PPS For All: Directly charging lithium-ion batteries with a USB-C PD tester

TL;DR – USB-C with PPS (Programmable Power Supply) technology is here, it’s cool, and now it’s usable on more than just the newest smartphones – it works on almost any Li-ion battery with the right USB-C tester. Check out the GitHub repo – it’s open-source!

As seen on Hackaday!

DISCLAIMER: Lithium-ion batteries can be dangerous if mishandled or abused! While much testing and development has resulted in a fairly stable implementation, this application is still an “off-label” use of a USB PD charger and USB-C tester, and therefore there is a risk of property damage, personal injury, or other unforeseen consequences if something goes wrong (and I will NOT be held responsible for that!).

Introduction

The USB PD (Power Delivery) standard has revolutionized how we charge our everyday electronic devices. While many new devices (such as smartphones) emphasize “fast charge” capability, it has required changes to both the device itself, as well as the adapters that power them.

Because power losses in the charging cable (or any other resistance) is directly related to the amount of current flowing through it, one can get more power for the same amount of current by increasing the voltage (this is how the AC power transmission lines that you see on the street and countryside work as well). The USB PD standard allows a device to request the adapter to increase its output voltage from 5 volts to a higher level, such as 9, 15, or 20 (and sometimes 12) volts.

An addition in the third version of the USB PD standard added optional PPS (Programmable Power Supply) support for the power adapter, which allows an adapter to output a wide range of voltages, rather than a fixed “menu” of 5, 9, 15, 20 (and sometimes 12) volts.

What is USB-C PPS charging?

PPS charging is a relatively new variation to the existing PD charging scheme. It allows the device being charged to actively communicate with the adapter and request a precise voltage (and current) level, increasing efficiency since DC-DC conversion efficiency drops when the difference in voltage between the input (the adapter) and output (the battery) is larger. With this bidirectional communication, it allows the adapter to share some of the regulation workload, and therefore move some of the heat-generating power conversion to the adapter, allowing the device’s battery to charge at a cooler temperature which improves its lifespan.

Direct Battery Charging

One step past normal PPS charging is direct charging, which completely offloads the power management to the adapter; the host device controls the charge process purely via software commands to the adapter. This is analogous to the DC fast charging method used in electric vehicles (EVs), which also perform all power regulation outside of the vehicle and its internal charge circuitry. Because the device no longer needs to perform its own DC-DC conversion, this skips a step in the power conversion “chain”, increasing efficiency and reducing the amount of heat dissipated in the host device (you can’t lose power on a conversion step if you never perform that step in the first place!). With this reduction in internally-generated heat, the battery can be charged at even faster rates than it could with previous charging schemes.

One barrier to the widespread adoption of direct charging is that it requires the device to explicitly support it, as it requires significant changes to how the “power path” is designed internally. It also requires the adapter to support the voltage and current levels required by the host.

Diagrams comparing normal versus direct charging schemes.

Diagrams comparing normal versus direct charging schemes. (click here for full-size image)

Thankfully, on the adapter side, PPS support is becoming more and more common, even though most devices on the market (at least at the time of writing) don’t support it. However, because that potential is already present, perhaps there’s a way for the electronics hobbyist to take advantage of direct charging for their own batteries…

Shizuku Platform and its Lua API

The Shizuku USB multimeter by YK-Lab, which is available in a few rebadged forms under names like YK-Lab YK001, AVHzY CT-3, Power-Z KT002, or ATORCH UT18, is a very useful USB charger testing device. It features USB-A and USB-C ports; can measure voltage, current, power; can calculate passed charge (mAh) and energy (mWh) in real time; but unlike most USB testers on the market, it is user-programmable in Lua, a lightweight programming/scripting language.

The Lua API on the tester provides a large amount of extensibility beyond the original tester’s design, and in my case I’m using its ability to “trigger” non-standard voltages from fast-charge capable power adapters as well as its colour LCD screen to act as a highly flexible direct charger – an intermediate between a USB-C PD PPS adapter and an arbitrary (Li-ion) rechargeable battery.

Introducing: DingoCharge!

The idea behind making a battery charging script came about when I looked at using bench-top adjustable power supplies to charge batteries. Since the Shizuku tester (in my case, it was the AVHzy CT-3 variant) allows me to use the PPS protocol to finely adjust the adapter’s output voltage, I tried manually varying the voltage to increase or decrease the current flowing into a battery – and it worked!

That said, constantly checking the battery’s current and voltage levels just to charge a battery gets pretty tiring, and since the Shizuku is Lua-programmable… why not make a script that automates all of this for me? Thus began a programming journey that’s been ongoing for over a year, and I’ve still got ideas to add even more functionality (as long as I don’t crash the tester by running out of memory… don’t ask me how I know).

Charge Regulation Algorithm

All lithium-ion batteries (including less-common ones like lithium-iron phosphate (LiFePO4) and lithium titanate) use what’s known as CC-CV charging; this stands for constant-voltage/constant-current. A fixed amount of current is fed into the battery until its voltage reaches a certain threshold, then the voltage is held at a fixed value until the current going into the battery drops below another, lower, threshold. Once this is reached, the current is turned off entirely and the charge process is complete.

Although the PPS specification allows a device to set a maximum current level, my own testing revealed that there was too much variation amongst all my different adapters that I could not rely on the hardware to perform the constant-current regulation with enough precision for my liking, and the voltage drop across the USB-C cable resulted in the battery’s charge current tapering off too early as the voltage at the adapter reached its programmed constant-voltage level before the battery’s own voltage had a chance to do so as well. Instead, my charge algorithm increases the requested USB PD charge voltage above the battery’s own voltage until the desired current level is within a certain deadband range.

Once the target constant-voltage level is reached, the charge algorithm switches to constant-voltage regulation, maintaining a preset voltage until the current being drawn by the battery falls below the termination threshold.

If a battery was previously overdischarged, it requires a slower “precharge” current to bring the battery’s voltage up to a level that is safe for its regular charge current.

Charge Safety Tests

Over time, I added more safety checks to ensure that the battery’s state was maintained within a safe margin for voltage, current, temperature, and also time. If a safety violation was detected during charging, the charging algorithm would automatically set its charge current to zero, effectively terminating the charge process. Additionally, if the charge process was finished but a small current flowing into the battery resulted in the battery’s voltage getting too high, the PD request voltage gets adjusted downwards to prevent an overvoltage condition from occurring.

Downstream Resistance Compensation

I also added the ability to compensate for high-resistance connections to the battery. This works by using Ohm’s Law (voltage = current * resistance) to boost the voltage thresholds in proportion to the amount of current flowing into the battery, as determined by a configured downstream (tester-to-battery) resistance. This is usually considered an advanced feature for a charging system, but since all of the charging is handled in software, it is relatively trivial to allow for compensating for lossy cabling and connectors.

Charging Test

As a real-world demonstration of the DingoCharge software, I created a test setup that charged a 600mAh/7.4V nominal battery pack (a rechargeable 9V alternative that’s built from disposable vape batteries – stay tuned for that blog post!) at a 1C (600mA) rate at 8.4V (4.2V per cell) until the current tapered off to C/10 (30mA); note that the pack I was charging was built with high-drain cells that can handle higher currents than normal, and most commercial cells are best charged at a C/5 to C/2 rate. I used a Samsung EP-TA800 USB-C adapter, capable of a maximum of 25W at full power (11V at 2.25A).

Demonstration of DingoCharge charging a 9V Li-ion replacement, using a Samsung 25W USB-C PD adapter.

Demonstration of DingoCharge charging a 9V Li-ion replacement, using a Samsung 25W USB-C PD adapter. (click here for full-size image)

Block diagram describing the DingoCharge hardware setup.

Block diagram describing the DingoCharge hardware setup. All power conversion (and associated power conversion losses) occur only in the power source, with the tester simply issuing commands to control the power going into the battery. (click here for full-size image)

Voltage/current plot of DingoCharge charging a battery at 600mA and 8.4 volts, using a Samsung EP-TA800 USB-C PD adapter.

Voltage/current plot of DingoCharge charging a battery at 600mA and 8.4 volts, using a Samsung EP-TA800 USB-C PD adapter. (click here for full-size image)

The classic CC-CV charge profile is visible when the charging current and voltage is graphed over time. The stepped nature of the current is a consequence of the PPS voltage being limited to 20mV granularity, causing jumps in current draw as each step occurs. The voltage is increased or decreased when the current or voltage being sent to the battery falls out of a certain range (in this case, 600mA and a +/-25mA deadband during constant-current charging, and 8.4V +/- 10mV during constant-voltage charging).

One contribution to the relative flatness of the constant-voltage phase is that the charging algorithm is essentially performing four-wire (also known as Kelvin) sensing from the adapter to the tester, inherently compensating for voltage drop across the USB-C cable. This is also why the current flutters a bit as it tapers off, as the voltage at the battery begins to rise above the deadband, resulting in a small amount of oscillation as the algorithm tries to maintain 4.2 +/- 0.01 volts.

Limitations

Nothing in this world is perfect, and neither is my charger implementation. In fact, trying to shoehorn a battery charger into what’s effectively a multimeter and a “wall wart” required a lot of compromises to be made.

No Power Switching

Charge termination is a bit tricky, as most implementations will just electrically disconnect the battery. However, with the tester, there is no power switching available that can be controlled through software. This is mitigated by setting the constant-current algorithm to 0 amps +/- 10 milliamps, resulting in minimal charge/discharge current as the battery voltage drops while it relaxes from a fully-charged state.

One Name, Many Variations

Another limitation is that the PPS protocol allows adapters to not necessarily support the full voltage range of 3.3 to 21 volts. Instead, there are options to support up to 5.9, 11, 16, and/or 21 volts, and at current level up to 5 amps. The large disparity of supported voltages and currents means that the DingoCharge script needs to check the programmed charge parameters against what the adapter supports; many PPS adapters only support up to 11 volts, so 3S (3 cells in series) and higher cell configurations will not work (and an error message will be displayed if that is the case).

My (Electro)chemical Romance Recharge

I designed DingoCharge only for use with lithium-ion type battery chemistries, but have been experimenting with charging other rechargeable batteries, such as lead-acid and nickel-metal hydride/Ni-MH. There has been promising results with both chemistries, but each one is not fully supported as I have not implemented proper 3-stage charging for lead-acid batteries; Ni-MH charging only works by using a low current (C/10 typical) for a fixed period of time via DingoCharge’s time limit feature, or an external temperature sensor alongside the overtemperature protection feature to stop the charge process (a very crude delta-T/change-in-temperature algorithm). Thankfully, the software-based approach of DingoCharge means I can add this functionality in an official capacity with further research and development work… as long as I get around to it 😛 .

Lua Lunacy?

Additionally, this was my first real foray into Lua programming, so I’m pretty certain I’ve made some poor stylistic and other programming choices along the way. For all I know, it could have inherited some significant syntactic defects from my other programming (language) attempts that make it an “awful” program – but hey, it’s an open-source project so if you have some pointers, feel free to help contribute on GitHub (link is in the Downloads section below)!

Conclusion

The USB PD protocol, and its adjustable PPS functionality that was introduced in the PD 3.0 specification, provides a lot of potential use for directly charging batteries since it skips the usual conversion step in a device. However, this type of charging technology was largely untapped by many devices, with only a few smartphones (as of the time of writing) supporting it.

The scriptability of some USB-C testers like the AVHzY CT-3 or Power-Z KT002 allows for a script to handle all of the intricacies of battery charging, while providing an easy-to-use yet highly flexible interface. Thanks to the DingoCharge script, any USB PD PPS adapter and supported USB tester can be used as a universal battery charger.

Downloads

The DingoCharge script can be found on my GitHub profile (https://github.com/ginbot86/DingoCharge-Shizuku), and is open-source under the MIT License. If you have a suitable USB PD PPS adapter and USB-C tester, I’d love to hear if/how well DingoCharge works for your batteries!

Review and analysis of XTAR 3600 mAh 18650 Li-Ion protected battery

TL;DR – Yes, the XTAR 3600 mAh protected 18650 battery meets its rated capacity! Just make sure your device can drain down to 2.5 volts.

The 18650 lithium-ion battery, named after its size (1.8 cm diameter and 6.50 cm length), has seen continuous improvements in capacity over the years. Nowadays it’s easy to get capacities in excess of 3000 mAh, with the highest capacity cells reaching and even exceeding 3500 mAh.

The XTAR 3600mAh protected 18650 lithium-ion battery, pictured with its original box.

The XTAR 3600 mAh protected 18650 lithium-ion battery, pictured with its original box.

Earlier this year, XTAR, a Chinese company specializing in batteries and battery accessories, announced the newest and highest-capacity addition to their protected 18650 lineup, boasting an impressive 3600 mAh capacity and aimed towards medium-drain applications like power banks and LED flashlights (sorry vapers, this one’s not for you!). After submitting my name for consideration, I was one of a few people selected to receive some samples for review; considering how much I’ve blogged about lithium-ion batteries on here, it only makes sense to talk even more about them!

FULL DISCLOSURE: XTAR provided these batteries to me at no charge for an independent review. They had no editorial control over this review, I have not been compensated monetarily, and all opinions expressed in this review are my own.

Introduction

XTAR’s new 3600 mAh protected 18650 comes in a discreet box, holding nothing more than the battery itself. Like all protected 18650s, the protection comes in the form of a small PCB (printed circuit board) that is stacked on the negative end of the bare 18650 cell, with a metal strap running up the cell’s body to the positive terminal, where a small “button top” is attached to improve electrical connectivity for spring-loaded battery holders.

Positive and negative terminals of the XTAR 3600mAh protected 18650 battery.

Positive and negative terminals of the XTAR 3600 mAh protected 18650 battery. Note the added length due to the button top on the left, and the protection circuit and protective plate on the right.

I was able to request an official datasheet for the battery, which I have included at the end of my blog post. My main goal with this review is to test the batteries from an objective perspective, using dedicated test equipment rather than in-application testing in devices like flashlights. If I do decide to perform such tests, I’ll add a second part to my review (stay tuned!).

Datasheet specifications

Parameter Value
Cell manufacturer (Unspecified)
Nominal voltage 3.6 V
Nominal capacity 3600 mAh
Minimum capacity 3500 mAh
Discharge cutoff voltage 2.5 V
Cycle life @ 80% capacity At least 300 times
(0.5C charge to 4.2 V, 0.03C taper; 0.5C discharge to 2.5 V)
Size 18.1~18.7 mm diameter
68.3~69.3 mm length
Weight ≤50 g
Internal AC resistance ≤45 mΩ
Standard charge CC 720 mA
CV 4.2 V
Taper 50 mA
Fast charge CC 2500 mA (0.7C)
CV 4.2 V
Taper 36 mA (0.01C)
Standard charge voltage 4.2 V
Standard discharge 720 mA CC to 2.5 V
Continuous discharge current >8.5 A
Overvoltage protection Trip 4.25~4.35 V
Recover 4.0~4.2 V
Undervoltage protection Trip 2.4~2.5 V
Recover 2.8~3.0 V
Overcurrent protection Trip 11~13 A
Working temperature Charging: 0~45 °C
Discharging -20~60 °C

Test 1: EBL TC-X Pro battery analyzer

Initial testing of the batteries was tested using my EBL TC-X Pro 4-bay battery analyzer. The test procedure for the batteries was performed as follows:

  1. Record out-of-box/initial voltage before charging
  2. Run automatic capacity test with programmed 1500 mA charge current to 4.2 V, and fixed 500 mA discharge to 2.75 V (charge -> discharge -> charge); record discharge capacity and reported internal resistance
  3. Run manual discharge test with fixed 500 mA current to 2.75 V; record discharge capacity and reported internal resistance
  4. Run manual charge with 1500 mA charge current to 3.65V/LiFePO4 mode (moderate voltage is best for long-term storage); record charge capacity
Parameter (charge current = 1.5A) Cell 1 (bay 1) Cell 2 (bay 2)
Initial voltage (V) 3.65 3.55
Capacity run 1 (mAh @ 2.75 V end of discharge) 3349 3369
Capacity run 2 (mAh @ 2.75 V end of discharge) 3334 3386
Internal resistance run 1 (mΩ) 54.9 46.9
Internal resistance run 2 (mΩ) 53.4 45.1
Storage capacity (mAh charged to 3.65 V) 1402 1494

The capacity numbers seemed a bit low to me, even for an incomplete discharge to 2.75 volts instead of 2.5 volts. I decided to continue testing with a more accurate (and calibratable) battery fuel gauge board, revealing the true capacity of this battery… and it’s as good as the manufacturer promised!

Test 2: Texas Instruments bq78z100 fuel gauge

After realizing that my dedicated battery analyzer wasn’t quite as accurate as I wanted, I decided to use a battery fuel gauge board that I had more confidence in. I had previously built a board based on the Texas Instruments bq78z100, a dedicated battery management system (BMS) on a chip, aimed at 1S and 2S battery packs. This allowed me to calibrate the voltage and current measurements against my Agilent/Keysight U1253B multimeter and therefore get the most accurate results, as I can also program the bq78z100’s autonomous protection features to provide precise control over the discharge cutoff voltage during testing.

Example of the bq78z100-based fuel gauge board being connected to the XTAR 3600mAh protected 18650 battery. (note: actual setup is different than as pictured)

XTAR 3600 mAh protected 18650 battery connected to the bq78z100-based fuel gauge board. (note: actual setup is different than as pictured)

Using this circuit, I was able to get multiple measurements of the battery’s capacity with the help of a Texas Instruments GDK (Gauge Development Kit) as a charger and adjustable load for some of the capacity tests; and an Arachnid Labs re:load 2 adjustable constant-current load, with some additional forced-air cooling for the higher discharge rates.

I suspect that if I had a more, erm, “professional” setup, I could extract even more capacity from the battery, as additional resistance between the battery and the fuel gauge board will cause a voltage drop and subsequent loss in measured capacity.

Available capacity vs. end-of-discharge voltage

This is one of the most interesting test results, in my opinion. Many 1S/”single-cell” devices can’t take full advantage of modern NMC (nickel-manganese-cobalt) cells whose end-of-discharge voltage is below 3 volts, and the following chart helps quantify how much capacity can be extracted if one stops earlier than that. One advantage of reducing the depth of discharge, however, is that it can extend the battery’s cycle life and reduce the amount of capacity loss it experiences with age. As long as you discharge all the way to 2.5 volts and at a modest rate, the XTAR 3600 mAh battery achieves its rated capacity, and then some!

Chart plotting the XTAR 3600mAh protected 18650's voltage, compared to discharge capacity and discharge rate.

XTAR 3600 mAh protected 18650’s voltage/capacity curves at various discharge rates. (click here for full-size chart)

Discharge Rate Capacity/DoD@ 3.3V
(Rel/Abs)
Capacity/DoD @ 3.0V
(Rel/Abs)
Capacity/DoD @ 2.75V
(Rel/Abs)
Capacity/DoD @ 2.5V
(Rel/Abs)
C/10
(350 mA)
2616 mAh
72.4%/72.4%
3357 mAh
92.9%/92.9%
3539 mAh
97.8%/97.8%
3613 mAh
100%/100%
C/5
(720 mA)
2555 mAh
(N/A)/70.7%
3250 mAh
(N/A)/90.0%
(No Data) (No Data)
C/2
(1800 mA)
2310 mAh
67.2%/64.0%
3076 mAh
89.4%/85.1%
3338 mAh
97.1%/92.3%
3438 mAh
100%/95.2%
1C
(3600 mA)
1995 mAh
57.2%/55.2%
2874 mAh
82.4%/79.5%
3330 mAh
95.5%/92.2%
3486 mAh
100%/96.5%

Note that “relative” and “absolute” percentages correspond to the 2.5 volt discharge values for each row and the C/10 rate, respectively. The curve for the C/5 discharge rate ends early, as that data was collected with my Texas Instruments GDK (Gauge Development Kit), which has a hardcoded discharge cutoff at 2.9 volts. One oddity of the 1C curve is how it actually gets slightly more capacity than the C/2 rate; I suspect this is because the internal resistance of the battery was decreasing due to cell heating, allowing the lithium ions to travel across the cell’s separator more easily. Additionally, the capacity under-reporting issue I was having with the EBL tester is more visible in this chart, since a rough extrapolation would bring the discharge curve at 500 mA around 3550 mAh, which is a fair amount higher than the measured ~3340 mAh. If I have the time to recollect some data, I’ll add it to the chart.

Thermal performance

I don’t have the equipment to test beyond a 1C discharge rate, but even at a C/2 discharge rate I noticed significant heating of the battery; nothing disconcerting but still noteworthy. At 1C, the temperature rose to just over 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the discharge cycle – definitely warm to the touch but not burning hot. However, I imagine that a discharge rate at 2C or even higher will result in battery temperatures exceeding 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit), hot enough to be uncomfortable to hold. Note that lithium-ion batteries should not be charged if they are warmer than 45 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit).

Chart plotting the XTAR 3600mAh protected 18650's temperature, compared to discharge capacity and discharge rate.

XTAR 3600 mAh protected 18650’s temperature curves at various discharge rates. (click here for full-size chart)

Chemistry analysis

After running the data taken at a C/10 discharge rate through TI’s online tool, GPCCHEM, I was able to get two chemistry IDs that would allow me to get an accurate model of the cells for use in their Impedance Track line of fuel gauges.

Chemistry ID (hex) Chemistry Description Cell match Max DoD error (%) Max Ra deviation ratio
5267 LiMn2O4 (Co,Ni)/carbon, 4.2 V Bak: N18650CP (3350 mAh) 2.3 0.27
5634 LiMn2O4 (Co,Ni)/carbon, 4.2 V NanoGraf: INR-18650-M38A (3800 mAh) 2.72 0.61

Don’t pay too much attention to the details; they are provided for informational purposes only and mainly of use for those that want to use these batteries with TI’s fuel gauge chips. The specific models listed are not a guarantee that these batteries actually are that cell model, but it does confirm that our data is otherwise trustworthy; both listed models are high-capacity cells and use a chemistry system containing nickel, manganese, and cobalt (NMC for short), and such chemistries tend to have a relatively high capacity at the expense of lower terminal voltage (3.6 V nominal, 2.5 V at end of discharge; versus the typical 3.7 V nominal and 3.0 V end of discharge).

Conclusion

After my testing, I can confidently say that XTAR’s 3600 mAh 18650 really does achieve its rated capacity. As long as your target device is capable of discharging to 2.5 volts and at a modest rate, it will be able to get the most out of this battery.

If you want to purchase this battery, you can do so from their online store: https://xtardirect.com/products/18650-3600mah-battery?VariantsId=10393

At the time of writing, XTAR is selling this battery at $11.90 USD for a single battery, or $23.80 USD for a two-pack with carrying case.

Downloads

The datasheet for the battery can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wibdm2ty6zfa7xo/XTAR%2018650%203600mAh%20Specification.pdf?dl=1

Skin-Deep Authenticity: Tearing down a “genuine fake” Samsung Galaxy S II battery

When you have the same smartphone for almost 3 years, it’s likely that your original battery’s not going to last as long as the service contract. And as long as you’re not an iPhone user you will probably look into a replacement or spare battery.

coverMy first replacement cell was a 2-pack of “1800 mAh” batteries for $5. These had 66% of the stated capacity and TI’s Impedance Track gauge said that the DC internal resistance was about 250 milliOhms. That’s… pretty terrible. Those two cells quickly led their end in a battery recycling bin. My next two were “genuine” cells from eBay. They cost about $12 each and had rather authentic-looking labels on them too. Their performance was pretty good, but one of them became all bloated so I decided I’d take a look at the cell that’s inside. I peeled off the label, and the truth comes out…

2014-01-01 04.53.39This battery was an outright lie in terms of capacity! 1350 mAh is about 80% of the 1650 mAh capacity that was written on the outer label. The cell’s manufacturer is unknown, but the battery markings read “BMW-524655AR 1350mAh 2012.09.03.1110”. Wait, look at that manufacturer date. Something’s fishy…

2014-01-01 04.53.54The outer label states a manufacture date of July 20, 2012. The internal cell states one of September 3, 2012. Unless this battery was manufactured in a time-bending factory, then these batteries certainly aren’t genuine.

Next up was the protection circuit. The “genuine fake” battery uses a DW01 protection IC and uses a generic 8205A dual NFET for swiching. And there wasn’t even a thermistor; the PCB uses a 1.5k ohm resistor to simulate one. A genuine board uses a single SMD package that integrates the FETs and the protection IC.

Below is a comparison of the protection board of a fake battery and a “genuine fake” one. At least the “genuine fake” uses the same black appearance of the original.

The “genuine fake” battery, after only 2 months of usage (not even 20 charge cycles’ worth), became so swollen that I can’t keep the back cover on. Running this battery through a bq27425-G2A battery gas gauge determined that the real capacity of the battery is a paltry 944 mAh, with an average internal resistance of 187 milliOhms. Absolutely pathetic.

samsung galaxy s ii replacement battery old ra graphGoes to show you get what you pay for. But some things may be more deceiving than others…

Mini-Ramble: I’m such an icon artist!

After working so much with these battery chips, I thought I should spice up the Windows file icon for the .gg files that clutter my documents folder.

I’m not a person for glossy icons, but I’m also not a fan of the super-flat colour scheme that the Windows Metro UI uses. I prefer the good old style of Windows 9x-esque icons (hey, it’s what I grew up on! 🙂 ), albeit with a more… contemporary colour scheme. Keep it simple!

Windows .ico file download: https://www.dropbox.com/s/u7kjb3og7ecvpsj/gas%20gauge%20file.ico

You can use Nirsoft’s FileTypesMan to add an icon in Windows. Personally, I configured it so that .gg files open up in Notepad++ for manual editing.