[LG G6 Real Life Review] KingFatty:
It's a *HUGE* mistake to omit voltages, get lucky that the omitted voltages happen to cancel out, but then incorrectly assume that therefore new/different voltages don't matter. But here, you seem to conclude (incorrectly) that any charging voltage could be used, or that charging voltage doesn't matter at all. I'll try to show how your own equation proves yourself wrong.

Have you given any thought as to how your own calculation works, and the assumption you are making? Look at your equation above, see how you have 3300/1800? Well, remember that the 3300 is the battery capacity in ma*h and we assumed that the rated 3300 mah of the battery is due to operating at 5V. That's the 5V that is "hidden" inside the 3300 numerator of your basic division equation, and so in that scenario, we also need to account for any "hidden" voltages associated with the 1800 denominator (amps of charging current), which is the "hidden" 5V charging voltage used to deliver the 1800 amps. So it seems you just got very lucky with a guess that happens that the two hidden 5V voltages cancel each other out in your equation. Just because the numerator and denominator of your equation happen to coincidentally include the same 5 V, does *NOT* mean we can always ignore charging voltage altogether. A different charging voltage would change the denominator, but not the numerator, because the 3300 mah battery is locked at approximately 5V. If you switch to 9V charging (changes the denominator), the battery is still going to stay at approximately 5V.

So, when you are charging at 9V, can you see that the "hidden" value for the 1800 denominator would be different, and now is associated with 9V in the denominator (instead of 5V)? Then you should re-run your equation to include the 5V hidden value in the numerator, and the 9V value in the denominator, and get the following:

(3300 mah * 5 V) / (1800 ma * 9 V) = 1.0185 hours. I'm hoping that helps to explain why voltage matters, but using your own simplified equation while accounting for voltage.

Surely you see that if the battery is using 5 V but the charger is using 9 V there is a difference? Maybe a way to settle this dispute is to find out for sure what voltage the battery operates at when it delivers or receives that 3300 mah worth of energy.

I think you are also making another mistake here with what I think you are mistakenly assuming is empirical data. Where did you get your empiric data from?

Then we disagree on "most people." I found 4 different website review testers that say the phone charges to 100% in 1.5 hours (and reaches to 50% in half hour, based on one site I saw). I simply don't experience the same reality you have described - where did you find a place where most people need almost 2 hours for full charge?

But another important reality of the world is that it would be impossible for a 5V charger to allow the phone to reach 50% in half hour, but did you find that most of the people can charge to 50% in half hour? If so, then their charger is faster than 5V. Do you have any empiric data for time people need to reach 50% charge?

Did you consider that maybe the bundled charger is *VERY* fast to get the battery *mostly* charged, and then the bundled charger slows down a lot, to be gentle to the battery as it gets more and more charged? If you only look at full 100% charge, you completely miss this important clue as to how well the bundled charger can perform - specifically how it can reach 50% or 60% or 70% charge fast. Much faster than a simple 5V charger. Do you own an older basic charger? It's a simple comparison, just try it and see how long it takes to get to 50% charge.

At the beginning of my long calculations, I pointed out that the charging time calculations are based on impossible ideal superconductors at absolute zero, which is not possible in any phone produced today. Do you know what that means when it comes to comparing the ideal perfect calculated charge times to actual real phones and real charging times? That means that the real phone can *NEVER* be as fast as the ideal calculation, because energy/efficiency losses etc. that curse every phone.

The calculation for 5V charging time based on math/perfection was 1.83 hours, and is impossible to achieve on an actual phone using a 5V charger. For the actual phone, if the charger only worked at 5V, it would take *LONGER* than 1.83 hours, because of efficiency losses etc. I apologize if your phone actually is made of superconductors and your home is kept at a chilly absolute zero, but in reality you need to add lots of extra time to the ideal calculation. It's a substantial amount - feel your phone get warm? That's part of the losses/inefficiency that we are ignoring in the ideal math calculation, but it increases the charging time to create that waste heat.

So, the fact that a real phone can charge in 1.83 hours or less, is proof that it's charging at *MORE* than 5V, to be able to charge within that time and also produce waste heat etc.

This seems to illustrate the failure to account for efficiency losses. If the phone was magic and could charge at 100% efficiency (impossible), then you could use this theory. But the theory is false because the efficiency losses are substantial and cannot be ignored. Better to rephrase your theory as something like "9V is used enough to speed up the charging to just about compensate for the efficiency losses at 5V which would normally equate to extra time needed beyond the ideal calcalation, but because the phone doesn't need half an hour extra, 9V must be used for some time (or something like that)

Again, this is a flawed theory and it based on the fundamental failure to account for efficiency losses. Better to rephrase as "G6 manages to reach full charge, even when accounting for efficiency losses, faster than possible with only 5V, so something extra is allowing for faster charging, and must be using 9V fast charging at least enough to offset efficiency losses.

Same issue as all the other flawed theories that fail to explain efficiency losses. I guess this is a good exercise to see how you can make the same mistake over and over again and not even understand there is a mistake? If you get lucky one time with a naive calculation, you cannot just turn around and completely disregard something like voltage. Also, re-check your empiric data - it's another mistake to cherry-pick statements from those who may not actually know what they are talking about, or are just guessing/approximating the charge time but getting it wrong. And we need to account for how fast the charger can reach intermediate charge levels, which are impossible with older chargers that are stuck at 5V all the time.