The official Droid Turbo battery life thread.

[lloydstrans]

Gsam still has me at 1 day 19.2 hours.

We must...We must...increase our boost

 

[PereDroid]

take the Turbo Charger with us for those rare times when we need another 8 hours of power and only have 15 minutes to obtain it.

Well I hope you're wrong Foxcat and that the Turbo Charger is not in any way detrimental to my battery.
I use mine almost DAILY. For a mid day charge.
It is 2:20PM now. Took it off the charger at 7:45. I'm at 63%, 6hr 22 min on battery, 1 hr 29 min SOT.
Ever heard of Ingress? Played during my lunch hour. Ingress = 19% battery.
I really don't get people getting 3 days. Do you USE your phone? Even if I do not open Ingress, no way I'd get 2 full days.

 

[CaptainSS]

I do the same thing Fox does, trickle charge "If" my phone sits for a period (like overnight) or if I'm not paying attention. If I need Max charge in Min time...... the choice is obvious.

 

[FoxKat]

Well I hope you're wrong Foxcat and that the Turbo Charger is not in any way detrimental to my battery.
I use mine almost DAILY. For a mid day charge.
It is 2:20PM now. Took it off the charger at 7:45. I'm at 63%, 6hr 22 min on battery, 1 hr 29 min SOT.
Ever heard of Ingress? Played during my lunch hour. Ingress = 19% battery.
I really don't get people getting 3 days. Do you USE your phone? Even if I do not open Ingress, no way I'd get 2 full days.

I hear you and I wish I were wrong, but it's not really me that you [edit; we] need to question, it's the scientists who test these batteries over and over again and publish their results. But let's look at it this way, it's a simple matter of battery chemistry. Chemicals deteriorate at higher temperatures, corrosion takes place more rapidly at higher temperatures, chemical reactions take place faster at higher temperatures and this ultimately shortens the life span of the battery.

Turbocharging, or hot charging it at higher current levels and higher voltages will generate greater heat. I'm not talking about necessarily total battery temperature as would be measured at the outside of the battery pack (where the sensor is attached), so much as deep internal temperature, at the point where the anode electrode contacts the semiconductor material, the lithium paste. It's there where the damage takes place and it happens at a microscopic level.

Turbocharging does charge at these elevated levels, but it also has rest periods built-into it's charging algorithm to allow the battery to cool again after its higher than normal internal electrode temperature so the resulting exterior temperature of the battery may not be all that much different than it would be let's say if you were charging it on a wireless charging pad or even with a lower current trickle charger, but the difference is that the internals never reach the higher temperatures with the trickle charge or the Qi charger versus with the turbocharger.

Now let's look at this from the perspective of the manufacturer. They say that I was supposed to get two days on one charge, correct? Okay, if this is true then the typical life span of a battery which is suggested to be about 500 standard 100% charge cycles would actually yield twice the time (think screen time), out of those 500 charges as would a typical battery that might give you one day. But on the other hand, if we turbo charge that battery daily, we might actually reduce the battery's life span to 250 charges rather than 500.

So let's back into the life span of the phone. What you will find is that the expected lifespan of the phone is about 1.5 to 2 years so therefore getting two days of use (runtime, operation), out of the daily charging should give you upwards of two years of life span on the battery. Think daily charges for a year = 365 days, so in that math, the 500 charges should last 1.27 years or 500 days.

But 250 charges is half the lifespan of half a size battery that is trickle charged and which in comparison would give 500 days of use. It may be a matter of semantics, but is the manufacturer misleading us by saying the battery will last the lifespan of the phone? Well, no if you look at that math because the battery will take 250 Turbo Charges and give you twice the number of days use in that theory. So, 250 charges * 2 days = 500 days. Now, if you turbo charge a battery that is only 2000mAh, you might get 250 charges and the battery would be essentially at its end of life being able to hold only 80 percent or less of its original rated charge by the end of, well much less than one year.

Now, the truth is we don't typically go through 100% of the battery's capacity in every 24 hour period (100% to 0%). We're often left with some when we connect, maybe 20% to as much as 30% so the difference between 100% and the remaining charge when placed on a charger actually yields more than 500 days of use if trickle charged (or in my example 600 to 650 days, or almost 2 years). Others however may use MORE than 100% of the capacity in the typical 24 hours, and its THOSE people who will notice a significant reduction in capacity of the battery (or runtime per charge) as the battery gets to maybe a year old.

My point again is if you're trickle charging you're going to extend the life of the battery dramatically, and it doesn't change how much runtime you get out of each charge, in fact it is suggested by testing that with trickle charging you achieve a more dense charging of the battery and therefore result in a longer run time with each 100 percent charge.

So again I bring you back to my suggestion which is to use the turbocharger when and if necessary to boost the battery's charge midday for instance as you mentioned in your post, but use another trickle charge method such as for instance a Qi wireless charger, or an earlier USB charger adapter, or the USB plug on your desktop or laptop computer during those times when you don't need a fast charge benefit, such as when sleeping at night and therefore extend your battery's life.

I'll make one final point as well. With larger batteries I'm being told we can get greater runtime out of those batteries, we then tend intend to use our phones more aggressively and so for many of us the two-day suggested runtime out of one charge in this phone isn't coming anywhere close to two days. So reduce that by maybe 50% or 25% and then reduce the lifespan by using turbocharging by perhaps 50% or less and what you come back to is a battery that may start acting very poorly within a year to maybe as much as a year and a quarter or a half.

Sent from my Droid Turbo on Tapatalk.

 

[PereDroid]

Not really questioning you, brother. Just discussing. You really didn't need to write out that much.

The only thing I use that Turbo Charger for is when I need the mid day boost. I use the Qi stand at night. Those are the only times it gets charged.

I honestly don't care if it degrades the battery. Heck with it. I'm not THAT attached to this particular phone. My next Turbo will be just as nice. Probably from months of ROMing and ROOTing. It's nothing to me to get a new phone and "start over".

If the battery sucks in a year, I'll get a warranty replacement. Heck, I called Moto over my last phone that was FAR beyond warranty (RAZR HD) and asked if I could send it to them so they could put a battery in it: they offered to replace it with a refurb for free. Pretty sure this would happen with an out of warranty Turbo. If not, I am willing to pay to ship my phone to them and replace the battery. Heck, I may be brave enough to try it myself by then.

(Comment edited by forum staff: we don't condone the practice of filing false insurance claims)

I don't baby my phones. Ever. Work for me til you die TURBO!!!
And I can almost guarantee you: Ingress will destroy a battery faster then Turbo Charging will. LOL
I have no doubt the KK update and much Ingressing destroyed my HD battery...
(Of course, the HD got a lot hotter then the Turbo does Ingressing, so maybe not as bad...)

 

[FoxKat]

No, and I am not taking that personally either... I was really being rhetorical (perhaps not the exact right word, but maybe close enough), in the response, simply to separate fact from rhetoric as it were.

We're all good here and the discussion is for everyone's benefit. No opinion is to be discounted, not mine and not those who may disagree with me. My suggestions are just that... If someone chooses to take the other path they will either benefit from what the manufacturer has claimed...no "damage", or they will suffer from what I claim, which is there MUST be SOME damage, just based on simple chemistry, even without scientific evidence to back my claims.

In the end, YRMV.

 

[FoxKat]

Hey folks, read section 3 of the following published paper and you will see what I mean...

"Abstract: Degradation mechanisms such as lithium plating, growth of the passivated surface film layer on the electrodes and loss of both recyclable lithium ions and electrode material adversely affect the longevity of the lithium ion battery. The anode electrode is very vulnerable to these degradation mechanisms. In this paper, the most common aging mechanisms occurring at the anode during the operation of the lithium battery, as well as some approaches for minimizing the degradation are reviewed...

3. Anode Impedance The growth of the passive surface layer on the anode creates resistance to lithium ion flow, which results in a rise in the charge transfer resistance and the impedance of the anode [39,40]. This increase in anode impedance is said to increase with charge rate, cycle number, temperature, and anode material particle size [41–43]. However, at low temperatures (10–30 °C) and low charge rate(C/20), the anode electrode contribution to the overall battery impedance is low. This is attributed to the small amount of the surface film formed on the electrode surface [44]. The low charge rate limits the amount of excess Li+ that is not intercalated into the electrode to react with the electrolyte [45,46]. A typical SEM micrograph of anode covered with products of electrolyte decomposition reaction products is shown in Figure 2. (e.g., [38,39,44,46,47]).

Common surface reaction products formed on the anode surface include Li-alkyl carbonates, lithium carbonate species and fluorinated products. These products affect the intercalation and de-intercalation kinetics of the anode, and thus result in an increase in anode electrode impedance relative to the cathode [47–49]."

​

For those who don't understand what is said above, they are discussing the deposition (depositing) of a layer of a "barrier" of sorts created internally by the chemistry, that eventually coat the Anode, reducing its exposed surface area and thereby increasing its resistance to the flow of Lithium Ions. The flow of Lithium Ions (hence the battery name and type), is the way this battery creates electricity. Anyone who knows electricity knows that increased resistance results in reduced capacity or flow of electrons, and also increases temperature of the conductors which are carrying those electrons. So its a self-perpetuating problem. Increased charge rate begets heat, which begets coating, which begets resistance, which begets reduced electron flow, which begets reduced capacity, which begets greater heat while trying to push greater electron flow... In other words a vicious cycle.

Think of it this way, pinch a garden hose and the resistance created by the pinch reduces the flow of water. Increase the pressure by turning up the faucet to compensate and the resistance results in increased friction of the water through the hose at the point of the pinch. Now with water, you wouldn't get a significant temperature increase at that pinch point since the new water coming behind it is cool. Electrons on the other hand don't act as a cooling mechanism like water so that's not a perfect analogy, but it explains at least the reduced electron flow. In the case of electrons, they simply cause everything to heat up as resistance increases, and as voltages and current increase. The higher the resistance, the lower the capacity and the higher the temperatures the greater the internal damage.

 

[jkaod]

I'm going to drill a hole in the side of my refrigerator, put my cord through it, caulk it back up and then I can trickle charge my phone while it's in the fridge. Best of both variables: cool temperature and a trickle charge. IT'LL LAST FOREVER!!
Actually, that was a very interesting article. I use my old charger 95% of the time and only turbo charge if I really need it.

 

[FoxKat]

I'm going to drill a hole in the side of my refrigerator, put my cord through it, caulk it back up and then I can trickle charge my phone while it's in the fridge. Best of both variables: cool temperature and a trickle charge. IT'LL LAST FOREVER!!
Actually, that was a very interesting article. I use my old charger 95% of the time and only turbo charge if I really need it.

Thanks for the funny and the vote of confidence. I really am not trying to create an argument with anyone. I am only trying to give everyone unbiased data from which to draw a proper conclusion. The manufacturer WANTS us to believe that TurboCharging is "safe" and in fact it is from a "safety" standpoint, however it has to have a negative impact on the battery's life over time, since it's not a different battery chemistry, it's a different charging algorithm and charge rate. Once they develop more advanced battery chemistry that can better handle this accelerated rate of charge, the "damage" will be mitigated.

 

[TDL1068]

I read an article the other day about the use of ultracapacitors in low power demand applications. Now if we could just get those optimized for phone power demands. Fast charging AND long life cycle would be the norm! Now where did I park my DeLorean....?

 

[jkaod]

Agreed. Battery technology is a very research intense field right now. Smartphone batteries are really the least of their concerns, but will reap the benefits of all the research. Electric vehicles are driving the research (pun intended ). The holy grail is to get batteries that will allow a car to drive 500+ miles and recharge in 5-10 minutes. They'll get there sooner or later, but for now lion batteries are the best that we have and they are definitely limited by chemistry as described in the article.

 

[CaptainSS]

I refuse to read "battery white papers" that's what we have Fox for!!

 

[PereDroid]

OK, playing Devils Advocate, do you really think Moto or Qualcomm just said "eh, screw it, we'll just pinch this garden hose, who cares if it damages the battery more?" It's 2015, there are battery advances every day, is there really no proprietary software or hardware in these devices that prevents excessive wear and\or damage??

 

[TDL1068]

Well. They are in the business of selling hardware. Although they have protection built in to limit damage it may not be enough to prevent the battery service life from being reduced over time. If they just happen to sell another piece of hardware sooner as a result that's just fine to them.

 

[iiWoodstocK]

The Quick Charge 2.0 technology is not explicitly harmful, but in the end they are in the business of providing a new innovative product. The heat still is a detrimental factor to the longevity of a battery.

Almost like the rev limiter on a car. It prevents the engine from hitting a point where such an RPM is extremely bad, but that doesn't mean everything up until that point is safe. So an engine with a redline of 7000 RPM, doesn't mean consistently having the engine at 6500 RPM is a good thing and safe for the longevity of the engine.

Same goes for the "smarts" the Quick Charge 2.0 technology uses. It will essentially charge at that "6500 RPM" and will know when it is at a known dangerous state. But that doesn't mean it is a good thing to do regularly.

(I think this analogy works well.)