Except they don't "literally" explode. They catch on fire and melt, if you think that fits the definition of explode I have some fireworks that I would like to sell to you.
Explosion: A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.
This is definitely a description of what happens to the batteries.
I think he's trying to argue that because they deflagrate instead of detonating, it's incorrect to call the process an explosion. That's the only thing I can see that makes sense, at least, incorrect and apparently disingenuous though it is in this context.
Except they don't explode by definition and it is just the persistence by the media plus fear and ignorance that continues this stupidity. This Galaxy Note bullshit needs to die.
Little kids don't grasp a situation that good. If you don't expect them to have an adult brain, it's a lot easier to deal with them. Your emotions are generated by what you think is true - if you think that the little brat is hitting you just for the lulz, then you will get very angry.
Why do so many of these child psychologists not have children of their own?
Edit: This is hyperbole. I am talking about this particular child psychologist not having children. I understand it doesn't mean he might not have a great understanding of how a child's mind works but it means he has never had the stress of raising a child and knowing how hard it is to keep your cool with them. Especially when they are as energetic as my own children.
This is an incredibly powerful comment, I was just looking to see myself if this psychologist have children of his own and came to the same conclusion that he doesn't. The absolute arrogance to not have children of your own but preach to others how they should raise theirs...
-edit -> and be in your late seventies, having long forgotten what it is to raise kids or see your peers raise their own kids.
Change for something that occurred in less than .01% of the devices? It is incredible the kind of irrationality that is brought about by fear. It's the same reason that, here in Australia, there is talk of culling sharks after a single person is attacked.
You just went from "the risk for any given Note 7 to catch fire is 0.01%" to "the risk for any given Note 7 to catch fire in the time it takes to fly from Seoul to Australia is 0.01%". Those are very different numbers.
> Would you fly to Seoul from Australia if there was a .01% chance of your plane catching fire?
Given the sheer magnitude of all the other things that may kill you before you even arrive at the airport, let alone the very act of hurdling through the sky at over 650mph in a thin aluminum tube filled with 36,000 gallons of highly flammable/explosive fuel... a phone catching fire is really not much of a factor when deciding to book a flight.
One in a million odds breaks down when you're talking about a population size of billions. A couple hundred cellphones every year catching on fire is still pretty noteworthy.
How many cells in a laptop? I would assume 3 at the low end, but it can go much higher and many people have multiple laptops, cellphones etc. So, 20 per person on an aircraft is probably a solid round number.
How many people in an aircraft say ~200. How many aircraft in the air say ~5,000. Now that 10 million is down to 2-3 per however often those 1 in 10 million chance is supposed to stand for.
You must have a pretty big phone to take down an airplane. If you are driving the car you are much more likely to loose control and cause deaths then a phone bursting in an airplane causing anything more then nasty burns.
Samsung tried shipping different batteries in the replacements but those still acted up. It's pretty unlikely replaceable battery which have done much.
No, it would ultimately have caused more fires with no way to blame them on anyone in particular. If we're going to treat batteries as safety-critical components, then it's counterproductive to encourage end users to replace them with the cheapest ones they can find.
Mobile phones with replaceable batteries aren't coming back, and good riddance.
Wouldn't a better solution be to just make sure dangerous batteries don't get sold? Just regulate them for safety like tons of other dangerous goods already are
After the first recall, when a few of the replacement phones caught fire again, Samsung couldn't even reproduce the issue in a lab. Regulation isn't going to prevent bad things from ever happening. You need a fallback plan.
So your solution is to say "no, only large companies are allowed to pick batteries". Well, the Note 7 seems to show how good an idea that is. Plenty of devices have replaceable batteries without them exploding, and if anything, a replaceable battery would let you say "hey, this battery is getting old, let's replace it" rather then continuing to use a device with an old, possibly failing battery.
Well, the Note 7 seems to show how good an idea that is.
Yes, as a matter of fact, that's exactly what the Note 7 debacle demonstrated. There was a quality problem that could cause fires. There was a single party who could be expected to take responsibility. Finally, there was a coordinated worldwide recall.
Problem solved, system working as intended. Sucks to be Samsung, of course, but the end result will be safer batteries for everyone.
Plenty of devices have replaceable batteries without them exploding, and if anything, a replaceable battery would let you say "hey, this battery is getting old, let's replace it" rather then continuing to use a device with an old, possibly failing battery.
Sorry, that's not going to happen. Get used to disappointment.
Or, the manufacturer of the batteries could recall them.
Also, plenty of phones have replaceable batteries, including new models, so I'll just keep buying them. Means I won't be buying Samsung, but that's just an extra bonus.
Yeah, it's sad. I'm fond of my Galaxy Note 4, and plan to keep it running as long as possible -- yes, the battery is replaceable, so I should be able to get a few years out of it -- but once it dies I won't want to buy another Samsung, and nobody else is making a phablet with a stylus.
Maybe some other manufacturer will see the opportunity Samsung has given them to break into this niche.
Well it would have likely solved the Note 7 recall, and any futures battery recalls. It would also allow a user to remove an unsafe battery so that it's not in use while waiting for a replacement.
I thought the problem with the note 7 was with the power controller, and not the batteries -- didn't phones continue catching fire after the first recall?
If the Note 7 hadn't been recalled then eventually many more would have probably caught fire. We'll never know what the cumulative failure rate would have been if the devices had been left in the field for years. Eventually people would have been killed.
The fraction of phones that caught on fire was similar to the fraction of hoverboards that caught on fire. Normal products with similar batteries have a much lower failure rate.
When you decide whether a risk is unacceptable, there are two parts to consider: the likelihood of the event, and the potential worst-case scenario should the event come to pass. .01% is a very low likelihood, but the worst case scenario that one of these phones maims the user is an extremely bad outcome. In this framework the recall is the most sensible thing to do.
