Vibrating Pyra?

[sebt3]

I would like you to "dig up" some evidence pertaining to the negative effect of vibration motors on the rest of

Are you being serious ?Do you realy thing that vibration have no impact on an electronic device ?

Then why are there numerous research like this one ?

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/3423965_Modeling_of_Combined_Temperature_Cycling_and_Vibration_Loading_on_PBGA_Solder_Joints_Using_an_Incremental_Damage_Superposition_Approach

 

[_wb_]

I would like you to "dig up" some evidence pertaining to the negative effect of vibration motors on the rest of

Are you being serious ?
Do you realy thing that vibration have no impact on an electronic device ?


Then why are there numerous research like this one ?

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/3423965_Modeling_of_Combined_Temperature_Cycling_and_Vibration_Loading_on_PBGA_Solder_Joints_Using_an_Incremental_Damage_Superposition_Approach

We are not talking about "vibration" in general. We are talking specifically about the kind of vibration created by the small vibration motors that have been used in phones and game controllers for decades. We are not talking about vibrations caused by the engine of a military airplane here.

 

[Grench]

I would like you to "dig up" some evidence pertaining to the negative effect of vibration motors on the rest of

Are you being serious ?
Do you realy thing that vibration have no impact on an electronic device ?


Then why are there numerous research like this one ?

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/3423965_Modeling_of_Combined_Temperature_Cycling_and_Vibration_Loading_on_PBGA_Solder_Joints_Using_an_Incremental_Damage_Superposition_Approach

We are not talking about "vibration" in general. We are talking specifically about the kind of vibration created by the small vibration motors that have been used in phones and game controllers for decades. We are not talking about vibrations caused by the engine of a military airplane here.

And used in handheld portable game consoles - don't forget the Tapwave Zodiac, which as a device is as close as you can get to the Pandora without a keyboard.

There seem to be a few people who want to win arguments so badly that they are exaggerating how much vibration those little notifiers can generate.

I'm in favor of vibration alerts - it is a phone too after all.

 

[sebt3]

We are not talking about "vibration" in general. We are talking specifically about the kind of vibration created by the small vibration motors that have been used in phones and game controllers for decades. We are not talking about vibrations caused by the engine of a military airplane here.

If the motor make vibrate the case, it will also make the board to vibrate as it's soldered on it...and if the board vibrate, there will be impact on the soldering joins. Can that impact be limited? sure. How ? I dont know ? Do you ?

A vibration is a vibration no matter what cause it, or am I missing an obvious distinction between vibrations type I wasnt aware of ?

EDIT: I dont care if there is vibrating motor in it as long as I can disable it at will.

And those telling that the one against the vibration are using devious arguments are themself doing so.

 

[Glyph Reader]

I agree with sebt3.  As long as the motor is completely optional, then I don't mind at all.  When using my tablet (a Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 WiFi,) I completely turn off the haptic feedback and rumble functions.  I do see the benefits of a rumble module, but it is nothing I would want to use. 

-Glyph Reader

 

[_wb_]

A vibration is a vibration no matter what cause it, or am I missing an obvious distinction between vibrations type I wasnt aware of ?

An earthquake is a vibration. A supersonic jet engine causes vibration. The sound from a speaker is also a vibration. The light emitted by the screen is also a kind of vibration in some sense. At the atomic level, even the physics of the CPU and the chemistry of the battery involve some kinds of vibration, depending on how broadly you define "vibration".

My point is: yes, there are distinctions between vibration types. Some are more harmful than others. I assume that the type of vibration caused by the kind of motor used in phones and game controllers is of the "mostly harmless" type.

 

[sebt3]

I assume that the type of vibration caused by the kind of motor used in phones and game controllers is of the "mostly harmless" type.

In Assume there is "ume"...
Any hard reference for this ?

 

[_wb_]

I assume that the type of vibration caused by the kind of motor used in phones and game controllers is of the "mostly harmless" type.

In Assume there is "ume"...

Any hard reference for this ?

The fact that billions of commercially available phones and game controllers have them, with no indication whatsoever that it causes any problems, is empirical evidence enough for me.

What kind of "hard reference" do you want? A mathematical proof?

 

[WizardStan]

You can't prove that something won't cause damage, that's proving a negative, logically impossible. The best you can do is demonstrate that over some period of time the probability of damage is significantly low, which the billions of commercially available devices _wb_ is talking about seems to demonstrate aptly.

You CAN, however, prove that the vibrations will cause damage. If the types of vibrations being discussed here really are damaging then there will be evidence of it, someone out there will have written a paper about it with some hard figures.

Lack of evidence is not really proof of the opposite, but sometimes it is literally the best you can get.

 

[Askarus]

First thing I don with all my game controllers: Turn off vibration.

Anyways, I would see some use for it in the Pyra: Phone calls and SMS notification.

As long as I can turn it off for EVERY game and anything else I'm fine with it.

Also I don't think some vibration in my pocket will damage the Pyra.

It only might cause damage on solid grounds I think.

 

[Granitehead]

You can't prove that something won't cause damage, that's proving a negative, logically impossible.

How can that be logically impossible? For example, assuming only the standard things for any mathematical and physical proof, I can proof radiation being emitted two light years from here won't cause any damage to a garden gnome in my neighbours garden within the next 10 minutes.
Aside from that, I don't think a vibrator would cause any damage, but before deciding for sure I would need to read studies like the one linked by sebt3 (something nobody of either side in the discussion seems to have done).

 

[WizardStan]

I can proof radiation being emitted two light years from here won't cause any damage to a garden gnome in my neighbours garden within the next 10 minutes.

You can? You have absolute 100% proof that radiation cannot have an effect at that distance in that time period? Because physicists would love to hear it, it would put the whole quest for FTL travel and communication to bed.Under the classic model of physics, everything we expect to be true, there's no reason to suspect that the radiation from a distant star would reach us but the universe is vast and what we don't know about it outweighs what we do. I can imagine some kind of space/time tear, or some intergalactic alien race making a nearby jump and dragging some photons along with it though, those stray photons closing a massive distance in minutes instead of years, and unless you have some evidence that those things can't happen (and if you do I'll just keep coming up with other ideas until I find one you can't disprove so don't bother trying) then you haven't really proven anything, you're just assuming it is true, and based on all probability there is no reason to think it isn't.

And that is the point: if it's safe to assume that the radiation emitted today by a distant star won't have an effect on us for years to come because of the distance, then it should also be safe to assume that the vibrations we're talking about won't have a perceivable effect on the life of the device because of the billions of devices that came before it that have not had any major faults due to such vibration. Unless there is evidence that the vibrations really do cause significant damage.

 

[Granitehead]

I said "based on the usual assumptions". You missed to quote that.

For anything other than pointless (in my opinion) philosophical debates or for research, it doesn't really make sense not to just assume the current understanding of the world is correct - and currently our understanding of the world includes "nothing can travel faster than light".

So, yes, based on those assumptions, I have full certainty of my statement.

Sure, some of those assumptions might be wrong - but most likely not in a relevant way, so I don't care and shouldn't care.

I don't think your comparison of my statement to vibration like in smart phones is completely valid. There is much, much more uncertainty in the latter. I don't know whether the soldering techniques are exactly the same, I don't know how much the design of smart phones helps, I don't know if smart phone designers have to pay special attention to make the vibration harmless, etc.

After all the Pyra is no smart phone and it's not being designed in a similar way to modern mass market smart phones.

 

[mcobit]

I have such a motor in my Pandora and used it quite a bit in sone games and test. Of course I can't say anything on the log term usage, but it doesn't seem to affect it negatively.

 

[WizardStan]

I said "based on the usual assumptions". You missed to quote that.

I didn't quote it, but I did make it a key point to what I was saying. You have to make assumptions somewhere to prove the negative. That's not a logical proof then, it's all assumption.

There is much, much more uncertainty in the latter.

The amount of uncertainty is irrelevant. As soon as you have to make even a single assumption then it becomes logically impossible to prove. That's why you can't prove a negative.

 

[Grench]

I said "based on the usual assumptions". You missed to quote that.

I didn't quote it, but I did make it a key point to what I was saying. You have to make assumptions somewhere to prove the negative. That's not a logical proof then, it's all assumption.

There is much, much more uncertainty in the latter.

The amount of uncertainty is irrelevant. As soon as you have to make even a single assumption then it becomes logically impossible to prove. That's why you can't prove a negative.

WizardStan is right.

Judge Thomas: Senator, I am incapable of proving the negative that did not occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Claiming that a phone style rumble/vibration notification system would somehow weaken the Pyra is silly.  There is no evidence of these units actually causing such an issue.  It is not possible for someone to prove an effect based on the lack of evidence.

 

[Granitehead]

I said "based on the usual assumptions". You missed to quote that.

I didn't quote it, but I did make it a key point to what I was saying. You have to make assumptions somewhere to prove the negative. That's not a logical proof then, it's all assumption.

There is much, much more uncertainty in the latter.

The amount of uncertainty is irrelevant. As soon as you have to make even a single assumption then it becomes logically impossible to prove. That's why you can't prove a negative.

*shrug*Sure, you can't proof anything. You can't even proof logic works. So even logic itself, and the fact that we can talk about it, is an assumption.

That's not the point in practical debates.

 

[WizardStan]

Sure, you can't proof anything

Ok, you're getting way too meta for this. If you're going to claim the lying-God theory then we literally have absolutely nothing to base anything on and we cannot go anywhere.

That's not the point in practical debates.

I agree, that's why I'm sticking with what is practical: you can prove positives, you can't prove negatives. You can prove something will cause damage, but you can't prove something cannot cause damage: best you can do is demonstrate within reasonable assumptions that we should have no reason to fear damage.
To that end, the argument still stands: billions of devices over the last several decades have had haptic feedback of some form in them and there isn't some critically massive number of breakages going on, this should be sufficient evidence that such vibrations are not a cause for concern. Can I prove that vibrations cannot cause damage? No, that is impossible. Can I demonstrate that it doesn't seem like it should be a problem? Absolutely.

If you deny this then it is on you as the person proposing the issue to prove what you are saying is true. If you can't accept decades of use and billions of devices as evidence then you'll need to back up your disbelieve with something more concrete then "what ifs".

 

[Granitehead]

Sure, you can't proof anything

Ok, you're getting way too meta for this. If you're going to claim the lying-God theory then we literally have absolutely nothing to base anything on and we cannot go anywhere.

That's not the point in practical debates.

I agree, that's why I'm sticking with what is practical: you can prove positives, you can't prove negatives. You can prove something will cause damage, but you can't prove something cannot cause damage: best you can do is demonstrate within reasonable assumptions that we should have no reason to fear damage.
To that end, the argument still stands: billions of devices over the last several decades have had haptic feedback of some form in them and there isn't some critically massive number of breakages going on, this should be sufficient evidence that such vibrations are not a cause for concern. Can I prove that vibrations cannot cause damage? No, that is impossible. Can I demonstrate that it doesn't seem like it should be a problem? Absolutely.

If you deny this then it is on you as the person proposing the issue to prove what you are saying is true. If you can't accept decades of use and billions of devices as evidence then you'll need to back up your disbelieve with something more concrete then "what ifs".

I don't see the difference between positive and negative. Both are based on several impossible to proof assumptions. Both are practically possible by just choosing some (seemingly) sane assumptions.
I've given several reasons why I don't know enough about the topic to be sure the smart phone comparison is applicable. I'm not saying it's not the case, I'm saying I don't know, and in my opinion that should have been pretty clear.

 

[rygD]

I don't see the difference between positive and negative. Both are based on several impossible to proof assumptions.

I don't really feel like joining this debate, but this is false.  I can prove many things.  I can prove that ice will melt in my glass of water at room temperature.  I can prove that drinking that water adds water to my body, and that not drinking water for a very long time makes me dehydrated.  I can prove that stabbing a particular person in a particular place will make them bleed, and that if you stab them with a needle that has a catheter on it in the right way and connect a bag of saline or whatever with a tube to that catheter it may help someone who is dehydrated.  I can prove that boots prevent injuries to my feet, and gloves prevent injuries to my hands.  I can prove that my computer will not turn on if it has no electricity powering it.  I can prove that a particular wood fire is higher than my body temperature and can burn me and cause damage when adding more wood to it if I leave my hand in the flames or an area with the increased temperature.  

I can prove many other things, but the above are some that I have done in the past.