A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Windows XP Help and Support
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Replacing CMOS battery on motherboard



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 11th 12, 06:18 AM posted to alt.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Greegor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 96
Default Replacing CMOS battery on motherboard

On Nov 8, 10:17 am, Paul wrote:
[...] CR2032's have to last all on their own,
no charging allowed. The max charge current allowed is 1 microamp,
so they're serious about allowing current to flow into them.
Current may only flow out.


A 3+ Megohm resistor would work then.

That tiny of a trickle charge might make a BIG difference.

I've seen SEVERAL mothballed systems with CR2032
batteries where resetting the clock, shutting them down
and then checking them later indicated their RTC was
running slow when the system was off.
Leaving them on for 4 hours or so SEEMED to
charge the CR2032 because the RTC began to
keep time accurately when systems were off.

Is it possible they actually implemented the
1 microamp trickle charge you implied?

I've actually seen this trick work several times.

I've also seen systems where the BIOS settings
were "forgotten" due to low battery and running
it for a day caused the battery to hold the settings.

Even if they used a 6 Megohm resistor to
charge the CR2032 battery at half a microamp I would
expect that would be enough to make a big
difference to that tiny battery.

Is there a reason that flash hasn't
replaced CMOS for BIOS settings?
Ads
  #2  
Old November 11th 12, 02:29 PM posted to alt.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,291
Default Replacing CMOS battery on motherboard

In message
,
Greegor writes:
On Nov 8, 10:17 am, Paul wrote:
[...] CR2032's have to last all on their own,
no charging allowed. The max charge current allowed is 1 microamp,
so they're serious about allowing current to flow into them.
Current may only flow out.


A 3+ Megohm resistor would work then.

That tiny of a trickle charge might make a BIG difference.

I've seen SEVERAL mothballed systems with CR2032
batteries where resetting the clock, shutting them down
and then checking them later indicated their RTC was
running slow when the system was off.
Leaving them on for 4 hours or so SEEMED to
charge the CR2032 because the RTC began to
keep time accurately when systems were off.

Is it possible they actually implemented the
1 microamp trickle charge you implied?

I've actually seen this trick work several times.

I've also seen systems where the BIOS settings
were "forgotten" due to low battery and running
it for a day caused the battery to hold the settings.


That - and the clock running better - _could_ be explained just by a
capacitor having charged.

Even if they used a 6 Megohm resistor to
charge the CR2032 battery at half a microamp I would
expect that would be enough to make a big
difference to that tiny battery.


(It's not that tiny, either in size or capacity!) I suspect that the -
however minuscule - risk of leakage (or even explosion; there were some
cases with early lithium cells, though none I know of with a CR2032) is
sufficient to put off mobo manufacturers. People have long memories:
that batch of dud capacitors, for example, is still spoken of.

Is there a reason that flash hasn't
replaced CMOS for BIOS settings?


I can think of three reasons: (a) in cost-conscious cases,
battery-plus-CMOS is probably still cheaper; (b) I think it _has_ in
some cases; (c) you have to have a cell for the clock/calendar anyway,
so [especially in (a) cases] you might as well keep to what's known and
works.

The time for which a system is expected to run also varies widely,
especially between manufacturers (who want a good "refresh" cycle!) and
users. The cell running down can be seen as another trigger for the
consideration of system replacement, at least by the makers.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous"

I already am largely ambisinistral.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.