Not our fault: Apple says third-party batteries to blame for exploding Beats headphones

Not exactly. With respect to audio amplifiers, tubes create gain by magnifying voltage swing. Transistor amplifiers work primarily by increasing current.

So in that beast of a 90 volt battery, you'd have 60 tiny 1.5 volt carbon zinc cells, wired in series. There's high voltage, but low current. In all likelihood, the absolute amperage available from the B+ supply, was less than that available in today's smartphones
Thanks for the explanation.
 
Have to add my 2cents...
In 60 plus years of electronics repair/construction, I have never seen a carbon-zink or alkaline AAA with enough energy to burn as you see in the photo.
The only thing I would believe were if somehow Li-Ion battery was substituted. Li-Ion will burn like a road flare if shorted and match the photo.
This would also be non approved replacement that Apple would not warranty.
Has anyone seen a Lithium AAA substitute??
Larry
Well the gist of this thread is that Apple doesn't provide ANY specs on which battery types are to be used. So how could she know which ones would meet Apple's approval?
 
Well the gist of this thread is that Apple doesn't provide ANY specs on which battery types are to be used. So how could she know which ones would meet Apple's approval?
Well, if they did recommend battery types/brands as "approved", then they would tacitly be responsible should one of those brands go up in flames. So what appears to be "circular logic", or a "paradox", is really just Apple covering its own a**, while they screw their customers.
 
Well, if they did recommend battery types/brands as "approved", then they would tacitly be responsible should one of those brands go up in flames. So what appears to be "circular logic", or a "paradox", is really just Apple covering its own a**, while they screw their customers.
That's logical. And it's why I avoid Apple like the Bubonic plague. Don't need or want 'em.
 
Back