cannot power "on" ASUS laptop after power outage

"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:17:01 -0700, "Adam" Gave us:
snip
This is OT but anyone know how to find a dental hygienist,
with whom you've lost touch (because
the "new" owner wants that relationship severed)?

The previous owner retired.
[Alan L. Grimm, DDS, Milpitas, CA]
And, I don't know her last name.

Well with a name like Alan, I'll bet she has a pretty low voice an a
fairly large clit! :-)

No, she's just a very good dental hygienist.

On 10/20/2015 9:21 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:50:22 -0700, "Adam" Gave us:


"DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 09:48:17 -0400, Caver1 Gave
us:

snip

This one is 135 Watts. Would (may) only need an output plug
changeout.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012HW5A9O

And no, the wattage does not have to match the original. More is
better. It is just a declaration of what the supply is able to provide.
Your device still uses only what it uses. It merely has a better
likelihood of providing a cleaner DC feed, and exhibiting less heat
while doing so.

ASUS representative said...

"A higher wattage AC adapter can cause damage to battery overtime.
Thus, it is not recommended."

Is this true?

No. A battery is charged by voltage. It requires a voltage greater
than the battery's operating voltage. That is usually managed by a
watchdog chip/circuit. They operate from within a specific input
voltage range and ONLY feed the battery the voltage it needs. And they
stop the charging cycle when they are through. You'll notice this same
behavior on your smart phone and some laptops when they say "not
charging" even though you attached an external source.

An adaptor that can put out 65W does so comfortably and without
exhibiting heat or feeding a noisy rail (ripple). That means if they
get fully loaded to the 65W rating, they are supposed to work at that
level 24/7/365, as in "full duty cycle". A higher power, same voltage
supply does the same thing and at it rated power when loaded to that
level. If you hook it up to a lesser load, it will pull less and run
cooler and exhibit less ripple.

So essentially he couldn't be more wrong if he tried.

It is incorrect to attach a higher voltage supply, but NOT incorrect
to attach a higher wattage supply. The wattage rating declares the work
which it is capable of doing.. It does not "feed more" if the load has
not changed, and it has not. The device acts no differently simply
because a more capable, quieter running power unit got attached.
As long as the voltage matches, the device will draw no more power than
it did on the other power supply device.

I can not explain it more concisely, because that covers it
completely.

You can tell him I said he is wrong, and needs to go back to bull****
salesman school.

That advice is always correct, except when it isn't.
Designers sometimes do stupid things to reduce costs.
Sometimes advisers extrapolate their experience to situations
where it doesn't apply and express it with arrogance.

Check out the schematic for a Compaq Aero 4-25.
The only thing between the battery and the charge jack is a FET switch.
They use the current limit in the power brick to limit the charge
current. If you use a charger with a higher current limit, you overheat
the battery.
If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire.
Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it.

Expressing advice concisely and completely with maximum arrogance
to a newbie without a voltmeter or the
means or understanding to verify the advice is irresponsible...
even if it is correct ALMOST all of the time.
Sometimes, the advice doesn't apply.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike Gave us:

That advice is always correct, except when it isn't.

You are being an idiot again.

A load is a load, and incorporating a more capable supply at the same
voltage changes nothing about the consumption rate of the load.

Designers sometimes do stupid things to reduce costs.

You are being an idiot again.. No designer can design a device that
presents a given supply a specific load which changes when a better
supply is attached.

Sometimes advisers extrapolate their experience to situations
where it doesn't apply and express it with arrogance.

And some detractors are so stupid they cannot even present a valid
argument. That would be you, idiot.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike Gave us:

Check out the schematic for a Compaq Aero 4-25.
The only thing between the battery and the charge jack is a FET switch.
They use the current limit in the power brick to limit the charge
current. If you use a charger with a higher current limit, you overheat
the battery.

Wrong again. The battery itself has watchdog features in it.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike Gave us:

If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire.
Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it.

Maybe you should learn how to spell 'motherboard' before you go
expounding on them.

Current is limited already because it is set by the voltage presented,
not the capacity of the supply to feed a load.

You are an electrical idiot as well, I see.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike Gave us:

Expressing advice concisely and completely with maximum arrogance
to a newbie without a voltmeter or the
means or understanding to verify the advice is irresponsible...

You are an idiot. The supply voltage and rating is declared,
dumb****.

even if it is correct ALMOST all of the time.

what I stated is correct ALL the time, idiot.

Sometimes, the advice doesn't apply.

Like the **** you just got done spewing into this thread.

On 10/20/2015 1:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike Gave us:

If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire.
Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it.

Maybe you should learn how to spell 'motherboard' before you go
expounding on them.

Current is limited already because it is set by the voltage presented,
not the capacity of the supply to feed a load.

You are an electrical idiot as well, I see.

Perhaps if you read the text instead of snipping it, you'd have seen the
example that contradicts your arrogance.
So far, three UTI's on this post.
Wonder if I can trade 'em in for something useful? I sure have a lot
of 'em.

mike wrote:

That advice is always correct, except when it isn't.
Designers sometimes do stupid things to reduce costs.
Sometimes advisers extrapolate their experience to situations
where it doesn't apply and express it with arrogance.

Check out the schematic for a Compaq Aero 4-25.
The only thing between the battery and the charge jack is a FET switch.
They use the current limit in the power brick to limit the charge
current. If you use a charger with a higher current limit, you overheat
the battery.
If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire.
Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it.

Expressing advice concisely and completely with maximum arrogance
to a newbie without a voltmeter or the
means or understanding to verify the advice is irresponsible...
even if it is correct ALMOST all of the time.
Sometimes, the advice doesn't apply.

You missed a golden opportunity.

I already provided a link from badcaps.net, with a
*schematic* for the laptop. Apply for a login account,
so you can download the schematic. I already had an account
on badcaps, so could get this immediately.

"ASUS N61JQ won't start"
http://www.badcaps.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42461

You can apply your keen analytical skills to that schematic
and tell us how the unit works.

PDF page 89 has the battery controller (MB39A132).
PDF page 60 has the DC jack with inductive surge (undershoot) protection.

And to help you on your way, this doc gives you an
overview on the MB39A132 feature set.

"DC/DC Converter IC for Charging Li-ion Batteries MB39A132 ..."
http://www.fujitsu.com/downloads/EDG...nd/26-3e/7.pdf

What do you notice on Figure 9 Page 5 ? It uses an SMPS
with high side/low side MOSFETs for controlling the charging
of the battery.

What can you feed an SMPS with ? All sorts of stuff.
Very flexible. What may not be flexible, is some of the
voltage thresholds set to work with a 19V adapter.
(The chip detects when the AC adapter is plugged in.)

I got a datasheet for the MB39A132 here. But that
isn't necessary needed right away.

http://master-chip.ru/store/files/b7...8/mb39a132.pdf

*******

Your quoted material, is from a 20 year old laptop,
a laptop with NiMH battery technology. What are
the odds that a current generation laptop is
as crude as that ? You yourself contributed to
this faq.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/pc-hardware...s/compaq-aero/

Paul

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:32:44 -0700, mike Gave us:

On 10/20/2015 1:03 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:54:19 -0700, mike Gave us:

If you use an unlimited current source, the FET catches fire.
Somewhere around here I have a motherbord with a hole burned in it.

Maybe you should learn how to spell 'motherboard' before you go
expounding on them.

Current is limited already because it is set by the voltage presented,
not the capacity of the supply to feed a load.

You are an electrical idiot as well, I see.

Perhaps if you read the text instead of snipping it, you'd have seen the
example that contradicts your arrogance.
So far, three UTI's on this post.
Wonder if I can trade 'em in for something useful? I sure have a lot
of 'em.

You are real good at jacking off at the mouth about your petty,
retarded non- "acronyms", but not surprisingly devoid of actual content
that refutes what I stated. To state someone I hate, You'd be fired.
You are ineffectual, at best.

You could not debate this with any modicum of technical accuracy if
your life depended on it. A pussy like you will try to let it die
quietly than actually provide a substantive retort. Come back when you
actually have a valid argument, chump. Your FET argument was a basic
Ohm's law full tilt failure, and I easily pointed that fact out to you.

Run, pussy boy, run!

On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:29:01 -0400, Paul Gave us:

You missed a golden opportunity.

It is basic Ohm's Law. He failed. Period.

19Volts is 19Volts all day long.

A 65 watt supply and a 90 watt supply and even the 135 watt supply I
gave a link to ALL ONLY provide 19Volts, and their maximum capacity
means absolutely NOTHING as they only pump the power needed for the
presented load, and that does not change from one supply to another when
placed on the same load.

If they are at 19Volts, then they ALL three only pump the same load
the same way.

So, a 65 Watt loads gets 3.421 Amps fed into it by a 65 Watt supply,
and that maxes out that supply and it will have the highest ripple of
its designed parameters.

A 65 watt load only gets 3.421 Amps fed into it by a 90 Watt supply as
well, and a 65 watt load only gets 3.421 Amps fed into it by a 135 Watt
supply. The higher power capable supplies will have lower ripple
figures, guaranteed.

See how easy that is? Basic Ohm's Law. The supply ONLY declares what
its FULL LOAD potential to operate at is. That means that ALL three
supplies will fill the 19 Volt requisite need for this load. The ONLY
difference will be that the latter two will do so while running cooler
and very likely while presenting less ripple to the load, which BTW,
computers like.

So mike is absolutely full of ****.