Received: from PCH.mit.edu (18.7.21.50) by mail.efplus.com (192.168.0.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.485.1; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 13:06:00 -0700 Received: from PCH.MIT.EDU (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 096Jurnh005262; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 15:56:54 -0400 Received: from outgoing-exchange-3.mit.edu (OUTGOING-EXCHANGE-3.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.13]) by PCH.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 096Jupha005258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 15:56:52 -0400 Received: from oc11exedge1.exchange.mit.edu (OC11EXEDGE1.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.9.3.17]) by outgoing-exchange-3.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 096JuoPL010429 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 15:56:52 -0400 Received: from w92expo20.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.74.74) by oc11exedge1.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.3.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1293.2; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 15:55:50 -0400 Received: from oc11exhyb8.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.113) by w92expo20.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.74.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 15:56:40 -0400 Received: from NAM12-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.55.168) by oc11exhyb8.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.1.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 15:56:40 -0400 Received: from DM6PR10CA0017.namprd10.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:60::30) by BN6PR01MB2355.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10b6:404:53::7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3455.21; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:56:40 +0000 Received: from DM3NAM03FT020.eop-NAM03.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:60:cafe::27) by DM6PR10CA0017.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:5:60::30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3433.36 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:56:39 +0000 Received: from premium47-1.web-hosting.com (68.65.123.241) by DM3NAM03FT020.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.82.193) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3433.34 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:56:39 +0000 Received: from 107-145-246-199.res.spectrum.com ([107.145.246.199]:56850 helo=[192.168.10.106]) by premium47.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kPt4b-000lUG-RO; Tue, 06 Oct 2020 15:56:38 -0400 From: Neil To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Sender: "piclist-bounces@mit.edu" Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:56:32 -0700 Subject: Re: [EE] Re: Lithium battery confusion. Thread-Topic: [EE] Re: Lithium battery confusion. Thread-Index: AdacHBy/WrM0wBbpQs6cT9uaQTIUBw== Message-ID: <5F7CCBF0.3030209@narwani.org> References: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , In-Reply-To: Reply-To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: TS500.efplus4.local X-MS-Has-Attach: X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SenderIdResult: TempError X-MS-Exchange-Organization-PRD: mit.edu X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: narwani.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=narwani.org ; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:Reply-To:To:References:Subject:Sender:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=eqpAvZsxikJZb4UVzjdAlGjz9JnDOhX1IsH10crdeR4=; b=KbsW+CztR70nxX7TmHg1B22Iws EZN4DYV0h4TG0eBelifgBajbvj1HeILcywkKZpt/Vr77od3DsaIq/3sfJ2NySK0+M211s26vRyhoA OR1a+Q5RbLNPTeysiLIPyNX8OoK25S1n7IpfOFgbp/1p1UzAz/qZFuHGEGhqecNjdCmgCMcIZvdXK x5eRXLcem/FeszjTR9gvFW48k2uvkCnOyWUmLz4n/EXwwMjnWlk/k0VbfbuGXKD26paFxYfzkt2JL QxUqTLzEWyf53lCmYExHlnZdiLxidTfwkgr5H0ThshzTcwL5MpexqFDR0TuneTP1nGBog1dYeg6od nJ1yo+hQ==; authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is 68.65.123.241) smtp.mailfrom=narwani.org; mit.edu; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=narwani.org;mit.edu; dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=narwani.org; user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 errors-to: piclist-bounces@mit.edu list-id: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." list-post: x-beenthere: piclist@mit.edu x-mailman-version: 2.1.6 x-source-args: x-source-dir: x-antiabuse: Sender Address Domain - narwani.org x-source: x-authenticated-sender: premium47.web-hosting.com: ca4@narwani.org x-topics: [EE] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 A couple years ago, I had issues charging "standard" LiPo batteries to 4.2V= .. Turns out the batteries (very low-cost ones from China) just would not=20 get to 4.2V, so charge-done was never indicated. They only charge to 4.1V. IIRC it was a Microchip 73833 chip, and further investigation revealed=20 that I could get the charger chips (for the same LiPo technology) in=20 different pack voltages -- 4.1V, 4.2V, etc. So IME there are possible variations even for the same technology. Cheers, -Neil. On 10/6/2020 2:52 PM, Dwayne Reid wrote: > Topic tag added > > Russell M is probably best to answer this but I'll pass on what I've > learned over the years. > > As far as I know, standard Li-Ion and Lipo cells have almost > identical chemistry. There used to be a slight difference between > cells from different manufacturers in the anode material used. This > lead to different nominal voltages (3.6V xs 3.7V) where the maximum > charge voltage was 4.1V for the 3.6V cell and 4.2V for the 3.7V cell. > > Also as far as I know, most Li-Ion and Lipo cells are now of the 3.7V > nominal voltage version. > > Do note that I am NOT talking about the LIFEPO4 cells (3.2V nominal). > > The charger module that you linked to seems entirely > appropriate. Stupid expensive, though. There are far less expensive > ready-made chargers available from Oh So Many Asian suppliers. > > Or - you could roll your own with free samples from Microchip. I use > their MCP73831T-2DCI/OT in two of the products that we have built in > the past. Less than Can $0.50 in 25 lot or free if you ask Microchip nic= ely. > > dwayne > > > At 11:01 AM 10/6/2020, David C Brown wrote: >> I have cell phone battery from a reputable manufacturer - Motorola - wh= ich >> is marked >> 3.8v Lithium Ion Polymer battery. And I am seeking a charger module. >> >> I was under the impression that Li-ion and Li-poly were different >> chemistries which require different charging regimes. Is that not so. >> >> And would this simple module https://tinyurl.com/y48gp4hu be suitable. >> __________________________________________ >> David C Brown >> 43 Bings Road >> Whaley Bridge >> High Peak Phone: 01663 733236 >> Derbyshire eMail: dcb.home@gmail.com >> SK23 7ND web: www.bings-knowle.co.uk/dcb >> > --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .