I'm having some troubles with two newly purchased batteries
for an old laptop which don't fully charge. The seller kindly
refunded the 1st purchase and I bought another one, but the
new one arrived this friday also shows the same problem, and
since the original one although aged and weak still charges
up to 100%, I would rule out the charger and related circuitry.

Therefore I'd like to produce some report with as much
information as possible about the batteries status so that
I can send it to the seller.

What is the best non command line tool I could use for that?
I'm not using a command line tool (I would know how to 
navigate /proc and find the information) because the people
I'm sending that information to will likely want something
that not only is reliable but also looks as such: two
batteries with the exact same problem aren't that common
and I don't want them to think I'm playing them, so I
believe a screen capture from a well known software would
be more convincing.

Thanks!

On 2016-11-27, asdf <asdf@nospam.com> wrote:
> I'm having some troubles with two newly purchased batteries
> for an old laptop which don't fully charge. The seller kindly
> refunded the 1st purchase and I bought another one, but the
> new one arrived this friday also shows the same problem, and
> since the original one although aged and weak still charges
> up to 100%, I would rule out the charger and related circuitry.
Maybe you should tell us what your evidence is as well for the above.

Your system might have recalibrated itself to think that the amount of
charge in the old battery was 100%, while it is much less in the new
ones.



>
> Therefore I'd like to produce some report with as much
> information as possible about the batteries status so that
> I can send it to the seller.
>
> What is the best non command line tool I could use for that?
> I'm not using a command line tool (I would know how to 
> navigate /proc and find the information) because the people
> I'm sending that information to will likely want something
> that not only is reliable but also looks as such: two
> batteries with the exact same problem aren't that common
> and I don't want them to think I'm playing them, so I
> believe a screen capture from a well known software would
> be more convincing.
>
> Thanks!

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 16:16:23 +0000, William Unruh wrote:

> On 2016-11-27, asdf <asdf@nospam.com> wrote:
>> I'm having some troubles with two newly purchased batteries for an old
>> laptop which don't fully charge. The seller kindly refunded the 1st
>> purchase and I bought another one, but the new one arrived this friday
>> also shows the same problem, and since the original one although aged
>> and weak still charges up to 100%, I would rule out the charger and
>> related circuitry.
> Maybe you should tell us what your evidence is as well for the above.

> 
> Your system might have recalibrated itself to think that the amount of
> charge in the old battery was 100%, while it is much less in the new
> ones.


Yup, this is the 1st thing that came to mind because both new batteries
are bigger 6.6 A/h packs compared to the original one. However there is
no option in the bios (it's the last available version) to recalibrate
the system to a newer battery so I searched around and found some
advice to do one or more system boots without any battery connected,
which I did, to no avail unfortunately.

Also, after a complete discharge of both new batteries and recharge,
the 1st one charged max to 53% while the second returned to the initial
full charge value of 65%. Leaving them overnight to charge further 
didn't get a single more percentage point.
This suggested that 1st battery cells were in worse condition and 
probably one or more of them didn't stand the deep discharge.
Since they're 11.1 V 6.6 A/h packs, they very likely contain both
series+parallel groups of smaller cells. A faulty cell that slowly
discharges to zero can kill all cells in parallel with it, also a cell 
with too high internal resistance would make the whole battery pack 
look as nearly depleted to the monitoring sensors due to a much higher
voltage drop.

Also, the small led row under the battery indicating the charge by
pushing a button shows data which to me is compatible with what the
system and bios report about battery charge 3/5 leds lit on the 1st
one, 4/5 on the 2nd one. This makes me think about one or more
dead cells in both packs.

I'm open to any suggestion!

BTW: the seller is a very reliable one from whom I have already
purchased other battery packs for different laptops in the past
with great satisfaction; this is either a case of good cells
shelved for too much time or something else I have no idea of
at the moment.

Quick followup since it turned out it was a 100% hardware problem.

Both laptop batteries were assembled using old or bad quality cells.
I opened both packs and found stickers dating its assembly back
to last july, so the seller has no responsibility. Since the
packs were arranged in a 3x3 way (series of 3 groups of 3
paralleled cells), a single weak cell would discharge the 2 others
in parallel and ruin it in the long run as the battery has
indeed protection against excessive dis/charge, but single cells
are unprotected.

Anyway, since the seller refunded both packs, I'm waiting a bit
more to see if I find a source for a good battery pack, which
could be problematic as they all seem the same thing just 
branded differently by various sellers.

On 05/12/16 14:51, asdf wrote:
> Quick followup since it turned out it was a 100% hardware problem.
>
> Both laptop batteries were assembled using old or bad quality cells.
> I opened both packs and found stickers dating its assembly back
> to last july, so the seller has no responsibility. Since the
> packs were arranged in a 3x3 way (series of 3 groups of 3
> paralleled cells), a single weak cell would discharge the 2 others
> in parallel and ruin it in the long run as the battery has
> indeed protection against excessive dis/charge, but single cells
> are unprotected.
>
> Anyway, since the seller refunded both packs, I'm waiting a bit
> more to see if I find a source for a good battery pack, which
> could be problematic as they all seem the same thing just
> branded differently by various sellers.
>
Why not re-cell one with decent cells?


-- 
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as 
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 2016-12-05 15:51, asdf wrote:
> Quick followup since it turned out it was a 100% hardware problem.
> 
> Both laptop batteries were assembled using old or bad quality cells.
> I opened both packs and found stickers dating its assembly back
> to last july, so the seller has no responsibility.


I don't think that a battery manufactured 5 months ago can count as old.
If it were two years ago, then maybe.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 16:02:19 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> I don't think that a battery manufactured 5 months ago can count as old.
> If it were two years ago, then maybe.

Agreed. I initially suspected they shelved the packs for years
while that date indicates if it happened it was before the pack
was assembled, so it's not the seller fault but likely their
supplier.
It looks like those cells are either bad quality or were
shelved for too long, or both.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 14:58:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Why not re-cell one with decent cells?

Cost. 9 decent no-name 18650 cells cost more than a new battery.
Branded ones would probably cost more than twice.

On 05/12/16 17:15, asdf wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 14:58:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Why not re-cell one with decent cells?
>
> Cost. 9 decent no-name 18650 cells cost more than a new battery.

well theres a reason for that.


> Branded ones would probably cost more than twice.
>

£4.50 a cell here...

https://hobbyking.com/en_us/turnigy-icr-18650-10c-2000mah-3-7.html

Even cheaper in UK, around £4 a cell.

-- 
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.