On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 12:17:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Early days, but if anyone is thinking of battery powering a PICO outside
for intermittent use, a nano timer and lithium primary cells looks to
be the best technology.
Why not 18650s? 2 would give you a little over 7V
and battery holders
similar to the AA types are available. The TP4056 charging modules are inexpensive if you want to incorporate USB charging.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Sigh,
On 15/06/2026 13:06, Peter Heitzer wrote:Then two 18650 in serial and a 5V switching regulator should do the
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:I bench tested the device., Its not just a pico W. There is an
On 14/06/2026 18:48, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 12:17:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Early days, but if anyone is thinking of battery powering a PICO outside >>>>>> for intermittent use, a nano timer and lithium primary cells looks to >>>>>> be the best technology.
Why not 18650s? 2 would give you a little over 7V
"The maximum recommended input voltage for a Raspberry Pi Pico or Pico W >>>> is 5.5V. Powering the board above 6.0V will permanently damage the
onboard voltage regulator"
One cell should be sufficient for powering the Pico. The regulator
lower limit is 2.3 V so there is a need for deep discharge protection
on the cell.
ultrasonic device in there as well.
It stared to fail around 4V.
job.
Perhaps a small USB powerbank may also work if you find one
that does not shut off if the consumed current it to low.
On 15/06/2026 19:49, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 14/06/2026 12:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The process of debugging my remote oil level sensor continues. This isnano timer ??
based on a PICO W plus a nano timer to wake it up every couple of
hours to send a message via the home wifi.
What's that then?
TPL5100
https://www.ti.com/product/TPL5110
Why not 18650s?
On 14/06/2026 18:48, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 12:17:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Early days, but if anyone is thinking of battery powering a PICO outside >>> for intermittent use,ÿ a nano timer and lithium primary cells looks to
be the best technology.
Why not 18650s? 2 would give you a little over 7V
"The maximum recommended input voltage for a Raspberry Pi Pico or Pico W
is 5.5V. Powering the board above 6.0V will permanently damage the
onboard voltage regulator"
and battery holders
similar to the AA types are available. The TP4056 charging modules are
inexpensive if you want to incorporate USB charging.
On 15/06/2026 13:06, Peter Heitzer wrote:Then two 18650 in serial and a 5V switching regulator should do the
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:I bench tested the device., Its not just a pico W. There is an
On 14/06/2026 18:48, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 12:17:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Early days, but if anyone is thinking of battery powering a PICO outside >>>>> for intermittent use, a nano timer and lithium primary cells looks to >>>>> be the best technology.
Why not 18650s? 2 would give you a little over 7V
"The maximum recommended input voltage for a Raspberry Pi Pico or Pico W >>> is 5.5V. Powering the board above 6.0V will permanently damage the
onboard voltage regulator"
One cell should be sufficient for powering the Pico. The regulator
lower limit is 2.3 V so there is a need for deep discharge protection
on the cell.
ultrasonic device in there as well.
It stared to fail around 4V.
On 15/06/2026 12:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/06/2026 18:48, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 12:17:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Early days, but if anyone is thinking of battery powering a PICO
outside
for intermittent use,ÿ a nano timer and lithium primary cells looks to >>>> be the best technology.
Why not 18650s? 2 would give you a little over 7V
"The maximum recommended input voltage for a Raspberry Pi Pico or Pico
W is 5.5V. Powering the board above 6.0V will permanently damage the
onboard voltage regulator"
and battery holders
similar to the AA types are available. The TP4056 charging modules are
inexpensive if you want to incorporate USB charging.
The Energizer lithium primary cells are a lithium iron sulphide
technology.ÿ I have measured the cell voltages of about 20 new
cells and found them all to be between 1.800V and 1.805V open
circuit.ÿ This would make them completely safe for this usage.
They maintain a voltage above 1.5V for much of the discharge
curve and most importantly they are unlikely to leak.
John
On 14/06/2026 12:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The process of debugging my remote oil level sensor continues. This isnano timer ??
based on a PICO W plus a nano timer to wake it up every couple of
hours to send a message via the home wifi.
What's that then?
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 14/06/2026 18:48, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 12:17:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Early days, but if anyone is thinking of battery powering a PICO outside >>>> for intermittent use, a nano timer and lithium primary cells looks to >>>> be the best technology.
Why not 18650s? 2 would give you a little over 7V
"The maximum recommended input voltage for a Raspberry Pi Pico or Pico W
is 5.5V. Powering the board above 6.0V will permanently damage the
onboard voltage regulator"
One cell should be sufficient for powering the Pico. The regulator
lower limit is 2.3 V so there is a need for deep discharge protection
on the cell.
On 14/06/2026 18:48, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 12:17:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Early days, but if anyone is thinking of battery powering a PICO outside >>> for intermittent use, a nano timer and lithium primary cells looks to
be the best technology.
Why not 18650s? 2 would give you a little over 7V
"The maximum recommended input voltage for a Raspberry Pi Pico or Pico W
is 5.5V. Powering the board above 6.0V will permanently damage the
onboard voltage regulator"
The process of debugging my remote oil level sensor continues. This isnano timer ??
based on a PICO W plus a nano timer to wake it up every couple of hours
to send a message via the home wifi.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 15/06/2026 19:49, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 14/06/2026 12:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The process of debugging my remote oil level sensor continues. This is >>>> based on a PICO W plus a nano timer to wake it up every couple ofnano timer ??
hours to send a message via the home wifi.
What's that then?
TPL5100
https://www.ti.com/product/TPL5110
It's disappointing that it's not available in a higher voltage version
since, as you say, it needs to be directly connected to the battery.
I suppose one workaround would be to use a single lithium ion cell to give you down to 3V and then a boost converter which you only run when the
CPU is operating. Timer goes off, boost converter spins up to power your
CPU at a stable 5V (or whatever), then CPU tells it shut off again once
done.
That's likely going to take more power than just running directly off battery, but the flipside is you can install several 18650 cells in parallel if you want to get more capacity.
The primary lithium AAs aren't a terrible option though, especially if you are more likely to be killed by self-discharge of the battery than by your own load.
Theo
On 15/06/2026 19:49, Brian Gregory wrote:
nano timer ??
What's that then?
TPL5100
https://www.ti.com/product/TPL5110
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 15/06/2026 19:49, Brian Gregory wrote:
nano timer ??
What's that then?
TPL5100
https://www.ti.com/product/TPL5110
I kinda thought modern microcontrollers have this sort of thing built
in? Oh, looks like the Pico (no W) draws 2 mA in "deep sleep" and this
timer draws 35 nA.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 15/06/2026 19:49, Brian Gregory wrote:
nano timer ??
What's that then?
TPL5100
https://www.ti.com/product/TPL5110
I kinda thought modern microcontrollers have this sort of thing built
in? Oh, looks like the Pico (no W) draws 2 mA in "deep sleep" and this
timer draws 35 nA.
Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 15/06/2026 19:49, Brian Gregory wrote:
nano timer ??
What's that then?
TPL5100
https://www.ti.com/product/TPL5110
I kinda thought modern microcontrollers have this sort of thing built
in? Oh, looks like the Pico (no W) draws 2 mA in "deep sleep" and this
timer draws 35 nA.
That does sound surprisingly bad for the Pico. Seems that the RP2040 is 0.18mA in 'dormant' (ie deep sleep) and 0.38mA in 'sleep', which is a bit better. So must be something else on the Pico that's not so good in sleep mode.
If you've got other stuff hung off the MCU that isn't super low power,
you're going to have to power-gate it anyway, in which case the nano timer will do that at the same time.
Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:I think (ultra) low power was not a primary design goal for the Pico.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 15/06/2026 19:49, Brian Gregory wrote:
nano timer ??
What's that then?
TPL5100
https://www.ti.com/product/TPL5110
I kinda thought modern microcontrollers have this sort of thing built
in? Oh, looks like the Pico (no W) draws 2 mA in "deep sleep" and this
timer draws 35 nA.
That does sound surprisingly bad for the Pico. Seems that the RP2040 is >0.18mA in 'dormant' (ie deep sleep) and 0.38mA in 'sleep', which is a bit >better. So must be something else on the Pico that's not so good in sleep >mode.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:I think (ultra) low power was not a primary design goal for the Pico.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 15/06/2026 19:49, Brian Gregory wrote:
nano timer ??
What's that then?
TPL5100
https://www.ti.com/product/TPL5110
I kinda thought modern microcontrollers have this sort of thing built
in? Oh, looks like the Pico (no W) draws 2 mA in "deep sleep" and this
timer draws 35 nA.
That does sound surprisingly bad for the Pico. Seems that the RP2040 is
0.18mA in 'dormant' (ie deep sleep) and 0.38mA in 'sleep', which is a bit
better. So must be something else on the Pico that's not so good in sleep >> mode.
On 6/24/26 08:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/06/2026 15:51, Peter Heitzer wrote:Be careful about trusting that ADC, it is somewhat notorious for inconsistent lower bits...summing and averaging helps, if you have the inter-sample time to do that.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:I think (ultra) low power was not a primary design goal for the Pico.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 15/06/2026 19:49, Brian Gregory wrote:
nano timer ??
What's that then?
TPL5100
https://www.ti.com/product/TPL5110
I kinda thought modern microcontrollers have this sort of thing built >>>>> in? Oh, looks like the Pico (no W) draws 2 mA in "deep sleep" and this >>>>> timer draws 35 nA.
That does sound surprisingly bad for the Pico.ÿ Seems that the
RP2040 is
0.18mA in 'dormant' (ie deep sleep) and 0.38mA in 'sleep', which is
a bit
better.ÿ So must be something else on the Pico that's not so good in
sleep
mode.
I think that is very true. What attracted me was the amount of flash,
and ram, the availability of wireless and ADCs and the price. Less
than a pint of beer in a nightclub.
Arduinos were 3 times the price
The ZeroW running debian is a damn sight easier to code for, however.
On 6/24/26 08:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/06/2026 15:51, Peter Heitzer wrote:Be careful about trusting that ADC, it is somewhat notorious for inconsistent lower bits...summing and averaging helps, if you have the inter-sample time to do that.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:I think (ultra) low power was not a primary design goal for the Pico.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 15/06/2026 19:49, Brian Gregory wrote:
nano timer ??
What's that then?
TPL5100
https://www.ti.com/product/TPL5110
I kinda thought modern microcontrollers have this sort of thing built >>>>> in? Oh, looks like the Pico (no W) draws 2 mA in "deep sleep" and this >>>>> timer draws 35 nA.
That does sound surprisingly bad for the Pico.ÿ Seems that the
RP2040 is
0.18mA in 'dormant' (ie deep sleep) and 0.38mA in 'sleep', which is
a bit
better.ÿ So must be something else on the Pico that's not so good in
sleep
mode.
I think that is very true. What attracted me was the amount of flash,
and ram, the availability of wireless and ADCs and the price. Less
than a pint of beer in a nightclub.
Arduinos were 3 times the price
The ZeroW running debian is a damn sight easier to code for, however.
On 24/06/2026 15:51, Peter Heitzer wrote:
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:I think (ultra) low power was not a primary design goal for the Pico.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 15/06/2026 19:49, Brian Gregory wrote:
nano timer ??
What's that then?
TPL5100
https://www.ti.com/product/TPL5110
I kinda thought modern microcontrollers have this sort of thing built
in? Oh, looks like the Pico (no W) draws 2 mA in "deep sleep" and this >>>> timer draws 35 nA.
That does sound surprisingly bad for the Pico.ÿ Seems that the RP2040 is >>> 0.18mA in 'dormant' (ie deep sleep) and 0.38mA in 'sleep', which is a
bit
better.ÿ So must be something else on the Pico that's not so good in
sleep
mode.
I think that is very true. What attracted me was the amount of flash,
and ram, the availability of wireless and ADCs and the price. Less than
a pint of beer in a nightclub.
Arduinos were 3 times the price
The ZeroW running debian is a damn sight easier to code for, however.
| Sysop: | KrAAB |
|---|---|
| Location: | Donna, TX |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 542:14:48 |
| Calls: | 57,032 |
| Files: | 3,546 |
| D/L today: |
61 files (9,998K bytes) |
| Messages: | 56,410 |