New Microsoft Tech Makes Battery Changes a Breeze

Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:32 pm   

Meindert Sprang wrote:

Doesnt have to be anything like that much of a drop.

Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:17 pm   

Rod Speed wrote:

voltage drop eh Rod? Name the model #



--
What is the difference between a duck?

Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:35 am   

On 6/07/2010 6:32 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

laws of physics ?
name the device you are thinking of by number to prove your claim thanks

--
X-No-Archive: Yes

Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:48 am   

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

Right. And when you're bouncing along a bush track in the back
of a 4x4, trying to navigate on paper maps using the light of
a head-torch during a hidden-transmitter hunt, and you need to
change 3 AAA batteries in the round cartridge, you have to get
all three right and do it *now*... while juggling the torch,
the maps, the cartridge, the old batteries, the new batteries...
well, you can see why it's easier just to take a spare head-torch ;-)

But this tech would often be a help, and personally I'd pay a
little extra for it!

Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:59 am   

Clifford Heath <no_at_spam.please.net> writes:


Geez, I was just at the level of "which way was that again? Aw, crap,
dig for the reading glasses...."
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)

Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:00 am   

Doug Jewell wrote

Didnt say anything about power diodes.

> Name the model #

Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:13 am   

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa_at_gmail.com> writes:


Then what are you talking about?

--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)

Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:50 am   

"Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer_at_cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
news:1bfwzxdwg7.fsf_at_snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net...

MOSFETS

Meindert

Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:53 am   

Don McKenzie wrote:

What a waste of money.

Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:23 am   

Rod Speed wrote:

number of the semi conductor that's practical AND supports your failed
argument

Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:18 am   

atec77 > 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. 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.

Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:21 am   

Rob Horton wrote:


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.

Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:28 am   

John Tserkezis wrote


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


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


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


Have fun explaining the led thats included anyway etc.


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

Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:44 am   

On 2010-07-06, Meindert Sprang <ms_at_NOJUNKcustomORSPAMware.nl> wrote:

I was thinking along similar lines albeit BJTs rather than MOSFETs
- it is not for nothing than MOSFETs are often drawn with a parasitic
reverse biased diode.

I've actually done this kind of thing using BJTs in the past although
the intent there was to reduce heat dissipation rather than voltage
drop although that pretty much means the same thing at the end of
the day. The drop is reduced to two collector-emitter losses.

You do need to watch the voltage though since my experience is that
BJTs can breakdown far faster than you might expect when reverse
biased. However that is unlikely to be a problem for battery
powered equipment particularly when you are having one circuit per
cell as here.

Actually, thinking about that I'll have to go through it and see
if the system I used would actually work in that arrangement. It's
just possible the other cells could interfere with the biasing and
I don't have a schematic in front of me to consider that possibility.

--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews_at_sdf.lonestar.org

Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:52 pm   

Rod Speed wrote:


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.


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.


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.