$2.50 Batteriser sleeve can extend disposable battery life by 8 times

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

Looks pretty straight-forward, to me. SamStrecker asked why a cheap longevity-enhancement might not be used, and you followed it up by asking why such designs aren't put into products by default. The answer is often 'because of forced obsolescence by design.'

Would now be a bad time to point out that boost voltage regular/boost converts actually -are- included in various electronic devices as needed?  It's not not an actual longevity enhancement, as extensively proven, so they aren't used in that application.  'Because forced obsolescence by design' is not a valid answer to the question of 'Why isn't the thing that doesn't do the thing used to do the thing?'

[Delicieuxz]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

Would now be a bad time to point out that boost voltage regular/boost converts actually -are- included in various electronic devices as needed?  It's not not an actual longevity enhancement, as extensively proven, so they aren't used in that application.  'Because forced obsolescence by design' is not a valid answer to the question of 'Why isn't the thing that doesn't do the thing used to do the thing?'

And I didn't say it was the answer to this particular case. I proposed an understanding for the general concept of why something like this might be left out of a product. For considering, discussing, learning.

[SSL]

8 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Looks pretty straight-forward, to me. SamStrecker asked why a cheap longevity-enhancement might not be used, and you followed it up by asking why such designs aren't put into products by default. The answer is often 'because of forced obsolescence by design.'

 

I don't see what obsolescence has to do with a disposable product. Also, my point is that some products do have this kind of thing built in.

[Delicieuxz]

9 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

This is irrelevant in this case as research into improving battery technology is constant.  We are a society that is constantly using energy through batteries and battery companies are very much looking for ways to improve things.  Mainly, any company CAN produce batteries as there's few patents protecting anything in these kinds of batteries, there's very little aside from the very specific chemistry used that varies and being able to stand out among the crowd is what sells.

Many great improvements of battery life have been reported for years. They don't seem to make it to market.

 

Yes, research into improving all sorts of technologies that are ultimately bought out or suppressed is constantly ongoing. If it weren't there'd be nothing to buy out, or suppress.

[Guest Kloaked]

Reminds me of this amazing thing: http://www.head-fi.org/t/741043/some-hot-science-from-synergistic-research

[Delicieuxz]

3 minutes ago, SSL said:

I don't see what obsolescence has to do with a disposable product. Also, my point is that some products do have this kind of thing built in.

Obsolescence here doesn't refer to the technology becoming obsolete, but the usefulness of the particular battery. A product becomes disposable only once it's obsolete. If a battery dies at some point, that is the point of its obsolescence. The sooner that happens, the sooner a person has to buy a new battery.

 

http://www.economist.com/node/13354332

[SSL]

3 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Obsolescence here doesn't refer to the technology becoming obsolete, but the usefulness of the particular battery. A product becomes disposable only once it's obsolete. If a battery dies at some point, that is the point of its obsolescence. The sooner that happens, the sooner a person has to buy a new battery.

 

http://www.economist.com/node/13354332

 

The story is about disposable batteries. Obsolescence doesn't apply here, okay? Thanks for understanding.

[Delicieuxz]

2 minutes ago, SSL said:

The story is about disposable batteries. Obsolescence doesn't apply here, okay? Thanks for understanding.

It does. You could try understanding a little more, rather than having a pre-teen tantrum over being presented with ideas you obviously do not already hold. Disposable is the very essence and goal of planned obsolescence.

[Delicieuxz]

The history of light bulb longevity is an example of planned obsolescence:

 

Of course, newer light-bulbs are longer lasting, but manufacturers exploited planned obsolescence for decades, before.

[SSL]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

It does. You could try understanding a little more, rather than having a pre-teen tantrum over being presented with ideas you obviously do not already hold. Disposable is the very essence of obsolescence.

 

So why do some products include regulation circuitry and not others?

[AshleyAshes]

6 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

It does. You could try understanding a little more, rather than having a pre-teen tantrum over being presented with ideas you obviously do not already hold. Disposable is the very essence and goal of planned obsolescence.

But none of this jives with how the market is actually going with batteries.  The cheapest, least electrically dense, battery chemistry, usually marketed as 'Heavy Duty' (I know, it's cute that those get branded as 'Heavy Duty' when it really means 'Cheap garbage, but you can get 20 for $2 at the dollar store!'?), using Zinc-Chloride (Zinc-Carbon is even worse but I don't think anyone even makes those anymore?).  Yet instead Zinc-Magnesium (These are your 'Alkaline Batteries' as commonly called) is used, with constant efforts made to improve efficiency through finding new ways to purify and optimize the chemistry.  Then we have the lithium batteries (No, not Lithium-Ion rechargeables) which are sold for high energy consuming products, like electronics and a range of chemistry differences that are constantly improved upon as well.

 

I see some critical problems here.

 

1) You falsely believe that primary cells do not and have not seen any improvement over time.

2) You justify this absence of innovation, an absence that is not real but you believe it to be real, based on battery research to remain stagnant to because you believed 'planned obsolescence' and constant replacement must be the primary motivator in all cases.

 

 

Considering that primary batteries -do- see progressive improvement in products available to consumers, your argument does't work here.  As batteries have shown progressive research and improvement, your argument that there is no improvement and that any improvement would be ignored, everything you're arguing is irrelevant)

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, SSL said:

 

So why do some products include regulation circuitry and not others?

If by regulation you mean the boost converter they usually build them into devices where constant voltage is required for stable operation. Batteries "loose" voltage over time as they discharging and some electronics cant cope with it .

[SSL]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

If by regulation you mean the boost converter they usually build them into devices where constant voltage is required for stable operation. Batteries "loose" lose voltage over time as they discharging and some electronics cant cope with it .

 

Which is what the device in the OP does. I am well aware that Alkaline batteries exhibit voltage sag under load and as they lose capacity.

[Delicieuxz]

22 minutes ago, SSL said:

So why do some products include regulation circuitry and not others?

That would be a business decisions made by people who are able to choose whether they want their product to have a more narrow application, or a larger one, and whether they have a goal for how often they want their product to fail, and whatever else a manufacturer chooses to factor in. The video I posted above talks about some of that stuff.

 

12 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I see some critical problems here.

 

1) You falsely believe that primary cells do not and have not seen any improvement over time.

2) You justify this absence of innovation, an absence that is not real but you believe it to be real, based on battery research to remain stagnant to because you believed 'planned obsolescence' and constant replacement must be the primary motivator in all cases.

 

 

Considering that primary batteries -do- see progressive improvement in products available to consumers, your argument does't work here.  As batteries have shown progressive research and improvement, your argument that there is no improvement and that any improvement would be ignored, everything you're arguing is irrelevant)

I didn't say there has not been progress in battery technology, I know there have been improvements to batteries over the years. But, I also think that the progress-rate could be restrained, just like GPU manufacturers dragged their heels on generational performance improvements throughout the Xbox 360 / PS3 years. When a company lacks competition, they often don't show an interest in innovating.

 

More people have more access to development capability now than ever before, and just because people are now looking into developments for battery tech doesn't mean that the big manufacturers of batteries were putting out a serious effort to move things forward, themselves, before.

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, SSL said:

 

Which is what the device in the OP does. I am well aware that Alkaline batteries exhibit voltage sag under load and as they lose capacity.

Well yeah but its totally dumb idea. If a device needs constant voltage it will have that built in. Plus this sleeve is dumb so its always boosting the voltage up, even if its not needed...

[.spider.]

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

That would be a business decisions made by people who are able to choose whether they want their product to have a more narrow application, or a larger one, and whether they have a goal for how often they want their product to fail, and whatever else a manufacturer chooses to factor in. The video I posted above talks about some of that stuff.

I don't really see a correlation between that and wether a device uses a DC to DC converter or not.

[You_are_a_cunt]

This has been debunked so many times it's not funny anymore.

Look for EEVBlog on youtube and you'll see the VODs of Dave live debunking it.

 

cc: @Comic_Sans_MS, @iamdarkyoshi, @manikyath you'd have a laugh at this fo sho

[AshleyAshes]

8 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

GPU manufacturers dragged their heels on generational performance improvements throughout the Xbox 360 / PS3 years. When a company lacks competition, they often don't show an interest in innovating.

What on earth are you talking about?  Nvidia had 4 architecture releases and AMD had 7 during the life of the Xbox 360, going from Late 2005 Through Late-2013, cutting off at the release of the Xbox One.  I dunno, seven architecture releases in eight years doesn't seem like 'dragging their heels' if you ask me.  What is the necessary threshold for you to not consider it 'dragging their heels'? 8?  9? 15?

[Delicieuxz]

2 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

What on earth are you talking about?  Nvidia had 4 architecture releases and AMD had 7 during the life of the Xbox 360, going from Late 2005 Through Late-2013, cutting off at the release of the Xbox One.  I dunno, seven architecture releases in eight years doesn't seem like 'dragging their heels' if you ask me.  What is the necessary threshold for you to not consider it 'dragging their heels'? 8?  9? 15?

Architectures are not gen-over-gen performance increases. That metric slowed down right after the first Crysis' release to not get too ahead of console performance, since those consoles dominated the gaming market, and developers were typically targeting their games' graphics to match the capabilities of those consoles.

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

Architectures are not gen-over-gen performance increases.

That's exactly what they are.  To be clear, I did not count the 'card series' releases, I only counted architecture releases, which saw gen-over-gen performance increases,

[Delicieuxz]

4 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

That's exactly what they are.  To be clear, I did not count the 'card series' releases, I only counted architecture releases, which saw gen-over-gen performance increases,

No, that's literally not what they are. Performance is a metric that can be gauged as FPS in gaming benchmarks. Newer architectures are technology refinements, sometimes minuscule, often just a rehash of the previous.

 

Also, this is pretty off-topic at this point.

[AshleyAshes]

8 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

No, that's literally not what they are. Performance is a metric that can be gauged as FPS in gaming benchmarks. Architectures are technology refinements, sometimes minuscule, often just a rehash of the previous.

So your argument is that the new architectures introduced, which saw significant improvements in performance, sometimes drastically, in the same price points, actually didn't improve performance based on... That can only be accounted as your own magical thinking which doesn't actually jive with the specs of the hardware released...?

 

I gotta be honest here, I think you have a faulty recollection of the generation over generation improvements seen in GPUs seen between 2005-2013 and that you are unwilling to believe that this recollection is less than accurate and are basically making statements which require magical thinking to even work... That was a time when it was actually hard to keep up with hardware improvements.

[Delicieuxz]

22 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

So you're argument is that the new architectures introduced, which saw significant improvements in performance, sometimes drastically, in the same price points, actually didn't improve performance based on... That can only be accounted as your own magical thinking which doesn't actually jive with the specs of the hardware released...?

 

I gotta be honest here, I think you have a faulty recollection of the generation over generation improvements seen in GPUs seen between 2005-2013 and that you are unwilling to believe that this recollection is less than accurate and are basically making statements which require magical thinking to even work...

It wasn't an argument, it was an example, showcasing a clear favouring for exploitation of restrained and slowed development over planned-obsolescence-free innovation.

 

Quote

That was a time when it was actually hard to keep up with hardware improvements.

From then until Pascal was, by far, the time that it was easiest to keep up with hardware improvements, out of the history of home computing. Notice that two of AMD's GPU architectures were small rehashes of the 79XX, and how people are still running their overclocked Sandy Bridge CPUs and getting performance that is competitive to, or only a bit behind that of new CPUs? There is no other example in the history of home computing to parallel the relative stagnation of generational performance increases that started around the 360 / PS3 console releases - it is without precedence.

 

It used to be that a powerful PC would be outdated for performance gaming within 2 years of buying it. But that depended upon there being game developers who were pushing graphics to the next level with each new release - something that stopped occurring once consoles became the dominant market for gaming. When the progression in game graphics abruptly slowed down, Nvidia and AMD also invoked a sudden slow-down on performance progression of their hardware.

 

If Nvidia and AMD kept up their rate of performance increases, they would be making GPUs that vastly out-perform the needs of games, and that would lead to a situation where a person would buy a GPU, and then not have to buy another one for an extremely long time, because their GPU would be handling games for many years to come (which sort of happened, anyway). Nvidia and AMD chose to pace their GPU performance increases, ultimately making them very meager over previous generations, allowing for slowly-increasing game requirements to warrant buying a new GPU sooner, rather than later. AMD released nearly the same GPU 3 times in a row, towards this end: 7970, 280X, 380X.

[AshleyAshes]

15 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

It wasn't an argument, it was an example

Examples have to be grounded in reality, not contrary to reality...

 

Quote

From then until Pascal was the time that it was easiest to keep up with hardware improvements in the history of home computing. Notice that 3 of AMD's GPU architectures were small rehashes of the 79XX

You seem to be experiencing a great deal of confusion.  Firstly, no, I made it clear that I only counted generational architecture improvements, not new series numbers which included re badges or rehashes.  I'm not sure where I have to clarify this again but I have to.

 

Quote

To be clear, I did not count the 'card series' releases, I only counted architecture releases, which saw gen-over-gen performance increases,

See?  Right there.  I said I excluded the every thing I said I didn't count which you are now arguing doesn't count...

 

Also, why are you bringing in Post-HD 7000 rebadges in the RX 200 and RX 300 series as the RX 200 and RX 300 came -after- the Xbox One's release?  With the Xbox One's own graphical architecture was GCN 1.0 (HD 7000 series) so why would you even think that I'd count releases that came after the Xbox One's release, when i clearly said that I was only counting up until the Xbox One's release at the end of 2013.  So as to why you have decided that I'm counting GPUs from 2014 and beyond, thinking that they are included in my 'Seven AMD architecture releases' and then trying to argue that my counting that I miscounted those is beyond me.  2014 came after 2013, just in case you needed this clarified. 

 

Also, also, you forgot the HD 8XXX series so even though you can't count or tell time, it was actually four AMD GPU families that you incorrectly think I miscounted even though I really didn't, not the three.  ...Not that I counted anything other than GCN 1.0... 

 

Quote

Sandy Bridge CPU

Hey now, you bringing CPUs into this now is just you desperately trying to move the goal post.  ...Being a person who doesn't know what a 'year' is, I understand that you badly need to move that goal post but it will not be permitted.   

[Delicieuxz]

Is anyone else having as hard a time following this discussion as AshleyAshes is? I think they think they're having a different discussion than they one they're actually having.

 

17 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Also, why are you bringing in Post-HD 7000 rebadges in the RX 200 and RX 300 series as the RX 200 and RX 300 came -after- the Xbox One's release?  

I said GPU manufacturers dragged their heels on performance increases over generations through the 360 / PS3 years, and they did. I didn't say that's where the technology slowdown ended - that slowdown was implemented gradually, as manufacturers felt out the market and became accustomed to a new normal, and its influence is still in effect. I mentioned Pascal as being a marker for where keeping up with tech has become a little more expensive, again. The same was not true for the 7970, 280X, 380X.

 

Quote

Hey now, you bringing CPUs into this now is just you desperately trying to move the goal post.  ...Being a person who doesn't know what a 'year' is, I understand that you badly need to move that goal post but it will not be permitted.   

You appear to think that I'm trying to defeat you in some battle over something specific that, whatever it is, must not have been what I was actually talking about. Referencing CPU performance increases is discussing the same subject as the GPU performance-increase example, which was made to illustrate exploitation of restrained development rather than full-on prevention of all development, which is what you had mistakenly assumed I was claiming to be applied to batteries. The purpose of this meandering back-and-forth has been to wake your mind to a realization that suggesting planned obsolescence doesn't imply that a person believes there has been no development of any product for which planned obsolescence has been a part its design.

 

You can keep the goalposts wherever you want them to be, but you're the only person standing in that field. If you actually care about this discussion, then go over the thread and pick up all the points you missed out on. No need to continue this further, IMO.