New Microsoft Tech Makes Battery Changes a Breeze

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

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

Reply to
Clifford Heath
Loading thread data ...

Geez, I was just at the level of "which way was that again? Aw, crap, dig for the reading glasses...." :)

--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Joe Pfeiffer

Doug Jewell wrote

quite a show stopper to me....

Didnt say anything about power diodes.

Reply to
Rod Speed

seems quite a show stopper to me....

Then what are you talking about?

--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Joe Pfeiffer

1.5V seems quite a show stopper to me....

eh Rod?

MOSFETS

Meindert

Reply to
Meindert Sprang

I was thinking along similar lines albeit BJTs rather than MOSFETs

- it is not for nothing than MOSFETs are often drawn with a parasitic reverse biased diode.

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

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

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

--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
Reply to
Andrew Smallshaw

Wow, microsoft develops a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. What a waste of money.

Reply to
Rob Horton

seems quite a show stopper to me....

You didn't need to woddles , already done and dusted now what's the number of the semi conductor that's practical AND supports your failed argument

Reply to
atec7 7

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.

Reply to
John Tserkezis

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?

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

Yes, even when it's designed into the device right at the start.

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 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@sdf.lonestar.org
Reply to
Andrew Smallshaw

Andrew Smallshaw wrote

Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.

You're so stupid that it isnt worth the trouble.

Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.

It happens to be what is being discussed.

It makes a considerable difference when its all in a special purpose ic.

Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.

including.

Just as true of allowing the batterys to go in any way the user likes.

So his original claim is just plain wrong, as I said.

And they are included anyway even when they arent.

So much for his stupid claim.

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

Anyone with even half a clue would include whats needed in the special purpose ic.

production run.

And it wouldnt cost anything like that when its included in the special purpose ic.

figures.

Have fun explaining how the absolute vast bulk of those have a led or lcd.

Reply to
Rod Speed

So, the 99.9+% of designs (including, for example, most computer motherboards) that use no custom ASICs are a complete irrelevence, are they?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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@sdf.lonestar.org
Reply to
Andrew Smallshaw

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?
Reply to
robertwessel2

Andrew Smallshaw wrote

Those use ASICs designed for motherboards, stupid.

They certainly are to the BATTERY POWERED devices being discussed.

No one said a word about free except you.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that the BATTERY POWERED devices actually being discussed dont actually use those much.

much it costs.

Everyone can see for themselves that I said nothing like that.

I did that, and replied to that bit as well.

Wrong, as always. It doesnt cost enough to matter when the extra is included in the special purpose ic.

including.

And that patent was about allowing the user to ignore that and allows for little kids not needing to be taught that etc.

Irrelevant to the obvious advantage with that approach.

The same stupid claim could have been made about all sorts of things that have only recently become common.

production run.

purpose ic.

Not when the device needs that already, fool.

Not when the device has some already, fool.

Like hell you have.

Everyone can see you are lying, as always.

Put me back, then we wont have to see any more of your pathetic excuse for mindless bullshit.

Reply to
Rod Speed

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:
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
David L. Jones

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;
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Joe Pfeiffer

formatting link
ew.mspx

Xerox PARC, via Apple OS.

MrT.

Reply to
Mr.T

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

Reply to
Brett Davis

Sheesh!, why not just make conical cells 5mm wider at the base so they only go in one way.

Reply to
Mark Harriss

Op Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:59:00 +0200 schreef Chris Burrows :

How would that work in flash-lights that take three batteries in line?

Uhm, what?

--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Boudewijn Dijkstra

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.