🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 19, 12:24 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Speaking of fake cache SRAM in another post reminded me of this fake
> electrolytic cap. Some might get a laugh out of it:http://www.alternatezone.com/images/FakeCap.jpg
>
> One has to wonder though if the fakers got faked? What's inside the Rubycon
> cap?
>
> Dave.

i remember when consumer reports tested rechargable batteries, like in
the 70s, a zillion years before they got popular. except for Radio
Shack rechargables, there wasn't any more capacity in the C or D sizes
than the AA size; which was understandable when they autopsied them
and found that the bigger ones were just AA batteries padded out to
larger size. Except for Radio Shack rechargable batteries, oddly
enough.

On Mar 19, 12:47 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 12:24 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Speaking of fake cache SRAM in another post reminded me of this fake
> > electrolytic cap. Some might get a laugh out of it:http://www.alternatezone.com/images/FakeCap.jpg
>
> > One has to wonder though if the fakers got faked? What's inside the Rubycon
> > cap?
>
> > Dave.
>
> i remember when consumer reports tested rechargable batteries, like in
> the 70s, a zillion years before they got popular. except for Radio
> Shack rechargables, there wasn't any more capacity in the C or D sizes
> than the AA size; which was understandable when they autopsied them
> and found that the bigger ones were just AA batteries padded out to
> larger size. Except for Radio Shack rechargable batteries, oddly
> enough.

oops, i remembered wrong; all the D cells were just C cells in fat
suits, not AA cells, except the Radio Shack.
http://pheatt.emporia.edu/projects/battery/ConsumerReports_1294a.pdf
that's still damn weird.

"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:73304324-e56f-4de3-9e69-708e9781f5cb@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>oops, i remembered wrong; all the D cells were just C cells in fat
>suits, not AA cells, except the Radio Shack.
>http://pheatt.emporia.edu/projects/battery/ConsumerReports_1294a.pdf
>that's still damn weird.

Nothing weird about companies trying to deceive customers in order to
maximise profits. The crooks have done it since day one, and will probably
still be scamming on the eve of Armageddon!

MrT.

Mr.T wrote:
> "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
> news:73304324-e56f-4de3-9e69-708e9781f5cb@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> oops, i remembered wrong; all the D cells were just C cells in fat
>> suits, not AA cells, except the Radio Shack.
>> http://pheatt.emporia.edu/projects/battery/ConsumerReports_1294a.pdf
>> that's still damn weird.
> 
> Nothing weird about companies trying to deceive customers in order to
> maximise profits. The crooks have done it since day one, and will probably
> still be scamming on the eve of Armageddon!
> 
> MrT.
> 
> 

In the case of rechargables, it's arguable that it wasn't really a scam. 
The cells usually state their capacity on the casing.

If you want rechargable cells for an appliance that takes D cells, then 
C cells won't cut it - you need D cells even if they only have the same 
capacity as C cells.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message 
news:00066257$0$31410$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Mr.T wrote:
>> "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
>> news:73304324-e56f-4de3-9e69-708e9781f5cb@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>> oops, i remembered wrong; all the D cells were just C cells in fat
>>> suits, not AA cells, except the Radio Shack.
>>> http://pheatt.emporia.edu/projects/battery/ConsumerReports_1294a.pdf
>>> that's still damn weird.
>>
>> Nothing weird about companies trying to deceive customers in order to
>> maximise profits. The crooks have done it since day one, and will 
>> probably
>> still be scamming on the eve of Armageddon!
>>
>> MrT.
>>
>>
>
> In the case of rechargables, it's arguable that it wasn't really a scam. 
> The cells usually state their capacity on the casing.
>
> If you want rechargable cells for an appliance that takes D cells, then C 
> cells won't cut it - you need D cells even if they only have the same 
> capacity as C cells.
>
> Sylvia.
>


Are you sure Sylvia, these work fine for me:

http://www.greenbatteries.com/battery-adapter.html

Depends on the appliance of course. What appliances do you have that take 
D's?

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00066257$0$31410$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> In the case of rechargables, it's arguable that it wasn't really a scam.
> The cells usually state their capacity on the casing.
>
> If you want rechargable cells for an appliance that takes D cells, then
> C cells won't cut it - you need D cells even if they only have the same
> capacity as C cells.

Partly true, there are however cheap plastic shells available if you really
wanted to use C cells in your D cell device.
The whole point of using D cells of course is to give longer battery
duration, and I doubt most people realised they were substituting C cells
that were simply cased to fit a D cell holder. The weight was a dead give
away if you knew of course.

MrT.

On Mar 19, 12:47 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 12:24 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Speaking of fake cache SRAM in another post reminded me of this fake
> > electrolytic cap. Some might get a laugh out of it:http://www.alternatezone.com/images/FakeCap.jpg
>
> > One has to wonder though if the fakers got faked? What's inside the Rubycon
> > cap?
>
> > Dave.
>
> i remember when consumer reports tested rechargable batteries, like in
> the 70s, a zillion years before they got popular. except for Radio
> Shack rechargables, there wasn't any more capacity in the C or D sizes
> than the AA size; which was understandable when they autopsied them
> and found that the bigger ones were just AA batteries padded out to
> larger size. Except for Radio Shack rechargable batteries, oddly
> enough.

Radio Shack always had great batteries. Their gold alkaline cells were
outstanding, I have some 15 year old AAA cells that I use once in a
while, still good!
Same for their blue NiCads, held a charge like crazy, still work after
10 years.

On Mar 19, 7:51 am, "K Ludger" <hg...@bjhgl.com> wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>
> news:00066257$0$31410$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>
> > Mr.T wrote:
> >> "z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
> >>news:73304324-e56f-4de3-9e69-708e9781f5cb@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >>> oops, i remembered wrong; all the D cells were just C cells in fat
> >>> suits, not AA cells, except the Radio Shack.
> >>>http://pheatt.emporia.edu/projects/battery/ConsumerReports_1294a.pdf
> >>> that's still damn weird.
>
> >> Nothing weird about companies trying to deceive customers in order to
> >> maximise profits. The crooks have done it since day one, and will
> >> probably
> >> still be scamming on the eve of Armageddon!
>
> >> MrT.
>
> > In the case of rechargables, it's arguable that it wasn't really a scam.
> > The cells usually state their capacity on the casing.
>
> > If you want rechargable cells for an appliance that takes D cells, then C
> > cells won't cut it - you need D cells even if they only have the same
> > capacity as C cells.
>
> > Sylvia.
>
> Are you sure Sylvia, these work fine for me:
>
> http://www.greenbatteries.com/battery-adapter.html
>
> Depends on the appliance of course. What appliances do you have that take
> D's?

I have a beat up old 80s radio in the kitchen.

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:55:51 -0700 (PDT), a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com
wrote:

>On Mar 19, 12:47 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 12:24 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Speaking of fake cache SRAM in another post reminded me of this fake
>> > electrolytic cap. Some might get a laugh out of it:http://www.alternatezone.com/images/FakeCap.jpg
>>
>> > One has to wonder though if the fakers got faked? What's inside the Rubycon
>> > cap?
>>
>> > Dave.
>>
>> i remember when consumer reports tested rechargable batteries, like in
>> the 70s, a zillion years before they got popular. except for Radio
>> Shack rechargables, there wasn't any more capacity in the C or D sizes
>> than the AA size; which was understandable when they autopsied them
>> and found that the bigger ones were just AA batteries padded out to
>> larger size. Except for Radio Shack rechargable batteries, oddly
>> enough.
>
>Radio Shack always had great batteries. Their gold alkaline cells were
>outstanding, I have some 15 year old AAA cells that I use once in a
>while, still good!
>Same for their blue NiCads, held a charge like crazy, still work after
>10 years.

I can vaguely recally the Radio Shack "battery of the month" club. 

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:24:39 +1100, "David L. Jones"
<altzone@gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>Speaking of fake cache SRAM in another post reminded me of this fake 
>electrolytic cap. Some might get a laugh out of it:
>http://www.alternatezone.com/images/FakeCap.jpg
>
>One has to wonder though if the fakers got faked? What's inside the Rubycon 
>cap?
>
>Dave. 

I have a DSE DVD player (G1928) which uses Rubycon branded caps in the
PSU. I suspect they are fakes because their dimensions don't match the
Rubycon datasheets.

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.dvd/msg/7f6c25370ba0d899

- Franc Zabkar
-- 
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Mr.T wrote:
>
>The whole point of using D cells of course is to give longer battery
>duration, and I doubt most people realised they were substituting C cells
>that were simply cased to fit a D cell holder. The weight was a dead give
>away if you knew of course.

There actually is a legitimate function for a small battery in a 
larger shell.  When Mattel ships toys that have a "try me" feature,
we of course have to include batteries, but as usual with toys,
every penny counts (some toys are produced at rates exceeding
100,000 per hour), so a cheaper, lower-capacity nbattery in a 
larger battery compartment makes sense. Not only is the battery
cheaper, but the container ship from China charges a bit less 
if the container weighs less.

-- 
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

On Mar 19, 8:37 am, Spehro Pefhany <speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:55:51 -0700 (PDT), a7yvm109gf...@netzero.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 19, 12:47 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 19, 12:24 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Speaking of fake cache SRAM in another post reminded me of this fake
> >> > electrolytic cap. Some might get a laugh out of it:http://www.alternatezone.com/images/FakeCap.jpg
>
> >> > One has to wonder though if the fakers got faked? What's inside the Rubycon
> >> > cap?
>
> >> > Dave.
>
> >> i remember when consumer reports tested rechargable batteries, like in
> >> the 70s, a zillion years before they got popular. except for Radio
> >> Shack rechargables, there wasn't any more capacity in the C or D sizes
> >> than the AA size; which was understandable when they autopsied them
> >> and found that the bigger ones were just AA batteries padded out to
> >> larger size. Except for Radio Shack rechargable batteries, oddly
> >> enough.
>
> >Radio Shack always had great batteries. Their gold alkaline cells were
> >outstanding, I have some 15 year old AAA cells that I use once in a
> >while, still good!
> >Same for their blue NiCads, held a charge like crazy, still work after
> >10 years.
>
> I can vaguely recally the Radio Shack "battery of the month" club.


Yes!  And each time my dad and I went there, we'd get another card,
until we had a nice little stack... pull a card that wasn't yet marked
for the month, and voila... free shiny red Realistic battery!

Michael

<mrdarrett@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:493efe3d-3342-42d4-bce6-268ed02cd099@s38g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 19, 8:37 am, Spehro Pefhany <speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:55:51 -0700 (PDT), a7yvm109gf...@netzero.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 19, 12:47 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 19, 12:24 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Speaking of fake cache SRAM in another post reminded me of this fake
> >> > electrolytic cap. Some might get a laugh out of 
> >> > it:http://www.alternatezone.com/images/FakeCap.jpg
>
> >> > One has to wonder though if the fakers got faked? What's inside the 
> >> > Rubycon
> >> > cap?
>
> >> > Dave.
>
> >> i remember when consumer reports tested rechargable batteries, like in
> >> the 70s, a zillion years before they got popular. except for Radio
> >> Shack rechargables, there wasn't any more capacity in the C or D sizes
> >> than the AA size; which was understandable when they autopsied them
> >> and found that the bigger ones were just AA batteries padded out to
> >> larger size. Except for Radio Shack rechargable batteries, oddly
> >> enough.
>
> >Radio Shack always had great batteries. Their gold alkaline cells were
> >outstanding, I have some 15 year old AAA cells that I use once in a
> >while, still good!
> >Same for their blue NiCads, held a charge like crazy, still work after
> >10 years.
>
> I can vaguely recally the Radio Shack "battery of the month" club.


Yes!  And each time my dad and I went there, we'd get another card,
until we had a nice little stack... pull a card that wasn't yet marked
for the month, and voila... free shiny red Realistic battery!

Michael

More than a few people took advantage of that ;-)

Dave. 

"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote in message
news:F7idnSjpCrUMB1_URVn_vwA@giganews.com...
> There actually is a legitimate function for a small battery in a
> larger shell.  When Mattel ships toys that have a "try me" feature,
> we of course have to include batteries, but as usual with toys,
> every penny counts (some toys are produced at rates exceeding
> 100,000 per hour), so a cheaper, lower-capacity nbattery in a
> larger battery compartment makes sense. Not only is the battery
> cheaper, but the container ship from China charges a bit less
> if the container weighs less.

Still sounds like a rip off to me, IF it is not stated the batteries are not
designed to last beyond testing. I can just imagine Xmas morning and the toy
lasts 2 minutes! At least when it says "batteries not included" you know
what to expect.

Sounds a lot like the printer manufacturers only providing a "trial" amount
of ink, then charging more for the ink than the printer.
Yes there is a legitimate reason, FOR THEM :-(

MrT.

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message 
news:49c2f854$0$7463$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Still sounds like a rip off to me, IF it is not stated the batteries are not
> designed to last beyond testing.

A lot of toys do have a disclaimer like that, as a matter of fact -- something 
like, "batteries are for in-store demo only and are not guaranteed in any 
way."

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:42:31 -0700, the renowned "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message 
>news:49c2f854$0$7463$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Still sounds like a rip off to me, IF it is not stated the batteries are not
>> designed to last beyond testing.
>
>A lot of toys do have a disclaimer like that, as a matter of fact -- something 
>like, "batteries are for in-store demo only and are not guaranteed in any 
>way."

Laser printer manufacturers who favor that sort of business practice
(eg.  Hewlett-Packard) ship printers with partially empty cartridges
so as to shorten the time before you'll have to buy the proprietary
replacement. The same sort of trickery that has makers of consumer
products repackage their goods in smaller (but cleverly shaped)
packages (typically priced the same per package). They don't so much
save on the contents, but on the shorter time until you re-purchase. 



Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

"Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:toDwl.62376$rp7.27754@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
> A lot of toys do have a disclaimer like that, as a matter of fact --
something
> like, "batteries are for in-store demo only and are not guaranteed in any
> way."

Well that's obviously not deceptive then, the ones who don't however....

MrT.

Mr.T wrote:

>
>Guy Macon wrote...
>
>> There actually is a legitimate function for a small battery in a
>> larger shell.  When Mattel ships toys that have a "try me" feature,
>> we of course have to include batteries, but as usual with toys,
>> every penny counts (some toys are produced at rates exceeding
>> 100,000 per hour), so a cheaper, lower-capacity nbattery in a
>> larger battery compartment makes sense. Not only is the battery
>> cheaper, but the container ship from China charges a bit less
>> if the container weighs less.
>
>Still sounds like a rip off to me, IF it is not stated the batteries are not
>designed to last beyond testing. I can just imagine Xmas morning and the toy
>lasts 2 minutes! At least when it says "batteries not included" you know
>what to expect.
>
>Sounds a lot like the printer manufacturers only providing a "trial" amount
>of ink, then charging more for the ink than the printer.
>Yes there is a legitimate reason, FOR THEM :-(

You don't consider being able to buy a printer/scanner/copier/fax
for $49 to be a reason "for you" that you might want a amnufacturer
to reduce production costs?

It's a trade-off and you have a choice; there are plenty of printers 
with high purchase costs and low toner/ink costs if that's what you 
want. I personally bought a high purchase price / low toner cost
monochrome laser printer that I use a lot, and a low purchase price
/ high ink cost inkjet for the rare times I need to print in color.
More choices good. Fewer choices bad.


-- 
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:11:47 +0000, Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:

>
>
>
>Mr.T wrote:
>
>>
>>Guy Macon wrote...
>>
>>> There actually is a legitimate function for a small battery in a
>>> larger shell.  When Mattel ships toys that have a "try me" feature,
>>> we of course have to include batteries, but as usual with toys,
>>> every penny counts (some toys are produced at rates exceeding
>>> 100,000 per hour), so a cheaper, lower-capacity nbattery in a
>>> larger battery compartment makes sense. Not only is the battery
>>> cheaper, but the container ship from China charges a bit less
>>> if the container weighs less.
>>
>>Still sounds like a rip off to me, IF it is not stated the batteries are not
>>designed to last beyond testing. I can just imagine Xmas morning and the toy
>>lasts 2 minutes! At least when it says "batteries not included" you know
>>what to expect.
>>
>>Sounds a lot like the printer manufacturers only providing a "trial" amount
>>of ink, then charging more for the ink than the printer.
>>Yes there is a legitimate reason, FOR THEM :-(
>
>You don't consider being able to buy a printer/scanner/copier/fax
>for $49 to be a reason "for you" that you might want a amnufacturer
>to reduce production costs?

Oh, for gosh sakes, it's not to "reduce production costs" by a few
cents worth of toner- it's the "give them a razor and sell them the
overpriced blades forever" gambit. 

But it's especially greedy of them to sell it with only a partially
full $100 cartridge (or $500 worth of color cartridges), which carry
the full load of hardware and are "chipped" to prevent refilling.  

And they do reduce production costs-- by slapping together shoddy
product from dubious raw materials in 3rd world countries, and not
supporting it when the inevitable failures happen (in part by using
other 3rd world nationals to waste time and money at first world rates
over almost-free telecommunications links). 

>It's a trade-off and you have a choice; there are plenty of printers 
>with high purchase costs and low toner/ink costs if that's what you 
>want. I personally bought a high purchase price / low toner cost
>monochrome laser printer that I use a lot, and a low purchase price
>/ high ink cost inkjet for the rare times I need to print in color.
>More choices good. Fewer choices bad.

Only if you don't have an oligopoly, eh? 

On Mar 19, 10:42 pm, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>
> news:49c2f854$0$7463$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > Still sounds like a rip off to me, IF it is not stated the batteries are not
> > designed to last beyond testing.
>
> A lot of toys do have a disclaimer like that, as a matter of fact -- something
> like, "batteries are for in-store demo only and are not guaranteed in any
> way."

I see that on a lot of packages of consumer electronics with the
button cells, but my experience is that the batteries included last
about as long as any. i assume it's a CYA thing.

On Mar 20, 4:41 pm, Spehro Pefhany <speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:11:47 +0000, Guy Macon
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>
> >Mr.T wrote:
>
> >>Guy Macon wrote...
>
> >>> There actually is a legitimate function for a small battery in a
> >>> larger shell.  When Mattel ships toys that have a "try me" feature,
> >>> we of course have to include batteries, but as usual with toys,
> >>> every penny counts (some toys are produced at rates exceeding
> >>> 100,000 per hour), so a cheaper, lower-capacity nbattery in a
> >>> larger battery compartment makes sense. Not only is the battery
> >>> cheaper, but the container ship from China charges a bit less
> >>> if the container weighs less.
>
> >>Still sounds like a rip off to me, IF it is not stated the batteries are not
> >>designed to last beyond testing. I can just imagine Xmas morning and the toy
> >>lasts 2 minutes! At least when it says "batteries not included" you know
> >>what to expect.
>
> >>Sounds a lot like the printer manufacturers only providing a "trial" amount
> >>of ink, then charging more for the ink than the printer.
> >>Yes there is a legitimate reason, FOR THEM :-(
>
> >You don't consider being able to buy a printer/scanner/copier/fax
> >for $49 to be a reason "for you" that you might want a amnufacturer
> >to reduce production costs?
>
> Oh, for gosh sakes, it's not to "reduce production costs" by a few
> cents worth of toner- it's the "give them a razor and sell them the
> overpriced blades forever" gambit.
>
> But it's especially greedy of them to sell it with only a partially
> full $100 cartridge (or $500 worth of color cartridges), which carry
> the full load of hardware and are "chipped" to prevent refilling.  

Yeah, that chipping thing is clever, isn't it? "for your protection"
so that you won't accidentally install a refilled cartridge which
might cause problems.

On Mar 19, 3:18 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
> Mr.T wrote:
>
> >The whole point of using D cells of course is to give longer battery
> >duration, and I doubt most people realised they were substituting C cells
> >that were simply cased to fit a D cell holder. The weight was a dead give
> >away if you knew of course.
>
> There actually is a legitimate function for a small battery in a
> larger shell.  When Mattel ships toys that have a "try me" feature,
> we of course have to include batteries, but as usual with toys,
> every penny counts (some toys are produced at rates exceeding
> 100,000 per hour), so a cheaper, lower-capacity nbattery in a
> larger battery compartment makes sense. Not only is the battery
> cheaper, but the container ship from China charges a bit less
> if the container weighs less.
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

My previous car came like that (Plymouth Sapporo, made by Mitsubishi).
Had a tiny battery like out of a motorcycle, with a sheet metal spacer
to fill out the rest of the room under the regular size battery
holddown; sure enough died 11 months later, first cold spell of the
next winter. Still covered under warranty, but the dealer pointed out
that he would just give me another of those midget batteries which
would die in another year, so I bought a real live regular size
battery. (After that, though, the car never gave me any trouble at all
for like another ten years.)

On Mar 19, 9:57 pm, Howard Eisenhauer
<howa...@REMOVECAPShfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:55:51 -0700 (PDT), a7yvm109gf...@netzero.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 19, 12:47 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 19, 12:24 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Speaking of fake cache SRAM in another post reminded me of this fake
> >> > electrolytic cap. Some might get a laugh out of it:http://www.alternatezone.com/images/FakeCap.jpg
>
> >> > One has to wonder though if the fakers got faked? What's inside the Rubycon
> >> > cap?
>
> >> > Dave.
>
> >> i remember when consumer reports tested rechargable batteries, like in
> >> the 70s, a zillion years before they got popular. except for Radio
> >> Shack rechargables, there wasn't any more capacity in the C or D sizes
> >> than the AA size; which was understandable when they autopsied them
> >> and found that the bigger ones were just AA batteries padded out to
> >> larger size. Except for Radio Shack rechargable batteries, oddly
> >> enough.
>
> >Radio Shack always had great batteries. Their gold alkaline cells were
> >outstanding, I have some 15 year old AAA cells that I use once in a
> >while, still good!
> >Same for their blue NiCads, held a charge like crazy, still work after
> >10 years.
>
> THE WINAH!!!
>
> http://tantel.ca/Images/Holder/sm_battery_1.jpg
>
> No, I don't know how old it really is but it came outta an early 60's
> vintage Heathkit VTVM I got on ebay 4-5 years ago, from the logo it
> could actually be original to the unit :/.
>
> And yes, that really is the voltage from that battery showing on the
> meter, & yes, I took the pic today (Mar 19/09).
>
> H.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

now that is impressive. much respect for RCA.

On Mar 20, 12:11 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
> Mr.T wrote:
>
> >Guy Macon wrote...
>
> >> There actually is a legitimate function for a small battery in a
> >> larger shell.  When Mattel ships toys that have a "try me" feature,
> >> we of course have to include batteries, but as usual with toys,
> >> every penny counts (some toys are produced at rates exceeding
> >> 100,000 per hour), so a cheaper, lower-capacity nbattery in a
> >> larger battery compartment makes sense. Not only is the battery
> >> cheaper, but the container ship from China charges a bit less
> >> if the container weighs less.
>
> >Still sounds like a rip off to me, IF it is not stated the batteries are not
> >designed to last beyond testing. I can just imagine Xmas morning and the toy
> >lasts 2 minutes! At least when it says "batteries not included" you know
> >what to expect.
>
> >Sounds a lot like the printer manufacturers only providing a "trial" amount
> >of ink, then charging more for the ink than the printer.
> >Yes there is a legitimate reason, FOR THEM :-(
>
> You don't consider being able to buy a printer/scanner/copier/fax
> for $49 to be a reason "for you" that you might want a amnufacturer
> to reduce production costs?
>
> It's a trade-off and you have a choice; there are plenty of printers
> with high purchase costs and low toner/ink costs if that's what you
> want. I personally bought a high purchase price / low toner cost
> monochrome laser printer that I use a lot, and a low purchase price
> / high ink cost inkjet for the rare times I need to print in color.
> More choices good. Fewer choices bad.
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>


Code Poet, eh?

How's this for a Haiku:

this little mosfet
lasted only two seconds
buy another one

later

Michael

"Guy Macon" <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote in message
news:wN6dnZGiwITod17U4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
> You don't consider being able to buy a printer/scanner/copier/fax
> for $49 to be a reason "for you" that you might want a amnufacturer
> to reduce production costs?
> It's a trade-off and you have a choice; there are plenty of printers
> with high purchase costs and low toner/ink costs if that's what you
> want. I personally bought a high purchase price / low toner cost
> monochrome laser printer that I use a lot, and a low purchase price
> / high ink cost inkjet for the rare times I need to print in color.
> More choices good. Fewer choices bad.

No argument. The problem is that few are clearly marked to warn prospective
customers. Sure the info is now available if you look hard enough, but
wasn't at all when that scam first started. Only public pressure makes many
companies even attempt to do the right thing, and many not even then.

MrT.

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>
>>Mr.T wrote:
>>
>>>Guy Macon wrote...
>>>
>>>> There actually is a legitimate function for a small battery in a
>>>> larger shell.  When Mattel ships toys that have a "try me" feature,
>>>> we of course have to include batteries, but as usual with toys,
>>>> every penny counts (some toys are produced at rates exceeding
>>>> 100,000 per hour), so a cheaper, lower-capacity nbattery in a
>>>> larger battery compartment makes sense. Not only is the battery
>>>> cheaper, but the container ship from China charges a bit less
>>>> if the container weighs less.
>>>
>>>Still sounds like a rip off to me, IF it is not stated the batteries are not
>>>designed to last beyond testing. I can just imagine Xmas morning and the toy
>>>lasts 2 minutes! At least when it says "batteries not included" you know
>>>what to expect.
>>>
>>>Sounds a lot like the printer manufacturers only providing a "trial" amount
>>>of ink, then charging more for the ink than the printer.
>>>Yes there is a legitimate reason, FOR THEM :-(
>>
>>You don't consider being able to buy a printer/scanner/copier/fax
>>for $49 to be a reason "for you" that you might want a amnufacturer
>>to reduce production costs?
>
>Oh, for gosh sakes, it's not to "reduce production costs" by a few
>cents worth of toner- it's the "give them a razor and sell them the
>overpriced blades forever" gambit. 
>
>But it's especially greedy of them to sell it with only a partially
>full $100 cartridge (or $500 worth of color cartridges), which carry
>the full load of hardware and are "chipped" to prevent refilling.  
>
>And they do reduce production costs-- by slapping together shoddy
>product from dubious raw materials in 3rd world countries, and not
>supporting it when the inevitable failures happen (in part by using
>other 3rd world nationals to waste time and money at first world rates
>over almost-free telecommunications links). 

It doesn't matter how they do it.  If the "give them a razor and sell 
them the overpriced blades forever" gambit makes money, they can
reduce he purchace price and keep the same profitability.

>>It's a trade-off and you have a choice; there are plenty of printers 
>>with high purchase costs and low toner/ink costs if that's what you 
>>want. I personally bought a high purchase price / low toner cost
>>monochrome laser printer that I use a lot, and a low purchase price
>>/ high ink cost inkjet for the rare times I need to print in color.
>>More choices good. Fewer choices bad.
>
>Only if you don't have an oligopoly, eh? 

...which they don't.  Brother is making laser printers with separate 
drum and toner units so you don't have to replace both together each 
time you are out of toner.  This makes for cheaper toner cartridges.
The drum unit has a longer life than the toner cartridge. That's the
opposite of the "give them a razor and sell them the >overpriced 
blades forever."  The printers, of course, cost more to purchase.


-- 
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit


z wrote:

>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>> Mr.T wrote:
>>
>> >The whole point of using D cells of course is to give longer battery
>> >duration, and I doubt most people realised they were substituting C cells
>> >that were simply cased to fit a D cell holder. The weight was a dead give
>> >away if you knew of course.
>>
>> There actually is a legitimate function for a small battery in a
>> larger shell. �When Mattel ships toys that have a "try me" feature,
>> we of course have to include batteries, but as usual with toys,
>> every penny counts (some toys are produced at rates exceeding
>> 100,000 per hour), so a cheaper, lower-capacity nbattery in a
>> larger battery compartment makes sense. Not only is the battery
>> cheaper, but the container ship from China charges a bit less
>> if the container weighs less.
>
>My previous car came like that (Plymouth Sapporo, made by Mitsubishi).
>Had a tiny battery like out of a motorcycle, with a sheet metal spacer
>to fill out the rest of the room under the regular size battery
>holddown; sure enough died 11 months later, first cold spell of the
>next winter. Still covered under warranty, but the dealer pointed out
>that he would just give me another of those midget batteries which
>would die in another year, so I bought a real live regular size
>battery. (After that, though, the car never gave me any trouble at all
>for like another ten years.)

I could have made the toy with an AAA compartment and used AAA cells
instead of an AA compartment containing AA cells with AAA price/
capacity, but (like Mitsubishi), I gave the user what I consider to 
be a better alternative (AA and AAA compartment costs are very close). 


-- 
Guy Macon
<http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:57:14 GMT, Howard Eisenhauer
<howarde@REMOVECAPShfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:55:51 -0700 (PDT), a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Mar 19, 12:47 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>>> On Mar 19, 12:24 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Speaking of fake cache SRAM in another post reminded me of this fake
>>> > electrolytic cap. Some might get a laugh out of it:http://www.alternatezone.com/images/FakeCap.jpg
>>>
>>> > One has to wonder though if the fakers got faked? What's inside the Rubycon
>>> > cap?
>>>
>>> > Dave.
>>>
>>> i remember when consumer reports tested rechargable batteries, like in
>>> the 70s, a zillion years before they got popular. except for Radio
>>> Shack rechargables, there wasn't any more capacity in the C or D sizes
>>> than the AA size; which was understandable when they autopsied them
>>> and found that the bigger ones were just AA batteries padded out to
>>> larger size. Except for Radio Shack rechargable batteries, oddly
>>> enough.
>>
>>Radio Shack always had great batteries. Their gold alkaline cells were
>>outstanding, I have some 15 year old AAA cells that I use once in a
>>while, still good!
>>Same for their blue NiCads, held a charge like crazy, still work after
>>10 years.
>
>
>THE WINAH!!!
>
>http://tantel.ca/Images/Holder/sm_battery_1.jpg
>
>
>No, I don't know how old it really is but it came outta an early 60's
>vintage Heathkit VTVM I got on ebay 4-5 years ago, from the logo it
>could actually be original to the unit :/.
>
>And yes, that really is the voltage from that battery showing on the
>meter, & yes, I took the pic today (Mar 19/09).
>
>H.

Cool.  Again, evidence that the statistical tails never really go to
zero.
  .

Guy Macon wrote:
> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> 
>> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>>> Mr.T wrote:
>>>
>>>> Guy Macon wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> There actually is a legitimate function for a small battery in a
>>>>> larger shell.  When Mattel ships toys that have a "try me" feature,
>>>>> we of course have to include batteries, but as usual with toys,
>>>>> every penny counts (some toys are produced at rates exceeding
>>>>> 100,000 per hour), so a cheaper, lower-capacity nbattery in a
>>>>> larger battery compartment makes sense. Not only is the battery
>>>>> cheaper, but the container ship from China charges a bit less
>>>>> if the container weighs less.
>>>> Still sounds like a rip off to me, IF it is not stated the batteries are not
>>>> designed to last beyond testing. I can just imagine Xmas morning and the toy
>>>> lasts 2 minutes! At least when it says "batteries not included" you know
>>>> what to expect.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds a lot like the printer manufacturers only providing a "trial" amount
>>>> of ink, then charging more for the ink than the printer.
>>>> Yes there is a legitimate reason, FOR THEM :-(
>>> You don't consider being able to buy a printer/scanner/copier/fax
>>> for $49 to be a reason "for you" that you might want a amnufacturer
>>> to reduce production costs?
>> Oh, for gosh sakes, it's not to "reduce production costs" by a few
>> cents worth of toner- it's the "give them a razor and sell them the
>> overpriced blades forever" gambit. 
>>
>> But it's especially greedy of them to sell it with only a partially
>> full $100 cartridge (or $500 worth of color cartridges), which carry
>> the full load of hardware and are "chipped" to prevent refilling.  
>>
>> And they do reduce production costs-- by slapping together shoddy
>> product from dubious raw materials in 3rd world countries, and not
>> supporting it when the inevitable failures happen (in part by using
>> other 3rd world nationals to waste time and money at first world rates
>> over almost-free telecommunications links). 
> 
> It doesn't matter how they do it.  If the "give them a razor and sell 
> them the overpriced blades forever" gambit makes money, they can
> reduce he purchace price and keep the same profitability.
> 
>>> It's a trade-off and you have a choice; there are plenty of printers 
>>> with high purchase costs and low toner/ink costs if that's what you 
>>> want. I personally bought a high purchase price / low toner cost
>>> monochrome laser printer that I use a lot, and a low purchase price
>>> / high ink cost inkjet for the rare times I need to print in color.
>>> More choices good. Fewer choices bad.
>> Only if you don't have an oligopoly, eh? 
> 
> ...which they don't.  Brother is making laser printers with separate 
> drum and toner units so you don't have to replace both together each 
> time you are out of toner.  This makes for cheaper toner cartridges.
> The drum unit has a longer life than the toner cartridge. That's the
> opposite of the "give them a razor and sell them the >overpriced 
> blades forever."  The printers, of course, cost more to purchase.
> 
> 


    I have a Brother laser on the shelf here, I can buy a new cartridge 
for $170 for it or I can buy a new laser with full size cartridge for
$120.

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:45:04 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

>>And they do reduce production costs-- by slapping together shoddy
>>product from dubious raw materials in 3rd world countries, and not
>>supporting it when the inevitable failures happen (in part by using
>>other 3rd world nationals to waste time and money at first world rates
>>over almost-free telecommunications links). 
> 
> It doesn't matter how they do it.  If the "give them a razor and sell 
> them the overpriced blades forever" gambit makes money, they can
> reduce he purchace price and keep the same profitability.

This relies upon being able to sell overpriced blades, which in turn
relies upon being able to stifle competition.

On Mar 19, 9:57 pm, Howard Eisenhauer
<howa...@REMOVECAPShfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:55:51 -0700 (PDT), a7yvm109gf...@netzero.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 19, 12:47 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 19, 12:24 am, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Speaking of fake cache SRAM in another post reminded me of this fake
> >> > electrolytic cap. Some might get a laugh out of it:http://www.alternatezone.com/images/FakeCap.jpg
>
> >> > One has to wonder though if the fakers got faked? What's inside the Rubycon
> >> > cap?
>
> >> > Dave.
>
> >> i remember when consumer reports tested rechargable batteries, like in
> >> the 70s, a zillion years before they got popular. except for Radio
> >> Shack rechargables, there wasn't any more capacity in the C or D sizes
> >> than the AA size; which was understandable when they autopsied them
> >> and found that the bigger ones were just AA batteries padded out to
> >> larger size. Except for Radio Shack rechargable batteries, oddly
> >> enough.
>
> >Radio Shack always had great batteries. Their gold alkaline cells were
> >outstanding, I have some 15 year old AAA cells that I use once in a
> >while, still good!
> >Same for their blue NiCads, held a charge like crazy, still work after
> >10 years.
>
> THE WINAH!!!
>
> http://tantel.ca/Images/Holder/sm_battery_1.jpg
>
> No, I don't know how old it really is but it came outta an early 60's
> vintage Heathkit VTVM I got on ebay 4-5 years ago, from the logo it
> could actually be original to the unit :/.
>
> And yes, that really is the voltage from that battery showing on the
> meter, & yes, I took the pic today (Mar 19/09).
>
> H.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

ah  i see. what you have there is an example of the fabled Vampire
Battery, thought by some to be only an old wives' tale. during the
night, this battery slinks around your house, draining the charge from
your other batteries, in order to keep itself charged forever. if you
have noted that other batteries around your house have died, this is
the reason why.

z wrote:
> 
> ah  i see. what you have there is an example of the fabled Vampire
> Battery, thought by some to be only an old wives' tale. during the
> night, this battery slinks around your house, draining the charge from
> your other batteries, in order to keep itself charged forever. if you
> have noted that other batteries around your house have died, this is
> the reason why.


      No not at all, it's the only remaining version of a battery design
patent bought by a major oil and electricity company and shelved. It was
a prototype accidentally labelled and released by the factory.

Howard Eisenhauer wrote:

> THE WINAH!!!
> 
> http://tantel.ca/Images/Holder/sm_battery_1.jpg
> 
> 
> No, I don't know how old it really is but it came outta an early 60's
> vintage Heathkit VTVM I got on ebay 4-5 years ago, from the logo it
> could actually be original to the unit :/.
> 
> And yes, that really is the voltage from that battery showing on the
> meter, & yes, I took the pic today (Mar 19/09).

If it works, it's a fluke!

Don...



--
Don McKenzie

Site Map:            http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
No More Damn Spam:   http://www.wizard-of-oz.com

http://www.dontronics-shop.com/super4-usb-relay-module.html