what does "continuous" talk time mean?

Just curious, does "continuous talk time" necessarily mean that the call
has to last that long all at once? Example: if a phone has 3.5 hours of
continuous talk time, does this mean you can break up the 3.5 hours into
smaller calls, or once this happens you will no longer get the maximum
talk time, or even close to it?

---

› See More: what does "continuous" talk time mean?

John Salerno wrote:
>
> Just curious, does "continuous talk time" necessarily mean that the call
> has to last that long all at once? Example: if a phone has 3.5 hours of
> continuous talk time, does this mean you can break up the 3.5 hours into
> smaller calls, or once this happens you will no longer get the maximum
> talk time, or even close to it?

The power requirements for obtaining a signal are greater than maintaining the
same signal. "Continuous talk time" is really the best that'll ever happen.

Notan

Notan wrote:
> John Salerno wrote:
>> Just curious, does "continuous talk time" necessarily mean that the call
>> has to last that long all at once? Example: if a phone has 3.5 hours of
>> continuous talk time, does this mean you can break up the 3.5 hours into
>> smaller calls, or once this happens you will no longer get the maximum
>> talk time, or even close to it?
>
> The power requirements for obtaining a signal are greater than maintaining the
> same signal. "Continuous talk time" is really the best that'll ever happen.

So does that mean if you make separate, shorter calls, they probably
won't add up to the same amount of time that it says for continuous talk
time?

John Salerno wrote:
>
> Notan wrote:
> > John Salerno wrote:
> >> Just curious, does "continuous talk time" necessarily mean that the call
> >> has to last that long all at once? Example: if a phone has 3.5 hours of
> >> continuous talk time, does this mean you can break up the 3.5 hours into
> >> smaller calls, or once this happens you will no longer get the maximum
> >> talk time, or even close to it?
> >
> > The power requirements for obtaining a signal are greater than maintaining the
> > same signal. "Continuous talk time" is really the best that'll ever happen.
>
> So does that mean if you make separate, shorter calls, they probably
> won't add up to the same amount of time that it says for continuous talk
> time?

Exactly!

Notan

Notan wrote:
> John Salerno wrote:
>> Notan wrote:
>>> John Salerno wrote:
>>>> Just curious, does "continuous talk time" necessarily mean that the call
>>>> has to last that long all at once? Example: if a phone has 3.5 hours of
>>>> continuous talk time, does this mean you can break up the 3.5 hours into
>>>> smaller calls, or once this happens you will no longer get the maximum
>>>> talk time, or even close to it?
>>> The power requirements for obtaining a signal are greater than maintaining the
>>> same signal. "Continuous talk time" is really the best that'll ever happen.
>> So does that mean if you make separate, shorter calls, they probably
>> won't add up to the same amount of time that it says for continuous talk
>> time?
>
> Exactly!
>
> Notan

But I don't imagine it would be *that* much of a difference, right? Or
could it really be an hour or more less?

On Fri, 19 May 2006 21:56:32 -0400, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:


>Just curious, does "continuous talk time" necessarily mean that the call
>has to last that long all at once? Example: if a phone has 3.5 hours of

which word don't you understand?

On Fri, 19 May 2006 23:09:48 -0400, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:


>Notan wrote:
>> John Salerno wrote:
>>> Just curious, does "continuous talk time" necessarily mean that the call
>>> has to last that long all at once? Example: if a phone has 3.5 hours of
>>> continuous talk time, does this mean you can break up the 3.5 hours into
>>> smaller calls, or once this happens you will no longer get the maximum
>>> talk time, or even close to it?
>>
>> The power requirements for obtaining a signal are greater than maintaining the
>> same signal. "Continuous talk time" is really the best that'll ever happen.

>So does that mean if you make separate, shorter calls, they probably
>won't add up to the same amount of time that it says for continuous talk
>time?

Actually, they'll probably add up to more than the single calls.

AZ Nomad wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2006 23:09:48 -0400, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Notan wrote:
> >> John Salerno wrote:
> >>> Just curious, does "continuous talk time" necessarily mean that the call
> >>> has to last that long all at once? Example: if a phone has 3.5 hours of
> >>> continuous talk time, does this mean you can break up the 3.5 hours into
> >>> smaller calls, or once this happens you will no longer get the maximum
> >>> talk time, or even close to it?
> >>
> >> The power requirements for obtaining a signal are greater than maintaining the
> >> same signal. "Continuous talk time" is really the best that'll ever happen.
>
> >So does that mean if you make separate, shorter calls, they probably
> >won't add up to the same amount of time that it says for continuous talk
> >time?
>
> Actually, they'll probably add up to more than the single calls.

I tend to disagree.

Also consider that battery time is being used up *between* calls.

Notan

Notan wrote:
> AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 May 2006 23:09:48 -0400, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Notan wrote:
>>>> John Salerno wrote:
>>>>> Just curious, does "continuous talk time" necessarily mean that the call
>>>>> has to last that long all at once? Example: if a phone has 3.5 hours of
>>>>> continuous talk time, does this mean you can break up the 3.5 hours into
>>>>> smaller calls, or once this happens you will no longer get the maximum
>>>>> talk time, or even close to it?
>>>> The power requirements for obtaining a signal are greater than maintaining the
>>>> same signal. "Continuous talk time" is really the best that'll ever happen.
>>> So does that mean if you make separate, shorter calls, they probably
>>> won't add up to the same amount of time that it says for continuous talk
>>> time?
>> Actually, they'll probably add up to more than the single calls.
>
> I tend to disagree.
>
> Also consider that battery time is being used up *between* calls.


My experience is that you can tweak out a little more call time by
shutting the phone off between calls. A few times, I forgot to bring my
car charger with me and after using the phone to the point it shut off
by itself, I could let it sit off for ten minutes, then turn it back on
and talk a few more minutes. Not unusual for a rechargeable battery to
recover like that.

Granted, placing several calls will use more cumulative power than a
single call because the backlight comes on while you dial, though I
can't see "setting up the call" (negotiating with the tower) to take
that much more significant power.

Bottom line, just keep a charger close by if you sue the phone that much.

AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Fri, 19 May 2006 21:56:32 -0400, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Just curious, does "continuous talk time" necessarily mean that the call
>> has to last that long all at once? Example: if a phone has 3.5 hours of
>
> which word don't you understand?

I guess I just don't understand why cell phone companies would measure a
call in terms of how long you can talk all at once. Maybe it's just me,
but regular cell phone use for me doesn't involve talking for 3.5 hours
straight. I'd rather the battery be described in a way that is more
relevant for me.

John Salerno wrote:
>
> AZ Nomad wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 May 2006 21:56:32 -0400, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Just curious, does "continuous talk time" necessarily mean that the call
> >> has to last that long all at once? Example: if a phone has 3.5 hours of
> >
> > which word don't you understand?
>
> I guess I just don't understand why cell phone companies would measure a
> call in terms of how long you can talk all at once. Maybe it's just me,
> but regular cell phone use for me doesn't involve talking for 3.5 hours
> straight. I'd rather the battery be described in a way that is more
> relevant for me.

Ever seen a sale that advertises, "UP TO 70% OFF?"

Think about it.

While the price might be discounted 70%, it also might be discounted 2%. All
the consumer sees is "70% OFF."

That's what the advertising guys get paid the big bucks for!

Notan

Notan wrote:

> Ever seen a sale that advertises, "UP TO 70% OFF?"
>
> Think about it.
>
> While the price might be discounted 70%, it also might be discounted 2%. All
> the consumer sees is "70% OFF."
>
> That's what the advertising guys get paid the big bucks for!

Geniuses!

Notan wrote:
> John Salerno wrote:
>> AZ Nomad wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 May 2006 21:56:32 -0400, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just curious, does "continuous talk time" necessarily mean that the call
>>>> has to last that long all at once? Example: if a phone has 3.5 hours of
>>> which word don't you understand?
>> I guess I just don't understand why cell phone companies would measure a
>> call in terms of how long you can talk all at once. Maybe it's just me,
>> but regular cell phone use for me doesn't involve talking for 3.5 hours
>> straight. I'd rather the battery be described in a way that is more
>> relevant for me.
>
> Ever seen a sale that advertises, "UP TO 70% OFF?"
>
> Think about it.
>
> While the price might be discounted 70%, it also might be discounted 2%. All
> the consumer sees is "70% OFF."
>
> That's what the advertising guys get paid the big bucks for!
>
> Notan

p.s. I guess then there's no way to get an idea of how long a battery
might last, given the continuous talk time estimate, if you just use it
intermittently for talking?

On Sat, 20 May 2006 13:39:12 -0400, John Salerno
<[email protected]> wrote:


>p.s. I guess then there's no way to get an idea of how long a battery
>might last, given the continuous talk time estimate, if you just use it
>intermittently for talking?

Well, yes, there's a way to get an idea. I'm not sure why the
concept is so difficult to understand.

It's called standardization. When they measure the mileage per
gallon of gasoline for different automobiles they don't use the cars
to run miscellaneous errands, go up and down hills and so forth, they
put the car on a device that just allows it to run in place at a
specific speed. And they measure all of the cars exactly the same way.
Then they have a standard, a benchmark, that allows you to compare one
machine under very specific, controlled circumstances, against
another.

So by measuring the "continuous talk time" of different phones
side by side you get an idea of how each phone, under specific,
rarified test settings, drains the battery. It doesn't tell you
exactly how the device will work for you in the field, however you
choose to use it, because that would require a literally infinite set
of conditions depending upon location, how long the back light is kept
on, whether you use a built in web browser, camera, mp3 player etc.

You can only post test measurements based upon standards.
That's why they say "your mileage may vary".

Am I missing something - is your confusion about something
else? A battery with a longer continuous talk time is likely to,
although not guaranteed to, work for longer between charges for you
than one with a shorter continuous talk time. That's as precise a
measure as one can reasonably expect.

DGI

David G. Imber wrote:

> Am I missing something - is your confusion about something
> else? A battery with a longer continuous talk time is likely to,
> although not guaranteed to, work for longer between charges for you
> than one with a shorter continuous talk time. That's as precise a
> measure as one can reasonably expect.

I'm just wondering what a reasonable amount of talk time would be for a
battery with a continuous talk time rating of 3.5 hours, assuming I use
my phone just for making phone calls every now and then, with minimal to
no use otherwise. Can I expect 3 hours? 2? not even 1? I just have no idea.