|
|
|
|
|
by manigandham
1763 days ago
|
|
These battery cells have the same physical structure. They can be shaped however is needed, whether it's one big block or several little ones connected by wires. The same capacity requires roughly the same weight and thickness, although several smaller cells will mean more packaging material and less collective capacity, but obviously allows for more flexible placement within the chassis. However, none of this requires gluing the battery to the system. That was the topic here. Why would you think using glue instead of just letting the back plate hold the batteries in place makes such a big difference? |
|
Are we looking at the same picture? They are 100% not the same thickness. They certainly could have the same mass, but thats precisely my point - if you want an easily removable battery you sacrifice other features (thickness for example).
> although several smaller cells will mean more packaging material and less collective capacity
Are you saying batteries didn't get more efficient (more capacity by size) over a 10 year timespan? Now I think you're just gaslighting me...
> However, none of this requires gluing the battery to the system.
I guess you didn't look at the link that shows the 1,282 step process required to even get to the point where the glue is removed.
> That was the topic here.
It wasn't. The glue is a red herring. The topic is about the ability to easily remove the battery - the glue being the part that you thought was impossible to do. That's not what makes it hard to provide a removable battery - it's the design of the overall hardware system. The hardware engineers (one of my good friends is an Apple hardware engineer btw) explicitly chose to design the batteries in such a way that trades off thickness and weight of the hardware with an easily removable battery.