger, can't get the battery to
    take over no matter how hard I wiggle that barrel plug.



    And that's learning by making mistakes.

    As for your laptop, I don't see a reason in what I've seen
    in the schematic so far, for there to be a dependency on adapter
    power rating. Your laptop is the 90W design. A 19V adapter
    of 90W or 135W should work. The charging circuit has control
    of what it is doing, and is not dependent on external impedance characteristics. The charger chip has slow start (inrush limit),
    so if the adapter is already plugged into the wall and you
    shove the barrel into the laptop jack, the adapter doesn't
    quit on OC. There is a clamp diode near the jack, so if the
    barrel is removed while the adapter is powered, the inductive
    kick-back is quenched. The design has a current sampling shunt,
    which implies the chip can sense the current. And knows if
    too much current is being drawn. And it has a fair number
    of MOSFETs to control various things. As long as MOSFETs are
    saturated (fully ON or fully OFF), they don't get all that
    warm. And that's important. It's easy to burn out a MOSFET
    with no heatsink, by turning it half-ON by design. This is
    why SMPS circuits take turns with MOSFETs fully ON or fully OFF,
    to achieve a desired result. The devices then get warm but
    not hot.

    There are adapters that have more than two wires, and that
    immediately makes me suspicious. It implies some form of
    control, or "adapter power rating checking" being done
    by the laptop. That tends to happen with stuff above
    65W. You're likely to find 65W designs to be pretty simple
    and carefree. Anything above that, you should keep your
    eyes open, and do a bit of Googling to learn of the
    issues.

    Paul

    Thanks (Guru Paul), there's no better way to
    know the truth than to go straight to the source/schematic. :-)

    It's good to know that my laptop can definitely take
    a more powerful (>90W) power supply, but, so far,
    the makers of "quality" laptop chargers do not offer
    anything more powerful than 90W. Although,
    I think I saw some (120W?) at the store by other makers.
    I might go back to look more closely at those more powerful laptop chargers.

    So far, I've only come across 2-wire laptop chargers but,
    now that I know, I'll watch out for non-2-wire laptop chargers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)