Here's the next item on my "to-fix" list while home for the holidays...

I have before me a Motorola E815 cell phone which will not charge. The
battery is fine, just the phone won't make a connection to the charger.
I found an old LG cell phone with battery, which works fine.

Since every single cell phone I've ever seen uses a 3.7V Li-Ion
battery, and since I don't have a programmable voltage supply with me,
I figured I could use the LG cell phone to charge the Motorola battery.
The LG cell phone and its battery have 4 contacts:

| | | |
NEG NEG MYSTERY POS

and the Motorola cell phone has 4 contacts as well:

| | | |
NEG NEG MYSTERY POS

I figured I could just connect the +/- terminals of the LG phone to
those of the Motorola battery, and the Positive terminals together, and
then the LG phone would see it has a drained battery and merrily charge
it up.

Not so! When I did this, the LG phone said "Use genuine battery!" and
refused to charge it. WTF?!?! It seems like there's some kind of
"counterfeit detection" circuit in the battery to make it harder to
make cheap knockoff batteries. I assume this comes from the "mystery"
contact. Is there information somewhere on how to fool this idiotic
counterfeit detection circuit?

Thanks,

Dan

Dan Lenski wrote:
Here's the next item on my "to-fix" list while home for the holidays...

I have before me a Motorola E815 cell phone which will not charge. The
battery is fine, just the phone won't make a connection to the charger.
I found an old LG cell phone with battery, which works fine.

Since every single cell phone I've ever seen uses a 3.7V Li-Ion
battery, and since I don't have a programmable voltage supply with me,
I figured I could use the LG cell phone to charge the Motorola battery.
The LG cell phone and its battery have 4 contacts:

| | | |
NEG NEG MYSTERY POS

and the Motorola cell phone has 4 contacts as well:

| | | |
NEG NEG MYSTERY POS

I figured I could just connect the +/- terminals of the LG phone to
those of the Motorola battery, and the Positive terminals together, and
then the LG phone would see it has a drained battery and merrily charge
it up.

Not so! When I did this, the LG phone said "Use genuine battery!" and
refused to charge it. WTF?!?! It seems like there's some kind of
"counterfeit detection" circuit in the battery to make it harder to
make cheap knockoff batteries. I assume this comes from the "mystery"
contact. Is there information somewhere on how to fool this idiotic
counterfeit detection circuit?

Thanks,

Hi Dan...

It's for your own protection, I'd recommend not trying to defeat it.

Take care, and happy holidays.

Ken

Ken Weitzel wrote:
Hi Dan...

It's for your own protection, I'd recommend not trying to defeat it.

Take care, and happy holidays.

Ken

Thanks Ken, but I don't need any protection :-) I have a long history
of doing things with my electronics that they were never meant to do,
and it's worked well for me.

It's ridiculous that a cell phone demands a particular brand of
battery, considering that essentially all cell phones use 3.7V LiIon
batteries which differ only in capacity and shape. Plus I don't really
care about protecting the phone, since I only want to use it as a
charger for this battery.

I'm wondering if the "genuine battery detection" is something trivial
like "connect a 100k resistor between the mystery contact and ground"
or something complicated involving a microcontroller in the battery
that uses some serial protocol to communicate a message back and forth.

Dan

Dan Lenski wrote:

Here's the next item on my "to-fix" list while home for the holidays...

I have before me a Motorola E815 cell phone which will not charge. The
battery is fine, just the phone won't make a connection to the charger.
I found an old LG cell phone with battery, which works fine.

Since every single cell phone I've ever seen uses a 3.7V Li-Ion
battery, and since I don't have a programmable voltage supply with me,
I figured I could use the LG cell phone to charge the Motorola battery.
The LG cell phone and its battery have 4 contacts:

| | | |
NEG NEG MYSTERY POS

and the Motorola cell phone has 4 contacts as well:

| | | |
NEG NEG MYSTERY POS

I figured I could just connect the +/- terminals of the LG phone to
those of the Motorola battery, and the Positive terminals together, and
then the LG phone would see it has a drained battery and merrily charge
it up.

Not so! When I did this, the LG phone said "Use genuine battery!" and
refused to charge it. WTF?!?! It seems like there's some kind of
"counterfeit detection" circuit in the battery to make it harder to
make cheap knockoff batteries. I assume this comes from the "mystery"
contact. Is there information somewhere on how to fool this idiotic
counterfeit detection circuit?

Thanks,

Dan

put a scope on the mystery leg, you'll most likely see a serial stream
coming out of it.
try blocking off that leg.


--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

"Jamie" t wrote in message
...

Not so! When I did this, the LG phone said "Use genuine battery!" and
refused to charge it. WTF?!?! It seems like there's some kind of
"counterfeit detection" circuit in the battery to make it harder to
make cheap knockoff batteries. I assume this comes from the "mystery"
contact. Is there information somewhere on how to fool this idiotic
counterfeit detection circuit?

Some inkjet cartridges are chipped to prevent refilling or cloning. Could be
a similar nasty trick.

Dan Lenski wrote:
Ken Weitzel wrote:
Hi Dan...

It's for your own protection, I'd recommend not trying to defeat it.

Take care, and happy holidays.

Ken

Thanks Ken, but I don't need any protection :-) I have a long history
of doing things with my electronics that they were never meant to do,
and it's worked well for me.

It's ridiculous that a cell phone demands a particular brand of
battery, considering that essentially all cell phones use 3.7V LiIon
batteries which differ only in capacity and shape. Plus I don't really
care about protecting the phone, since I only want to use it as a
charger for this battery.

I'm wondering if the "genuine battery detection" is something trivial
like "connect a 100k resistor between the mystery contact and ground"
or something complicated involving a microcontroller in the battery
that uses some serial protocol to communicate a message back and forth.

Hi Dan...

Not so sure that we don't need a bit of protection... thinking of the
exploding and burning batteries in laptops recently... third party
and counterfeit batteries are out there, and it won't be long before
making them with small capacity and mis-marking them, so...

Anyway, I have no idea, other than guesses. Jamie suggest that it might
be a serial connection to the phone. That sounds good, if LG doesn't
want you to buy any of their competitors products, but might be
expensive to implement.

I'm wondering if it might not be as simple as a temperature detector...
something as easy as a pair of diodes back to back. Or maybe even a
thermal fuse.

Another thought is if someone here has a battery that's dead beyond
any use at all, perhaps they'd open it up and see what's in there?

Wish I knew more.

Take care.

Ken

Dan Lenski wrote:

Ken Weitzel wrote:
Hi Dan...

It's for your own protection, I'd recommend not trying to defeat it.

Take care, and happy holidays.

Ken

Thanks Ken, but I don't need any protection :-) I have a long history
of doing things with my electronics that they were never meant to do,
and it's worked well for me.

It's ridiculous that a cell phone demands a particular brand of
battery, considering that essentially all cell phones use 3.7V LiIon
batteries which differ only in capacity and shape. Plus I don't really
care about protecting the phone, since I only want to use it as a
charger for this battery.


Just because they are the same voltage doesn't mean that they use the
same cells inside. Maxim and others make ICs for this application.


I'm wondering if the "genuine battery detection" is something trivial
like "connect a 100k resistor between the mystery contact and ground"
or something complicated involving a microcontroller in the battery
that uses some serial protocol to communicate a message back and forth.

Dan


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Dan Lenski wrote:
Here's the next item on my "to-fix" list while home for the holidays...

I have before me a Motorola E815 cell phone which will not charge. The
battery is fine, just the phone won't make a connection to the charger.
I found an old LG cell phone with battery, which works fine.

Since every single cell phone I've ever seen uses a 3.7V Li-Ion
battery, and since I don't have a programmable voltage supply with me,
I figured I could use the LG cell phone to charge the Motorola battery.
The LG cell phone and its battery have 4 contacts:

| | | |
NEG NEG MYSTERY POS

and the Motorola cell phone has 4 contacts as well:

| | | |
NEG NEG MYSTERY POS

I figured I could just connect the +/- terminals of the LG phone to
those of the Motorola battery, and the Positive terminals together, and
then the LG phone would see it has a drained battery and merrily charge
it up.

Not so! When I did this, the LG phone said "Use genuine battery!" and
refused to charge it. WTF?!?! It seems like there's some kind of
"counterfeit detection" circuit in the battery to make it harder to
make cheap knockoff batteries. I assume this comes from the "mystery"
contact. Is there information somewhere on how to fool this idiotic
counterfeit detection circuit?

Thanks,

Dan


http://www.maxim-ic.com/1-Wire.cfm

bob


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Many of the manufactures are starting to make their products in a manner to
have increased safety. Inside of many of the dedicated batteries, the
manufactures are using chip technology to not allow them to be charged if
they are not the original product. The manufactures are trying to protect
themselves and the end users, regardless of the knowledge of the person
trying to defeat its purpose.

--

JANA
_____


"Dan Lenski" wrote in message
ups.com...
Here's the next item on my "to-fix" list while home for the holidays...

I have before me a Motorola E815 cell phone which will not charge. The
battery is fine, just the phone won't make a connection to the charger.
I found an old LG cell phone with battery, which works fine.

Since every single cell phone I've ever seen uses a 3.7V Li-Ion
battery, and since I don't have a programmable voltage supply with me,
I figured I could use the LG cell phone to charge the Motorola battery.
The LG cell phone and its battery have 4 contacts:

| | | |
NEG NEG MYSTERY POS

and the Motorola cell phone has 4 contacts as well:

| | | |
NEG NEG MYSTERY POS

I figured I could just connect the +/- terminals of the LG phone to
those of the Motorola battery, and the Positive terminals together, and
then the LG phone would see it has a drained battery and merrily charge
it up.

Not so! When I did this, the LG phone said "Use genuine battery!" and
refused to charge it. WTF?!?! It seems like there's some kind of
"counterfeit detection" circuit in the battery to make it harder to
make cheap knockoff batteries. I assume this comes from the "mystery"
contact. Is there information somewhere on how to fool this idiotic
counterfeit detection circuit?

Thanks,

Dan

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 01:30:36 -0500, JANA wrote:


Many of the manufactures are starting to make their products in a manner to
have increased safety. Inside of many of the dedicated batteries, the
manufactures are using chip technology to not allow them to be charged if
they are not the original product. The manufactures are trying to protect
themselves and the end users, regardless of the knowledge of the person
trying to defeat its purpose.

The only thing they're protecting is their profit margin.

In article . com,
(known to some as Dan Lenski) scribed...

snippety

Not so! When I did this, the LG phone said "Use genuine battery!" and
refused to charge it. WTF?!?! It seems like there's some kind of
"counterfeit detection" circuit in the battery to make it harder to
make cheap knockoff batteries. I assume this comes from the "mystery"
contact. Is there information somewhere on how to fool this idiotic
counterfeit detection circuit?

I was reading about this in the industry trade rags (Electronic
Design, EETimes) this last summer.

Unfortunately, it's not likely to be easy to defeat. The system I
came across was described as having a custom IC (a microcontroller plus
a serial port) built right into the battery. Said microcontroller is
mask-programmed with a unique and encrypted ID at the time of
manufacture, and it enters into a complex handshaking sequence with the
phone's innards before the phone will accept it and power up.

I'm not saying it can't be cracked -- Anything electronic can be.
However, the kinds of resources and test gear you'd need to do it would
exceed, by many orders of magnitude, the cost of a genuine battery
gotten from, say, Greed-bay.

I used to think the counterfeit detectors were a bad idea. However,
given all the low-quality knock-off batteries that have exploded and
burned in recent years, some causing nasty injuries, I'm not so sure.

Happy tweaking.


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...

The only thing they're protecting is their profit margin.

Like the ink for inkjet printers - it's more expensive than the finest
champagne.

AZ Nomad hath wroth:

The only thing they're protecting is their profit margin.

No, they're protecting themselves against liability issues.
Personally, I don't mind paying a bit extra to avoid a potential fire
or problem.

Note that the defective Sony batteries were caused by microscopic
impurities in manufacturing.

There's a good article on the safety of LiIon and LiPo batteries in
the current issue of Nuts and Volts, but it's not online.

Meltdown is sorta fun, but not inside my cell phone or laptop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3o_2mwRPdw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeWq6rWzChw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCrzL82fiJ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isUHViMaLEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cmq5H1ziOE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...36960714830130

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:09:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:


AZ Nomad hath wroth:

The only thing they're protecting is their profit margin.

No, they're protecting themselves against liability issues.
Personally, I don't mind paying a bit extra to avoid a potential fire
or problem.

Note that the defective Sony batteries were caused by microscopic
impurities in manufacturing.
bull****.

If the battery explodes and the phone is operating within specs, it is
the batteries fault. Not the carrying case. Not the owner. Not the
clothing being worn by the cell phone owner. Not the power lines leading
to the house where the phone was charged.

snip irrelevent videos

On 24 Dec 2006 14:46:38 -0800, "Dan Lenski" put
finger to keyboard and composed:

Here's the next item on my "to-fix" list while home for the holidays...

I have before me a Motorola E815 cell phone which will not charge. The
battery is fine, just the phone won't make a connection to the charger.
I found an old LG cell phone with battery, which works fine.

Since every single cell phone I've ever seen uses a 3.7V Li-Ion
battery, and since I don't have a programmable voltage supply with me,
I figured I could use the LG cell phone to charge the Motorola battery.
The LG cell phone and its battery have 4 contacts:

| | | |
NEG NEG MYSTERY POS

and the Motorola cell phone has 4 contacts as well:

| | | |
NEG NEG MYSTERY POS

I figured I could just connect the +/- terminals of the LG phone to
those of the Motorola battery, and the Positive terminals together, and
then the LG phone would see it has a drained battery and merrily charge
it up.

Not so! When I did this, the LG phone said "Use genuine battery!" and
refused to charge it. WTF?!?! It seems like there's some kind of
"counterfeit detection" circuit in the battery to make it harder to
make cheap knockoff batteries. I assume this comes from the "mystery"
contact. Is there information somewhere on how to fool this idiotic
counterfeit detection circuit?

Thanks,

Dan

Is it possible to swap the electronic innards? If so, is there any
reason why it would not be safe to do so? Wouldn't the cell
chemistries be identical?

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

AZ Nomad hath wroth:

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:09:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

AZ Nomad hath wroth:
The only thing they're protecting is their profit margin.

No, they're protecting themselves against liability issues.
Personally, I don't mind paying a bit extra to avoid a potential fire
or problem.

Note that the defective Sony batteries were caused by microscopic
impurities in manufacturing.

bull****.

Can you offer a better explanation of what went wrong with the Sony
batteries? I'm only recycling what I've read on the internet which
also notes that manufacturers are switching to metal oxide insulators
that will not conduct heat or cause a fire. Perhaps you have inside
information? URL's that offer explanations other than crud imbedded
in the polyolefin insulators are acceptable.

If the battery explodes and the phone is operating within specs, it is
the batteries fault. Not the carrying case. Not the owner. Not the
clothing being worn by the cell phone owner. Not the power lines leading
to the house where the phone was charged.

Correct. I have the honor of suing the manufacturer in China if my
house burns down as a result of having the cell phone catch fire in
the charger. Chances of collecting damages is about zero. Granted,
the risk of fire is very low, but I'm not interested in proving the
point.

snip irrelevent videos

How about counterfeit battery incidents? Is that sufficiently
relevent?
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04559.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/2006/2006_41_e.html
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=7075&pq-locale=en_US
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/28/tech/main652128.shtml
http://www.havocscope.com/Counterfeit/batteries.htm
http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/counterfeit_batteries.asp
http://www.nema.org/gov/anti-counterfeiting/upload/Counterfeit%20White%20Paper_ver8.htm
(Lots more. Just search Google for "counterfeit batteries")

NEC also makes counterfeit battery detector chips:
http://necel.com/news/en/archive/0407/0601.html



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
AZ Nomad hath wroth:

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:09:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

AZ Nomad hath wroth:
The only thing they're protecting is their profit margin.

No, they're protecting themselves against liability issues.
Personally, I don't mind paying a bit extra to avoid a potential fire
or problem.

Note that the defective Sony batteries were caused by microscopic
impurities in manufacturing.

bull****.

Can you offer a better explanation of what went wrong with the Sony
batteries? I'm only recycling what I've read on the internet which
also notes that manufacturers are switching to metal oxide insulators
that will not conduct heat or cause a fire. Perhaps you have inside
information? URL's that offer explanations other than crud imbedded
in the polyolefin insulators are acceptable.

If the battery explodes and the phone is operating within specs, it is
the batteries fault. Not the carrying case. Not the owner. Not the
clothing being worn by the cell phone owner. Not the power lines leading
to the house where the phone was charged.

Correct. I have the honor of suing the manufacturer in China if my
house burns down as a result of having the cell phone catch fire in
the charger. Chances of collecting damages is about zero. Granted,
the risk of fire is very low, but I'm not interested in proving the
point.

snip

Respectfully suggest you put suing someone to reclaim your monetary
losses if your house burns down on the back burner.

Think instead about who and how you can sue for the losses of your kids
and/or grandkids if they're sleeping in your house when it goes up. Or
riding in your car when it "explodes" and indirectly causes an accident.
Puts a whole new light on it, eh?

Take care.

Ken

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:44:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Can you offer a better explanation of what went wrong with the Sony
batteries? I'm only recycling what I've read on the internet which

Putting an anti-competitive chip in those batteries wouldn't have made
any difference.

Ken Weitzel hath wroth:

Respectfully suggest you put suing someone to reclaim your monetary
losses if your house burns down on the back burner.

One my pastimes is collecting product liability horror stories.
There's a real possibility of winning such a judgment based on past
precedents. However, that usually only works for the initial
litigation as subsequent "me-too" litigation tends to be far less
successful. There are exceptions (asbestos, Vioxx, etc).

Think instead about who and how you can sue for the losses of your kids
and/or grandkids if they're sleeping in your house when it goes up. Or
riding in your car when it "explodes" and indirectly causes an accident.
Puts a whole new light on it, eh?

Agreed. However, methinks you misread what I scribbled. I didn't
recommend litigation. I suggested that one buy an approved battery to
avoid the problem in the first place. I also mentioned that
litigation against a battery counterfeiter in China is essentially
futile.

However, I'm starting to wonder if genuine OEM batteries will really
will help. The original exploding Nokia batteries were genuine Nokia
and not counterfeits. Some batteries apparently have no short circuit
protection.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/10/nokia_batteries_not_safe_either/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/14/nokia_thailand_handset/

What bothers me is the number of my customers that don't even bother
to check if their laptops have potentially defective Sony batteries.
I've had to call them for the models and serial numbers.

Assorted battery recall pages:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07011.html
https://www.dellbatteryprogram.com
http://bpr.hpordercenter.com/bpr/us%2Den/
http://www.lenovo.com/batteryprogram/
http://esupport.sony.com/battery/
https://support.apple.com/ibook_powerbook/batteryexchange/
http://www.computers.us.fujitsu.com/battery/
http://www.gateway.com/battery/
http://www.bxinfo.toshiba.com

Take care.

I think taking care pills requires a prescription.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

AZ Nomad hath wroth:

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:44:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Can you offer a better explanation of what went wrong with the Sony
batteries? I'm only recycling what I've read on the internet which

Putting an anti-competitive chip in those batteries wouldn't have made
any difference.

True for the defective Sony laptop batteries. Probably not true for
cheap replacement cell phone batteries. It won't take much for you
find numerous exploding cell phone horror stories with Google.
Although some of the early exploding batteries were OEM batteries, the
greatest majority were apparently cheap aftermarket replacements.

Incidentally, it may not be just the laptop batteries that are
responsible for starting fires:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/dell_battery_folo.html

There's a big difference between your anti-competative chips in ink
jet cartridges, which have no safety issues, and a similar chip in a
potentially exploding cell phone or laptop battery, where safety and
liability are currently a serious and real concern.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
AZ Nomad hath wroth:

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:44:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Can you offer a better explanation of what went wrong with the Sony
batteries? I'm only recycling what I've read on the internet which
Putting an anti-competitive chip in those batteries wouldn't have made
any difference.

True for the defective Sony laptop batteries. Probably not true for
cheap replacement cell phone batteries. It won't take much for you
find numerous exploding cell phone horror stories with Google.
Although some of the early exploding batteries were OEM batteries, the
greatest majority were apparently cheap aftermarket replacements.

Incidentally, it may not be just the laptop batteries that are
responsible for starting fires:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/dell_battery_folo.html

There's a big difference between your anti-competative chips in ink
jet cartridges, which have no safety issues, and a similar chip in a
potentially exploding cell phone or laptop battery, where safety and
liability are currently a serious and real concern.

Hi Jeff

I wonder if someone somewhere somehow couldn't recommend a safety
"law"... requiring a (sacrificial) thermal fuse in each battery pack
that would open up at much much less temperature than exploding/fire
requires. And at the same time require an internal fuse that would
open at a current just above the recommended charging current and/or
device draw current, whichever is highest. With this we'd cover
shorted output of the pack, and a defective charger.

Just for whatever it may be worth, I'm heavily into photography.
Have cameras that use AA's, and I had lots of NiMh's. Went out with
my camera to take a few pics of flowers. Camera had almost finished
batteries in it, so I had 4 freshly charged ones in my hand.

Grandkids came out with their bikes, told me they had permission to
ride their bikes (with me) to the ice cream store. So I put the new
batteries in my (too tight for a grandfather)jeans pocket, got my bike,
and off we went. A block away, my leg got incredibly hot, couldn't
put my hand in my pocket, nor could I take my pants off. I still have
the scar on my leg. One of the AA's had a flawed "roll over of the
transparent insulator" where it covered the negative part of the can
near the positive terminal, and I guess the negative end of another
shorted it. So, the lesson is carry your spares in a proper container,
please.

Take care.

Ken

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

AZ Nomad hath wroth:


On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:44:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Can you offer a better explanation of what went wrong with the Sony
batteries? I'm only recycling what I've read on the internet which

Putting an anti-competitive chip in those batteries wouldn't have made
any difference.


True for the defective Sony laptop batteries. Probably not true for
cheap replacement cell phone batteries. It won't take much for you
find numerous exploding cell phone horror stories with Google.
Although some of the early exploding batteries were OEM batteries, the
greatest majority were apparently cheap aftermarket replacements.

Incidentally, it may not be just the laptop batteries that are
responsible for starting fires:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/dell_battery_folo.html

There's a big difference between your anti-competative chips in ink
jet cartridges, which have no safety issues, and a similar chip in a
potentially exploding cell phone or laptop battery, where safety and
liability are currently a serious and real concern.


So all those flaming Dell computers with legit batteries have protected
who from whom? Maybe the after market ones would have been safer!
Its all about Money, not safety.


I believe it was lexmark that got sued and lost for the printer fiasco.

http://copyfight.corante.com/archive...ingement.ph p

Bob


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
news:kNFjh.516628$1T2.351204@pd7urf2no...
Dan Lenski wrote:
Ken Weitzel wrote:
Hi Dan...

It's for your own protection, I'd recommend not trying to defeat it.

Take care, and happy holidays.

Ken

Thanks Ken, but I don't need any protection :-) I have a long history
of doing things with my electronics that they were never meant to do,
and it's worked well for me.

It's ridiculous that a cell phone demands a particular brand of
battery, considering that essentially all cell phones use 3.7V LiIon
batteries which differ only in capacity and shape. Plus I don't really
care about protecting the phone, since I only want to use it as a
charger for this battery.

I'm wondering if the "genuine battery detection" is something trivial
like "connect a 100k resistor between the mystery contact and ground"
or something complicated involving a microcontroller in the battery
that uses some serial protocol to communicate a message back and forth.

Hi Dan...

Not so sure that we don't need a bit of protection... thinking of the
exploding and burning batteries in laptops recently

(snip) the rest...

Those burning laptop batteries were made by Sony.
Sony is a four letter word.

Bob Urz hath wroth:

So all those flaming Dell computers with legit batteries have protected
who from whom?

With all due respect, that's a rather nonsensical question. Flaming
batteries don't protect anyone and you know it. Could you rephrase
your question so that it might be answerable?

Maybe the after market ones would have been safer!

Pay your money and take your chances. Caveat Emptor. Personally,
I've had good luck with aftermarket cell phone and laptop batteries.
I've had no fires and have no knowledge of anyone that has had a fire
(that wasn't intentional). Whether my next battery will be OEM or
aftermarket largely depends on whether I get some improved fire safety
assurances, and of course, the price.

Its all about Money, not safety.

Yep, it's all about money. Sony is expected to bear the $250 million
cost of the recall. Including loss of revenue from OEM's, I think
that's conservative. Now, who do you think is inevitably going to pay
for the $250 million loss?

Incidentally, battery safety standards are next on agenda for various
standards manufacturers:
http://www.ansi.org/news_publications/news_story.aspx?menuid=7&articleid=1376&source=wha tsnew120506
Methinks this might help.

I believe it was lexmark that got sued and lost for the printer fiasco.
http://copyfight.corante.com/archive...ingement.ph p
Bob

Nope. Lexmark sued SCC for reverse engineering their copy protection
chip inside their toner cartridges. Lexmark tried to use the DMCA to
protect their design on the basis of copyright. The lower courts
agreed with Lexmark. The 6th District Court of Appeals did not agree.
The 32 page decision is difficult reading, but rather interesting.
http://lawgeek.typepad.com/04a0364p-06.pdf
More on the case:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/Lexmark_v_Static_Control/


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 21:28:50 -0600, Bob Urz wrote:




Jeff Liebermann wrote:

AZ Nomad hath wroth:


On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:44:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Can you offer a better explanation of what went wrong with the Sony
batteries? I'm only recycling what I've read on the internet which

Putting an anti-competitive chip in those batteries wouldn't have made
any difference.


True for the defective Sony laptop batteries. Probably not true for
cheap replacement cell phone batteries. It won't take much for you
find numerous exploding cell phone horror stories with Google.
Although some of the early exploding batteries were OEM batteries, the
greatest majority were apparently cheap aftermarket replacements.

Incidentally, it may not be just the laptop batteries that are
responsible for starting fires:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/dell_battery_folo.html

There's a big difference between your anti-competative chips in ink
jet cartridges, which have no safety issues, and a similar chip in a
potentially exploding cell phone or laptop battery, where safety and
liability are currently a serious and real concern.


So all those flaming Dell computers with legit batteries have protected
who from whom? Maybe the after market ones would have been safer!
Its all about Money, not safety.

Even if dell had anticompetitive chips installed, the aftermarket batteries
would have simply been refurbished dell laptop batteries with new cells
installed and any anticompetitive chip from before the refurbishing job.

Ken Weitzel hath wroth:

I wonder if someone somewhere somehow couldn't recommend a safety
"law"... requiring a (sacrificial) thermal fuse in each battery pack
that would open up at much much less temperature than exploding/fire
requires.

LiIon battery packs already have a 100C(?) thermal fuse inside. At
175C, LiIon goes into thermal runaway. The problem with the fuse is
that it only triggers AFTER the battery pack is already on its way
toward meltdown. It's also effective only in the case of an external
overload or short. It does nothing for the defective LiIon and LiPo
batteries, where the short is inside the battery pack itself.
Disconnecting the load (or source) from the terminals does nothing for
internal shorts.

Note that there are standards groups working on battery standards:
http://www.ansi.org/news_publications/news_story.aspx?menuid=7&articleid=1376&source=wha tsnew120506

And at the same time require an internal fuse that would
open at a current just above the recommended charging current and/or
device draw current, whichever is highest. With this we'd cover
shorted output of the pack, and a defective charger.

Parts of that already exist on the charge controller board that's
inside most LiIon batteries for laptops. For cell phones, it tends to
be inside the cell phone due to space and cost considerations. Most
LiIon batteries I've disected have some form of short circuit
protection inside. However, it's usually not a fuse, which would
render the battery pack inoperative if blown. It's some manner of
circuitry on the charge controller board.

How does battery management electronics enhance battery safety?
http://www.powermanagementdesignline.com/howto/batterymanagement/194400185

Just for whatever it may be worth, I'm heavily into photography.
Have cameras that use AA's, and I had lots of NiMh's. Went out with
my camera to take a few pics of flowers. Camera had almost finished
batteries in it, so I had 4 freshly charged ones in my hand.

Grandkids came out with their bikes, told me they had permission to
ride their bikes (with me) to the ice cream store. So I put the new
batteries in my (too tight for a grandfather)jeans pocket, got my bike,
and off we went. A block away, my leg got incredibly hot, couldn't
put my hand in my pocket, nor could I take my pants off. I still have
the scar on my leg. One of the AA's had a flawed "roll over of the
transparent insulator" where it covered the negative part of the can
near the positive terminal, and I guess the negative end of another
shorted it. So, the lesson is carry your spares in a proper container,
please.

Well, I'm not much of a photographer, but I have duplicated your
accident. The difference was that it was in my jacket pocket and the
battery was shorted by my car keys. I was able to remove the jacket
before getting any major burns. However, I wasn't smart enough to not
put my hand in the jacket pocket to see what was getting so hot. So,
I got a small finger tip burn for my curiosity.

Basically, the problem is that the energy density of todays battery
technology closely resembles a small bomb. The materials are also
rather combustable. Make a mistake, and you can produce anything
between a burn and an explosion.

My neighbors 16 year old semi-genius decided to see what would happen
if he put a LiPo battery in the trash compactor with the tin cans. His
mom stopped him before the inevitable kitchen full of toxic smog, but
we were all curious what would happen. Moral: There's always a way
to do it wrong (or make it blow up).

Take care.

NBC. NoBody Cares.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Homer J Simpson wrote:
"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...


The only thing they're protecting is their profit margin.


Like the ink for inkjet printers - it's more expensive than the finest
champagne.





Don't get me started on inkjet cartridges, at least with batteries
there's a fire hazard.

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

AZ Nomad hath wroth:

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:44:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
Can you offer a better explanation of what went wrong with the Sony
batteries? I'm only recycling what I've read on the internet which

Putting an anti-competitive chip in those batteries wouldn't have made
any difference.



There's a big difference between your anti-competative chips in ink
jet cartridges, which have no safety issues, and a similar chip in a
potentially exploding cell phone or laptop battery, where safety and
liability are currently a serious and real concern.



AZ is pointing out that the anti-chip has NO BEARING on whether the battery
is safe or not;a battery pack can still short even with the chip,and the
presence of the chip does not absolve anyone from liability.
Note that the *high quality* Sony product had battery problems.

The chip is only there to eliminate use of cheaper substitutes,NOT for
"safety" or liability.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jeff Liebermann wrote:


What bothers me is the number of my customers that don't even bother
to check if their laptops have potentially defective Sony batteries.
I've had to call them for the models and serial numbers.

Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

With all due respect! If you are the seller of a defective product,
and have not kept sufficient records, then this is an admission of
negligence on your part.

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

Jim Yanik hath wroth:

Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:

AZ Nomad hath wroth:

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:44:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
Can you offer a better explanation of what went wrong with the Sony
batteries? I'm only recycling what I've read on the internet which

Putting an anti-competitive chip in those batteries wouldn't have made
any difference.

There's a big difference between your anti-competative chips in ink
jet cartridges, which have no safety issues, and a similar chip in a
potentially exploding cell phone or laptop battery, where safety and
liability are currently a serious and real concern.

AZ is pointing out that the anti-chip has NO BEARING on whether the battery
is safe or not;a battery pack can still short even with the chip,and the
presence of the chip does not absolve anyone from liability.

In the case of the laptop batteries, this is correct. In the case of
the exploding cell phone batteries, this may not be correct. While
the original exploding cell phone batteries were stock Nokia
(apparently without any short circuit protection), the majority of the
later exploding cell phone batteries were because of aftermarket
batteries.

Note that the *high quality* Sony product had battery problems.

I'm not sure I would consider Sony to be a premium product these days.
I've seen far too many in-warranty problems with their computers.

The chip is only there to eliminate use of cheaper substitutes,NOT for
"safety" or liability.

Maybe. However, allow me to point out that the necessary technology
and chips have been around for quite a while. Some battery packs
already have the features in the charge controller chip. If they were
as greedy as you suggest, the laptop and cell phone manufacturers
could have easily implemented such a scheme long ago. Only after some
real field failures, substantial adverse publicity, and litigation, do
they begin to implement what will undoubtedly become an unpopular
mis-feature and support headache. My guess is that we will begin to
see cell phones advertised with a spare battery or charger powered
phones. (Many phones cannot run from only the charger and without an
internal battery).

I've noticed some interesting logic in one of the exploding cell phone
incidents. Instead of blaming the cheap aftermarket battery
manufacturer, the victim blamed the manufacturer of the phone claiming
the phone was defective in "causing" the battery to explode or
otherwise failing to protect the user.

It is also interesting that only the cell phone manufacturers name is
mentioned in the various online articles. The exact model is never
mentioned. In one (Nextel) case, the phone was fairly new and
presumed to have included the stock OEM battery. Reading between the
lines, my astute guess(tm) is most of the other incidents were
aftermarket replacement batteries.

I would expect to see a line of aftermarket armor holsters for cell
phones, that protect the user in case of internal explosion. Maybe a
temperature alarm that gives the user a few seconds warning before the
phone explodes. Maybe federal safety standards for case ruggedness
and survivability. Such opportunities cannot be ignored.

Note that this is not the first laptop battery recall for Dell. See
bottom of page at:
http://support.dell.com/support/topics/global.aspx/support/batteryrecall/en/main

Also, I've seen a few cell phones running around without battery
covers. A clue is that there are overpriced battery covers for sale
on eBay. My XV6700 battery cover is held on with scotch tape as it
tends to fall off without much provocation. The exposed battery is
not exactly puncture proof. I suspect a good poke with my closed
multitool or car keys, while in my pocket, might initiate a meltdown.

Incidentally, thanks for all the good advice on Tektronix repairs over
the years. It's been very useful for maintaining my rapidly aging
pile of test equipment.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Any chance these batteries will become the electronic version of Jarts?

This Old House showed a 36volt 7-1/4" circular saw last week.

"T Shadow" wrote in
:

Any chance these batteries will become the electronic version of Jarts?

This Old House showed a 36volt 7-1/4" circular saw last week.




battery voltages will become so high,the weight of the packs will make
people return to corded tools. ;-)

Or the pack(backpack?) will have to be separate with a cord to connect to
the tool.

I've already seen one brand with a belt-mounted battery pack and a coilcord
to the tool.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:26:45 -0500, T Shadow wrote:


Any chance these batteries will become the electronic version of Jarts?

This Old House showed a 36volt 7-1/4" circular saw last week.

With a sticker on it saying "Do Not Eat", no doubt.
Gotta love those lawyers.

Jim Yanik wrote:
"T Shadow" wrote in
:

Any chance these batteries will become the electronic version of Jarts?

This Old House showed a 36volt 7-1/4" circular saw last week.




battery voltages will become so high,the weight of the packs will make
people return to corded tools. ;-)

Or the pack(backpack?) will have to be separate with a cord to connect to
the tool.

I've already seen one brand with a belt-mounted battery pack and a coilcord
to the tool.


Still more convenient than finding a *fixed* outlet and running a cord
to it...and dragging around/tripping over said cord. In fact still much
more convenient when any potential outlet is more than a few dozen feet
away from the work.

Cordless tools in general have made some jobs possible that never were
before. They've also made many jobs easy to do--meaning that they
actually *get done*--that were difficult before.

jak

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:26:45 -0500, "T Shadow"
wrote:

Any chance these batteries will become the electronic version of Jarts?

Maybe. I'm sure the safety advocates will try to ban LiIon batteries
in trade for some concessions on other items under contention. Quid
Pro Quo and all that. Incidentally, lawn darts really were a hazard.
I dropped one from about a 60ft tower and punched a neat hole in the
top of my toolbox (oops).

This Old House showed a 36volt 7-1/4" circular saw last week.

It's not just the saw. There's also a hammer/drill/driver combo,
light, and Skilsaw clone.
http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/tool_detail.asp?productID=15003
Also a bigger hammer drill:
http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/tool_detail.asp?productID=14998
and impact wrench:
http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/tool_detail.asp?productID=14962

It's a "nano-phosphate lithium ion" cell:
http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/attachment_detail.asp?productID=14905
Very fast charge, highest energy density, and allegedly safer than
other LiIon mutations. However, they're $170/ea for the DeWalt packs.
Ouch.



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

jakdedert wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:
"T Shadow" wrote in
:

Any chance these batteries will become the electronic version of Jarts?

This Old House showed a 36volt 7-1/4" circular saw last week.




battery voltages will become so high,the weight of the packs will make
people return to corded tools. ;-)

Or the pack(backpack?) will have to be separate with a cord to connect
to the tool.

I've already seen one brand with a belt-mounted battery pack and a
coilcord to the tool.


Still more convenient than finding a *fixed* outlet and running a cord
to it...and dragging around/tripping over said cord. In fact still much
more convenient when any potential outlet is more than a few dozen feet
away from the work.

Cordless tools in general have made some jobs possible that never were
before. They've also made many jobs easy to do--meaning that they
actually *get done*--that were difficult before.

Hi...

Doubt that the battery voltage will ever approach anywhere near 110;
and even if it does, it will still be much safer shock-wise being that
there's no earth ground threat.

Take care.

Ken

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:26:45 -0500, "T Shadow"
wrote:

Any chance these batteries will become the electronic version of Jarts?

Maybe. I'm sure the safety advocates will try to ban LiIon batteries
in trade for some concessions on other items under contention. Quid
Pro Quo and all that. Incidentally, lawn darts really were a hazard.
I dropped one from about a 60ft tower and punched a neat hole in the
top of my toolbox (oops).

This Old House showed a 36volt 7-1/4" circular saw last week.

It's not just the saw. There's also a hammer/drill/driver combo,
light, and Skilsaw clone.
http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/tool_detail.asp?productID=15003
Also a bigger hammer drill:
http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/tool_detail.asp?productID=14998
and impact wrench:
http://www.dewalt.com/us/products/tool_detail.asp?productID=14962


When I tried to think of something that had been banned to compare it to,
Jarts was the second thing that came to mind. I agree about them.

One of the benefits of the new batteries besides power is reduced weight.
Just thought with the problems they've had with the smaller batteries how
big a problem would one this size be. Luckily few would carry it on their
person.

I love cordless tools and hope they get it worked out. Bought into a
19.2volt system last year. At my age its unlikely I'll ever go to another
system especially at those prices.