Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Pixel Fold

store.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 580 posts

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#521

Post by [deleted] »

jacquesm wrote: post #509
iopq wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you actually take some lithium ion batteries and keep checking the voltage? Because mine have dropped to 1.3V now, I noticed they weren't 1.5V to start, so they are crap, but it seems it just only goes lower as they age

If your Lithium Ion batteries are at 1.3V they are way beyond their service life. Normal voltage range for Li Ion is 2.5 to 4.2V, nominal voltage is 3.7V, some manufacturers recommend you never discharge them lower than 3V. So something is off or you have your battery chemistries mixed up. See https://docs.rs-online.com/3f21/0900766b816d9301.pdf

[deleted]

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#522

Post by ridgered4 »

Frost1x wrote: post #473
pavlov wrote: post #356

These foldables are a great demonstration of why the screen diagonal is an unintuitive metric. This device has a 5.8” screen when folded, and a 7.6” screen when open. Looking at those numbers, it doesn’t sound like a very big difference. Yet anyone can see that the 7.6” screen is twice as big as the 5.8” one! The diagonal only made sense for TVs because the aspect ratio was fixed at 4:3 (and later 16:9). It shouldn’t…

>The diagonal only made sense for TVs because the aspect ratio was fixed at 4:3 (and later 16:9). I'm not entirely sure it made sense even then. I completely understand the point (knowing the AR allows one metric to consistently compare and derive the other dimensions) but in my opinion, diagonals became ubiquitous because when looking at TVs, bigger was typically better in the consumer mind and the diagonal is of co…

True, but diagonal measurements were broadly comparable since for most of TVs existence non 4:3 aspect ratios were really uncommon. It wasn't until HDTV and the broad adoption of LCD monitors that this became really deceptive.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#523

Post by Kirby64 »

jacquesm wrote: post #509
iopq wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you actually take some lithium ion batteries and keep checking the voltage? Because mine have dropped to 1.3V now, I noticed they weren't 1.5V to start, so they are crap, but it seems it just only goes lower as they age

If your Lithium Ion batteries are at 1.3V they are way beyond their service life. Normal voltage range for Li Ion is 2.5 to 4.2V, nominal voltage is 3.7V, some manufacturers recommend you never discharge them lower than 3V. So something is off or you have your battery chemistries mixed up. See https://docs.rs-online.com/3f21/0900766b816d9301.pdf

This is typically specified in open circuit voltage. Under load, lithium ion batteries can get to VERY low voltages due to internal resistance. 2.0V is not uncommon.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#524

Post by riceart »

MrOwnPut wrote: post #458
bheadmaster wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that explains it. Seems like US has a lot of these inside jokes that don't make sense to someone who only sees snippets of the whole historical timeline. Thanks for sharing.

It's more of a petty "joke" that leftists use because they don't have anything else. It's at the level of a modern SNL skit, all superficial and more of a "mean girl" insult on appearance than satire. GP was correct in saying "no one cares about that or if it is true." That's not the point, the point is to insult.

You don’t want me to find it funny that you worship a guy sooo insecure about himself that he can’t get over a throw away comment made about his hands decades ago (the full quote was small fingered vulgarian and it was made nearly 40 years ago)? It’s either find it funny or sad - has nothing to do with political beliefs.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#525

Post by jacquesm »

Kirby64 wrote: post #523
jacquesm wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your Lithium Ion batteries are at 1.3V they are way beyond their service life. Normal voltage range for Li Ion is 2.5 to 4.2V, nominal voltage is 3.7V, some manufacturers recommend you never discharge them lower than 3V. So something is off or you have your battery chemistries mixed up. See https://docs.rs-online.com/3f21/0900766b816d9301.pdf

This is typically specified in open circuit voltage. Under load, lithium ion batteries can get to VERY low voltages due to internal resistance. 2.0V is not uncommon.

I've built a bunch of Lithium Ion packs (nothing huge, the largest was 10 KWh, but still you don't want to mess that up, that's 1000 cells in a 40S25P arrangement), none of them go that low under load. If your cells drop down to 2.0V under load that's not a normal condition, either you are discharging your cell at more than the 2C or so that is normally specc'd (which you are welcome to do but it will cost you in lifespan) or the cell is on the way out. The normal arrangement for high current discharge is to simply set up more cells in parallel so they all carry only a fraction of the current and stay well below the maximum permissible current.

One application where cells are loaded up really heavily is in RC toys and drones, there lifespan is secondary to performance. But a normal, long-life application for a Lithium Ion battery pack will ensure that batteries are not overloaded (either during charge or discharge).

There are also special cells that can gracefully handle high discharge current (and usually correspondingly high charge currents) typically at the price of some capacity for a given volume.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#526

Post by troyvit »

usrusr wrote: post #435
0x6c6f6c wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah reading the specs, it's s larger screen than my Nexus 7 tablet, with a smaller overall device size, and fits in my pocket.. it's tempting. But definitely pausing at a $1800 price tag

You have it reversed: it's not "we want to make a foldable phone, how expensive does it need to be?", it's "we want to ask $1800 for phone, what could we offer to find buyers". The biggest problem in the market of exceptionally expensive phones is that they don't really look all that different from cheaper ones. Foldable phones solve that.

Yeah I think you're right. Phones have been pretty much the same since the first slab came out. I mean screen-size got bigger, DPI got higher, "stuff scrolls really smooth now!" These -- to me -- are just incremental changes to the same features from 2013 and aren't great motivators to drop the phone I have into the landfill and get a new one. It seems phone companies are casting about for a new gimmick.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#527

Post by timbit42 »

e12e wrote: post #212
r00fus wrote: post #77

You know what I'd want? A foldable tablet. I'd love a mini or standard size tablet that can fold out like a newspaper into something with good screen size. Hell, it'd be great for e-ink also. But a phone? I mostly use it to call / send texts and want it pocket sized and durable.

What makes something a phone, not a tablet?

You can hold it to your ear with your shoulder.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#528

Post by brookst »

DrBenCarson wrote: post #215
brookst wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's 0% failure at 200k folds, that means the 200k is about six standard deviations away from the mean, so I think (statistics gurus please correct) that says the average device will last for 1.7m folds.

That can’t be accurate just anecdotally. More likely they call it or or two sds out and chalk up the remaining 10 or so percent as RMAs. You’re also assuming a normal distribution. This very well might not be a normal distribution

Product lifetime is generally modeled using the Weibull distribution[1]. Depending on the parameters, a normal distribution is a reasonable approximation. Without data on the parameters, and just discussing whether "tested to 200,000 folds" means that every device will survive 200k folds, I think it's fair to use a normal distribution.

Agreed that they probably expect some percentage of RMAs. In fact, I'd argue that "tested to 200k folds" means that 200k gets them enough failures to model the lifetime distribution, so the average lifetime is probably considerably less than 200k.

1. https://www.weibull.com/basics/lifedata.htm

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#529

Post by nasmorn »

kevinventullo wrote: post #518
MrOwnPut wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more of a petty "joke" that leftists use because they don't have anything else. It's at the level of a modern SNL skit, all superficial and more of a "mean girl" insult on appearance than satire. GP was correct in saying "no one cares about that or if it is true." That's not the point, the point is to insult.

You make a fair point. He’s actually a very reasonable person with a nuanced yet coherent policy platform, but those darn lefties just can’t get over his hands. As you said, they don’t have anything else; there is absolutely no other criticism that these folks have for Trump.

That made my day. As a European I cannot distinguish satire from reality in American politics but it is incredibly entertaining either way.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#530

Post by MrOwnPut »

riceart wrote: post #524
MrOwnPut wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more of a petty "joke" that leftists use because they don't have anything else. It's at the level of a modern SNL skit, all superficial and more of a "mean girl" insult on appearance than satire. GP was correct in saying "no one cares about that or if it is true." That's not the point, the point is to insult.

You don’t want me to find it funny that you worship a guy sooo insecure about himself that he can’t get over a throw away comment made about his hands decades ago (the full quote was small fingered vulgarian and it was made nearly 40 years ago)? It’s either find it funny or sad - has nothing to do with political beliefs.

He can't get over it, or others can't get over saying the stupid meme?

It's not him repeating it over and over. It's childish and not political satire at all.

Post reply on HN