New Microsoft Tech Makes Battery Changes a Breeze
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: need ur help for my Masters project(TASM project)
Next: Full-featured Controller Area Network simulator available for free
From: Rob Horton on 6 Jul 2010 04:53 Don McKenzie wrote: > 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... > > > Wow, microsoft develops a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. What a waste of money.
From: John Tserkezis on 6 Jul 2010 06:18 atec77 > wrote: >>> Ehhhmm... a total drop of 1.2 - 1.4V on *each* battery voltage of >>> 1.5V seems quite a show stopper to me.... >> Doesnt have to be anything like that much of a drop. > So you are going to wave that magic "wand "of yours woddles changing the > laws of physics? Name the device you are thinking of by number to prove > your claim thanks Pick any Schotkky diode. .1something to .4something volts drop depending on flavour. Though, IMO even that would be too much. You need to appreciate that this type of cost for the feature you're getting, is way more than gross luxury. So technically it's certainly very possible, but the economics will be below ordinary at best, and broke at worst. When you're trying to drill that last few cents out of a product that's destined for serious mass production at a minimal cost, every fraction of a cent counts. It's just not worth it.
From: John Tserkezis on 6 Jul 2010 06:21 Rob Horton wrote: > Wow, microsoft develops a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. > What a waste of money. We've been conditioned to how things are for a bloody long time, so, to be fair, the problem *does* exist, it's just that it's not a very big problem. The cost verses benefit thing is skewed against their favour. So they've picked the lowest possible cost for a problem that most people perceive as negligible. No surprise it's a costless royalty.
From: Rod Speed on 6 Jul 2010 06:28 John Tserkezis wrote >>>> Ehhhmm... a total drop of 1.2 - 1.4V on *each* battery >>>> voltage of 1.5V seems quite a show stopper to me.... >>> Doesnt have to be anything like that much of a drop. > Pick any Schotkky diode. .1something to .4something volts drop > depending on flavour. Though, IMO even that would be too much. > You need to appreciate that this type of cost for the > feature you're getting, is way more than gross luxury. Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start. > So technically it's certainly very possible, but > the economics will be below ordinary at best, Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start. > and broke at worst. Wrong when its designed in to the device right from the start. > When you're trying to drill that last few cents out of > a product that's destined for serious mass production > at a minimal cost, every fraction of a cent counts. Have fun explaining the led thats included anyway etc. > It's just not worth it. Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why no one is actually stupid enough to employ you to design anything that matters.
From: Andrew Smallshaw on 6 Jul 2010 07:36
On 2010-07-06, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa(a)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. 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? >> 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 >> 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. >> 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. >> 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(a)sdf.lonestar.org |