This is something that has been driving me crazy over the last several weeks. I have my laptop plugged into AC power and has been plugged into AC power for several days now, but the battery applet shows 97.3% charge. It has been showing < 100% for several days and never reaches 100%. The battery is less than 3 months old. I'm running F11 with all the latest updates.
I would appreciate any ideas as to why this is the case. There have been no power outages so it seems to me there is no reason my battery should show < 100% charge.
In case it makes a difference I'm running wireless on a 3945ABG. The processor is a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz
Thanks, Paolo
Paolo Galtieri writes:
This is something that has been driving me crazy over the last several weeks. I have my laptop plugged into AC power and has been plugged into AC power for several days now, but the battery applet shows 97.3% charge. It has been showing < 100% for several days and never reaches 100%. The battery is less than 3 months old. I'm running F11 with all the latest updates.
I would appreciate any ideas as to why this is the case. There have been no power outages so it seems to me there is no reason my battery should show < 100% charge.
Does your laptop provide any indication when your battery is charging? My laptop has a small orange LED that's lit when the battery is taking a charge.
Battery charging is generally controlled by the BIOS. Linux generally has little, if any, control over the process. All that's happening is that the kernel is reporting on what the BIOS says is happening with the battery: whether it's charging, discharging, or if the system is on AC power with the battery fully charged; and what is the battery's maximum capacity and its current capacity.
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 17:51 -0700, Paolo Galtieri wrote:
This is something that has been driving me crazy over the last several weeks. I have my laptop plugged into AC power and has been plugged into AC power for several days now, but the battery applet shows 97.3% charge. It has been showing < 100% for several days and never reaches 100%. The battery is less than 3 months old. I'm running F11 with all the latest updates.
I would appreciate any ideas as to why this is the case. There have been no power outages so it seems to me there is no reason my battery should show < 100% charge.
In case it makes a difference I'm running wireless on a 3945ABG. The processor is a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz
---- sounds as if the battery needs to recalibrate itself. Try running on battery power for 15-30 minutes and then plug it in again and it should reach full charge.
Craig
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Craig White craigwhite@azapple.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 17:51 -0700, Paolo Galtieri wrote:
This is something that has been driving me crazy over the last several weeks. I have my laptop plugged into AC power and has been plugged into AC power for several days now, but the battery applet shows 97.3% charge. It has been showing < 100% for several days and never reaches 100%. The battery is less than 3 months old. I'm running F11 with all the latest updates.
I would appreciate any ideas as to why this is the case. There have been no power outages so it seems to me there is no reason my battery should show < 100% charge.
In case it makes a difference I'm running wireless on a 3945ABG. The processor is a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz
sounds as if the battery needs to recalibrate itself. Try running on battery power for 15-30 minutes and then plug it in again and it should reach full charge.
Craig
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Between the time the time I originally sent the email and now the battery
status had not changed. It still says 97.3% charged. I am now running on battery. I'll let it run for a while, as you suggest, and then plug the AC back in.
Thanks, Paolo
--
fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Paolo Galtieri wrote:
This is something that has been driving me crazy over the last several weeks. I have my laptop plugged into AC power and has been plugged into AC power for several days now, but the battery applet shows 97.3% charge. It has been showing < 100% for several days and never reaches 100%. The battery is less than 3 months old. I'm running F11 with all the latest updates.
On some laptops the charger does not get started if the battery charge is greater than some percentage (perhaps 95%). Saves pointless wear on the battery for very little gain. My Lenovo laptop claims to work that way, though I've seen it go into the "charging" state when the battery was already near full charge.
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Paolo Galtieri wrote:
This is something that has been driving me crazy over the last several weeks. I have my laptop plugged into AC power and has been plugged into AC power for several days now, but the battery applet shows 97.3% charge. It has been showing < 100% for several days and never reaches 100%. The battery is less than 3 months old. I'm running F11 with all the latest updates.
I would appreciate any ideas as to why this is the case. There have been no power outages so it seems to me there is no reason my battery should show < 100% charge.
In case it makes a difference I'm running wireless on a 3945ABG. The processor is a Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz
This may be down to the bios software. I run my laptop (a Dell Inspiron 1525) off AC power in both linux (F11 and rawhide) and windows vista and the battery charge gradually declines over the months, but the battery doesn't charge unless I unplug the AC briefly while the computer in on, which prompts the machine to charge the battery fully.
Michael Young
This may be down to the bios software. I run my laptop (a Dell Inspiron 1525) off AC power in both linux (F11 and rawhide) and windows vista and the battery charge gradually declines over the months, but the battery doesn't charge unless I unplug the AC briefly while the computer in on, which prompts the machine to charge the battery fully.
I have exactly same functions in my Dell Inspiron 1545 Both in Fedora 11 and Vista Battery gradually decrease % of charge when continuously even when plugged to AC. When powered off when I plug the AC adapter battery does not get charge if the battery level is above 95%.
On 09/17/2009 01:29 PM, Prasan wrote:
This may be down to the bios software. I run my laptop (a Dell Inspiron 1525) off AC power in both linux (F11 and rawhide) and windows vista and the battery charge gradually declines over the months, but the battery doesn't charge unless I unplug the AC briefly while the computer in on, which prompts the machine to charge the battery fully.
I have exactly same functions in my Dell Inspiron 1545 Both in Fedora 11 and Vista Battery gradually decrease % of charge when continuously even when plugged to AC. When powered off when I plug the AC adapter battery does not get charge if the battery level is above 95%.
please visit *http://www.batteryuniversity.com/* ...... and gain some knowledge abt batteries
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 21:32 -0500, Robert Nichols wrote:
Paolo Galtieri wrote:
This is something that has been driving me crazy over the last several weeks. I have my laptop plugged into AC power and has been plugged into AC power for several days now, but the battery applet shows 97.3% charge. It has been showing < 100% for several days and never reaches 100%. The battery is less than 3 months old. I'm running F11 with all the latest updates.
On some laptops the charger does not get started if the battery charge is greater than some percentage (perhaps 95%). Saves pointless wear on the battery for very little gain. My Lenovo laptop claims to work that way, though I've seen it go into the "charging" state when the battery was already near full charge.
The Lenovo power monitor on the XP side of my dual-boot laptop recommends not starting the charge cycle until the charge drops to 80%. I've been considering filing an RFE for the GNOME power manager applet to make that a user-settable parameter.
2009/9/17 Matthew Saltzman mjs@clemson.edu:
The Lenovo power monitor on the XP side of my dual-boot laptop recommends not starting the charge cycle until the charge drops to 80%. I've been considering filing an RFE for the GNOME power manager applet to make that a user-settable parameter.
We'd need kernel support first...
Richard.
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 16:52 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/9/17 Matthew Saltzman mjs@clemson.edu:
The Lenovo power monitor on the XP side of my dual-boot laptop recommends not starting the charge cycle until the charge drops to 80%. I've been considering filing an RFE for the GNOME power manager applet to make that a user-settable parameter.
We'd need kernel support first...
OK What's the best way to request that? Would it get generated as a consequence of the power manager RFE? Or should I file it separately? Anything special about kernel feature requests?
Jatin K wrote:
please visit *http://www.batteryuniversity.com/* ...... and gain some knowledge abt batteries
Was that supposed to be general advice? (If so, thank-you – but I’m not sure why it was necessary.)
Or did you feel that there was some mis-information being given out? In which case, a general link to a site doesn’t make your point – we can’t tell, looking at that site, what your point was. And few readers will have the time to follow every helpful link.
So could you elucidate further?
Thank you!
James.
2009/9/17 Matthew Saltzman mjs@clemson.edu:
OK What's the best way to request that? Would it get generated as a consequence of the power manager RFE? Or should I file it separately? Anything special about kernel feature requests?
Well, you can file a kernel bug if you want, but it's a fair chunk of new functionality and it's functionality that is very vendor specific as it's not in the ACPI standards. For IBM thinkpads, see http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Tp_smapi
Be aware that tpm-smapi was refused entry to the upstream kernel, and probably won't be accepted by the fedora kernel as a result. Consult the kernel.org archives for the full discussion.
Richard.
James Wilkinson wrote:
Jatin K wrote:
please visit *http://www.batteryuniversity.com/* ...... and gain some knowledge abt batteries
Was that supposed to be general advice? (If so, thank-you – but I’m not sure why it was necessary.)
james, this is not to insult or hurt your feelings, but, from what you have posted, you do not know much about batteries. especially when it comes to cycling, ie, charging and discharging.
presuming that you battery is lithium-ion, you will not have 'memory' problems that ni-cad batteries have. but, you will have heat problems.
it is for that reason that you should not have a battery, of either type on charge for a long time and then remove for a short time of discharge and then recharge again unless it has drop in level an appreciative amount.
well designed chargers have circuitry to not apply a high charge rate until voltage level is below a predetermined amount, along with circuitry to monitor temperature and control high charge rate. cheap charges do not.
in brief, ni-cad cells discharge with a tapered level over time then drop below usable level. lithium-ion maintain a level over time, then drop sharply.
Or did you feel that there was some mis-information being given out?
<snip>
And few readers will have the time to follow every helpful link.
information given to you by others has not been 'mis-information', but some of it could have been more complete to give you a better understanding.
if one does not care to take time to become more informed, one must be ready to accept consequences. in this case, shortened battery pack life.
So could you elucidate further?
if jatin does not 'elucidate', i would not blame him. why should he write something that he has given you a link to read to find out what you need to know?
long story to short, rtfm. or in this case rtfl.
On 09/18/2009 01:33 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/9/17 Matthew Saltzmanmjs@clemson.edu:
OK What's the best way to request that? Would it get generated as a consequence of the power manager RFE? Or should I file it separately? Anything special about kernel feature requests?
Well, you can file a kernel bug if you want, but it's a fair chunk of new functionality and it's functionality that is very vendor specific as it's not in the ACPI standards. For IBM thinkpads, see http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Tp_smapi
Be aware that tpm-smapi was refused entry to the upstream kernel, and probably won't be accepted by the fedora kernel as a result. Consult the kernel.org archives for the full discussion.
Richard.
well... I'm using tp_smapi on my IBM ThinkPad R51 .. with fedora 11 and it works fine for me .....
( stop charging threshold is not working as well ...... if I set St.Char.Tresh to 80% it stops charging on 70% or 75% )
On 09/18/2009 02:56 PM, g wrote:
James Wilkinson wrote:
Jatin K wrote:
please visit *http://www.batteryuniversity.com/* ...... and gain some knowledge abt batteries
Was that supposed to be general advice? (If so, thank-you – but I’m not sure why it was necessary.)
james, this is not to insult or hurt your feelings, but, from what you have posted, you do not know much about batteries. especially when it comes to cycling, ie, charging and discharging.
presuming that you battery is lithium-ion, you will not have 'memory' problems that ni-cad batteries have. but, you will have heat problems.
it is for that reason that you should not have a battery, of either type on charge for a long time and then remove for a short time of discharge and then recharge again unless it has drop in level an appreciative amount.
well designed chargers have circuitry to not apply a high charge rate until voltage level is below a predetermined amount, along with circuitry to monitor temperature and control high charge rate. cheap charges do not.
in brief, ni-cad cells discharge with a tapered level over time then drop below usable level. lithium-ion maintain a level over time, then drop sharply.
Or did you feel that there was some mis-information being given out?
<snip>
And few readers will have the time to follow every helpful link.
information given to you by others has not been 'mis-information', but some of it could have been more complete to give you a better understanding.
if one does not care to take time to become more informed, one must be ready to accept consequences. in this case, shortened battery pack life.
So could you elucidate further?
if jatin does not 'elucidate', i would not blame him. why should he write something that he has given you a link to read to find out what you need to know?
long story to short, rtfm. or in this case rtfl.
please forgive me if I've hurt someone's feelings ........ by posting the link here or I have done any mistake
Jatin K wrote:
please forgive me if I've hurt someone's feelings ........ by posting the link here or I have done any mistake
no hurt here. definitely not a mistake. offering knowledge is never wrong.
i already had site bookmarked. have not read all yet. in time i will.
i have found a lot of new information about lithium-ion and refreshed on other types.
anyone who is using a battery powered portable should at least read sections on their type of battery pack.
2009/9/18 Jatin K ssh.fedora@gmail.com:
well... I'm using tp_smapi on my IBM ThinkPad R51 .. with fedora 11 and it works fine for me .....
Sure, I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying it's not in the upstream kernel.
Richar.d
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 09:03 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/9/17 Matthew Saltzman mjs@clemson.edu:
OK What's the best way to request that? Would it get generated as a consequence of the power manager RFE? Or should I file it separately? Anything special about kernel feature requests?
Well, you can file a kernel bug if you want, but it's a fair chunk of new functionality and it's functionality that is very vendor specific as it's not in the ACPI standards. For IBM thinkpads, see http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Tp_smapi
Be aware that tpm-smapi was refused entry to the upstream kernel, and probably won't be accepted by the fedora kernel as a result. Consult the kernel.org archives for the full discussion.
OK Thanks. That's useful, if a bit disappointing.
Richard.
g wrote:
james, this is not to insult or hurt your feelings, but, from what you have posted, you do not know much about batteries. especially when it comes to cycling, ie, charging and discharging.
I think you’ve got me confused with other posters.
presuming that you battery is lithium-ion, you will not have 'memory' problems that ni-cad batteries have. but, you will have heat problems.
it is for that reason that you should not have a battery, of either type on charge for a long time and then remove for a short time of discharge and then recharge again unless it has drop in level an appreciative amount.
well designed chargers have circuitry to not apply a high charge rate until voltage level is below a predetermined amount, along with circuitry to monitor temperature and control high charge rate. cheap charges do not.
in brief, ni-cad cells discharge with a tapered level over time then drop below usable level. lithium-ion maintain a level over time, then drop sharply.
Thank you. This is a helpful style of posting: reading it, I can easily tell what your point is. If I didn’t know this already, I would come away better informed.
if jatin does not 'elucidate', i would not blame him. why should he write something that he has given you a link to read to find out what you need to know?
I understand that he gave the link for general information. That’s great, and also very helpful. It would also be helpful in response to a specific question.
But if you send someone to a self-styled “university” front page to make one point – how are we supposed to know which point the poster is trying to make? Yes, we can read the site, and also come away better informed – but it’s a lot of work for *all* readers, when the poster could summarize and save everybody else’s time.
So I was trying to make sure there wasn’t a point that needed to be clarified.
James.
James Wilkinson wrote:
g wrote:
james, this is not to insult or hurt your feelings, but, from what you have posted, you do not know much about batteries. especially when it comes to cycling, ie, charging and discharging.
I think you’ve got me confused with other posters.
not really. it was in response to;
}> Was that supposed to be general advice? (If so, thank-you – but I’m not }> sure why it was necessary.)
which led me to believe that you felt that 'batteryuniversity.com' link was not be helpful to op. in general, your reply appeared negative towards anyone reading pages of link.
there is a search bar at bottom of page that i have used several times before and this time with 'lithium-ion', which led to several very good explanations of charging and cycling of lithium-ion cells, including harm that can occur.
granted, i used term 'you', which tends to imply you as op, but it was meant only to point out to you benefits of site.
Thank you. This is a helpful style of posting: reading it, I can easily tell what your point is. If I didn’t know this already, I would come away better informed.
which leads me to believe that because you claim to already know, your response is negative to needs of op or others.
But if you send someone to a self-styled “university†front page to make one point – how are we supposed to know which point the poster is trying to make?
anyone logging site will see search bar at bottom of page and if the have any intelligence, they can use it to find more specific information.
Yes, we can read the site, and also come away better informed – but it’s a lot of work for *all* readers, when the poster could summarize and save everybody else’s time.0
so would you rather have someone give you catfish or a fishing pole, tackle box, and bait and find out that there are other types of fish? :)