Sony, Nook, Kindle

[lor2ie]

The reason ereaders are now more plastic than metal is to keep the weight down. Nothing worse than trying to read and hold up something heavy. Yes I have tried using my netbook, Just does not work. On the weight factor the Kindle is lighter, it might feel cheap, but seems pretty sturdy to me and more than capable of doing exactly what is expected from it, including as mentioned earlier, quick and easy access to book of choice. The Sony reader is heavier and after using it for a while it will be noticeable when your hand gets tired, and I still think ebook formats is not a consideration. And yes netbooks are slow because they have a way smaller processor, so therefore despite video conversions speeds etc, it will always be slower than a pc what ever the job. All in all a pretty Interesting topic... guess it just boils down to preferences.

[delphin]

Originally Posted by lor2ie

Yes I have tried using my netbook, Just does not work. On the weight factor the Kindle is lighter, it might feel cheap, but seems pretty sturdy to me and more than capable of doing exactly what is expected from it, including as mentioned earlier, quick and easy access to book of choice. The Sony reader is heavier and after using it for a while it will be noticeable when your hand gets tired, and I still think ebook formats is not a consideration. And yes netbooks are slow because they have a way smaller processor, so therefore despite video conversions speeds etc, it will always be slower than a pc what ever the job. All in all a pretty Interesting topic... guess it just boils down to preferences.

Sorry, you might want to check your facts again.

According to this Comparison Matrix -

The Sony PRS-350 weighs 155g (5.5oz)

The Sony PRS-650 weighs 215g (7.6oz)

The Kindle 3 weighs in at 241g (8.5oz)

So the reality is that the Kindle is almost a full ounce HEAVER than the equivalent 6 inch screen Sony PRS-650, not lighter.

I also listed the PRS-350 Sony because, although the screen is a little smaller (5 vs 6 inches) weight conscious individuals have the option to go with the PRS-350 (Kindle doesn't offer a smaller model, only out of date older models that were EVEN HEAVER).

The PRS-350 is a full 3 ounces less, or said another way the Kindle is more than 50% HEAVER than the 350, and more than 10% HEAVER than the equivalent 6 inch screen PRS-650.

Because of the added Keyboard, the Kindles increase in BULK exceeds it's increase in MASS and WEIGHT, which creates the illusion that it is lighter than it really is.

Also your comments about Plastic being a good material to save weight are only true for hi-tech fiber reinforced materials like the graphite composites.

For the kind of cheap plastics used in the Kindle, Sony's Aluminum case gives a much better strength to weight ratio, which is why the Sony has the reputation of being a tougher more durable unit, DESPITE ACTUALLY WEIGHING LESS.

I find my Netbook to be a really nice companion to my Sony, and use it in preference to the Sony for online news magazines and other complex media other than simple printed text, and sometimes it's nice as an alternative even for text when reading in bed in poor light.

My net book weighs in at about two and three quarters pounds (1.25 kg), only a little more than 5 times heaver than your Kindle. This is actually LESS than many of the hard back books that I still own, and when laying in bed with the Netbook propped up in my lap, this weight is almost unnoticeable.

I know there is supposed to be this fatigue issue with reading off a backlit screen, but having gotten more used to reading ebooks in general while using my Sony has actually made it a lot easier for me to enjoy reading off my Netbook as well, and I find that if I reduce the screen brightness to a level that is appropriate for the room lighting it's not bad at all.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by delphin

Because of the added Keyboard, the Kindles increase in BULK exceeds it's increase in MASS and WEIGHT, which creates the illusion that it is lighter than it really is.

What the hell does that mean?

Mass... weight... do you really know the difference between both?

Illusion of being lighter because the keyboard, what's that? fyi, Oz, pounds, gr, all those are units of weight, not mass. And the Kindle, when probably a bit heavier (for only 1 oz) than the Sony 650, it is a light device, there is no doubt about it.

Originally Posted by delphin

Also your comments about Plastic being a good material to save weight are only true for hi-tech fiber reinforced materials like the graphite composites.

Actually, the right word is not plastic, but polymer. Plastic is a kind of polymer.

And yes, is used in industry in order to save weight on most electronic devices, including Kindle. Aluminum and other alloys are also being used, but increases the manufacturing price a lot, without providing a considerable added protection. This last statement is not true in the car's industry, but still you see a lot of modern cars using more and more polymers as replacement to some type of alloys, even inside the engine.

It sounds a bit biased coming from me (I own a Kindle) but it is sturdy and strong. Check by yourself in Mobileread; there are not many serious manufacturing problems with the Kindle, which is not true for other devices. Of course, like any other mass production ereader, you will find some of them with defects or problems, but it is not a rule and there is no relationship at all with its polymer based construction.

I like Sony ereaders but in terms of quality and construction, Kindle and Sony are hand to hand. The Kindle is also much more affordable and very competitive for the features that it provides, including access to Amazon's online bookstore which is unique and exclusive to the Kindle only.

[Miss Understood]

Originally Posted by jocampo

I like Sony ereaders but in terms of quality and construction, Kindle and Sony are hand to hand. The Kindle is also much more affordable and very competitive for the features that it provides, including access to Amazon's online bookstore which is unique and exclusive to the Kindle only.

Amazon's online bookstore is unique and exclusive to the Kindle if you don't know how to remove the DRM and convert the books to your preferred format. If you do know how to do that then the store is open to everyone.

[delphin]

Originally Posted by jocampo

What the hell does that mean?

Mass... weight... do you really know the difference between both?

Illusion of being lighter because the keyboard, what's that? fyi, Oz, pounds, gr, all those are units of weight, not mass. And the Kindle, when probably a bit heavier (for only 1 oz) than the Sony 650, it is a light device, there is no doubt about it.

Grams ARE the unit of mass, in the metric system.

Ounces ARE also a unit of MASS unless you are talking about fluid ounces.

Common practice is to also use these units for weight relative to a 1 G field.

As far as the little lecture about 'plastic' vs. 'polymer' . . .

The most common phrase used in the industry for this type material is "FRP".

This is the phrase used in the industry by those of us who actually engineer products, and it is most commonly used to mean "Fiber Reinforced Plastic" though the term "Fiber Reinforced Polymer" is sometimes used interchangeably (mostly by drippy nosed young engineers who are trying to impress someone).

The point I was making about the added bulk of the Kindle causing the illusion that it is lighter is due to a common perceptual illusion where a relatively dense object (one with more mass per unit volume) will be perceived as 'heaver' than a less dense object with the same real mass.

This perception is so common it is the basis of the old joke about, "Which is heaver a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?"

Which is heavier 8 ounces of cheap plastic or 8 ounces of solid metal?

Obviously that solid metal is heavier, right? WRONG - Truth is - a half pound is a half pound.

I just did some quick calculations based on rough estimates of the of the volume of the Kindle and the Sony PRS-650, and the truth is, Kindle is not only heavier, but ALSO seems to have just slightly greater actual DENSITY (mass per unit volume).

So other than the above psychological factors (something made of metal MUST be heavier right?), I must admit that I am stumped by the oft repeated LIE that the Kindle is lighter than the Sony, when the truth is just the opposite.

[jocampo]

That is not correct.

Grams are NOT unit of mass, they are units of weight. Actually, all units on MKS system are for weight.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by Miss Understood

Amazon's online bookstore is unique and exclusive to the Kindle if you don't know how to remove the DRM and convert the books to your preferred format. If you do know how to do that then the store is open to everyone.

Removing the DRM protection won't give you Amazon whispernet. That's exclusive to Kindle devices and one of the big hits of Amazon, allow you to buy and read a book, from Amazon, in just seconds.

[Zarich]

"In everyday usage, "mass" is often used interchangeably with weight, and the units of weight are often taken to be kilograms (for instance, a person may state that his weight is 75 kg). In proper scientific use, however, the two terms refer to different, yet related, properties of matter."

Weight refers to mass times gravity.

Who cares.

Build quality is subjective to some degree. The repair history will give true build quality. There was a time when people thought things made out of aluminum were crap. Ironically entire engine parts are now being made out of plastic as it has been found to be incredibly durable.

[natasha_fawn]

Originally Posted by jocampo

That is not correct.

Grams are NOT unit of mass, they are units of weight. Actually, all units on MKS system are for weight.

No, you've got it backwards. Grams and kilograms are units of mass. Pounds are units of weight. On earth at sea level, values of mass and weight are interchangable.

In the metric system mass is measured in kilograms and grams...

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/k-6connection/Mass,w,d.htm

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by natasha_fawn

No, you've got it backwards. Grams and kilograms are units of mass. Pounds are units of weight. On earth at sea level, values of mass and weight are interchangable.

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/k-6connection/Mass,w,d.htm

Seriously, you really want me to clarify?

W = m*g

"W" is weight, "m" mass and "g" gravity, where gravity is 9.81 m s−2. You weight nothing on the moon, because there is no gravity. Mass cannot be Weight on earth because could means there is no gravity, hence you will be floating in the air.

Common people refer as mass and weight like same, but it is not. And to be more exact, our weigh is not even measured in pounds or kilograms, but Newtons. But my main point is that mass and weight should not be used interchangeable.

[SolRaven]

I thought graham was a type of cracker.

[Noah98]

Personally, I like the eink readers in this order:

1. Nook (I really like the design and touchscreen interface. It is not clunky at all, just different.)

2. Sony 950 (Great screen and build quality. Crappy store, and waaay overpriced.)

3. Kindle 3 (Great screen, great bookstore, light, and love the graphite color. Hate the navigation pad, and not a big fan of the page turn buttons.)

[natasha_fawn]

Originally Posted by jocampo

Seriously, you really want me to clarify?

W = m*g

"W" is weight, "m" mass and "g" gravity, where gravity is 9.81 m s−2. You weight nothing on the moon, because there is no gravity. Mass cannot be Weight on earth because could means there is no gravity, hence you will be floating in the air.

Common people refer as mass and weight like same, but it is not. And to be more exact, our weigh is not even measured in pounds or kilograms, but Newtons. But my main point is that mass and weight should not be used interchangeable.

I was sloppy when I said that the values are interchangeable on earth. The units are not, but at sea level on earth, it has become acceptable and meaningful to list weight in kilograms even though the unit properly refers to mass. Your above statements are correct until you get to weighing nothing on the moon, astronauts don't just float away into space when they do a moon walk.

Please look at the link I cited, unless you don't trust physics professors at the University of California. Since this has gotten so very I'd be happy to continue elsewhere on the forums (lounge?) or perhaps in private messages. Or not, if you prefer.

(Edit: After some further research I'm wondering if we're talking about two different systems. Under the SI, International System, the kilogram is the basic unit of mass. Under an older parlance, "kilogram" could be used to refer to "kilogram-force," which could indeed be called a weight as it is the earth gravitational force acting on one kilogram of mass. Here's the reference http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictK.html#kilogram, and if you're interested that entire site appears to be very interesting.)

Originally Posted by SolRaven

I thought graham was a type of cracker.

Ooh, not fair, now I want graham crackers!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jocampo

Seriously, you really want me to clarify?

W = m*g

"W" is weight, "m" mass and "g" gravity, where gravity is 9.81 m s−2. You weight nothing on the moon, because there is no gravity.

This is incorrect, Jo. Surface gravity on the Moon is approximately one sixth of what it is on Earth. Your MASS is the same as it is on Earth, but your WEIGHT is one sixth its value on Earth.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jocampo

That is not correct.

Grams are NOT unit of mass, they are units of weight. Actually, all units on MKS system are for weight.

No, I'm afraid you're wrong. The kg is the SI unit of mass. As is its subdivision, the gram.

The MKS system is only a matter of historical interest. It was one of the predecessors to the SI system, but incorporated different fundamental units at different times, since (unlike the SI system) it never had a governing body to rule on a definitive list of units.