Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[lsmartino]

Rod Speed ha escrito:

Well, it can be estimated how long will a power semiconductor
run if you leave it without a proper heatsink.

Not in a domestic environment it aint, because
the ambient temperature varys so much.

I got a bit of a start relatively recently when someone was having
overheating problems with their PC to discover that they were one
of the few in this area who were silly enough to have no form of
cooling whatever, not even a swamp cooler, in an area which can
see 10 days over 40C some summers. We had one just last week
and it got to 44C, and it was like walking into a furnace walking
outside my airconditioned house.

They can do the estimate considering an ambient temperature of 20şC -
25şC. Check the datasheet of any semiconductor and learn something
before you write. Any rise in the temperature will shorten the lifespan
of the product. To me, that´s a quite profitable scenario.

Also, you will notice that the same circuit will have electrolytic
capacitors near heat sources, when it´s a well known fact that
heat shortens dramatically the life of electrolytics caps.

In practice that isnt a significant problem with domestic appliances.
Essentially because you dont see many electros in that situation with them.

Are you crazy? Have you ever seen a modern SMPS? Try to tell all us
that a SMPS (Switched Mode Power Supply, in case you don´t know what a
SMPS is) don´t HAVE electrolytics caps, and that those caps doesn´t
have a finite lifespan. Even electrolytics are classified based on
their MBTF at certain temperatures. Again, try to find the datasheet of
some electrolitycs caps, and educate yourself.

The manufacturer know how to properly design an electronic
circuit in order to provide a long life, but it also it knows how
to design it to fail within a short term under certain conditions,

No they dont on that silly claim about surviving the
warranty fine, but failing immediately after that expires.

No one is telling that the product will explode right after the
warranty expires, but that it can be designed to fail within a short
life span, especially with cheap products.

and accordingly they estimate a warranty just long
enough to cover the product for a safe term, a
safe term for the manufacturer, not the user.

Have fun explaining how come not a single electronic device
I have ever owned has died just after the warranty has run out.

And that includes my latest gigantic widescreen TV too.

Of course it´s impossible to predict exactly how many years
the TV will last, but the manufacturer count with statistical
data which says, for instance, that a TV set is turned on
10 hours per day for instance, and taking that into account,
and estimating how long the weakest part of the TV will last
under these conditions, they can determine the warranty lapse.

Pity about the TVs that get left on all the time.

A TV, or a computer monitor left on all the time will last less time of
course. A CRT has a definite lifespan, and if the monitor or the TV set
is a LCD based one, the CFL bulbs used to light up the screen have a
definite lifespan. Did you knew that, Mr. Know Nothing ?

The claim is completely fanciful and those making that sort of
claim have obviously never actually designed a damned thing.

And only the stupidest manufacturer would deliberatly design
their product to die as soon as the warranty has expired
anyway, because the bulk of those who had bought such
a dud wouldnt be buying another from that manufacturer.

Tell that to the manufacturer of Coby products, for instance. They have
quite a long time selling trash that fails quite quickly.

They quote the useful lifetime of a hardrive in MTBF hours.

That is calculated, not measured. Convert that MTBF
to years and you will discover why they cant possibility
have tested them to get those numbers.

Don´t answer "it´s impossible" if you are not prepared to give
a real explanation. Samsung, Seagate, WD... any decent hard
drive manufactures gives an estimate lifetime of their products.
These estimates are provided in the datasheet of each harddrive.

And they are ESTIMATES, not measured results.

Exactly, these are estimates,

Pity the claim was about TESTING, which doesnt happen, like I said.

and most of the time very accurate,

Like hell it is. Have you actually tried converting
the MTBF of a current hard drive to years ?

It can be something like 15 years or more of constant use, without a
stop. And I have seen hard drives surviving at least more than 10 years
of hard work.

specially those concerning the maximum number of startups/stops
the drive can tolerate before the heads get completely worn.

Wrong again. Its such a round number it cant have been produced
by TESTING, and the number of starts and stops dont produce
any wear of the heads with modern hard drives anyway.

You are wrong again. When the platters stops, the heads contact the
platters. While the platters are spinning at full speed, the heads are
separated from them by a small air cushion formed by the rotational
speed of the platter. As soon the HDD is turned off, the platters loses
speed, and eventually the air cushion dissapear, thus the heads make
contact with the platters. The same happens in reverse sequence when
the HDD starts. That´s why start / stop cicles have a definite impact
in any HDD. Have you ever wondered why a HDD last less in a home
environment than in a office environment?

Check this out http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-42666.html It
might teach you a thing or two.

 

[Rod Speed]

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote

lsmartino <luismartino76@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Michael Kennedy <Mikek400@remthis.comcast.net> wrote

Separate matter entirely to the mindlessly silly claim that
its even possible to design an appliance to break about a
year after the warranty runs out, with most appliances.

Why do you say it is impossible?

Because it is impossible ? Novel concept I realise.

Please explain how the manufacturer of a light bulb, fluorescent lamp
or CFL can provide an estimate of the lifetime of the lamp. Don´t say
"They can´t because it´s impossible". Explain exactly why it´s impossible.

MTBF is a standard ENGINEERING concept. The fact it is not available
from many manufacturers for many products is due to the fact there is
NO ENGINEERING involved. A product is "copied" and "modified for
production".This is dictated by COST. As long as it works when it leaves
the factory, and a small sample lasts (at least a reasonable percentage
of the sample) longer than the 90 day warranty, they are happy.

In fact with domestic appliances, the failure rate is quite
low regardless except with stuff thats used in a situation
where abuses is inevitable like with cellphones, remotes etc.

And in all modern first world countrys the stated warranty is
an entirely separate matter to the legal right to an acceptible
life out of consumer durables like fridges etc.

As for brands and brand loyalty, who even has a clue WHO makes
90% of the consumer electronics products on the market today.

The bulk of them arent even aware that the brand is ephemeral.

Previously quality brand names are now simply licenced and attatched
to product from unknown and unspecified offshore manufacturing concerns.

The typical North American consumer doesn't know or care who
made the product they buy, and will buy another made by the
same manufacturer, under a different name, and not have a clue.

But they are much less likely to buy another with the
same brand that failed just outside the warranty period.

It's nice looking, or has "gee whiz" factor, or brand cachet (they've
seen it advertized by a catchy, moronic TV ad) so they buy it.

And they dont if its the same brand as the
one that just died just outside the warranty.

When designing the product the engineers figure the
average useage of the appliance every day and then
calculate about how long it will take before a failure.

Nice theory. The reality is that that isnt even
possible with most domestic appliances.

Domestic? What's domestic? Made in Mexico? Made in Peurto Rico?
Made in Guam? Or assembled in "north America" of imported parts?

Used in the home, not intended to be used in trade or industrial situations etc.

It isnt even feasible with stuff as basic as an incandescent light
bulb. A CFL in spades. A moulded power cord or plug pack in spades.

They also do product reliability testing to see
how long on average it is before a product fails.

No they dont with domestic appliances.

When did you last work for a domestic appliance or electronics
manufacturer that you can say they do not with authority?

He made that claim, he gets to do the proving, thats how it works.

And are you an engineer that you can claim
with impunity that it is impossible????

Yep. Even the most superficial analysis of how TVs are actually
used proves that it isnt possible to ensure that those which are
left on all the time in non airconditioned homes will survive the
warranty fine and die shortly after that, and get the same result
when the TV is only used for an hour a week at most etc.

I'll give you IMPRACTICAL at today's price-point, with today's
de-centralized offshore "manufacturing" and the lack of engineering
involved in the manufacture. Have you SEEN a chinese electronics
"factory" MANY of the parts are built/assembled by totally unskilled
workers (including children) in "cottage industries" and then
assembled either in a central facility or by another "cottage
industry", then packaged and collected to a central facility for
trans-shipment to the buyer or "north american manufacturer".

Yep, and the Japs used that system ever since the war too.

It works fine.

There is NO quality control.

That is just plain wrong. They obviously dont accept the stuff
thats produced in someone's home if it hasnt been done properly.

You CAN get chinese goods of exceptional quality - and from
the same "manufacturer", on the same day, get an "identical"
product of such abysmal quality you would not believe it
came from the same PLANET, muchless the same supplier.

Sure.

This is why REPUTABLE distributors of chinese electronics
test and repackage ALL of their product before retailing.

Makes a lot more sense to test the product when its manufactured.

North american quality control can sort the GOOD stuff,
which can be sold under a particular brand name, from
the "also-rans" that are sold off to lesser brand companies
to sell at a lower cost and/or to a less discriminating clientelle.

Doesnt happen with ipods most obviously.

Its perfectly possible to have decent quality control with chinese manufacture.

They dont even do that with mass market hard drives anymore.

Depends what you call "mass market"

Nope, it only has one meaning. What the bulk of the market ends up with.

If a company puts their name and a 2 or 3 year warranty on
a hard drive, they have either calculated or empirically tested
the product so they KNOW what their warranty exposure is.

Or they realise that they have to offer at least as good a
warranty as their competitors do, and factor in the known
field failure rate to the price that gets charged for the drives.

If they are "selling on cost" with a 90 day warranty,
nothing has been either tested or calculated.

Wrong. They obviously know what their return rate has been.

(beyond the fact they are making enough that they can break
even if a few more than they guessed fail, and 50% of those
get back for warranty within the alotted time, and are returned
according to the warranty requirement (in original shipping/packageing).

And sometimes they fuck that up very spectacularly indeed like
IBM with their 75 and 60 GXPs and they get an obscene failure
rate and end up deciding to get out of the hard drive business.

Fujitsu gave up their 3.5" drives with the utter fiasco the MPGs turned into.

Maxtor went bust when they fucked that up and sold out to Seagate.

 

[lsmartino]

Rod Speed ha escrito:

Not necessarily. They can move the charging circuit to the cell in itself.

Not practical with AA and AAA batterys being discussed.

In spades with an ipod battery.

Why? Because you say it? Oh please...

Of course that will steal space from the chemical part of
the cell with the resultant capacity loss, but it can be done.

But isnt practical and it cant be done with an ipod battery anyway.

Thus the charger used to recharge the battery becames
inmaterial because any proper voltage source will suffice.

The problem aint the voltage source.

You say that because probably you don´t have a clue about how a
battery charger works.

In fact, since lithium cells produce 3V, and a AA battery
shouldn´t produce more than 1.5V, I suspect that these
lithium cells have some form of voltage regulating circuit inside.

No they dont. They are in fact nothing like RECHARGABLE lithium technology.

A lithium cell WILL produce 3V regardless of it´s type. A rechargeable
lithium battery or a non rechargeable one will have the same voltage
output. That´s what the chemistry produces, and you can´t reduce that
voltage chemically, so they must have some built in electronic method
to reduce the voltage to the standard 1.5 V a AA cell should produce.

If that is true, then it´s possible that in several
years that circuit will be designed to allow a
safe recharging of a lithium AA or AAA battery.

Its obvious technically possible right now given that cellphones
and ipods etc can obviously charge them fine now, and with
cellphones particularly can handle all of NiMH, NiCad and Lion etc.

The problem is that if they are in AA or AAA format, there
is nothing to stop an individual putting them in an inappropriate
charger and ending up with a massive legal liablity problem.

As I stated previously, if you move the charging circuit to the cell
itself, the problem of the charger dissapears completely.

Not with a standard battery format they cant, because that
would inevitably see some put them on inappropriate chargers
that would produce spectacular results when they did that.

The technollogy exists, and in fact it´s in use actually.

No it isnt with STANDARD BATTERY FORMATS.

Take this cordless phone, for instance,

http://gigaset.siemens.com/shc/0,1935,hq_en_0_116691_rArNrNrNrN_variation%253A-5_pageType%253ATechnical%2Bdata_imagePos%253A0,00.html#content

It´s designed to work with standard AAA rechargeable batteries.

So is mine. Pity it doesnt accept Lithium rechargable AAA batterys.

I don´t care it it cannot take Lithium or Plutonium batteries. The
point here is that the phone is designed to take a standard
rechargeable battery which will be available forever, and not a
proprietary battery which surely will be non available when the need to
replace it arises.

Also I own a Siemens C4000 cordless phone and it works with
standard AA rechargeable batteries. It can take NiCd or NiMh batteries.

So does my Panasonic, and I bought it for that reason.

It will not however accept lithium rechargable batterys.

Both of my current cellphones, Nokias, will accept all of NiMH,
NiCad and Lion batterys, but they arent AA or AAA format
because there is too much risk with that approach of someone
trying to charge the Lion batterys with a separate charger that
doesnt know how to charge Lion batterys.

If you move the charging circuit to the battery pack (like laptops
battery packs do), you don´t have to worry about that.

So, *if* the manufacturer wants to develop a product
using standard rechageable batteries, *it can do it*.

Nope, because there is no way to stop someone putting
it in a charger that knows nothing about Lion charging.

I said "standard rechargeable batteries", not LiOn. What part of that
didn´t you understood?

 

[Rod Speed]

Andrew VK3BFA <ablight@alphalink.com.au> wrote:

clare wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 15:07:10 -0800, "lsmartino" <luismartino76@gmail.com
wrote:


Rod Speed ha escrito:



etc etc.

I thought this rod speed "person " was a bit too much, so did a Google
on [ "Rod Speed" troll.]

Pages of stuff.

This one is a good summary...

http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-42666.html

And we can see that your previous employer decided that you were
such a complete dud that they gave you the bums rush, right out the door.

 

[Rod Speed]

lsmartino <luismartino76@gmail.com> wrote:

Andrew VK3BFA ha escrito:

clare wrote:

I thought this rod speed "person " was a bit too much, so did a
Google on [ "Rod Speed" troll.]

Pages of stuff.

This one is a good summary...

http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-42666.html

Andrew VK3BFA.

I started to suspect that he was a troll,

Only after you got done like a dinner time after time after time.

Funny that.

and you confirmed my suspicions... *sigh*

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.

 

[Rod Speed]

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Mike Hartigan <mike@hartigan.dot.com> wrote
Rod Speed rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com wrote

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show
"The Office" are so popular...because they are so true.

Nope, because they exaggerate what really happens.

Isn't "what really happens" the same as "true"?

Nope, Dilbert ain 'what really happens'

What am I missing here?

The exaggeration, stupid.

It is BASED ON FACT.

Its an EXAGGERATION of the facts, just like any caricature/satire is.

Perhaps "true" is not accurate since they don't deal with actual events.

Or because its exaggerated.

It is BASED ON REALITY

Its an EXAGGERATION of the reality, just like any caricature/satire is.

"True to life" is probably a better characterization of 'The Office' and 'Dilbert'.

Nope, its an exaggeration of reality.

It is a Parody. This necessitates that there be recognisable truth.

Just like with any exaggeration/caricature/satire/parody etc.

That is what caricatures have always been about.

Caricatures make reality entertaining.

So can Dilbert and The Office.

But they still reflect reality.

Nope, they exaggerate reality.

Semantics.

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

I say pot-ate-oh, you say poh-taght-oh

That isnt even semantics, its pronuncation.

They wouldn't be funny if they didn't. 'The Office' is a caricature
- that's why it's funny on the particular level that it is funny.

And its not true to life, its a caricature/exaggeration of life.

I find that people who have never worked
in an office are less likely to 'get it'.

Sure, but thats not surprising.

What's surprising with SOME that I see working in SOME
offices (the "dilbert types" )is that they get anything at all!

There's very few THAT stupid.

'Scrubs', on the other hand, is farce. You
don't have to work in a hospital to enjoy it.

I dont work in a hospital and dont enjoy it either.

Its slapstick, nothing like reality.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when
engineering says it can't make a product based on
the imaginary price point...who then decides?

Its never that black and white either.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

Others that clearly do have also said it aint that black and white.

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

It aint the bean counters either if it isnt possible, stupid.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

Others that clearly do have also said it aint that black and white.

And did I mention that the CEO's bonus is tied to this product?

No it isnt.

Typically, it is.

Nope.

Particularly when the target price is 'impossible'.

Fantasy.

In the end, a company will produce the cheapest junk that it can sell...

Have fun explaining ipods and countless other products.

Are you suggesting that Apple did not try
to minimize the production cost of the iPod?

Nope, that its clearly nothing like the cheapest junk that they can sell.

Perhaps you could explain why they are made in China?

Irrelevant to whether its actually the cheapest junk that they can sell.

The real world is nothing like as black and white as you claim.

and it will work very hard to insure that the consumer
needs to buy another new one from them...

Having it not last long is a hopeless way of doing that.

Actually, you're both wrong.

Nope. He is.

The objective is to sell a product NOW.

Its much more complicated than that too.

Given the rate of change, particularly with technology
products, repeat sales are no longer an objective.

Bullshit, most obviously with Apple.

Build them as cheaply as possible TODAY.

Have fun explaining the ipods and countless
other products that are nothing like that.

This year's bottom line is what the CEO's bonus is based on.

Nothing like the original claim about the CEO's bonus.

And it aint necessarily true of quite a few CEOs either.

and have to get any and all support from them.

Plenty avoid products like that.

That's pure BS.

Nope. Even you should be able to find countless
examples of individuals doing that using groups.google.

Consumers are motivated, first and foremost, by purchase price.

Not all of them are. If they were, you wouldnt see so many ipods sold.

Or those stupid expensive brand name shoes in spades.

Or SUVs either.

That's the reason so many products have a 'Made in China' label.

Nope, the real reason is because it costs less to manufacture there.

Apple and a few other American companies have
successfully marketed a perception of quality
(actually, hipness), but still import the products.

Irrelevant to that silly claim that consumers buy on price.

If they did, they wouldnt be buying ipods.

It is all about separating the consumer from as
much of their money as painlessly as possible.

Its never that black and white either.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

Others that clearly do have also said it aint that black and white.

And that is called a conspiracy.

Wrong again, its you silly little 'planned obsolescence'
thats a conspiracy, if it was actually possible.

Actually, it has nothing to do with a conspiracy.
It's simply using a business model that works.

It isnt even possible to use planned obsolescence as a business
model, essentially because it isnt possible to design a product to
fail just after the warranty has expired, even if some operation was
actually that stupid.

 

[Rod Speed]

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote

Having BTDT (for 30+ yrs) w/ several engineering/manufacturing
firms from very large to start-ups which grew until were bought
by very large, I have to agree w/ Rick here...while there are
MBAs and accountants, and they have very important functions, in
none of these places did they dictate to Engineering nor were
"engineers are under the thumb of accountants." As Rick says,
where the cost-accounting enters the design phase is in trying
to make a price-point which is a function of market niche,
competition, timing, comparative product advantage vis a vis
competitors', etc., etc., etc., ... After that, it then becomes
an engineering problem of how to design, fabricate and
distribute (and support) the product. As one moves from more
complex, costly products to less expensive, the compromises to
accomplish the goal become more severe. If your product is a
plastic toy to try to sell millions, the margin per item has to
be miniscule. If, otoh, you're building a high-end anything,
that is a different set of constraints. Either way, unless the
product can be designed and manufactured and ultimately, sold
for a profit, there won't be any more company so the cost point
is as important as anything else.

While I respect your opinion, it sounds like you are reading
straight from a textbook.

After decades in manufacturing, I can tell you
that I have never seen it work that way.

Reality is much different than the academic BS model....
see Dilbert for a real life reference.

Nothing like real life.

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show
"The Office" are so popular...because they are so true.

Nope, because they exaggerate what really happens.

That is what caricatures have always been about.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when
engineering says it can't make a product based on
the imaginary price point...who then decides?

Its never that black and white either.

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

It aint the bean counters either if it isnt possible, stupid.

Not stupid. It IS the bean counters - and for the
pricepoint DICTATED it is impossible to make a
QUALITY product with any kind of consistency.

Utterly mangled all over again. Its actually the engineers that
choose to make things in a way that minimises the cost of
manufacturer, and maximises the reliability, even if that does
produce a product that is difficult or impractical to repair if it fails.

Most obviously with plugpacks which cant be opened without
physically breaking them, and molded power cords etc.

It's the bean counters that dictate the quality or lack thereof
that makes the part failure prone in the first place,

Wrong with modern electronic devices.

and glue is a lot cheaper than screws.

Have fun explaining why cellphones still use screws and not glue.

Moulded power cords, on the other hand,
are not only CHEAPER, but "more reliable"

And they werent mandated by bean counters because of the price.

They are cheaper to make than just the replaceable
end itself because they are moulded in place.

Duh.

So the customer becomes the QC department.

No they dont. And thats got nothing to do with his stupid claim
about who gets to decide how things are constructed anyway.

This is getting to be like mud wrestling with a pig.

Yep, you're getting done like a dinner, time after time after
time and you'll be running up the white flag any time now.

 

[Too_Many_Tools]

Just sit back and watch the screams when HD is phased into the USA in a
couple of years...and hundreds of millions of televisions go obselete at once.

No they dont, you just get a set top box.

Wanna bet?

If you were the television manufacturers, would you let millions of
consumers keep their current sets if you have a chance to sell new
product?

And since houses have multiple television sets, each will require a
convertor box...which at this time has yet to have a firm price set for
it.

TMT
Rod Speed wrote:

Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:

...and let's not forget those plasma tvs of ' a certain well known
brand who invented the walkman' with the driver chips on the cables
to the screen - horizontal black line of death and you toss a 2000?
tv! they should hang the designers of that one!

Just sit back and watch the screams when HD is phased into the USA in a
couple of years...and hundreds of millions of televisions go obselete at once.

No they dont, you just get a set top box.

FYI....plasma televisions have a dismal repair record.....
throwaway electronics at several thousand dollars a toss.


b wrote:
Everett M. Greene ha escrito:

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:
terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote
Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard
batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

...and let's not forget those plasma tvs of ' a certain well known
brand who invented the walkman' with the driver chips on the cables
to the screen - horizontal black line of death and you toss a 2000?
tv! they should hang the designers of that one! Crimes against the
environment.
-B.

 

[Rod Speed]

lsmartino <luismartino76@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Not necessarily. They can move the charging circuit to the cell in itself.

Not practical with AA and AAA batterys being discussed.

In spades with an ipod battery.

Why? Because you say it?

Nope, because even you should have noticed the
problem with the space in the batterys the ipod uses.

Oh please...

Down on your knees and beg properly...

Of course that will steal space from the chemical part of
the cell with the resultant capacity loss, but it can be done.

But isnt practical and it cant be done with an ipod battery anyway.

Thus the charger used to recharge the battery becames
inmaterial because any proper voltage source will suffice.

The problem aint the voltage source.

You say that because probably you don´t have
a clue about how a battery charger works.

Guess who has just got egg all over its face, yet again ?

In fact, since lithium cells produce 3V, and a AA battery
shouldn´t produce more than 1.5V, I suspect that these
lithium cells have some form of voltage regulating circuit inside.

No they dont. They are in fact nothing like RECHARGABLE lithium technology.

A lithium cell WILL produce 3V regardless of it´s type.

Wrong with the ones you waved the url for about.

A rechargeable lithium battery or a non rechargeable one will have the
same voltage output. That´s what the chemistry produces, and you can´t
reduce that voltage chemically, so they must have some built in electronic
method to reduce the voltage to the standard 1.5 V a AA cell should produce.

Have fun finding that in the ones you waved the url for about.

If that is true, then it´s possible that in several
years that circuit will be designed to allow a
safe recharging of a lithium AA or AAA battery.

Its obvious technically possible right now given that cellphones
and ipods etc can obviously charge them fine now, and with
cellphones particularly can handle all of NiMH, NiCad and Lion etc.

The problem is that if they are in AA or AAA format, there
is nothing to stop an individual putting them in an inappropriate
charger and ending up with a massive legal liablity problem.

As I stated previously, if you move the charging circuit to the
cell itself, the problem of the charger dissapears completely.

Pity that isnt even possible with the battery in the ipod.

Not with a standard battery format they cant, because that
would inevitably see some put them on inappropriate chargers
that would produce spectacular results when they did that.

The technollogy exists, and in fact it´s in use actually.

No it isnt with STANDARD BATTERY FORMATS.

Take this cordless phone, for instance,

http://gigaset.siemens.com/shc/0,1935,hq_en_0_116691_rArNrNrNrN_variation%253A-5_pageType%253ATechnical%2Bdata_imagePos%253A0,00.html#content

It´s designed to work with standard AAA rechargeable batteries.

So is mine. Pity it doesnt accept Lithium rechargable AAA batterys.

I don´t care it it cannot take Lithium or Plutonium batteries.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you may or may not care about in spades.

The point here is that the phone is designed to take a standard rechargeable
battery which will be available forever, and not a proprietary battery which
surely will be non available when the need to replace it arises.

The point is that lithium rechargeables are not available in AA
and AAA format because of the inevitable problem that can
occur when they are charged in an inappropriate charger.

Also I own a Siemens C4000 cordless phone and it works with
standard AA rechargeable batteries. It can take NiCd or NiMh
batteries.

So does my Panasonic, and I bought it for that reason.

It will not however accept lithium rechargable batterys.

Both of my current cellphones, Nokias, will accept all of NiMH,
NiCad and Lion batterys, but they arent AA or AAA format
because there is too much risk with that approach of someone
trying to charge the Lion batterys with a separate charger that
doesnt know how to charge Lion batterys.

If you move the charging circuit to the battery
pack (like laptops battery packs do),

They dont necessarily, and cellphone certainly dont.

you don´t have to worry about that.

Pity it isnt even possible with the battery used in an ipod.

So, *if* the manufacturer wants to develop a product
using standard rechageable batteries, *it can do it*.

Nope, because there is no way to stop someone putting
it in a charger that knows nothing about Lion charging.

I said "standard rechargeable batteries", not LiOn.

Pity we happened to be discussing the use of lithium
rechargable batterys in AA and AAA format.

What part of that didn´t you understood?

What part of discussing the use of lithium rechargable batterys
in AA and AAA format did you not understand ? Ipods in spades.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Carl McIver wrote:

I won't buy a Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord, or any of
the million clones, simply because everyone else has one, and I can't find
mine in a parking lot.

I drove a white Chevy step van for a decade. I never had a problem
finding it in a parking lot, and VERY few subcompacts tried to cut me
off in traffic. ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Rod Speed]

lsmartino <luismartino76@gmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Well, it can be estimated how long will a power semiconductor
run if you leave it without a proper heatsink.

Not in a domestic environment it aint, because
the ambient temperature varys so much.

I got a bit of a start relatively recently when someone was having
overheating problems with their PC to discover that they were one
of the few in this area who were silly enough to have no form of
cooling whatever, not even a swamp cooler, in an area which can
see 10 days over 40C some summers. We had one just last week
and it got to 44C, and it was like walking into a furnace walking
outside my airconditioned house.

They can do the estimate considering an ambient temperature of 20şC - 25şC.

Pity that is completely useless when determining whether the TV will
survive the warranty period when used at much higher temps than that.

Check the datasheet of any semiconductor
and learn something before you write.

I was doing that likely before you were even born thanks.

Any rise in the temperature will shorten the lifespan of the product.

Wrong when the life is indefinite at any temps that the product will ever see.

To me, that´s a quite profitable scenario.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever designed a TV.

Also, you will notice that the same circuit will have electrolytic
capacitors near heat sources, when it´s a well known fact that
heat shortens dramatically the life of electrolytics caps.

In practice that isnt a significant problem with domestic appliances.
Essentially because you dont see many electros in that situation with them.

Are you crazy?

Nope.

Have you ever seen a modern SMPS?

Yep, I may well have been using them since before you were even born too thanks.

Try to tell all us that a SMPS (Switched Mode Power Supply, in case
you don´t know what a SMPS is) don´t HAVE electrolytics caps,

I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

and that those caps doesn´t have a finite lifespan.

Or that either.

Even electrolytics are classified based
on their MBTF at certain temperatures.

Duh.

Again, try to find the datasheet of some electrolitycs caps,

Dont need to, did that likely before you were even born too thanks.

and educate yourself.

Retake Bullshitting 101.

The manufacturer know how to properly design an electronic
circuit in order to provide a long life, but it also it knows how
to design it to fail within a short term under certain conditions,

No they dont on that silly claim about surviving the
warranty fine, but failing immediately after that expires.

No one is telling that the product will explode right after the warranty expires,

Some have run the mindlessly silly line that it can
be designed to fail just after the warranty runs out.

but that it can be designed to fail within a
short life span, especially with cheap products.

Have fun explaining the host of domestic electronic devices that dont.

and accordingly they estimate a warranty just long
enough to cover the product for a safe term, a
safe term for the manufacturer, not the user.

Have fun explaining how come not a single electronic device
I have ever owned has died just after the warranty has run out.

And that includes my latest gigantic widescreen TV too.

Of course it´s impossible to predict exactly how many years
the TV will last, but the manufacturer count with statistical
data which says, for instance, that a TV set is turned on
10 hours per day for instance, and taking that into account,
and estimating how long the weakest part of the TV will last
under these conditions, they can determine the warranty lapse.

Pity about the TVs that get left on all the time.

A TV, or a computer monitor left on all the time will last less time
of course. A CRT has a definite lifespan, and if the monitor or the
TV set is a LCD based one, the CFL bulbs used to light up the screen
have a definite lifespan. Did you knew that, Mr. Know Nothing ?

Corse I did, Master Pathetic Excuse for a Bullshit Artist.

Pity its got nothing to do with your stupid pig ignorant claim
that is possible to design a product to survive the warranty
period and die shortly after that expires, with so much
variation in the detail of how domestic appliances are used.

The claim is completely fanciful and those making that sort of
claim have obviously never actually designed a damned thing.

And only the stupidest manufacturer would deliberatly design
their product to die as soon as the warranty has expired
anyway, because the bulk of those who had bought such
a dud wouldnt be buying another from that manufacturer.

Tell that to the manufacturer of Coby products, for instance.

Dont need to.

They have quite a long time selling trash that fails quite quickly.

Because there are enough who havent been dudded
with a product of theirs to buy a dud of theirs.

Basic mathematics.

They quote the useful lifetime of a hardrive in MTBF hours.

That is calculated, not measured. Convert that MTBF
to years and you will discover why they cant possibility
have tested them to get those numbers.

Don´t answer "it´s impossible" if you are not prepared to give
a real explanation. Samsung, Seagate, WD... any decent hard
drive manufactures gives an estimate lifetime of their products.
These estimates are provided in the datasheet of each harddrive.

And they are ESTIMATES, not measured results.

Exactly, these are estimates,

Pity the claim was about TESTING, which doesnt happen, like I said.

and most of the time very accurate,

Like hell it is. Have you actually tried converting
the MTBF of a current hard drive to years ?

It can be something like 15 years or more of constant use, without a stop.

Its actually a hell of a lot more years than that.

And I have seen hard drives surviving at least more than 10 years of hard work.

Me too. Pity about the years the MTBF turns into.

specially those concerning the maximum number of startups/stops
the drive can tolerate before the heads get completely worn.

Wrong again. Its such a round number it cant have been produced
by TESTING, and the number of starts and stops dont produce
any wear of the heads with modern hard drives anyway.

You are wrong again.

Nope.

When the platters stops, the heads contact the platters.

Not anymore, they are retracted now.

While the platters are spinning at full speed, the heads are separated from
them by a small air cushion formed by the rotational speed of the platter.

Duh.

As soon the HDD is turned off, the platters loses speed, and eventually
the air cushion dissapear, thus the heads make contact with the platters.

No they dont, they are retracted now.

The same happens in reverse sequence when the HDD starts.

Wrong again.

That´s why start / stop cicles have a definite impact in any HDD.

Wrong again. Its actually the spinup thats the problem life wise.

Have you ever wondered why a HDD last less in
a home environment than in a office environment?

They dont necessarily.

Check this out http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-42666.html

No thanks, its just plain wrong on that line about heads landing on the platters now.

It might teach you a thing or two.

Not even possible for you. You're clearly certain you know it all when you clearly dont.

Isnt it time you ran up the white flag ?

 

[Rod Speed]

Mike Hartigan <mike@hartigan.dot.com> wrote

Rod Speed rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com wrote
Mike Hartigan <mike@hartigan.dot.com> wrote
Rod Speed rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com wrote

Ever wonder why Dilbert and the television show
"The Office" are so popular...because they are so true.

Nope, because they exaggerate what really happens.

Isn't "what really happens" the same as "true"?

Nope, Dilbert ain 'what really happens'

Maybe you would be so kind as to explain the
difference between "what really happens" and "true".

Already did. Concentrate on the words exaggerate and caricature.

Look them up if necessary.

What am I missing here?

The exaggeration, stupid.

Well, there goes any hope I had for an intelligent discussion. I'm outta here.

Great, there is only so much of your mindless silly shit anyone should have to put up with.

Perhaps "true" is not accurate since they don't deal with actual
events.

Or because its exaggerated.

"True to life" is probably a better characterization of 'The
Office' and 'Dilbert'.

Nope, its an exaggeration of reality.

That is what caricatures have always been about.

Caricatures make reality entertaining.

So can Dilbert and The Office.

But they still reflect reality.

Nope, they exaggerate reality.

They wouldn't be funny if they didn't. 'The Office' is a caricature
- that's why it's funny on the particular level that it is funny.

And its not true to life, its a caricature/exaggeration of life.

I find that people who have never worked
in an office are less likely to 'get it'.

Sure, but thats not surprising.

'Scrubs', on the other hand, is farce. You
don't have to work in a hospital to enjoy it.

I dont work in a hospital and dont enjoy it either.

Its slapstick, nothing like reality.

What you neatly gross over is what happens when
engineering says it can't make a product based on
the imaginary price point...who then decides?

Its never that black and white either.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

Others that clearly do have also said it aint that black and white.

I will give you a hint....it ain't engineering.

It aint the bean counters either if it isnt possible, stupid.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

Others that clearly do have also said it aint that black and white.

And did I mention that the CEO's bonus is tied to this product?

No it isnt.

Typically, it is.

Nope.

Particularly when the target price is 'impossible'.

Fantasy.

In the end, a company will produce the cheapest junk that it can
sell...

Have fun explaining ipods and countless other products.

Are you suggesting that Apple did not try
to minimize the production cost of the iPod?

Nope, that its clearly nothing like the cheapest junk that they can
sell.

Perhaps you could explain why they are made in China?

Irrelevant to whether its actually the cheapest junk that they can
sell.

The real world is nothing like as black and white as you claim.

and it will work very hard to insure that the consumer
needs to buy another new one from them...

Having it not last long is a hopeless way of doing that.

Actually, you're both wrong.

Nope. He is.

The objective is to sell a product NOW.

Its much more complicated than that too.

Given the rate of change, particularly with technology
products, repeat sales are no longer an objective.

Bullshit, most obviously with Apple.

Build them as cheaply as possible TODAY.

Have fun explaining the ipods and countless
other products that are nothing like that.

This year's bottom line is what the CEO's bonus is based on.

Nothing like the original claim about the CEO's bonus.

And it aint necessarily true of quite a few CEOs either.

and have to get any and all support from them.

Plenty avoid products like that.

That's pure BS.

Nope. Even you should be able to find countless
examples of individuals doing that using groups.google.

Consumers are motivated, first and foremost, by purchase price.

Not all of them are. If they were, you wouldnt see so many ipods
sold.

Or those stupid expensive brand name shoes in spades.

Or SUVs either.

That's the reason so many products have a 'Made in China' label.

Nope, the real reason is because it costs less to manufacture there.

Apple and a few other American companies have
successfully marketed a perception of quality
(actually, hipness), but still import the products.

Irrelevant to that silly claim that consumers buy on price.

If they did, they wouldnt be buying ipods.

It is all about separating the consumer from as
much of their money as painlessly as possible.

Its never that black and white either.

Just a guess - you don't work for Corporate America.

Others that clearly do have also said it aint that black and white.

And that is called a conspiracy.

Wrong again, its you silly little 'planned obsolescence'
thats a conspiracy, if it was actually possible.

Actually, it has nothing to do with a conspiracy.
It's simply using a business model that works.

It isnt even possible to use planned obsolescence as a business
model, essentially because it isnt possible to design a product to
fail just after the warranty has expired, even if some operation was
actually that stupid.

 

[Rick Brandt]

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:01:43 +1100, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
It's the bean counters that dictate the quality or lack thereof that
makes the part failure prone in the first place, and glue is a lot
cheaper than screws. Moulded power cords, on the other hand, are not
only CHEAPER, but "more reliable" They are cheaper to make than just
the replaceable end itself because they are moulded in place.

Let's imagine that conversation...

BeanCounter: "Make the product cheaper"
Engineer: "Sure, what do you suggest?"
BeanCounter: "I have no idea. I'm an accountant, not an engineer!"
(at this point everyone at the meeting stops paying attention to the
BeanCounter)

Cost reduction is a *technical problem*, it cannot simply be mandated by fiat.
Every company is a bit different but I work at a company that manufactures
capital equipment and I can tell you that there are no accountants even invited
to these meetings. Ours (and many companies) are RUN by the engineering
departments. All other departments are considered "support".

 

[Rod Speed]

Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote

Just sit back and watch the screams when HD
is phased into the USA in a couple of years...and
hundreds of millions of televisions go obselete at once.

No they dont, you just get a set top box.

Wanna bet?

Yep, they are buyable now.

If you were the television manufacturers, would
you let millions of consumers keep their current
sets if you have a chance to sell new product?

They get no say what so ever on that.

And since houses have multiple television sets,
each will require a convertor box...

Duh. Much cheaper than a new TV.

which at this time has yet to have a firm price set for it.

Wrong, there are plenty of them available right now.

Rod Speed wrote:
Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:

...and let's not forget those plasma tvs of ' a certain well known
brand who invented the walkman' with the driver chips on the
cables to the screen - horizontal black line of death and you toss
a 2000? tv! they should hang the designers of that one!

Just sit back and watch the screams when HD is phased into the USA
in a couple of years...and hundreds of millions of televisions go
obselete at once.

No they dont, you just get a set top box.

FYI....plasma televisions have a dismal repair record.....
throwaway electronics at several thousand dollars a toss.


b wrote:
Everett M. Greene ha escrito:

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:
terry <tsanford@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote
Although recent discussion/discovery that IPods will
exhaust their batteries in approximately one to two
years do clearly raise the question? "Designed to fail?".

Doesnt explain stuff like cordless phones that use standard
batterys.

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

...and let's not forget those plasma tvs of ' a certain well known
brand who invented the walkman' with the driver chips on the
cables to the screen - horizontal black line of death and you toss
a 2000? tv! they should hang the designers of that one! Crimes
against the environment.
-B.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Rod Speed wrote:

The main problem there is that I need a proper modern cordless
keyboard. I compute from a deep armchair with my feet up and
have the keyboard in my lap when entering text like now.

Take a look at: http://www.visikey.net for large print keyboards.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:32:07 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

lsmartino <luismartino76@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
lsmartino <luismartino76@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote

What explains the electric toothbrushes that don't have
replaceable batteries? You have to toss a $60-$120
device just because a $5 battery has failed.

Using the battery to enforce product obscelence
is standard practice in the industry.

Mindlessly superficial. The reality is that its a lot easier to
allow battery replacement with some items than with others.

I totally disagree.

Your problem.

No reason they can't make a new standard - Lithium Polymer battery
pack about the size of a SD card that just snaps into a device.

Wrong again. There's a real problem with Lithium anything
and separate chargers. Thats why you dont see the standard
AA and AAA cells in Lithium anything format either.

Sorry but you are missinformed.

Nope.

Check here
http://www.energizer.com/products/lithium/default.aspx
These are AA and AAA lithium batteries.

Those arent the RECHARGEABLE batterys being discussed.

Pity they wont fit in an ipod. And arent practical with electric
toothbrushes either.

The point is that consumer AA an AAA lithium batteries are available.

Nope, not the RECHARGEABLE batterys being discussed.
There are lithium batteries made to take the place of 2 AA batteries

side by side in cameras and radios etc that use 2 AA
batteries.(RCR-V3) (CR2) They are available rechargeable. AAs are be a
bit of a trick because of the 3.7 volt standard. But I HAVE seen them.
Also the camera standard RCR123a is available in rechargeable Lithium.
Also rechargeable lithium ion 9 volts (can't find the number)

I HAVE A CHARGER FOR THE LITHIUM 123A

That´s the point, not if these batteries can be fitted to an IPOD or a Thootbrush.

Wrong, see the top of the quoting.

You said that Lithium batteries weren´t available in standard sizes

Yes, and it should have been obvious that what was being discussed was RECHARGEABLE batterys.

and I proved you that you were wrong.

No you didnt.

Also, there are smaller lithium batteries available for watches and calculators.

Those arent RECHARGEABLE either.

Even there are *user replaceable lithium batteries* for cellphones and laptops,

Yes, I said that.

which further demonstrates the concept that rechargeable lithium
batteries can, and in fact are produced, in a variety of formats.

Pity they arent practical with external chargers because of the
real problem with RECHARGEABLE lithium batterys in that format.

There's a reason they go bang if not RECHARGED properly.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:28:19 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

lsmartino <luismartino76@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

That´s why the manufacturer puts the charging circuit *inside*
the cellphone or the laptop, to avoid charging problems.

Yes, and why you dont see rechargeable lithium AA and AAA batterys,
because some fool will inevitably put them in an inappropriate charger
and they can go bang very spectacularly indeed.

Not necessarily. They can move the charging circuit to the cell in itself.

Not practical with AA and AAA batterys being discussed.

In spades with an ipod battery.

Of course that will steal space from the chemical part of
the cell with the resultant capacity loss, but it can be done.

But isnt practical and it cant be done with an ipod battery anyway.

There is NO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING required. Make a "new standard"
battery that will only fit the proper charger or device provided with
internal charger circuit. Put contacts on it that mate with contacts
in the devices.
Absolutely no reason it cannot be done. It can be the battery
currently used in an application, with contacts added. Makes it field
replaceable - doesn't even matter if there is an external charger
available (isn't for half the cell phone batteries either)

Thus the charger used to recharge the battery becames
inmaterial because any proper voltage source will suffice.

The problem aint the voltage source.

In fact, since lithium cells produce 3V, and a AA battery
shouldn´t produce more than 1.5V, I suspect that these
lithium cells have some form of voltage regulating circuit inside.

No they dont. They are in fact nothing like RECHARGABLE lithium technology.

If that is true, then it´s possible that in several
years that circuit will be designed to allow a
safe recharging of a lithium AA or AAA battery.

Its obvious technically possible right now given that cellphones
and ipods etc can obviously charge them fine now, and with
cellphones particularly can handle all of NiMH, NiCad and Lion etc.

The problem is that if they are in AA or AAA format, there
is nothing to stop an individual putting them in an inappropriate
charger and ending up with a massive legal liablity problem.

Also, the IPOD battery is a lithium rechargeable one, so a
lithium battery charging circuit can be made as small as needed.

Yes, but we were discussing why the battery
cant be a STANDARD AA OR AAA FORMAT.

Put simply: if the manufacturer *wants* to design a product with batteries
that can be replaced or recharged the manufacturer *can* do it.

Not with a standard battery format they cant, because that
would inevitably see some put them on inappropriate chargers
that would produce spectacular results when they did that.

The technollogy exists, and in fact it´s in use actually.

No it isnt with STANDARD BATTERY FORMATS.

Take this cordless phone, for instance,

http://gigaset.siemens.com/shc/0,1935,hq_en_0_116691_rArNrNrNrN_variation%253A-5_pageType%253ATechnical%2Bdata_imagePos%253A0,00.html#content

It´s designed to work with standard AAA rechargeable batteries.

So is mine. Pity it doesnt accept Lithium rechargable AAA batterys.

Also I own a Siemens C4000 cordless phone and it works with
standard AA rechargeable batteries. It can take NiCd or NiMh batteries.

So does my Panasonic, and I bought it for that reason.

It will not however accept lithium rechargable batterys.

Both of my current cellphones, Nokias, will accept all of NiMH,
NiCad and Lion batterys, but they arent AA or AAA format
because there is too much risk with that approach of someone
trying to charge the Lion batterys with a separate charger that
doesnt know how to charge Lion batterys.

So, *if* the manufacturer wants to develop a product
using standard rechageable batteries, *it can do it*.

Nope, because there is no way to stop someone putting
it in a charger that knows nothing about Lion charging.

Even there are different chemistries available,
so if an applicattion works best with a NiMh
battery, or a NiCad one, that battery can be used.

Pity about the problem with putting a lithium battery in a charger
thats designed to charge NiMh and NiCad standard format betterys.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Rod Speed]

Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

The main problem there is that I need a proper modern cordless
keyboard. I compute from a deep armchair with my feet up and
have the keyboard in my lap when entering text like now.

Take a look at: http://www.visikey.net for large print keyboards.

The problem is the letters wearing off, not the size of the letters.

 

[Rod Speed]

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
lsmartino <luismartino76@gmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote

That´s why the manufacturer puts the charging circuit *inside*
the cellphone or the laptop, to avoid charging problems.

Yes, and why you dont see rechargeable lithium AA and AAA batterys,
because some fool will inevitably put them in an inappropriate
charger and they can go bang very spectacularly indeed.

Not necessarily. They can move the charging circuit to the cell in itself.

Not practical with AA and AAA batterys being discussed.

In spades with an ipod battery.

Of course that will steal space from the chemical part of
the cell with the resultant capacity loss, but it can be done.

But isnt practical and it cant be done with an ipod battery anyway.

There is NO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING required.

Sure, the problem is just a basic mechanical/size one.

Make a "new standard" battery that will only fit the proper
charger or device provided with internal charger circuit.

Thats what they have already done with ipods
and electric toothbrushes and cellphones.

Put contacts on it that mate with contacts in the devices.

Thats what has already been done with cellphones.

Absolutely no reason it cannot be done.

Its not feasible to put the charging circuit
INSIDE THE CURRENT IPOD BATTERY.

THATS what was being discussed there.

No really that practical with electric toothbrushes either.

It can be the battery currently used in an application, with contacts added.

Not with an ipod with the charger inside THAT battery. Its too small.

Makes it field replaceable

The ipod battery is field replaceable now.

- doesn't even matter if there is an external charger
available (isn't for half the cell phone batteries either)

There always is for the cellphone and battery combined.

And for the ipod too. With it even just USB is fine.

Thus the charger used to recharge the battery becames
inmaterial because any proper voltage source will suffice.

The problem aint the voltage source.

In fact, since lithium cells produce 3V, and a AA battery
shouldn´t produce more than 1.5V, I suspect that these
lithium cells have some form of voltage regulating circuit inside.

No they dont. They are in fact nothing like RECHARGABLE lithium technology.

If that is true, then it´s possible that in several
years that circuit will be designed to allow a
safe recharging of a lithium AA or AAA battery.

Its obvious technically possible right now given that cellphones
and ipods etc can obviously charge them fine now, and with
cellphones particularly can handle all of NiMH, NiCad and Lion etc.

The problem is that if they are in AA or AAA format, there
is nothing to stop an individual putting them in an inappropriate
charger and ending up with a massive legal liablity problem.

Also, the IPOD battery is a lithium rechargeable one, so a
lithium battery charging circuit can be made as small as needed.

Yes, but we were discussing why the battery
cant be a STANDARD AA OR AAA FORMAT.

Put simply: if the manufacturer *wants* to design a product with
batteries that can be replaced or recharged the manufacturer
*can* do it.

Not with a standard battery format they cant, because that
would inevitably see some put them on inappropriate chargers
that would produce spectacular results when they did that.

The technollogy exists, and in fact it´s in use actually.

No it isnt with STANDARD BATTERY FORMATS.

Take this cordless phone, for instance,

http://gigaset.siemens.com/shc/0,1935,hq_en_0_116691_rArNrNrNrN_variation%253A-5_pageType%253ATechnical%2Bdata_imagePos%253A0,00.html#content

It´s designed to work with standard AAA rechargeable batteries.

So is mine. Pity it doesnt accept Lithium rechargable AAA batterys.

Also I own a Siemens C4000 cordless phone and it works with
standard AA rechargeable batteries. It can take NiCd or NiMh batteries.

So does my Panasonic, and I bought it for that reason.

It will not however accept lithium rechargable batterys.

Both of my current cellphones, Nokias, will accept all of NiMH,
NiCad and Lion batterys, but they arent AA or AAA format
because there is too much risk with that approach of someone
trying to charge the Lion batterys with a separate charger that
doesnt know how to charge Lion batterys.

So, *if* the manufacturer wants to develop a product
using standard rechageable batteries, *it can do it*.

Nope, because there is no way to stop someone putting
it in a charger that knows nothing about Lion charging.

Even there are different chemistries available,
so if an applicattion works best with a NiMh
battery, or a NiCad one, that battery can be used.

Pity about the problem with putting a lithium battery in a charger
thats designed to charge NiMh and NiCad standard format betterys.

 

On 15 Jan 2007 17:51:06 -0800, "lsmartino" <luismartino76@gmail.com>
wrote:

Rod Speed ha escrito:

Not necessarily. They can move the charging circuit to the cell in itself.

Not practical with AA and AAA batterys being discussed.

In spades with an ipod battery.


Why? Because you say it? Oh please...


Of course that will steal space from the chemical part of
the cell with the resultant capacity loss, but it can be done.

But isnt practical and it cant be done with an ipod battery anyway.

Thus the charger used to recharge the battery becames
inmaterial because any proper voltage source will suffice.

The problem aint the voltage source.

You say that because probably you don´t have a clue about how a
battery charger works.


In fact, since lithium cells produce 3V, and a AA battery
shouldn´t produce more than 1.5V, I suspect that these
lithium cells have some form of voltage regulating circuit inside.

No, there are different "lithium" chemistries, and the Energizer E2
Lithium is a native 1.7 or 1.8 volt cell. AA cells are roughly 3 ah
each, and loose less than 1% per year to self discharge.

Here's a bit of info on 1.5 volt nominal lithium chemistry. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_battery

Li-CuO Copper oxide 1.5 V 2.4 V
Can operate up to 150 °C. Developed as a replacement of zinc-carbon
and alkaline batteries. "Voltage up" problem, high difference between
open-circuit and nominal voltage. Produced until mid-1990s, replaced
by lithium-iron sulfide. Current use limited.
Li-Cu4O(PO4)2 Copper oxyphosphate
See Li-CuO
Li-CuS Copper sulfide 1.5 V
Li-PbCuS Lead sulfide and copper sulfide 1.5 V 2.2 V
Li-FeS Iron sulfide Propylene carbonate, dioxolane, dimethoxyethane
1.5-1.2 V
"Lithium-iron", "Li/Fe". used as a replacement for alkaline batteries.
See lithium - iron disulfide.
Li-FeS2 Iron disulfide Propylene carbonate, dioxolane, dimethoxyethane
1.6-1.4 V 1.8 V
"Lithium-iron", "Li/Fe". Used in eg. Energizer lithium cells as a
replacement for alkaline zinc-manganese chemistry. Called
"voltage-compatible" lithiums. 2.5 times higher lifetime for high
current discharge regime than alkaline batteries, no advantage for
low-current applications. Low self-discharge, 10 years storage time.
FeS2 is cheap. Some types rechargeable. Cathode often designed as a
paste of iron sulfide powder mixed with powdered graphite. Variant is
Li-CuFeS2.
Li-Bi2Pb2O5 Lead bismuthate 1.5 V 1.8 V
Replacement of silver-oxide batteries, with higher energy density,
lower tendency to leak, and better performance at higher temperatures.
Li-Bi2O3 Bismuth trioxide 1.5 V 2.04 V

The E2 is Lithium Iron DiSulphide.

They have a self protection circuit built in - a self resetting
poly-fuse type apparatus callet a PTC (Positive Temperature
Co-efficient) This also makes it almost impossible to detonate the
battery by attempting to recharge it. The battery is limitted to 2
amps continuous, but can handle short duration higher peaks
significantly higher.
They CAN BE SHIPPED BY NORMAL METHODS INCLUDING MAIL.

No they dont. They are in fact nothing like RECHARGABLE lithium technology.


A lithium cell WILL produce 3V regardless of it´s type. A rechargeable
lithium battery or a non rechargeable one will have the same voltage
output. That´s what the chemistry produces, and you can´t reduce that
voltage chemically, so they must have some built in electronic method
to reduce the voltage to the standard 1.5 V a AA cell should produce.

You need to learn to do your research before you make statements you
cannot support. You've proven yourself to be a blowhard.

If that is true, then it´s possible that in several
years that circuit will be designed to allow a
safe recharging of a lithium AA or AAA battery.

Its obvious technically possible right now given that cellphones
and ipods etc can obviously charge them fine now, and with
cellphones particularly can handle all of NiMH, NiCad and Lion etc.

The problem is that if they are in AA or AAA format, there
is nothing to stop an individual putting them in an inappropriate
charger and ending up with a massive legal liablity problem.

Except the Lithium E2, which is a non-rechargeable battery
(officially) The PTC device prevents them from being charged too hard
or overheated if inadvertently put into a charger.. They WILL accept a
charge - I don't know how much capacity the recharged cell has yet as
I have not tested it. I charged it with a regulated power supply
current limited to 350ma and voltage limitted to 1.65. I need to crank
both current and voltage up a bit to get a full charge - the battery
was at .7 volts when I pulled it out of the clock and after two hours
it is at 1.2 and has held that voltage for 3 days. I'm going to rig up
a proper holder, then put the battery outside on the charger for 5
hours at 500ma and 2.35 volts and see what happens. If it blows up
it'll make a little crater in the snow but I'm convinced the
protection of the PTC device will not allow that to happen.

As I stated previously, if you move the charging circuit to the cell
itself, the problem of the charger dissapears completely.

Not with a standard battery format they cant, because that
would inevitably see some put them on inappropriate chargers
that would produce spectacular results when they did that.

The technollogy exists, and in fact it´s in use actually.

No it isnt with STANDARD BATTERY FORMATS.

Take this cordless phone, for instance,

http://gigaset.siemens.com/shc/0,1935,hq_en_0_116691_rArNrNrNrN_variation%253A-5_pageType%253ATechnical%2Bdata_imagePos%253A0,00.html#content

It´s designed to work with standard AAA rechargeable batteries.

So is mine. Pity it doesnt accept Lithium rechargable AAA batterys.


I don´t care it it cannot take Lithium or Plutonium batteries. The
point here is that the phone is designed to take a standard
rechargeable battery which will be available forever, and not a
proprietary battery which surely will be non available when the need to
replace it arises.

Also I own a Siemens C4000 cordless phone and it works with
standard AA rechargeable batteries. It can take NiCd or NiMh batteries.

So does my Panasonic, and I bought it for that reason.

It will not however accept lithium rechargable batterys.

Both of my current cellphones, Nokias, will accept all of NiMH,
NiCad and Lion batterys, but they arent AA or AAA format
because there is too much risk with that approach of someone
trying to charge the Lion batterys with a separate charger that
doesnt know how to charge Lion batterys.


If you move the charging circuit to the battery pack (like laptops
battery packs do), you don´t have to worry about that.

So, *if* the manufacturer wants to develop a product
using standard rechageable batteries, *it can do it*.

Nope, because there is no way to stop someone putting
it in a charger that knows nothing about Lion charging.


I said "standard rechargeable batteries", not LiOn. What part of that
didn´t you understood?

And a "new standard" could easilly be established for rechargeable
Lithiums as well. With or without internal protection.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com