[Frenchman]

Spad, I don't doubt what you have to say, but you don't really back it up.

Saying "I'm quite the expert on such things, just believe me and go to google" doesn't back up your case at all. Until you can find me a chemist saying this stuff, I'll have a hard time simply taking your word for it.

Plus, though I know temperature affects the batteries ability to deliver energy, I don't remember if it affects the overall lifespan a whole lot. Unfortunatly my memory of catalysis isn't the best. Anyone who has taken a college (or perhaps advanced highschool) chemistry class could comment on that.

 

[Dweebgal]

i think temperature affects most chemical reactions TBH. some react faster in higher temperatures, some react faster at lower temperatures.

ANYHEW:

i have a solution to this thread:

FACT: The maximum (i.e the quoted) battery life for a 3g iPod is 8 hours. some people get less.

OPINION 1: 8 hours is not enough for me, I *could* charge it every day...but why should I?

OPINION 2: Surely you dont listen to it for 8 hours straight a day, most people get to some sort of outlet every 8 hours, just remember to put it in the dock and quit whining!

I think there are two sides to this discussion, some people have opinion 1 others have opinion 2.

either one is just as valid it depends what works for you i guess.

i'm probably number 1 myself, so i dont have my ipod anymore, and i just get over it

although saying that, i think the ipod is good at what it does.

so wether you think one thing or the other, cant we just agree to disagree on this one?

 

[rodbac]

Eh, I think I'm just going to assume that age and charge cycles are perfectly equal factors in it and quit debating it.

You're right, too, Spad- I certainly wasn't trying to be a dick and sorry if I missed an inside joke.

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally posted by Frenchman Spad, I don't doubt what you have to say, but you don't really back it up. Saying "I'm quite the expert on such things, just believe me and go to google" doesn't back up your case at all. Until you can find me a chemist saying this stuff, I'll have a hard time simply taking your word for it. Plus, though I know temperature affects the batteries ability to deliver energy, I don't remember if it affects the overall lifespan a whole lot. Unfortunatly my memory of catalysis isn't the best. Anyone who has taken a college (or perhaps advanced highschool) chemistry class could comment on that.

Had you been here longer than a month you might be aware that this discussion has been repeated at fairly regular intervals for at least a couple of years. I feel no need to revisit ground that I and others have covered well over a year ago just to give a more definitive reference to one who doubts something I've said. One doesn't have to be an "expert" to deduce what should be intuitively obvious.

If you check the links you'll find fairly comprehensive charts illustrating the effect of heat on Li-Ion batteries. It is a demonstrable fact that elevated temperatures hasten permanent capacity loss. And through misuse it's possible to kill these batteries in a few months. It's as simple as that.

If you're really interested in this subject, why not spend a hour or so reviewing the material for yourself? Then you won't have to be concerned about taking anyone's word for things you think controversial.

 

[rodbac]

Spad, the reality of teh intarweb is that certain issues are inevitably discussed over and over and over again in forums like this (which I'm sure we all know). Popping in to every hotspot that crops up on a given subject and stating that it's been discussed before and that we should ignore everything we've found on Google and trust <insert forum 'expert' here> is not only unrealistic, but we'd have to throw logic to the wind to do so.

Now, the fact that high temperatures and age decrease the lifespan of Li-Ion/Poly batteries is not the argument (by me anyway). I also readily admit that age may be the biggest factor. But I've Googled quite a bit on this, and paid quite a lot of attention to the subject over the last 12 months or so, and the majority of evidence points directly to charge cycling as the biggest factor affecting their lifespan. End of story. Does this mean it's unquestionably true? Of course not, but it's pretty tough to make a case otherwise from the information I can find.

If you have links to studies that show otherwise, I'd honestly be interested in seeing them.

No offense, though- I don't mean to call anyone out and I'm not trying to make enemies in a forum I'm new to. If you could provide a couple of links, though (as I said, the first 4 or so pages of Google do nothing but point to charge cycling), it would be much appreciated.

 

[Spad]

Is this starting to seem like groundhog day to anyone else?

And where on earth did this "expert" appellative come from? Certainly not from me.

Maybe this will make my position clearer:

1) If you always deep cycle (80 percent discharge or more) your battery it will likely die as a result of the number of cycles.

2) Conversely, if you follow the guidelines stated in this thread and elsewhere, your battery is more likely to die because of age.

3) If the battery is abused it is highly unlikely that it will live to see either limit.

I maintain that saavy users, such as the majority of those here, will shallow cycle their devices. Consequently, time will be the limiting factor, not the number of charge cycles. Aren't these conclusions rather obvious? Do they really require urls to be believed?

Somewhere there may be a link that addresses the ramifications of striking a window with a baseball. I hope the kid down the street doesn't require a link before taking his game elsewhere.

I don't think you're being intentionally obtuse, radoc, but this is starting to seem as though it may be about something other than batteries to you.

 

[Spad]

Maybe we should go for a couple of records here. One for the longest thread, and another for the dullest.

 

[rodbac]

Spad, I'm not sure why you think there is some kind of equivalence between the Li-Ion "age vs cycling" issue and the result of a baseball striking a window.

I'm also not sure why you think anybody needs it clarified that striking the battery with a hammer (or whatever other "abuse" you think is leveled on them) is going to have a negative impact (no pun) on it's lifespan.

You didn't really do anything to make your position more clear, either- you repeated two obvious things (that a battery will likely die prematurely if you don't use it properly or if you abuse it (1 and 3)), then restated the same contention that I'm questioning (that proper maintenance and use will allow your battery to die of old age (2) regardless of the number of charge cycles).

I just think you lost sight of the original issue.

To get you back on track, consider the following usage pattern: I use 75% of my battery every day, and plug it in for a full charge every night (for a total of 365 'shallow' cycles per year)? If you're right, I would be able to get almost 1000 charge cycles out of it before it dies (or decreases in capacity).

However, if my battery takes 3 days to discharge to 75%, it only needs to be charged 100 odd times a year. THAT'S why this is an issue. You're saying the "300-500 cycles" guideline is meaningless, that they'll make it 3 years (their 'old age' lifespan) regardless of the number of shallow cycles. Every other resource says otherwise and common sense most certainly doesn't agree with you, so I have to disagree that your position is so "obvious" as to not need a URL backing it up.

It sounds like you're either saying we'll get 1000 charge cycles out of a battery (not true) or that if we don't use it much, it will die of old age (obvious and useless).

I don't know anymore- I'll drop it now. But one more thing: If you say things like (loosely) "I've already covered this a million times", it appears that you're placing yourself as an authority on the subject. If you object to the term "expert", my apologies.

I'm only beating this because I like to have a clear picture of the situation in my mind. If the debate isn't to your liking, more apologies..

Sorry about sounding combative- I don't mean to. I just like a good discussion.

 

[Clutz]

Quote:

Originally posted by Spad One doesn't have to be an "expert" to deduce what should be intuitively obvious.

Off-topic, and not meant to flame- but that statement is just not true. It is a frequent enough occurance that what may seem to be "intuitively obvious" is actually incorrect, that it is unfair to be so quickly dismissive just because something seems to be intuitively obvious. Often this is because people who believe the answer to be "intuitively obvious" are unaware of a number of the important details which cause the answer to no longer be "intuitively obvious". I don't know anything about battery chemistry or physics, and perhaps there are very few or no important details or complicating factors- but I somehow doubt it.

I do not recall the quote right now- but there is a somewhat well known quote that says something to the effect of "When an answer seems to be intuitive, obvious, and straight-forward, then it probably isn't".

 

[austonia]

FACT 1: iPod is the most expensive DAP on the market, per GB.

FACT 2: iPod (v3) has the least the average battery life of any DAP on the market.

FACT 3: there is a firestorm of controversy about the battery life, whether it is enough or not.

FACT 4: the relatively-short battery life forces owners to deal with charging the unit more often than other players.

FACT 5: Apple has the MOST expensive battery replacement policy of any DAP-related company. (although, some companies do not have even have a policy). There is no doubt a healthy profit involved in replaceing the battery.

FACT 6: All rechargeable batteries will degrade over time to the point of not holding a charge. Cell phones, PDA's, Laptops, etc all come with removeable, replaceable batteries for this reason.

FACT 7: Apple has the capability to make an iPod with a removable battery in the same fashion as Creative's Zen NX/Xtra. They have chosen not to implement one, even in their newest product the mini-iPod.

 

[Spad]

Sorry, radoc. I assumed you knew what constituted abuse as it relates to these batteries. By abuse, I don't mean banging on them with a heavy object, though that would undoubtedly qualify. What I'm referring to is simply the mistreatment common to the uninformed user. For example, leaving the device in a hot car, exposing it to prolonged direct sun (such as at the beach), and--according to Apple--even charging while contained in some cases. These will permanently reduce the battery's capacity. Another common abuse, as we've discussed, involves routine full discharges. I took all this, since it's been covered by many of us, to be common knowledge. It may have even been mentioned in this seemingly endless thread.

Regarding your example of 75 percent depletion per day versus 75 percent depletion over three days (assuming I understand you): I've never claimed that the number of charge cycles is meaningles--far from it. And keep in mind that the life expectancy of the battery is two to three years, although, with care, I believe this to be low.

In your second example one would be better off to charge the device each day (assuming a rate of 25 percent daily discharge) rather than waiting until it reaches 75 percent. Remember, these things aren't at all linear. For example, a typical fully depleted Li-Ion reaches an 80 percent charge state in one hour. But 100 percent (only 20 percent more) requires three hours. I'm sure you already know about the safety circuitry involved.

The point is that these batteries fare best with shallow discharges, and the shallower the better. But this primarily affects the number of cycles, not the time-based life expectancy. In your example of 75 percent per day compared to, say, 25 percent per day, neither would appear to have an advantage since both will likely succumb to age. But there are other considerations. Although both may well die of old age, the 25 percent per day unit will maintain a higher percentage of its total capacity over time. By this I mean that the 25 percent model may be able to reach perhaps 65 percent of its original capacity after 30 months, whereas the one discharged 75 percent (all else being equal) would be somewhat lower.

Of course, if the 75 percent figure is increased to 90 percent, the number of cycles can drop significantly and the battery will almost certainly be cycle limited.

Sorry to run, but I've got to go stand in front of a mirrored wall and wave my arms bit. No, you haven't driven me around the bend, I'm just practicing a speech.

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally posted by austonia FACT 7: Apple has the capability to make an iPod with a removable battery in the same fashion as Creative's Zen NX/Xtra. They have chosen not to implement one, even in their newest product the mini-iPod.

But what if the iPod ended looking like those ugly buggers!?

 

[kugino]

Quote:

Originally posted by austonia FACT 7: Apple has the capability to make an iPod with a removable battery in the same fashion as Creative's Zen NX/Xtra. They have chosen not to implement one, even in their newest product the mini-iPod.

since when does the capacity to do something mean it ought to be done? the "fact" is, apple (and other companies) have the "capability" to do a lot of things...the "fact" that they don't is sometimes explicit, sometimes not. creative zen has the "capability" to make a better-looking player...the "fact" that they have not is anyone's guess.

 

[Clutz]

Quote:

Originally posted by kugino since when does the capacity to do something mean it ought to be done? the "fact" is, apple (and other companies) have the "capability" to do a lot of things...the "fact" that they don't is sometimes explicit, sometimes not. creative zen has the "capability" to make a better-looking player...the "fact" that they have not is anyone's guess.

I think it is probably also useful to mention that there are also drawbacks to having an easily removable/replaceable battery. I do not know on how many portable playesr the battery compartment door has broken just due to batteries being replaced. You end up having to have some sort of hinge or snapping device in order to have a removable battery which I could imagine, would increase the possibility/probability of the iPod becoming damaged.

I have to agree with Spad and kugino, and say that I do not think it is obvious that a replacable battery is necessarily for the iPod's design.

 

[Jazz1]

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutz I think it is probably also useful to mention that there are also drawbacks to having an easily removable/replaceable battery. I do not know on how many portable playesr the battery compartment door has broken just due to batteries being replaced. You end up having to have some sort of hinge or snapping device in order to have a removable battery which I could imagine, would increase the possibility/probability of the iPod becoming damaged. I have to agree with Spad and kugino, and say that I do not think it is obvious that a replacable battery is necessarily for the iPod's design.

Years ago I owned a really expensive Sony Walkman that used a special battery, looked like a small stick of gum. Neato right? Well no, because if you lost the small encompassing bottom battery case you were SOL. They did provide a larger bottom end battery housing that held a regular battery, but I lost that along with the chewing gum stick battery holder. While the small package was a thing of beauty, the really small pieces were easy to lose. And lose them I did.