Is it normal for a laptop to not provide 12V on SATA?

On 2/7/20 5:12 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:



You did not speak of the error in the image (nor even speak, really, of
your failure to understand it). You instead pushed a meta-debate.

there is no error in the image and it is *you* who failed to understand
it and refuses to acknowledge that.

Now you will be unable to stop yourself from playing victim and getting
the last word. So be it. Enjoy!

more of your lies and trolling.


Let me guess: you see yourself as the victim of those things. Right?



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article , Snit
wrote:


You say it is not a flaw but others can see it. So you cannot.

they're mistaken, as are you.

Good to know you are the one person in the world to not be mistaken and
the rest of us are. It is an honor to know you.

as well it should be.

now go email anandtech and tell them about their error. perhaps you can
even find more error. i'm sure they'll be thrilled to learn from your
vast (lack of) knowledge.

most likely they'll laugh and delete it, but in the off chance they do
reply, do post what they say.

But, really, do you NEED to rehash it AGAIN?

A simple "Yes" would have done. You are unable to stop yourself. But,
hey, you got the attention you were seeking.

projection.

On 2/7/20 5:39 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:


You say it is not a flaw but others can see it. So you cannot.

they're mistaken, as are you.

Good to know you are the one person in the world to not be mistaken and
the rest of us are. It is an honor to know you.

as well it should be.



now go email anandtech and tell them about their error.

Good to see you now understand it.

perhaps you can
even find more error. i'm sure they'll be thrilled to learn from your
vast (lack of) knowledge.

The error is simple: they should list that 2016 is when the baselines
were and not the year the test was done. Just in small print somewhere.

most likely they'll laugh and delete it, but in the off chance they do
reply, do post what they say.

Gonna be busy this weekend but remind me next week or just send it in
yourself.

But, really, do you NEED to rehash it AGAIN?

A simple "Yes" would have done. You are unable to stop yourself. But,
hey, you got the attention you were seeking.

projection.

I am finally getting to understand your self-deprecating sense of humor.
Sorry for not getting it before.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article , Snit
wrote:

On 2/7/20 5:39 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:


You say it is not a flaw but others can see it. So you cannot.

they're mistaken, as are you.

Good to know you are the one person in the world to not be mistaken and
the rest of us are. It is an honor to know you.

as well it should be.



now go email anandtech and tell them about their error.

Good to see you now understand it.

unlike you, i fully understand it.

perhaps you can
even find more error. i'm sure they'll be thrilled to learn from your
vast (lack of) knowledge.

The error is simple: they should list that 2016 is when the baselines
were and not the year the test was done. Just in small print somewhere.

there is no error and you don't even understand what they did.

most likely they'll laugh and delete it, but in the off chance they do
reply, do post what they say.

Gonna be busy this weekend but remind me next week or just send it in
yourself.

But, really, do you NEED to rehash it AGAIN?

A simple "Yes" would have done. You are unable to stop yourself. But,
hey, you got the attention you were seeking.

projection.

I am finally getting to understand your self-deprecating sense of humor.
Sorry for not getting it before.

more of your incessant trolling.

On 2/7/20 5:54 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:

On 2/7/20 5:39 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:


You say it is not a flaw but others can see it. So you cannot.

they're mistaken, as are you.

Good to know you are the one person in the world to not be mistaken and
the rest of us are. It is an honor to know you.

as well it should be.



now go email anandtech and tell them about their error.

Good to see you now understand it.

unlike you, i fully understand it.

Now that you understand the error it seems you do... and you have a need
to feel superior. I get it.

perhaps you can
even find more error. i'm sure they'll be thrilled to learn from your
vast (lack of) knowledge.

The error is simple: they should list that 2016 is when the baselines
were and not the year the test was done. Just in small print somewhere.

there is no error and you don't even understand what they did.

And yet I have given the best explanation on the thread. If you think
you can do better go for it... would be better than your games.

Hint: You won't. This is 100% predictable.

most likely they'll laugh and delete it, but in the off chance they do
reply, do post what they say.

Gonna be busy this weekend but remind me next week or just send it in
yourself.

But, really, do you NEED to rehash it AGAIN?

A simple "Yes" would have done. You are unable to stop yourself. But,
hey, you got the attention you were seeking.

projection.

I am finally getting to understand your self-deprecating sense of humor.
Sorry for not getting it before.

more of your incessant trolling.

I am noting I starting to understand your humor... it is not an attack.
You are just being silly, right?


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article , Snit
wrote:

You say it is not a flaw but others can see it. So you cannot.

they're mistaken, as are you.

Good to know you are the one person in the world to not be mistaken and
the rest of us are. It is an honor to know you.

as well it should be.



now go email anandtech and tell them about their error.

Good to see you now understand it.

unlike you, i fully understand it.

Now that you understand the error it seems you do... and you have a need
to feel superior. I get it.

you don't speak for me and no, you *don't* get it.

perhaps you can
even find more error. i'm sure they'll be thrilled to learn from your
vast (lack of) knowledge.

The error is simple: they should list that 2016 is when the baselines
were and not the year the test was done. Just in small print somewhere.

there is no error and you don't even understand what they did.

And yet I have given the best explanation on the thread. If you think
you can do better go for it... would be better than your games.

get off your high horse and you can't explain what you don't understand.

Hint: You won't. This is 100% predictable.

not anymore, since you're trolling.

what you could do is read the thread for the explanations that *have*
been given and maybe eve learn something, although you won't. you'll
just continue on with your trolling and games.

most likely they'll laugh and delete it, but in the off chance they do
reply, do post what they say.

Gonna be busy this weekend but remind me next week or just send it in
yourself.

But, really, do you NEED to rehash it AGAIN?

A simple "Yes" would have done. You are unable to stop yourself. But,
hey, you got the attention you were seeking.

projection.

I am finally getting to understand your self-deprecating sense of humor.
Sorry for not getting it before.

more of your incessant trolling.

I am noting I starting to understand your humor... it is not an attack.
You are just being silly, right?

you understand nothing. all you do is lie, twist and attack.

it's very ****ed up. do seek help before it's too late.

nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:

You say it is not a flaw but others can see it. So you cannot.

they're mistaken, as are you.

Good to know you are the one person in the world to not be mistaken and
the rest of us are. It is an honor to know you.

as well it should be.



now go email anandtech and tell them about their error.

Good to see you now understand it.

unlike you, i fully understand it.

Now that you understand the error it seems you do... and you have a need
to feel superior. I get it.

you don't speak for me and no, you *don't* get it.

perhaps you can
even find more error. i'm sure they'll be thrilled to learn from your
vast (lack of) knowledge.

The error is simple: they should list that 2016 is when the baselines
were and not the year the test was done. Just in small print somewhere.

there is no error and you don't even understand what they did.

And yet I have given the best explanation on the thread. If you think
you can do better go for it... would be better than your games.

get off your high horse and you can't explain what you don't understand.

Hint: You won't. This is 100% predictable.

You proved me right.

not anymore, since you're trolling.

what you could do is read the thread for the explanations that *have*
been given and maybe eve learn something, although you won't. you'll
just continue on with your trolling and games.

most likely they'll laugh and delete it, but in the off chance they do
reply, do post what they say.

Gonna be busy this weekend but remind me next week or just send it in
yourself.

But, really, do you NEED to rehash it AGAIN?

A simple "Yes" would have done. You are unable to stop yourself. But,
hey, you got the attention you were seeking.

projection.

I am finally getting to understand your self-deprecating sense of humor.
Sorry for not getting it before.

more of your incessant trolling.

I am noting I starting to understand your humor... it is not an attack.
You are just being silly, right?

you understand nothing. all you do is lie, twist and attack.

it's very ****ed up. do seek help before it's too late.




--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2020 07:49:55 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Snit
wrote:

You say it is not a flaw but others can see it. So you cannot.

they're mistaken, as are you.

Good to know you are the one person in the world to not be mistaken and
the rest of us are. It is an honor to know you.

as well it should be.



now go email anandtech and tell them about their error.

Good to see you now understand it.

unlike you, i fully understand it.

Now that you understand the error it seems you do... and you have a need
to feel superior. I get it.

you don't speak for me and no, you *don't* get it.

perhaps you can
even find more error. i'm sure they'll be thrilled to learn from your
vast (lack of) knowledge.

The error is simple: they should list that 2016 is when the baselines
were and not the year the test was done. Just in small print somewhere.

there is no error and you don't even understand what they did.

And yet I have given the best explanation on the thread. If you think
you can do better go for it... would be better than your games.

get off your high horse and you can't explain what you don't understand.

Hint: You won't. This is 100% predictable.

not anymore, since you're trolling.

what you could do is read the thread for the explanations that *have*
been given and maybe eve learn something, although you won't. you'll
just continue on with your trolling and games.

most likely they'll laugh and delete it, but in the off chance they do
reply, do post what they say.

Gonna be busy this weekend but remind me next week or just send it in
yourself.

But, really, do you NEED to rehash it AGAIN?

A simple "Yes" would have done. You are unable to stop yourself. But,
hey, you got the attention you were seeking.

projection.

I am finally getting to understand your self-deprecating sense of humor.
Sorry for not getting it before.

more of your incessant trolling.

I am noting I starting to understand your humor... it is not an attack.
You are just being silly, right?

you understand nothing. all you do is lie, twist and attack.

it's very ****ed up. do seek help before it's too late.

And yet another thread heads into the dumper courtesy of Michael
Glasser snit.

In this case snit matches #36 in the now famous "Snit List".

36- George Graves: "Jason. You have started an argument with
the Snit (AKA Michael Glasser), this should not be done. He
will drive you crazy with his twisted logic, his deep-rooted
need to be ALWAYS right at any cost. He will move goalposts,
set up strawmen, and bore you into submission with his endless
pedanticism. The only way to engage him is to hit and run. NEVER
engage him, it's a futile, empty procedure that will only anger
you and feed him. Take my advice and STAY AWAY!" 27 Oct 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....3af33ce25a11fd

On 2/8/2020 7:32 AM, Snit wrote:

nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:

You say it is not a flaw but others can see it. So you cannot.

they're mistaken, as are you.

....


It's bad enough to have to read replies to trolls, but it's even worse
when they contain quotes nested eight and nine levels deep and the names
of those quoted have been removed.

On the other hand, even if the names hadn't been removed, and I tried to
figure out who said what by counting the number of s, it would be a
royal pain in the ass, and there would be a good chance I'd get it wrong.


--
Ken

On Thu, 06 Feb 2020 17:45:53 -0000, Paul wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:

Well that's wrong for a start - if I charge my Panasonic cycle lamp
cells, then leave them on the shelf for months, they're still at almost
4.2V. So your "Over time, the open circuit voltage will settle to
between 3.70V and 3.90V/cell" is bull****.

Read the text about what affects the behavior.

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/...self_discharge

Battery system Estimated self-discharge
-------------- ------------------------

Lithium-ion 5% in 24h, then 1–2% per month
(plus 3% for safety circuit)

Of course you expect to see immediate effects after a charging
operation, because the chemistry around the electrodes relies
on ionic migration. In the first 24 hours, the local chemistry
starts to equilibrate, and the "true nature" of the state
of the cell is revealed after it settles down.

Your percentages do not equate with my experience of Panasonic cells. They lose nothing like that amount.

On 2/7/20 2:46 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

[snip]

Well if you can get 100W out of USB-C, then that would power any
laptop.* But "Output: 20V 3.25A / 15A 3A / 9V 2A / 5V 2A" above (from
who I don't know as you stupidly snipped the references) doesn't go to
100W.

I posted that. It's from the power supply that came with my Lenovo T480s
(small thin laptop with 1920*1080 display and NVMe drive).

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/best-laptops-charge-power-bank/

That site gets annoyed when I use an adblocker, show me a legitimate site.

You can disable JavaScript. Videos don't work* but you can read.

* - probably anti-user code. HTML5 VIDEO tags can work fine without JS.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"We're here on your account." - a bank in Tyler

On 2/7/20 2:46 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2020 17:47:21 -0000, Mark Lloyd wrote:


[snip]

maybe not yours, but quite a few laptops charge from usb-c

Silly little ones maybe.

not so silly and not so little.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/best-laptops-charge-power-bank/

I got a power bank last year with the Lenovo laptop. It was on sale for
1 cent. The stated output is 45W (20V 2.25A or 15V/9V/5V 3A). It was
enough to operate the laptop after it shut down because of low battery.

1 cent?!?

Listed as $.01 Probably hidden from anybody who didn't just buy a laptop.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"We're here on your account." - a bank in Tyler

On Fri, 07 Feb 2020 23:56:41 -0000, Paul wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2020 01:55:49 -0000, nospam wrote:

In article op.0fjboz0mwdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
wrote:

Now we can debate which are male and female plugs.

Can you get a transgender plug? The answer now I think of it is
yes. An
engineer once told me you can get er... I forget the name, but
it's got the
word male and female in it. The outer shell can be one sex and
the inner
another. Something to do with pins in a shroud or something.

one example of many:
https://cdn.sparkfun.com//assets/parts/1/2/6/4/12748-01.jpg
https://cdn.sparkfun.com//assets/parts/7/3/6/3/11476-01.jpg

So what are they called? There is an official name for the
LGBTQXDEF plugs.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_power_connector

I'm looking for the generic term to describe a connector that is male
and female at once. I.e. the outer shell might be male (it fits inside
the receptacle), but the connectors are female, like the IEC plug used
in the UK for kettles and computers.

It took me a while to remember the term.

We did use the term at work.

"Hermaphroditic Connector"

That wasn't what I was thinking of. The phrase used by an engineer I was speaking to had the words female and male in it. A "female x male y" or something like that. One sex described the shell, the other the connectors.

Which helped me find this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender..._and_fasteners

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 07:50:49 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On 2/8/2020 7:32 AM, Snit wrote:

It's bad enough we are forced to read these posts but then we have
to put up with posts in the future.

nospam wrote:
In article , Snit
wrote:

You say it is not a flaw but others can see it. So you cannot.

they're mistaken, as are you.

...


It's bad enough to have to read replies to trolls, but it's even worse
when they contain quotes nested eight and nine levels deep and the names
of those quoted have been removed.

On the other hand, even if the names hadn't been removed, and I tried to
figure out who said what by counting the number of s, it would be a
royal pain in the ass, and there would be a good chance I'd get it wrong.

You don't have to read every post. Use some discretion.