Jim Yanik hath wroth:
Jeff Liebermann wrote in
:
AZ Nomad hath wroth:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:44:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
Can you offer a better explanation of what went wrong with the Sony
batteries? I'm only recycling what I've read on the internet which
Putting an anti-competitive chip in those batteries wouldn't have made
any difference.
There's a big difference between your anti-competative chips in ink
jet cartridges, which have no safety issues, and a similar chip in a
potentially exploding cell phone or laptop battery, where safety and
liability are currently a serious and real concern.
AZ is pointing out that the anti-chip has NO BEARING on whether the battery
is safe or not;a battery pack can still short even with the chip,and the
presence of the chip does not absolve anyone from liability.
In the case of the laptop batteries, this is correct. In the case of
the exploding cell phone batteries, this may not be correct. While
the original exploding cell phone batteries were stock Nokia
(apparently without any short circuit protection), the majority of the
later exploding cell phone batteries were because of aftermarket
batteries.
Note that the *high quality* Sony product had battery problems.
I'm not sure I would consider Sony to be a premium product these days.
I've seen far too many in-warranty problems with their computers.
The chip is only there to eliminate use of cheaper substitutes,NOT for
"safety" or liability.
Maybe. However, allow me to point out that the necessary technology
and chips have been around for quite a while. Some battery packs
already have the features in the charge controller chip. If they were
as greedy as you suggest, the laptop and cell phone manufacturers
could have easily implemented such a scheme long ago. Only after some
real field failures, substantial adverse publicity, and litigation, do
they begin to implement what will undoubtedly become an unpopular
mis-feature and support headache. My guess is that we will begin to
see cell phones advertised with a spare battery or charger powered
phones. (Many phones cannot run from only the charger and without an
internal battery).
I've noticed some interesting logic in one of the exploding cell phone
incidents. Instead of blaming the cheap aftermarket battery
manufacturer, the victim blamed the manufacturer of the phone claiming
the phone was defective in "causing" the battery to explode or
otherwise failing to protect the user.
It is also interesting that only the cell phone manufacturers name is
mentioned in the various online articles. The exact model is never
mentioned. In one (Nextel) case, the phone was fairly new and
presumed to have included the stock OEM battery. Reading between the
lines, my astute guess(tm) is most of the other incidents were
aftermarket replacement batteries.
I would expect to see a line of aftermarket armor holsters for cell
phones, that protect the user in case of internal explosion. Maybe a
temperature alarm that gives the user a few seconds warning before the
phone explodes. Maybe federal safety standards for case ruggedness
and survivability. Such opportunities cannot be ignored.
Note that this is not the first laptop battery recall for Dell. See
bottom of page at:
http://support.dell.com/support/topics/global.aspx/support/batteryrecall/en/main
Also, I've seen a few cell phones running around without battery
covers. A clue is that there are overpriced battery covers for sale
on eBay. My XV6700 battery cover is held on with scotch tape as it
tends to fall off without much provocation. The exposed battery is
not exactly puncture proof. I suspect a good poke with my closed
multitool or car keys, while in my pocket, might initiate a meltdown.
Incidentally, thanks for all the good advice on Tektronix repairs over
the years. It's been very useful for maintaining my rapidly aging
pile of test equipment.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558