Android Alliance

Juliesdroidsync - I agree with you that Samsung has not disclosed meaningful data as, in Samsung's eyes "Note 7 game over - let's move on, least said, easiest mended"

Up until a certain (undisclosed) date:
. (1) only Battery-A powered devices had failed so NO Battery-B failures -however- we don't now relative volume shipments of Battery-A or Battery-B
. (2) disclosed failures (number unknown) was sufficient to cause first recall - due entirely to Battery-A
After certain (undisclosed) date:
. (3) only Battery_B powered devices officially in use - however a limited number of early Note 7s with Battery-A still likely to be in use and would continue to fail
. (4) the few Battery-B and Battery-A device failures were sufficient to trigger the second recall and halt to production - given the press-fuelled sensitivity to 'thermal-runaway' and 'melt-down' AND this failure rate is thought to be extremely low

My informed decision:
. research Note 7 is from replacement group and shipped 29SEP2016 so more likely to be highly reliable
. research Note 7 operates in a carefully managed and overseen environment and risk of 'thermal-runaway' is extremely low
. 'Thermal-runaway', from video clips viewed, happens very quickly, is unlikely to be halted by user intervention, AND therefore carrying in pocket or with other flammable items is to be avoided - so use a flame-resistant/fire-retarding carry pouch -AND- have bought S7-Edge for VR as I'm not game to run Note 7 inches from eyes
. use tested IMEI-block-avoidance measures (in Australia though the avoidance measure should work on any telco-network) to use research Note 7 until S8+ or Note 8 available (note avoidance uses a second mobile-device and original SIM and does not change Note 7 IMEI)
. seek a straight exchange for a device with essential and similar features (S8+ or Note 8) as a warranty replacement given that Samsung has declared the Note 7 to be defective and subject to recall and a refund is not an appropriate remedy given the already significant investment in accessories and experimental research facilities.

I will continue to participate in the N7A and answer PMs to ensure privacy but not sure I can contribute much more until a flashable N930F ROOTed ROM update is released by N7A and/or unless new information comes to hand. My baseband N930FXXU2BPI5

Safe communications through to Note 8 in-service

Global1 wrote:8917 Up until a certain (undisclosed) date:
. (1) only Battery-A powered devices had failed so NO Battery-B failures -however- we don't now relative volume shipments of Battery-A or Battery-B

But we can make an educated guess... Let's start with the USA. Because the 1 million out of the 3 million worldwide were in the US, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that at least 1/2 in the US were Battery A, considering 1/2 of the first batch were replaced before problems were widely reported elsewhere (which triggered recall 2).

Let me think out loud a bit, here...

So, let's say the initial USA 500,000 came out with Battery A, Recall 1 happened, 250,000 of Battery A phones were replaced with Battery B phones, another 250,000 Battery B phones sold; makes about 1 million in the USA (including returns, which they counted as they said "sold & activated"). 50/50 more or less.

The only reference for #'s of incidents after the 2nd recall (Battery B phones) in the USA was 5, that I could find. That would be 5 out of 500,000 for Battery B. Or 0.00001, or 0.001%.

I also read somewhere that 25 out of the 96 incidents were in the USA. So, that leaves 20 USA incidents that were likely Battery A phones, which gives us percentages of 0.004%. 4 times more likely than Battery B, but still on par with the likelihood of Alien Abduction...

So that leaves 2 million phones worldwide, (that we don't know were Battery A or Battery B, with 71 (out of 96) incidents. Now, somewhere, we have to account for at least 12 "faked" incidents. Those were *probably* later in the game, because it took people a minute or two to figure out how they were going to get in on this potential financial windfall.

So, for the sake of argument, (this is all conjecture anyway) let's take those 12 out of the 71 remaining incidents, or 59 incidents. That gives Battery "X" a rate of incident of 0.00295%.

Hmmm... let's make that remaining math easy, and go 0.003% So, if you took that 2 million worldwide (outside USA), with a failure rate of 0.003% and assumed that the worldwide failure rate approximated the 0.001% and 0.004% failure rates of the USA Battery B & Battery A phones...

One could surmise that 2/3 were Battery A, and 1/3 were Battery B, couldn't you? So, out of the 3 million, 500,000 Battery A (USA) + 1.333 million gives you about 1.8 million Battery A phones, and 1.2 million Battery B phones.

What I can't explain is why, if there were so many Battery A phones, we didn't hear about them sooner, but I can write that off to the news media frenzy that hit the USA over this thing...

It would be so EASY if Samsung would release THOSE numbers... That's what BUGS ME!!! they have those numbers... release them. I thought that's what would happen today!!!

So MY personal, seat of my pants, semi-uneducated guess is that my Battery B phone has no more than a 0.001% chance of melting down. That's 1 in a 100,000 chance, with an even lower likelihood because the Battery B problems surfaced more quickly - in other words, if you were in that group, it would have probably already happened.

So, @Global1, how's that logic for you? Am I seeing this clearly? I might add, I did that without help from Samsung's release today... LOL

Methinks we're pretty safe...

and Agree, Agree with everything else you said... you crazy mad-scientist Aussie, you!

That is my way of thinking Julie. In fact I post as such in response to CNET's article on the Note 7 this evening.
Every battery produced is pretty much accountable. Samsung knows which line, what time, if the associate running the machine picks his nose. Also which phone got which battery. These weren't just run off one machine, but many so I'm sure not every line had the same issues or discrepancies. Otherwise every one of our phones would have flamed out by now.

I follow your thinking Juliesdroidsync and keith.horn agrees with us so probably more chance of us sharing a fine wine in Mexico than having a Note 7 'melt-down'.
One correction though, the crazy mad scientist part of me is from my British parents... I've spent too long in Australia being a 'conformist' except when I tested and proved an interesting hypothesis, but that is not for here and certainly not the Net... but over a fine wine, yes:-)

Now I have a dilemna... Attempt to hand-ball a lifting of the IMEI-block in Australia through the AMTA, or be selfish, apply the avoidance mechanism to the research Note 7 and keep my head down?

Love it

Global1 wrote:8958 Now I have a dilemna... Attempt to hand-ball a lifting of the IMEI-block in Australia through the AMTA, or be selfish, apply the avoidance mechanism to the research Note 7 and keep my head down?

I say go for the ban! Just consider it practice for getting your guns back...

Just what I suspected! Love the video! Thanks Julian - I learned about the Alliance through one of your videos!

wow, just saw this. nice. I clicked on it expecting N7s framed behind glass, lol. I wouldn't put it past some of us, me included. I for sure will be framing my s-pen if that is all I end up with.

Love It

loved the video, havent thought even of someone coming out with one haha. Pretty much speaks sense too as there is ALWAYS MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE.

I at first thought apple/google/anonymous competitor in power had intercepted many note7's while travelling between samsung factory and retail stores, and manipulated with batteries. Option#1, they dont even need to replace good battery with bad, just wedge specific angle tool around edges of the battery to make it the way it had showed on the note7 report with Battery#A , and OR - giant G-force had been used like centrifuge spin or accelerated soft drop to penetrate battery internals within the battery shell and you got yourself a case against samsung. It could be too that second batch batteries issue was genuinely faulty but at someone expense, not the samsungs and not the battery manufacturing company, money rules alot of power, and can buy alot material goods, but cannot buy trust or respect, and someone in power who reached to achieve of what happened - kinda succeeded. If that all what it was is remotely true.

Love it

Hi all

great work

If you havent watched it.. you should

[ Post made via Android ] ext/sniper/mobiledevice/images/Android.png

Hahaha, this dope... and also makes me wonder