New Microsoft Tech Makes Battery Changes a Breeze

[atec7 7]

Doug Jewell wrote


Didnt say anything about power diodes.

You didn't need to woddles , already done and dusted now what's the
number of the semi conductor that's practical AND supports your failed
argument

 

[John Tserkezis]

So you are going to wave that magic "wand "of yours woddles changing the
laws of physics? Name the device you are thinking of by number to prove
your claim thanks

Pick any Schotkky diode. .1something to .4something volts drop
depending on flavour. Though, IMO even that would be too much.

You need to appreciate that this type of cost for the feature you're
getting, is way more than gross luxury. So technically it's certainly
very possible, but the economics will be below ordinary at best, and
broke at worst. When you're trying to drill that last few cents out of
a product that's destined for serious mass production at a minimal cost,
every fraction of a cent counts.

It's just not worth it.

 

[John Tserkezis]

Wow, microsoft develops a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.
What a waste of money.

We've been conditioned to how things are for a bloody long time, so, to
be fair, the problem *does* exist, it's just that it's not a very big
problem.

The cost verses benefit thing is skewed against their favour. So
they've picked the lowest possible cost for a problem that most people
perceive as negligible. No surprise it's a costless royalty.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Tserkezis wrote

Pick any Schotkky diode. .1something to .4something volts drop
depending on flavour. Though, IMO even that would be too much.

You need to appreciate that this type of cost for the
feature you're getting, is way more than gross luxury.

Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start.

So technically it's certainly very possible, but
the economics will be below ordinary at best,

Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start.

and broke at worst.

Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start.

When you're trying to drill that last few cents out of
a product that's destined for serious mass production
at a minimal cost, every fraction of a cent counts.

Have fun explaining the led thats included anyway etc.

It's just not worth it.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one is
actually stupid enough to employ you to design anything that matters.

 

[Andrew Smallshaw]

John Tserkezis wrote


Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start.

Yes, even when it's designed right in from the start. Do you want
to change the habit of a lifetime and start _justifying_ your
pronouncements instead of simply endlessly repeating them as if
that alone is enough to make them true?

Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start.

Yes, even when it's designed into the device right at the start.
Not that it really matters, this kind of circuitry is basically
invisible to the rest of the system aside from any voltage drop.
You can put it in at the start or before laying out the final
production board - it doesn't make that much difference

Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start.

Yes, even when it's designed into the device right at the start.

Have fun explaining the led thats included anyway etc.

Because a cost/benefit analysis (however informal) shows that LED
is worth including. It's a standard design trade off, cost vs.
functionality. For some devices, those indicator LEDs are the
_only_ sign of life that is not dependent on connected equipment.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one is
actually stupid enough to employ you to design anything that matters.

It was more of a proof than simply spouting "not when it's designed
in right at the start" in parrot-like fashion. The way I'd do this
would use four transistors and four resistors, plus a bit of board
space, extra soldering, possibly extra drilling, more faults etc.
I don't see it costing much less than about 8p even with a reasonable
production run. For some sectors that is unacceptable even on
equipment going for three figures. If the device is supposed to
sell for a fiver it is unacceptable anywhere.

 

[John Tserkezis]

Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start.

Not so. I was presuming it was designed in from the start, you can the
same feature at a lower cost that way instead of hobbling the design as
an afterthought.

However, at the end of the day, battery polarity is perceived as rather
pointless by the users, compared to the cost. In other words, the user
is paying more for something they didn't care about from the onset.

Have fun explaining the led thats included anyway etc.

Sure. Fewer buttons, and more flashing on-and-off bits is priceless
when it comes to buyer awe.

LEDs are a very favourable cost verses benefit addition.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one is
actually stupid enough to employ you to design anything that matters.

No, that's not the reason.

If I had my way, I'd have lots of buttons so I can do things without
fucking with 18 level deep menus that don't make sense, while reading a
manual written in chinglish. And a simple display system that shows
what I need to know when I need to know it. If something flashes
because an American farted in New York, it's precisely because I wanted
it that way.

It would be the the most magnificent device that mere humans would
every hope to hold in their hands. It would do everything, quickly,
easily and effectively. Productivity on the device would improve
tenfold compared to traditional designs.

And it would be called the "Homer". It would be expensive, ugly and
no-one free of brain damage would actually consider buying it.

*That's* the reason.

 

[Rod Speed]

Andrew Smallshaw wrote

Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start.

Yes, even when it's designed right in from the start.

Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.

Do you want to change the habit of a lifetime and start _justifying_
your pronouncements instead of simply endlessly repeating them
as if that alone is enough to make them true?

You're so stupid that it isnt worth the trouble.

Yes, even when it's designed into the device right at the start.

Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.

Not that it really matters,

It happens to be what is being discussed.

this kind of circuitry is basically invisible to the rest of the
system aside from any voltage drop. You can put it in at
the start or before laying out the final production board
- it doesn't make that much difference

It makes a considerable difference when its all in a special purpose ic.

Yes, even when it's designed into the device right at the start.

Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.

Because a cost/benefit analysis (however informal) shows that LED is worth including.

Just as true of allowing the batterys to go in any way the user likes.

It's a standard design trade off, cost vs. functionality.

So his original claim is just plain wrong, as I said.

For some devices, those indicator LEDs are the _only_
sign of life that is not dependent on connected equipment.

And they are included anyway even when they arent.

So much for his stupid claim.

It was more of a proof than simply spouting "not when
it's designed in right at the start" in parrot-like fashion.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

The way I'd do this would use four transistors and four resistors, plus a bit
of board space, extra soldering, possibly extra drilling, more faults etc.

Anyone with even half a clue would include whats needed in the special purpose ic.

I don't see it costing much less than about 8p even with a reasonable production run.

And it wouldnt cost anything like that when its included in the special purpose ic.

For some sectors that is unacceptable even on equipment going for three figures.
If the device is supposed to sell for a fiver it is unacceptable anywhere.

Have fun explaining how the absolute vast bulk of those have a led or lcd.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Tserkezis wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Not so.

Tis so.

I was presuming it was designed in from the start,
you can the same feature at a lower cost that way
instead of hobbling the design as an afterthought.

And when its designed right from the start in the special
purpose ic that always used in any mass market design....

However, at the end of the day, battery polarity is perceived
as rather pointless by the users, compared to the cost.

You dont know that. And their opinion is irrelevant anyway.

In other words, the user is paying more for something

Like hell they are when its included in the design of the special purpose ic right from the start.

they didn't care about from the onset.

You dont know that either.

Sure. Fewer buttons, and more flashing on-and-off
bits is priceless when it comes to buyer awe.

LEDs are a very favourable cost verses benefit addition.

You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

No, that's not the reason.

Corse it is.

If I had my way, I'd have lots of buttons so I can do things
without fucking with 18 level deep menus that don't make
sense, while reading a manual written in chinglish.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one is
actually stupid enough to employ you to design anything that matters.

And a simple display system that shows
what I need to know when I need to know it.

If something flashes because an American farted
in New York, it's precisely because I wanted it that way.

You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

It would be the the most magnificent device that
mere humans would every hope to hold in their hands.

Just another of your pathetic little loony fantasys.

It would do everything, quickly, easily and effectively.

Just another of your pathetic little loony fantasys.

Productivity on the device would improve
tenfold compared to traditional designs.

Just another of your pathetic little loony fantasys.

And it would be called the "Homer". It would be expensive, ugly
and no-one free of brain damage would actually consider buying it.

*That's* the reason.

Pathetic.

 

[Andrew Smallshaw]

Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.

So, the 99.9+% of designs (including, for example, most computer
motherboards) that use no custom ASICs are a complete irrelevence,
are they?

Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.

Adding _power_ transistors to your typical ASIC will certianly not
be free. I suspect you would be looking long and hard for a foundry
to even entertain the idea. It is competely impossible with the
sea of gates ASICs for a start.

Andrew Smallshaw wrote

It happens to be what is being discussed.

It was your assertion that when it is designed in is somehow pivotal
to how much it costs. If you had continued to read the very
sentence you truncated you would have seen that _that_ makes no
real difference.

Just as true of allowing the batterys to go in any way the user
likes.

The user is accustomed to ensuring battery polarities are correct.
How many devices out there have this kind of any-way-will-do
circuitry? If there was a massive demand for it it would have been
addressed long ago.

And it wouldnt cost anything like that when its included in the
special purpose ic.

No, of course it wouldn't cost anything like that. Instead it
would probably be at least a capital cost of £100,000 for the ASIC
and another £1 per unit to accommodate those on chip power transistors.

Have fun explaining how the absolute vast bulk of those have a
led or lcd.

I already have. You chose to invent a new economic reality instead
of reading it. Now I remember why you were in my killfile.

 

[Rod Speed]

Andrew Smallshaw wrote

So, the 99.9+% of designs (including, for example, most
computer motherboards) that use no custom ASICs

Those use ASICs designed for motherboards, stupid.

are a complete irrelevence, are they?

They certainly are to the BATTERY POWERED devices being discussed.

Adding _power_ transistors to your typical ASIC will certianly not be free.

No one said a word about free except you.

I suspect you would be looking long and hard for a foundry to even entertain
the idea. It is competely impossible with the sea of gates ASICs for a start.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that the BATTERY
POWERED devices actually being discussed dont actually use those much.

It was your assertion that when it is designed in is somehow pivotal to how much it costs.

Everyone can see for themselves that I said nothing like that.

If you had continued to read the very sentence you truncated

I did that, and replied to that bit as well.

you would have seen that _that_ makes no real difference.

Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.

The user is accustomed to ensuring battery polarities are correct.

And that patent was about allowing the user to ignore that
and allows for little kids not needing to be taught that etc.

How many devices out there have this kind of any-way-will-do circuitry?

Irrelevant to the obvious advantage with that approach.

If there was a massive demand for it it would have been addressed long ago.

The same stupid claim could have been made about all
sorts of things that have only recently become common.

No, of course it wouldn't cost anything like that. Instead it would
probably be at least a capital cost of £100,000 for the ASIC and

Not when the device needs that already, fool.

another £1 per unit to accommodate those on chip power transistors.

Not when the device has some already, fool.

I already have.

Like hell you have.

You chose to invent a new economic reality instead of reading it.

Everyone can see you are lying, as always.

Now I remember why you were in my killfile.

Put me back, then we wont have to see any more of your pathetic excuse for mindless bullshit.

 

[David L. Jones]

If you are "replacing" batteries isn't it just simpler to remember
how the ones you have just taken out were positioned?

Not in an emergency situation for instance where you just need to replace
the batteries as fast as possible and you might be under some stress in a
less than ideal environment.
Not everyone replaces batteries whilst sitting at their desk sipping a caffe
latte :->

Dave.

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

Not in an emergency situation for instance where you just need to replace
the batteries as fast as possible and you might be under some stress in a
less than ideal environment.
Not everyone replaces batteries whilst sitting at their desk sipping a caffe
latte :->

And thinking, "oh, crap. Which way was it? Need the reading
glasses..."

There's a convenience factor there, regardless of other practical
considerations.

 

[Boudewijn Dijkstra]

Op Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:59:00 +0200 schreef Chris Burrows

I have an alternative idea. Redesign batteries so that they have a
positive terminal at each end and the body is negative.

How would that work in flash-lights that take three batteries in line?

Bring in O.H & S legislation

Uhm, what?

 

[atec77]

Op Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:59:00 +0200 schreef Chris Burrows


How would that work in flash-lights that take three batteries in line? ferpectly well


Uhm, what?

Occupational health an safety legislation

www.jfgit.com

 

[Ben Bradley]

No wonder this is by far the most popular thread on c.r.m - it's
crossposted to a still-active group!


Yeah, I'm looking at that, and not only do I have questions about
tolerances causing some batteries to not make contact, I'd also worry
about those two terminals on one end shorting out.

The battery holders I've used have always had a big-ass spring on
the negative end.