Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Andrew Smallshaw
Guest
Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:36 pm
On 2010-07-06, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa_at_gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
John Tserkezis wrote
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.
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?
Quote:
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.
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
Quote:
and broke at worst.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews_at_sdf.lonestar.org
Rod Speed
Guest
Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:36 pm
Andrew Smallshaw wrote
Quote:
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa_at_gmail.com> wrote
John Tserkezis wrote
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Not that it really matters,
It happens to be what is being discussed.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
and broke at worst.
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.
Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter
when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
It's a standard design trade off, cost vs. functionality.
So his original claim is just plain wrong, as I said.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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 ?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Guest
Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:42 pm
John Tserkezis wrote
Quote:
Rod Speed wrote
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.
Not so.
Tis so.
Quote:
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....
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
they didn't care about from the onset.
You dont know that either.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
No, that's not the reason.
Corse it is.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
It would do everything, quickly, easily and effectively.
Just another of your pathetic little loony fantasys.
Quote:
Productivity on the device would improve
tenfold compared to traditional designs.
Just another of your pathetic little loony fantasys.
Quote:
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.
Rod Speed
Guest
Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:00 pm
Andrew Smallshaw wrote
Quote:
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa_at_gmail.com> wrote
Andrew Smallshaw wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa_at_gmail.com> wrote
John Tserkezis wrote
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.
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.
So, the 99.9+% of designs (including, for example, most
computer motherboards) that use no custom ASICs
Those use ASICs designed for motherboards, stupid.
Quote:
are a complete irrelevence, are they?
They certainly are to the BATTERY POWERED devices being discussed.
Quote:
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.
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.
Adding _power_ transistors to your typical ASIC will certianly not be free.
No one said a word about free except you.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Not that it really matters,
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.
Everyone can see for themselves that I said nothing like that.
Quote:
If you had continued to read the very sentence you truncated
I did that, and replied to that bit as well.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
How many devices out there have this kind of any-way-will-do circuitry?
Irrelevant to the obvious advantage with that approach.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
another £1 per unit to accommodate those on chip power transistors.
Not when the device has some already, fool.
Quote:
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.
I already have.
Like hell you have.
Quote:
You chose to invent a new economic reality instead of reading it.
Everyone can see you are lying, as always.
Quote:
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.
Andrew Smallshaw
Guest
Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:19 pm
On 2010-07-06, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa_at_gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Andrew Smallshaw wrote
Not that it really matters,
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
I already have. You chose to invent a new economic reality instead
of reading it. Now I remember why you were in my killfile.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews_at_sdf.lonestar.org
robertwessel2@yahoo.com
Guest
Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:29 pm
On Jul 2, 6:55 pm, Paul Gotch <pa...@at-cantab-dot.net> wrote:
Quote:
In comp.arch.embedded Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
It doesn't quite meet the "not obvious" criteria -- it makes you wonder
why Microsoft is even bothering with a patent.
Because they can and because they appear to be only licensing it
royalty free for certain classes of devices. That is to say certain
ones that don't compete with the thing they developed it for which
appears to be wireless keyboards and mice.
At least MS appear to be willing to license it. Unlike Apple's
MagSafe*, for example.
*Apple's magnetically attached laptop power cords, which are a great
idea - who hasn't accidentally yanked on the power cord of their
laptop?
David L. Jones
Guest
Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:23 am
tim.... wrote:
Quote:
"Meindert Sprang" <ms_at_NOJUNKcustomORSPAMware.nl> wrote in message
news:4c318b3e$0$22937$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
"bigbrownbeastie" <bigbrownbeastiebigbrownface_at_googlemail.com> wrote
in message
news:8e23fff9-b39f-4ed4-bd01-5765a0f4db8d_at_j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
isn't this a solution to a non-problem. How many people see the
embossed image and still get it wrong?
Well, if I have to replace the four batteries in my digital camera
in a dim
environment, I really need my reading glasses to see where the + and
- markings are. Being able to just "throw" the batteries in the hole
would be
a great thing.
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.
--
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com
Joe Pfeiffer
Guest
Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:11 am
"David L. Jones" <altzone_at_gmail.com> writes:
Quote:
tim.... wrote:
"Meindert Sprang" <ms_at_NOJUNKcustomORSPAMware.nl> wrote in message
news:4c318b3e$0$22937$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl...
"bigbrownbeastie" <bigbrownbeastiebigbrownface_at_googlemail.com> wrote
in message
news:8e23fff9-b39f-4ed4-bd01-5765a0f4db8d_at_j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
isn't this a solution to a non-problem. How many people see the
embossed image and still get it wrong?
Well, if I have to replace the four batteries in my digital camera
in a dim
environment, I really need my reading glasses to see where the + and
- markings are. Being able to just "throw" the batteries in the hole
would be
a great thing.
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 :-
And thinking, "oh, crap. Which way was it? Need the reading
glasses..."
There's a convenience factor there, regardless of other practical
considerations.
--
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)
Brett Davis
Guest
Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:39 am
In article <4c318d12$0$22943$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>,
"Meindert Sprang" <ms_at_NOJUNKcustomORSPAMware.nl> wrote:
Quote:
"son of a bitch" <bitchin_2008_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c2ec084$1_at_dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Most Equip, works well below the Battery Volts.
Depending on the Power Req. can be .2 to .6 voltage drop X 2
Ehhhmm... a total drop of 1.2 - 1.4V on *each* battery voltage of 1.5V seems
quite a show stopper to me....
Meindert
Is that the AC to DC voltage drop?
One would think that with no switching going DC to DC
that it would not be that bad.
Also do you need to worry about bleed when the device is off?
Brett
Mark Harriss
Guest
Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:09 pm
Don McKenzie wrote:
Quote:
New Microsoft Tech Makes Battery Changes a Breeze
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365995,00.asp
On Thursday, Microsoft announced a technology called InstaLoad, which
will allow you to insert a battery into electronic devices any way you
please.
The InstaLoad technology will be licensed on a royalty-free basis,
Microsoft said. Duracell was named as a partner for the technology, as
well as several manaufacturers of electronic devices, including
ClearSound's hearing aids, NovaTac's LED flashlights, and Black
Diamond's headlamps for mountaineering.
Cheers Don...
Sheesh!, why not just make conical cells 5mm wider at the base so they
only go in one way.
Boudewijn Dijkstra
Guest
Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:54 pm
Op Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:59:00 +0200 schreef Chris Burrows
<cfbsoftware_at_hotmail.com>:
Quote:
"Don McKenzie" <5V_at_2.5A> wrote in message
news:8977vaFsn5U1_at_mid.individual.net...
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?
Quote:
Bring in O.H & S legislation
Uhm, what?
--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
(remove the obvious prefix to reply by mail)
atec77
Guest
Wed Jul 07, 2010 2:15 pm
On 7/07/2010 9:54 PM, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
Quote:
Op Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:59:00 +0200 schreef Chris Burrows
cfbsoftware_at_hotmail.com>:
"Don McKenzie" <5V_at_2.5A> wrote in message
news:8977vaFsn5U1_at_mid.individual.net...
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?
ferpectly well
Bring in O.H & S legislation
Uhm, what?
Occupational health an safety legislation
www.jfgit.com
Quote:
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
who where
Guest
Thu Jul 08, 2010 3:58 am
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:09:27 +1000, Mark Harriss <billy_at_blartco.co.uk>
wrote:
Quote:
Sheesh!, why not just make conical cells 5mm wider at the base so they
only go in one way.
they'd be a c#$t of a shape to feed into series "tube" installations,
losing any real self-aligning potential.
Mark Harriss
Guest
Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:32 am
who where wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:09:27 +1000, Mark Harriss <billy_at_blartco.co.uk
wrote:
Sheesh!, why not just make conical cells 5mm wider at the base so they
only go in one way.
they'd be a c#$t of a shape to feed into series "tube" installations,
losing any real self-aligning potential.
So the ends self align and interlock, it's not that hard to do.
Ben Bradley
Guest
Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:12 am
No wonder this is by far the most popular thread on c.r.m - it's
crossposted to a still-active group!
On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 08:36:24 +1000, Don McKenzie <5V_at_2.5A> wrote:
Quote:
larwe wrote:
On Jul 2, 5:55 pm, Don McKenzie <5...@2.5A> wrote:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2365995,00.asp
On Thursday, Microsoft announced a technology called InstaLoad, which
will allow you to insert a battery into electronic devices any way you
please.
People where I work are kicking themselves that we did not think of
this. It's such an obvious idea.
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.
Quote:
After sending this info onto to a few private associates, some didn't
understand how it worked, I found this page to be a much better explanation:
http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/mouseandkeyboard/licensing/instaloadoverview.mspx
this is brilliant, takes a bit of reading to understand how it works,
but it allows batteries to be inserted into any gear either way around.
all done in the connection contacts, no circuitry involved.
Cheers Don...
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
