Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Mandate reporting when antibiotics are prescrib (Score 1) 68

Yes. But we need to be aware that man is not the only source of antibiotics. They naturally occur. We get a good lot of them from plants and bacteria, starting of course with penicilin which we got from mold, and which was already present on salted food and damp environments. What we did was to make antibiotics present in organisms other than their natural sources.

Comment Re:-1 Overrated (Score 1) 255

Yet they fail to state why they can't simply use a smaller battery, or a battery with higher tolerances, or more aggressive thermal throttling in the charging circuitry or even in the phone's SoC.

You really showed me up as the one who didn't read the article! Oh wait, what's this I am reading from the report:

A smaller battery using standard manufacturing parameters would have solved the explosion issue and the swell issue. But, a smaller battery would have reduced the system's battery life below the level of its predecessor, the Note 5, as well as its biggest competitor, the iPhone 7 Plus. Either way, it's now clear to us that there was no competitive salvageable design.

So despite what you claim, they did indeed state that they could use a smaller battery, and gave reasons why it would not be a competitive solution. But what about what you said regarding aggressive thermal throttling etc? It seems that catching fire was only one symptom of the problem:

If the Galaxy Note 7 wasn't recalled for exploding batteries, Sam and I believe that a few years down the road these phones would be slowly pushed apart by mechanical battery swell.
When batteries are charged and discharged, chemical processes cause the lithium to migrate and the battery will mechanically swell. Any battery engineer will tell you that it's necessary to leave some percentage of ceiling above the battery, 10% is a rough rule-of-thumb, and over time the battery will expand into that space. Our two-month old unit had no ceiling: the battery and adhesive was 5.2 mm thick, resting in a 5.2 mm deep pocket. There should have been a 0.5 mm ceiling. This is what mechanical engineers call line-to-line -- and since it breaks such a basic rule, it must have been intentional.

So yes, they may have been able to find other solutions, but that still would not have fixed all the problems. And even if there was some software or hardware fix, it doesn't matter because that was beyond the scope of the article. They were not trying to fix the problem, they were just trying to explain why the fires happened in the first place. The title of the report was "Aggressive design caused Samsung Galaxy Note 7 battery explosions". I do agree with you that it is obvious why Samsung cut their losses and deleted the product; it was because nobody had any faith in the phone anymore. But that doesn't alter the findings of this report. It is perfectly valid because they were not looking at the problem from a business point of view, just a mechanical engineering point of view.

If you spent 5 fucking seconds thinking about the issue after the "fixed" phones started Samsunging, you'd know this.

I think I see your problem here. Perhaps if you spent more than 5 fucking seconds thinking about things then you would write better posts. Oh, and read the articles.

Comment Re:-1 Overrated (Score 1) 255

I don't give a damn whether you like the report, because once again what you said has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I wrote. What exactly did I say in my original post that was actually incorrect and showed that I hadn't read the article? The original poster claimed that since Samsung had tried and failed to fix the problem by replacing the batteries that this analysis of the problem was wrong. That assumes that 1) there was only one possible reason for the fires and that Samsung and these engineers must have come to the same conclusions, and 2) the authors were unaware of this revelation. I pointed to the parts of the article that showed that this was wrong. So what is your evidence that I hadn't read the article that I had quoted? Let's see:

the engineers in question didn't do a damn thing

Apart from opening up the phone and using their expertise and experience.

didn't draw any meaningful conclusion

Apart from postulating a reason why the phone caught fire.

looked at a grand total of 1 unit

Do you think that they would have found larger gaps around the batteries in other phones?

and only did so to write a blog post to pimp their startup.

How does that mean that they are wrong?

And once again, how are any of things related to what I said, and prove that I didn't read the article? Who should I trust; some trained mechanical engineers or you? You, who claims that others have comprehension issues and yet who can't follow the links that proved you wrong on the page that you posted in your rush to belittle the report by attacking the credibility of the authors. You, who claims that others haven't read the article, but never once specifically refers to any passage written in the article and who only makes wishy-washy statements about their conclusions. You, who thinks that only examining one phone is a problem, even though that is probably one more than you have examined.

Anna Shedletsky and Samuel Weiss have made some plausible, credible arguments. You have just spouted fluff that is absolutely unworthy of discussion.

Comment Everything Old is New Again (Score 2) 68

The Andromeda Strain was published in 1969.

The United States has some disease reporting, it started at least 75 years ago before the antibiotic bubble. This CDC Report summarizes the present state of disease reporting, in two pages. We need higher standards of reporting and legal penalties for failure to report.

Comment Re:-1 Overrated (Score 1) 255

None of what you said has ANYTHING to do with what I wrote, nor what was in the article. Did YOU read the article, or did you just jump straight to the TEAM link at the top to "play the man, not the ball"?

This is the company in question.

It's a small startup of 9 people with no history. None of the people are even listed as mechanical engineers. They're all software engineers (which isn't a recognized profession, by the way) and business people. Not a one among them has the authority to make any claims about the Note 7.

Thanks for the link. Very helpful. If you read the article, you know that it says in the second paragraph (why don't I have to read beyond the first screen?):

As hardware engineers ourselves, Sam and I followed the story closely.

We can use the link you provided to find out who "Sam and I" are, and with its helpful embedded linkedin links, find out what just how unqualified they are to comment on the Samsung phone:

Anna Shedletsky

  • Nearly 6 years experience as a System Product Design Engineer at Apple, including Apple Watch System Product Design Lead.
  • Key specialties: mechanical design for mass production, in-factory implementation, data-based decision making, and rising to challenges.
  • Stanford University Mechanical Engineering Bachelors and Masters. Continued education in Chinese.
  • Apple Watch System Product Design Lead and Manager, October 2012 - February 2015
  • iPod Product Design Engineer, July 2009 - October 2012

Samuel Weiss

  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology BS Mechanical Engineering; Mathematics
  • Stanford University Mechanical Engineering Masters
  • Product Design Engineer - Apple Watch, July 2012 - June 2015

Oh dear. I certainly hope that those two experienced mechanical engineers spent more time examining the Note 7 problem than you spent attempting to trash their reputations. I guess Slashdot pest isn't a recognised profession either.

Comment Re:Hey Slashdot: (Score 1) 123

The paywalled sites are monetizing the news, and that almost always makes for biased reporting.

I agree that it is a waste of time linking to a paywalled site, but what evidence do you have that a paywall almost always makes for biased reporting. To me that sounds like a very biased claim.

If you wanted to push an agenda by making biased claims, wouldn't you be more likely to make your reporting available to more people by publishing it for free? If you wanted to make a news site that was less reliant on keeping advertisers happy (which might then colour your reporting) wouldn't charging to view the articles keep you more independent?

Comment -1 Overrated (Score 1) 255

If this was the case then a slightly physically smaller battery would have solved the problem. They could have achieved this quite easily, even if it meant sacrificing capacity. And given they started by recalling the phones and replacing the batteries but there were still problems I would suggest they are wrong.

Did you even look at the linked report? These engineers have the benefit of hindsight. They knew that the initial attempts to fix the problem failed; it's mentioned in the very first paragraph of the linked report. They said that sources from within Samsung had various theories as to the cause, so whatever fix that Samsung did it was the wrong theory. Just because Samsung got it wrong (twice) doesn't mean that these engineers were wrong.

Your post mirrors what was in the second paragraph of the report:

But, if it was only a battery part issue and could have been salvaged by a re-spin of the battery, why cancel the product line and cede several quarters of revenue to competitors? We believe that there was more in play: that there was a fundamental problem with the design of the phone itself.

It's amazing that you can claim that what these engineers deduced wrong when you haven't even read even the first two paragraphs of what they thought. RTFA.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong." -- Norm Schryer