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: Phil Allison on 2 Jul 2010 22:15 "John Tserkezis" > On a technically related subject, one problem that comes to mind, is > I've seen suitable-for-tagging rechargeable batteries, untagged, but > with rather flat "nipple" ends as you would normally expect. > > However, I've seen them being sold every so often as-is (untagged). ** Sanyo " N600AA " Ni-Cd cells are made like this - the plus button is 7 mm in diameter instead of the usual 5.5mm. > This idea would preclude this type of battery from being used, because > the nipple end would short across both the contacts. ** I doubt it would do that as the button contact is recessed behind the end contact. What WOULD likely happen is worse, soon as the cell is installed it will be SHORTED end to end - cos the "InstaLoad" scheme requires the two button and two end contacts for EACH cell to be linked together. > However, if the primary market is wireless keyboards and mice, I'm > guessing most are going to use normally structured alkalines rather than > rechargeables. ** Irrelevant to the serious hazard of placing a dead short on a AA Ni-Cd cell. Expect 50 amps or more current resulting in burnt PCB tracks, smoke and flames from any PVC coated wires and a possible explosion or fire in the battery compartment in a few seconds. Another and far more insidious outcome is that folk will get the idea that cell polarity is a thing of the past and FAIL to pay attention to it when loading cells into devices made the normal way. THAT alone is enough reason to ban the silly idea. .... Phil
From: John Tserkezis on 2 Jul 2010 22:36 langwadt(a)fonz.dk wrote: > yeh, someday the tolerances won't be quite right the battery will > short and set something on fire, a clever idea but I'm not sure > it will work You could always state no NiCads or NiMhs, and once the market sees that, sales will bottom out. Believe it or not, there ARE people out there who use rechargeable cells you know. I've always seen that as a cheap cop-out. It's a cheap design that can't deal with the lower nominal voltages of rechargeable cells, and an even cheaper cop-out when you're precluding those types because your brilliant idea could cause a fire. Don't get me wrong, it's an apparently simple idea that would well most of the time. It's just unfortunate that "most of the time" doesn't translate to always. Kinda like designers who use the "typical" spec, rather than the actual tolerance - and get an odd batch of components that are still within spec, just not so close enough to make the thing work. I can hear the complaints - "I bought batteries from XYZ and they've worked for me for all my devices. With InstaLoad, all they did was get hot and melt the plastic. Why is Microsoft not replacing my fried device?" If "you're holding it wrong" works for Apple, then I suppose "you've inserted them wrong" will also work for MS. He with the highest paid lawyers, wins. Indeed.
From: John Tserkezis on 2 Jul 2010 22:48 Phil Allison wrote: > ** Irrelevant to the serious hazard of placing a dead short on a AA Ni-Cd > cell. I brought this up in another message in this thread. Relying on a "typcial" rather than a larger scope of what you get out there in Real Life isn't a good idea. > Another and far more insidious outcome is that folk will get the idea that > cell polarity is a thing of the past and FAIL to pay attention to it when > loading cells into devices made the normal way. > THAT alone is enough reason to ban the silly idea. More so, the selling point that the user doesn't *have* to pay attention to polarity wouldn't work. We've become so accustomed to polarity sensitive devices, that we *actively* look out for the little symbols, be they icons, or +- characters. If you come across this and are not aware of "instaload", you'll spend MORE time than need be looking for symbols that are not there.
From: Phil Allison on 3 Jul 2010 00:33 "John Jerkezis" > On a technically related subject, one problem that comes to mind, is > I've seen suitable-for-tagging rechargeable batteries, untagged, but > with rather flat "nipple" ends as you would normally expect. > > However, I've seen them being sold every so often as-is (untagged). ** Sanyo " N600AA " Ni-Cd cells are made like this - the plus button is 7 mm in diameter instead of the usual 5.5mm. > This idea would preclude this type of battery from being used, because > the nipple end would short across both the contacts. ** I doubt it would do that as the button contact is recessed behind the end contact. What WOULD likely happen is worse, soon as the cell is installed it will be SHORTED end to end - cos the "InstaLoad" scheme requires the two button and two end contacts for EACH cell to be linked together. Expect 50 amps or more current resulting in burnt PCB tracks, smoke and flames from any PVC coated wires and a possible explosion or fire in the battery compartment in a few seconds. Another and far more insidious outcome is that folk will get the idea that cell polarity is a thing of the past and FAIL to pay attention to it when loading cells into devices made the normal way. THAT alone is enough reason to ban the silly idea. .... Phil
From: terryc on 3 Jul 2010 00:34
On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:37:32 -0700, Tim Wescott wrote: > It doesn't quite meet the "not obvious" criteria -- it makes you wonder > why Microsoft is even bothering with a patent. Leverage. Royalty free, aka you can just have it, but we get a dodgy patent that it is not in the financial interest of anyone to challenge. From this we can build other dodgy patents that will earn them real money. |